[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Issue]
[Pages 18251-19014]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




[[Page 18251]]

                          VOLUME 151--PART 14

            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, July 28, 2005

  The House met at 10 a.m.
  The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following 
prayer:
  Almighty God, strong is Your justice, penetrating all human events 
and evaluating all human endeavors. Great is Your mercy for each of us 
as we stand before You today.
  Grant the Members of the House of Representatives freedom of spirit; 
that each may act with a well-formulated conscience and discern the 
far-reaching consequences of every decision that is made.
  While here, working in the public service of the Nation, everything 
that is done is viewed by all and open to review by others. But far 
greater is Your judgment, Lord.
  Aware that all must appear before Your judgment seat and each will 
receive recompense according to what he or she did while in Your 
service, we ask You, O Lord, to grant the vision of faith and trust in 
Your great mercy now and forever. Amen.

                          ____________________




                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's 
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER. Will the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) 
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________




                      ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

  The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain five 1-minute speeches on each 
side.

                          ____________________




          PRAISING HOUSE REPUBLICANS FOR GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

  (Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the Republican 
leadership and my Republican colleagues in the House for the tremendous 
work we have done ahead of the August recess. The work we have done 
will have an immediate positive effect on the lives of my constituents.
  First off, we enacted effective immigration control with the passage 
of the REAL ID Act. We also took action to stem the tide of China's 
unfair trade practices. We are taking the necessary first steps to 
ensure our domestic manufacturers have a level playing field to compete 
on.
  The passage of the National Energy Policy also symbolizes new 
economic opportunities for my district. Not only does it decrease our 
dependence on foreign energy supply, it will boost our economy by 
providing up to $10 billion in tax incentives for renewable, reusable 
energy sources. This will create new markets and possibilities for our 
farmers.
  Today we will greatly improve health care by passing H.R. 5. Health 
care dollars should be spent on patients in the operating room, not on 
lawyers in the courtroom.
  Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the many great accomplishments 
we have made. As we head into August recess, I look forward to building 
on that progress with my Republican colleagues.

                          ____________________




               URGING SUPPORT FOR THE THRIVE ACT OF 2005

  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, 45,000 adult Americans die every year 
from infectious diseases that could have been prevented by a simple 
vaccination. Tragically, 40 percent of adults in our country are 
underimmunized for preventable diseases such as influenza and hepatitis 
B. The consequences are unnecessary pain, suffering, and loss of life 
at a cost of more than $10 billion a year to society.
  To address this tragedy, I am introducing the THRIVE Act of 2005 with 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) as part of National 
Immunization Month. The THRIVE Act authorizes CDC to develop 
immunization guidelines and increase patient outreach and provider 
outreach. It directs the Secretary of HHS to launch a national media 
campaign about the value of adult immunizations, and it establishes a 
pilot project to distribute influenza vaccine for uninsured, at-risk 
adults.
  The THRIVE Act of 2005 is a critical step towards reducing vaccine-
preventable deaths in our country, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.

                          ____________________




            MESSAGE ON MTBE: BAD LAW IS NOT CONGRESS'S FAULT

  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the energy bill later 
today, but I am amazed that Democrats in this town have convinced the 
majority party that law-abiding citizens must clean up Congress's mess.
  When Congress mandated use of cleaner-burning gas, MTBE was the only 
way companies could obey its orders. Upon learning MTBE was linked to 
environmental concerns, Congress did not accept responsibility, change 
the policy, or invest in alternatives. Congress told the companies to 
clean up the mess themselves. Trial lawyers loved it. Congress's 
inaction signaled that obeying law warrants a lawsuit. Now they sue 
anyone who might have even had a thought of using MTBE.
  Mr. Speaker, these companies did not cover up bad data. They did not 
set out to save money by cutting corners. They did not even choose to 
use MTBE

[[Page 18252]]

over a cleaner alternative. Congress made them do it.
  The Democrats' own energy chairman in 1990 admits that. He says MTBE 
``was the only commercially viable alternative at the time.''
  Democrats are quick to blame corporations, but slow to take 
responsibility for their own foolish actions. Maybe that is why they 
are still in the minority.

                          ____________________




             SUGGESTION FOR THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

  (Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, while I am not an expert in 
time management, I do have a suggestion that would allow the House to 
better use its time.
  Last night we spent well over an hour here, a lot of very busy 
people, while the leadership variously cajoled, bribed, browbeat, et 
cetera, a few Republicans who wanted to have it both ways, who wanted 
to give people the impression they were opposed to CAFTA while they 
were ready to cave in for sufficient inducement.
  What we should have done, and I propose this for the future, is the 
next time we have one of those tough votes where they are going to have 
to do that with their Members, let us schedule an evacuation drill from 
the House.
  The fact is at the time the plane was flying over here and a roll 
call was open and we evacuated the House, it took about the same time 
as it took them to cajole and blackmail and browbeat their people last 
night.
  So why not do two things at once? The next time they know there is a 
bill they are going to cram down people's throats that they do not want 
to vote for and want to pretend to their voters they are against it, 
and it is going to take them an hour or 2 to find out ways to get them 
to help fool people, why not schedule in advance an evacuation drill, 
and that way we can kill two birds with one stone? And since people 
might not know it is a drill, they can threaten people who do not vote 
with them: They can make them stay here in case there is a plane crash.

                          ____________________




                        VIDEO CHOICE ACT OF 2005

  (Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, the laws governing delivery of 
television programming in this country are outdated, and we have not 
kept up with emerging new technologies.
  I have introduced the Video Choice Act of 2005 to bring these laws 
into the 21st century.
  Current law requires that all companies interested in offering cable 
service or video service, as it is called in the industry, must 
negotiate an individual agreement with a local franchising authority. 
This mandate serves as a barrier to competition, effectively preventing 
new technologies from entering the market. The Video Choice Act of 2005 
will streamline the franchising process for new marketplace entrance 
and give American consumers choice over their video and cable service 
at a lower cost.
  Our telecommunications services are rapidly changing and expanding. 
Congress must act to ensure our laws do not crush innovation and 
competition.
  The bill is H.R. 3146. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) is the 
cosponsor on this legislation with me. I look forward to working with 
him for its passage here in the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________




                      WE NEED A NEW ENERGY POLICY

  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we will adopt a so-called energy policy for 
the United States later today. We are in the beginnings of a 21st 
century energy crisis, skyrocketing prices at the pump, consumers are 
being gouged, growing dependence on foreign oil. And what is the answer 
of the Republican majority and this administration? Let us obligate the 
taxpayers of the United States to borrow $15.4 billion as a gift, a 
needed incentive to the oil industry to go out and produce more.
  At 60 bucks a barrel and $2.40 a gallon and record profits and huge 
piles of cash they do not know what to do with, we need to subsidize 
the oil industry? I do not think so.
  We need a new energy policy that will serve this country and the 
challenges of the 21st century with new technologies, new efficiency, 
and breaking our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, we are 
getting exactly the opposite here today.

                          ____________________




                     RECOGNIZING DANIELLE SIMONETTA

  (Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute an 
individual without whom Members on this side of the aisle and indeed 
Members of the entire House would be lost.
  Danielle Simonetta has been a public servant for the last 8 years, 5 
of which have been spent with us here in the House. A New York native 
and a graduate of my alma mater, Washington Lee University in Virginia, 
Danielle began her Hill career with the legendary Gerry Solomon and 
then the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) as a Committee on Rules 
staffer. After 2 years with Mitch Daniels at the Office of Management 
and Budget, she came back to us again and has spent the last 2\1/2\ 
years as the senior floor assistant to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), majority leader.
  In her time with leadership, she has worked tirelessly for the 
members of the Republican Conference. Those who know Danielle know she 
is a reliable source of information to us here on the House floor and a 
constant advocate for us in scheduling the floor. Whether it is adding 
a Member's last-minute suspension to the House schedule, advising 
Members on the merits of a particular amendment, or bragging about her 
beloved dog Otis, Danielle has always been here when we need her.
  This fall Danielle will be leaving us to pursue an exciting new 
career opportunity. In addition, she is putting the finishing touches 
on her upcoming wedding. Congratulations to Danielle. We will miss her, 
and we wish her well.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget 
September 11.

                          ____________________




                  THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS

  (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as the questions surrounding the Bush 
administration's case for war continue to mount, and the administration 
continues to stonewall, the American people deserve answers.
  I want to read from an editorial from yesterday's Los Angeles Times. 
It says: ``Scandals metastasize. That is the pattern since Watergate. 
What starts out looking like a small, isolated incident gradually 
reveals itself to be a part of a larger abuse of power. Meanwhile, an 
unraveling cover-up adds new elements. Is that happening now with the 
scandal over White House leaks of the identity of a CIA agent?''
  As new elements of this unraveling cover-up are revealed, we should 
not lose sight of the larger abuse of power and the real scandal here.
  As Chris Matthews said on Hardball on July 24: ``The larger scandal 
in this White House/CIA leak story is not just who leaked the name of 
an undercover agent, but whether we were given a case for war, the 
deciding factor for many of us, knowing that it didn't hold water. As 
we work to find our way out of Iraq, we should focus a bit . . . on how 
we got in.''
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve answers.

                          ____________________




                        RECOGNIZING STEVE SAULS

  (Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)

[[Page 18253]]


  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Steve Sauls, 
an extraordinary advocate for the students and the school of Florida 
International University in my hometown of Miami.
  As an experienced member of the administration and leadership at the 
university, Steve has worked incredibly hard to promote the needs and 
the interests necessary to make FIU the fine institution that it is 
today.
  Steve is retiring from his current position as vice president of 
government affairs for the university after 14 wonderful and productive 
years and has accepted a job as vice president of corporate relations 
in a private sector firm. I know that Steve will be immensely missed at 
the university, my alma mater, and will leave a void that will be 
difficult to fill. I have no doubt that Steve will continue to lead and 
excel in his new position, and I wish him all the best and FIU all the 
best in the years to come.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1015
            SOCIAL SECURITY CELEBRATES ITS 70TH ANNIVERSARY

  (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on August 14, we will be celebrating the 
70th anniversary of Social Security, and that is 70 years of a 
guaranteed, promised benefit to all Americans of a certain age.
  I have to say, I was interested to note that I looked on the Social 
Security Administration Web site, and I did not see any mention of the 
70th anniversary. I think the reason is clear. This President, who 
basically is trying to dismantle Social Security, does not want the 
Social Security Administration to celebrate this landmark achievement.
  Now, the President and House Republicans want Americans to forget how 
important Social Security has been for seniors and for the disabled for 
the last 70 years. It is a guaranteed benefit the Republicans want to 
turn into a risky privatization plan.
  I know that the President continues to be on the road pushing his 
risky privatization plan. Most recently he was there with his mom, Mrs. 
Bush. And we are hearing that when we come back after the August break, 
we are going to see the Republican leadership in the House once again 
move forward with their privatization plan that is going to only 
aggravate Social Security's insolvency.
  Remember: 70 years of a guaranteed benefit.

                          ____________________




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2361, 
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 392

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 
     the bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  This resolution waives all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, we now have before us the first appropriations 
conference report. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) 
and those who have been working with him on the House side, as well as 
on the Senate side, should be applauded for taking this appropriation 
process and concept of prioritization and presenting the product that 
we have before us. The Interior conferees have produced a conference 
report which is fiscally responsible and does live within strict budget 
discipline. It recommends for the fiscal year 2006 budget $26.2 
billion, which is actually below last year's enacted level of $27 
billion.
  Even though the total number is lower, it still takes into account 
significant and important and high-priority items, such as wildland 
firefighting, $2.7 billion; a $61 million increase for our National 
Parks; a $31 million increase in our National Forest System; and $106 
million increase for the Indian Health Service. Indian programs have 
been represented at a record $5.6 billion, which means the funding will 
provide for schools and hospitals, construction, education, human 
service needs, as well as law enforcement there.
  With those increases there, it has to be significant, and there have 
to be offsetting balances somewhere else, and that is where the process 
of prioriti-
zation takes place. Once again, whether you like the total and the way 
it has been done, at least this committee has indeed done that process 
of prioritization.
  I commend the Subcommittee chairman (Mr. Taylor); the chairman of the 
full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis); the ranking members who were involved in this, as well as all 
the conferees, for shepherding this measure, this funding measure 
through the conference process in a timely and orderly fashion in the 
midst of a very lean budget climate.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report is obviously not perfect; none of 
these ever are. We are not totally happy with all of the aspects of it. 
I, for example, still have a concern over our process that we are doing 
with Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or the PILT program. This House was wise 
enough to fund that program at $242 million; the conference funds it at 
$6 million less, at $236 million. That still is $30 million above what 
the Senate tried to accomplish. This program, for example, is the basic 
funding for rural communities; it is rent that is due on the land that 
is government owned. If the Federal Government is going to own the 
land, they need to be able to fully support that.
  Hope springs eternal, and we in the West will continue to work on 
this program in the future with the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Chairman Taylor), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and 
others to make sure that these programs are adequately addressed in the 
future as well.
  In closing, and notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Speaker, the 
overall conference agreement is a good, bipartisan product. It has been 
done in a timely manner. It is the first one before us. It deserves our 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  As my colleague from the majority mentioned, the rule is typical to 
that for all conference reports, and I will not oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today not in opposition to the Interior and 
Environmental Appropriations conference report, but, rather, in 
disappointment that we have not done enough. Indeed, we live in trying 
times with enormous fiscal constraints, many of which we have brought 
upon ourselves. As the chairman and ranking Democrat of the 
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies will 
probably note today, they did the best that they could with what they 
were given. Indeed, they did, Mr. Speaker.
  I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr.

[[Page 18254]]

Dicks) for their hard and, perhaps most important, their bipartisan 
work on this legislation. I do believe that they did the best with what 
the majority gave them.
  The Interior conference report includes $84 million for Everglades 
restoration in my district and throughout south Florida. It increases 
funding for the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, as well 
as operations at our national parks and Indian health care.
  The underlying report also includes a provision that I offered during 
floor consideration prohibiting funds in the bill from being used to 
work in contravention of a 1994 executive order requiring that Federal 
agencies take the necessary steps to achieve health and environmental 
equity across all community lines.
  The inclusion of this provision in the conference report sends a 
clear message to the Environmental Protection Agency that it must 
change the way it goes about doing business. On behalf of every 
community in the country which will benefit from this provision, I 
thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their commitment to working 
with me on this issue of critical importance.
  The conference report also includes a provision championed by my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), that stops EPA 
from intentionally exposing pregnant women and children to pesticides 
and requires the agency to establish standards which will come down on 
the side of public health.
  While I am pleased that the aforementioned is included in the 
conference report, I am greatly concerned about the report's major cuts 
in clean drinking water and conservation programs. These programs are 
essential to protecting our environment and the health of our citizens. 
It is offensive that this Congress has found the money for tax cuts for 
the best-off of us in our society, but not enough for these critical 
programs.
  Finally, this legislation includes $1.5 billion in emergency funding 
for veterans health care. Frankly, this money should have been 
appropriated before the July 4 recess. Instead, the majority played 
politics with the Senate, and our veterans were told no.
  More than 1 year ago, Democrats came to this floor with the former 
Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), arguing that the majority was 
shortchanging veterans health care by more than $1 billion. What did 
the majority do about our concerns? Absolutely nothing. Democrats got 
stonewalled, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) lost his job, 
and America's veterans got shafted.
  This spring, Mr. Speaker, our Democratic prophesy came true. The Bush 
administration finally admitted that it had pushed a budget which 
shortchanged veterans health care by some $1 billion. Democrats 
countered that $1 billion still was not enough, and the administration 
waffled. Eventually and embarrassingly, the Bush administration finally 
admitted that the actual shortfall was closer to $1.5 billion, the 
amount appropriated in this conference report.
  How is it that this body can willingly authorize sending our troops 
into harm's way, yet refuse to provide them with the health care 
benefits they were promised? I am pleased that the other body has the 
backbone to fix what is wrong, but I am not pleased by the efforts of 
the administration and House Republicans to cover up these shortfalls. 
Shame on all of us for letting this happen.
  Mr. Speaker, individuals on their own are not going to conduct major 
environmental restoration, force power companies to reduce toxic 
emissions from their smokestacks, or clean up our Nation's drinking 
water. But collectively, collectively, we can all make this happen.
  Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration. Is 
there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more 
to ensure that every American has clean air to breath and safe drinking 
water? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool his or her 
resources with others in their neighborhood to collectively ensure that 
everyone has safe drinking water, or that no child would be forced to 
grow up playing in backyards polluted by dangerous levels of mercury 
and other toxins?
  I will most likely support the underlying conference report, but I 
say to my colleagues, we had an opportunity to do more in this 
conference report. Our willingness to do so, however, was the missing 
ingredient.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate all of the hard work in crafting the Interior 
bill, the conference report; and I very much support it.
  I really rise today, though, to talk about something a little bit 
different. Mr. Speaker, in a few hours, U.S. Army Sergeant Arthur 
Raymond McGill will be laid to rest. A third district native, Sergeant 
McGill gave his life serving his country in Iraq when his convoy 
detonated an improvised device. I rise today to mourn this tragic loss 
and honor his courageous life.
  Sergeant McGill grew up in the northwest Arkansas communities of 
Gentry, Decatur, and Gravette. At the age of 17, he joined the National 
Guard and later enlisted in the Army. He was on his second tour of duty 
in Iraq when he was killed.
  Sergeant McGill valued family more than anything else and wanted to 
set a positive example for his daughter, Kaylee, who his aunt said was 
the love of his life. Though his life was cut short, Sergeant McGill 
did set a wonderful example for Kaylee and us all through his selfless 
and noble service to his country.
  Mr. Speaker, at the age of 26, Sergeant Arthur Raymond McGill made 
the ultimate sacrifice for his country. He is a true American hero, and 
I certainly ask my colleagues to remember his family, remember his 
friends in their thoughts and prayers during these very difficult 
times.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my good friend that I serve with on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when this House first considered the Department of 
Interior appropriations bill, I came to the floor to express my deep 
outrage that this legislation nearly eliminated funding for the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund.
  I join with my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), in urging that the House and 
the Senate conferees restore some level of funding for this vital 
program. I am pleased that 119 Members shared our concerns about this 
funding cut and signed on to our bipartisan letter. Mr. Speaker, I will 
insert the letter for the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been an enormous help to our 
local communities and the families who live in them. The Stateside 
grant program has helped to preserve open space, slow urban sprawl, and 
give our children safe places to play.

                              {time}  1030

  It is a true partnership with Federal grants requiring a full match 
from States and local communities. In all, the stateside program has 
helped communities by funding 40,000 projects nationally. Success 
stories can be found in every State and in 98 percent of U.S. counties.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is especially near and dear to 
my heart, having led the fight on the floor of the House back in 1999 
to restore $30 million for the stateside grant program in the fiscal 
year 2000 Interior appropriations bill after it had been zeroed out in 
1995.

[[Page 18255]]

  In my district, the Land and Water Conservation Fund State assistance 
grants have provided much-needed funds to restore the historic 
Worcester Common in Worcester, Massachusetts, and renovate the Briggs 
Pool in Attleboro, Massachusetts. We have literally preserved dozens of 
acres of open space that otherwise would have been sold off for 
development that would not have been conducive to these communities. It 
has also helped to complete construction this coming fall with the 
Princeton playing fields in Princeton, Massachusetts.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is based upon a simple concept. 
It takes revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling and invests them 
in our Nation's public land, letting States take the lead. For 40 years 
this program has a proven track record and benefited from strong 
bipartisan support.
  It was the same bipartisan support that proved successful here today. 
Clearly the level of funding provided in this bill is far from what is 
required. In fact, the level of funding is at the same level it was 
when we resuscitated the program back in 1999. So I am disappointed 
with that. However, any amount appropriated to this program, no matter 
how small or large, serves a valuable purpose.
  I commend my colleagues for their hard work. I thank those who helped 
reinsert funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund back into 
this bill. I hope that we can come to some sort of consensus that next 
year we will restore funding to a level that is adequate, and to a 
level that we all promised our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record the letter I referred to 
earlier.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2005.
       Dear Conferee: We are writing to request that, as you move 
     toward conference with the Senate on the FY 2006 Interior 
     Appropriations Bill, you support the funding levels that were 
     included for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in 
     the Senate passed version of the bill.
       Since its creation in 1964, the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund (LWCF) has been a critical source of funding for the 
     National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 
     Land Management, and Forest Service. This funding is used to 
     support the acquisition and maintenance of our national 
     wildlife refuges, parks, forests, and public domain lands.
       In addition, the LWCF also funds a matching grant program 
     to assist states and localities in acquiring recreational 
     lands and developing facilities. An integral part of the 
     LWCF, the state-side matching grant program has provided 
     state and local parks and recreation directors with the 
     desperately needed funding to help preserve open space and 
     develop recreational facilities. Over the years, these 
     matching grants have been used successfully to fund more than 
     37,000 state and local park and recreation projects, enabling 
     millions of Americans to hike through magnificent scenery and 
     view historic sites, bike along seaside and river trails, and 
     picnic and play ball at local parks.
       The Senate-passed FY 2006 Interior Appropriations Bill 
     provides $192 million for LWCF, which includes $30 million 
     for the state-side grant program and $162 million for the 
     federal program. This funding is absolutely essential for the 
     proper stewardship of our nation's magnificent natural 
     heritage, and therefore, we strongly urge you to maintain the 
     funding levels for LWCF state-side and federal grant programs 
     provided for in the Senate bill. Thank you for your 
     consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
         Jim McGovern, Rush Holt, Peter T. King, Jim Marshall, 
           Robert E. Andrews, Michael H. Michaud, Michael M. 
           Honda, Howard L. Berman, Rahm Emanuel, Barbara Lee, 
           Donald M. Payne, Dennis J. Kucinich, Joseph Crowley, 
           Richard E. Neal, Henry Cuellar, Rob Simmons, Rosa L. 
           DeLauro, Shelley Berkley, Allyson Y. Schwartz, Melvin 
           L. Watt, John Spratt, Jim Oberstar, John Lewis, Nick 
           Rahall, Scott Garrett, Dan Lipinski, Mike Doyle, Betty 
           McCollum, Harold Ford, John T. Salazar, Jim Langevin, 
           Leonard L. Boswell, Elijah E. Cummings, Lloyd Doggett, 
           Gene Green, Nancy L. Johnson, John Shimkus, Jo Bonner, 
           Spencer Bachus, Mike McIntyre, Julia Carson, Vito 
           Fossella, Adam Smith, Doris O. Matsui, Solomon P. 
           Ortiz, Brian Higgins, Silvestre Reyes, Tammy Baldwin, 
           Mike Thompson, Charles F. Bass, Tim Holden, Jay Inslee, 
           Frank Pallone, Jr., Martin Meehan, Juanita Millender-
           McDonald Ike Skelton, Grace F. Napolitano, Sander 
           Levin, Jerrold Nadler, Bernard Sanders, Chris Van 
           Hollen, John B. Larson, George Miller, Tom Lantos, Gary 
           L. Ackerman, Jim Matheson, Sherwood Boehlert, Ed Case, 
           Raul M. Grijalva, Dale E. Kildee, Jim McDermott, Earl 
           Blumenauer, Jim Saxton, Dennis Cardoza, Carolyn 
           McCarthy, Michael R. McNulty, Ellen O. Tauscher, 
           Timothy H. Bishop, Edolphus Towns, Peter DeFazio, 
           Anthony D. Weiner, John D. Dingell, Sherrod Brown, Wm. 
           Lacy Clay, William Delahunt, Louise Slaughter, Barney 
           Frank, Robert Menendez, Eliot L. Engel, Bobby Scott, 
           Ben Cardin, Tom Udall, Janice Schakowsky, Bart Gordon, 
           Lynn Woolsey, Stephen F. Lynch, Donna M. Christensen, 
           Thomas Allen, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Lois Capps, Emanuel 
           Cleaver, Mike Ferguson, Bart Stupak, David Price, Lane 
           Evans, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jeb Bradley, Steve Israel, 
           Pete Stark, Bob Etheridge, Mark Udall, Sue W. Kelly, 
           Jerry F. Costello, Luis V. Gutierrez, Christopher 
           Shays, Mike Ross, Charles A. Gonzalez, Neil 
           Abercrombie, Anna Eshoo.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the discussion that has gone through 
on this particular bill. We have had it on several different occasions. 
There are a lot of good things that are in this particular bill.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has mentioned the one 
portion of the $1.5 billion to solve the hole in the veterans funding 
area, that once the issue was validated could have been an easy chance 
for people to grandstand. But I am very proud of this entire Congress 
in a bipartisan way, who gave instructions in a bipartisanship way, 
which came as close to a unanimous vote as I have seen here on the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an appropriate step to do, to now take this and 
then review the process so that we can continue to go on. We have much 
to do in this particular area, but in each year that I have been here 
in this Congress, I have been very proud that we have tried to move 
forward in different areas and make progress to fully fund and fully 
maintain our commitments.
  The same thing has gone on with all of the other programs in this 
particular budget and this particular conference report. This committee 
has once again done a great job in trying to come up with the principle 
that all appropriators ought to be doing a prioritizing program. They 
have prioritized the programs. Mr. Speaker, overall, we can be very 
positive of that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule to allow for 
the consideration of the conference report on the fiscal year 06 
Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. And I intend to intend to 
vote for the conference bill.
  Although I am critical of several aspects of this bill--including the 
low overall spending level--without a doubt this process has been fair 
and open. Because of the low allocation, there are some problem areas.
  But the overall conference report is well worth supporting. With the 
addition of $1.5 billion in spending for Veterans health care attached 
to this bill, I believe that this conference report will get widespread 
support in both the House and the Senate.
  The conference agreement contains another year of healthy increases 
in National Park Service operations funding. I do wish that the Clean 
Water Act State Revolving Fund was higher. I also wish that the 
Conference Report had retained the extra $10 million in NEA funding 
that the full House approved in a floor amendment last May. It is 
important to point out that this agreement contains successful 
compromises on the issue of pesticide testing on humans and on federal 
funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial to be built on the 
National Mall.
  Again I want to reiterate my strong support for this rule and the 
conference report on the fiscal year 06 Interior and Environment 
Appropriations bill. And I want to thank Chairman Taylor and his staff 
for including the minority throughout this process.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I urge the Members to support the rule that provides for 
consideration of this conference report to the accompanying H.R. 2361, 
and I move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
conference report.

[[Page 18256]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________




  WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY 
                           POLICY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 394 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 394

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, 
     affordable, and reliable energy. All points of order against 
     the conference report and against its consideration are 
     waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 394 waives all points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution 
also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few matters that we will consider this year as 
important as this comprehensive energy plan. As we are all know too 
well, our Nation badly needs an updated energy strategy. High oil and 
natural gas prices are causing stress on our economy by raising the 
price of energy on almost all consumer products, driving up costs for 
American families, and on job-creating businesses.
  Every industry from agriculture to tourism to manufacturing is 
negatively affected by high energy costs. We need to update our laws to 
reflect the changing global energy market, encourage conservation and 
energy efficiency, and to foster the advance of new technologies that 
make traditional fuels cleaner and make emerging energy sources more 
reliable and competitive.
  This conference report will do just that. This legislation reflects 
the fact the energy challenges we face today are complex, that no 
single approach is going to solve all of the problems. This 
comprehensive energy strategy takes a balanced approach. It includes 
incentives related to oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy, but also 
emphasizes conservation, energy efficiency and renewables.
  The energy plan updates and enhances the Energy Star Program, 
promotes the use of clean coal technology, clarifies the process for 
siting liquified natural gas terminals, encourages development of 
hydrogen-powered cars, and extends tax incentives for the production of 
renewable energy from wind, biomass and other resources.
  With respect to electrical power issues, this legislation includes 
consensus language providing for mandatory reliability standards for 
electric transmission to help prevent blackouts like we saw in the 
Northeast in 2003. It also encourages investment in transmission lines 
to eliminate bottlenecks in the electric grid. There are also important 
provisions providing for enhanced consumer protection against the kind 
of market manipulation we experienced in the west coast electricity 
market 4 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of areas that are 
particularly of interest to my part of the country, the Pacific 
Northwest. We depend on clean, renewable hydropower for much of our 
electricity consumed in our region; however, the relicensing process 
that non-Federal dams must go through is too cumbersome and needs to be 
reformed. It currently takes an average of 10 years to get through the 
relicensing, but often that can take longer. This energy bill provides 
for a much needed overhaul of this lengthy dam relicensing process, 
potentially saving ratepayers millions of dollars while ensuring 
protections for other river interests to remain in place.
  License applicants will now have the ability to propose alternative 
license conditions to those made by Federal source agencies. These more 
cost-effective alternatives will then be accepted, provided they are 
shown to provide the same level of environmental protection.
  This conference report also preserves regional flexibility in 
achieving certain national electric marketing and transmission goals. 
This reflects the reality of what works in many areas of the country, 
but may not work in other areas that have a hydropower-based system.
  This legislation strikes the proper balance on these and many other 
complex energy issues. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Barton )and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking 
member, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, for their 
perseverance and leadership in crafting this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to take action to combat high energy costs 
and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Let us pass this 
balanced and bipartisan energy plan.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, after passage of this rule, the House will consider the 
conference report for the energy bill. And before I explain why I 
strongly oppose this conference report, let me congratulate the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, for presiding over a full and open conference 
committee. Last Congress Democrats were shut out of the conference 
committee. Republicans wrote that bill in the dark of night and behind 
closed doors. This time the chairman opened the process. He consulted 
frequently with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and held 
public hearings.
  The energy bill is an important piece of legislation that deserves to 
be debated out in the open, and while I do not support the final 
product, I want to commend the chairman for attempting to restore some 
bipartisanship to this Chamber, and I hope others will follow his 
example.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) deserves to be singled out 
as well. His long and distinguished career has produced some of the 
most important laws that govern our Nation. The gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton) said it best last night in the Rules Committee when 
you talked about trying to discern the intent of one provision that 
would change current law. The chairman told the Rules Committees that 
as he was trying to explain the intent of the law, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) leaned across the table and talked about what he 
intended when he wrote that provision years ago.
  And so I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
for his work on this conference committee.
  With that being said, Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the substance of 
the energy bill. I must say that I agree with the editorial in this 
morning's Washington Post which says, and I quote, ``The nicest thing 
we can say about the comprehensive energy bill is that it could have 
been a lot worse.''
  We all know that our Nation is facing a severe energy crisis. The 
President knows it, the House knows it, and, most importantly, our 
constituents

[[Page 18257]]

know it. As we stand here today, the average retail price for gasoline 
is $2.32, up 40 cents just this year. For a family of four this amounts 
to nearly $3,000 spent annually on gasoline. That is a tax increase 
courtesy of the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress, 
and the oil companies that are reaping the rewards of record profits.
  Yet the conference report that we have before us today does nothing, 
absolutely nothing, to lower energy prices for consumers. It fails to 
reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil. It makes no real 
commitment to the development of renewable energy sources.
  In all, the oil and gas industries will receive a multibillion-dollar 
package of tax breaks, and if that was not for the dedicated leadership 
of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), these same companies 
would have also been shielded from liability claims for their role in 
polluting our Nation's water supply with MTBE.
  But let us be clear: Though a few concessions have been made, this 
bill is nowhere near what it should be. In fact, this bill is chock-
full of giveaways to the oil and gas industry at the expense of public 
health and environmental safety.
  If enacted, nearly 30,000 new oil and gas projects developed each 
year will be exempted from clean water requirements which aim to 
control erosion and run-off into rivers and streams. These same 
companies, including the administration's friends at Halliburton, would 
also be permitted to inject fluid laced with toxic chemicals into oil 
and gas wells. This provision alone poses an enormous threat to the 
safety of our Nation's drinking water sources, and if that was not bad 
enough, this bill extends the reach of the Federal Government into what 
should be local energy decisions.
  Local communities like the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, in my 
district would have virtually no say in the construction, expansion and 
operation of liquid natural gas facilitates. Permits granted by State 
agencies would no longer be subject to review by State courts. Rather 
Federal appeals courts, which are far from experts on individual State 
laws, would have exclusive jurisdiction. This provision undermines the 
ability of State and local officials to protect their communities from 
dangers surrounding LNG.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us today is not a 
comprehensive approach. It does not solve our Nation's energy crisis. 
And I cannot say it any more simply than this: The Energy Policy Act 
will harm the environment, reward special interests at the expense of 
consumers and taxpayers, and limit States rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we could have done much, much better, and I 
believe that it should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert.)
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the 
conference report to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  After a series of fits and starts over the past 4 years, Congress now 
stands ready to approve the first comprehensive national energy policy 
in well over a decade.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the 
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, on a job well done. As 
chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Energy, I am honored to have 
helped develop this legislation. In particular I want to thank the 
members and staff of the Energy Subcommittee and the full Science 
Committee, as well as our colleagues in the other Chamber for all of 
their hard work in crafting the research and development title of this 
act.
  This bill makes a much-needed and sustained investment in basic 
science and applied energy research that will lead to advanced energy 
technologies and future energy solutions.

                              {time}  1045

  Not only will this balanced portfolio of research help expand and 
diversify our energy supply while reducing energy demands; it will also 
educate and train the scientific and technical talent necessary for our 
Nation to remain competitive and secure.
  In recognition of the fundamental role that science places in the 
development of advanced energy technologies and in fulfilling DOE's 
mission, this bill also elevates science within the Department by 
creating an Under Secretary of Science. It also puts an Assistant 
Secretary at the helm of the Department's nuclear energy research 
programs. Leadership at this level is needed if we are to use research 
and technology to reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste and 
capitalize on the many benefits of safe, emissions-free nuclear energy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report 
which use science and technology to put America on the path towards a 
more secure and energy-efficient future.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, an individual that has worked extremely hard on 
this legislation along with the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and deserves a great amount of credit for 
bringing this legislation forward.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of 
the Committee on Rules for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, first of all, in strong support of the rule that 
the Committee on Rules has put forward on this significant piece of 
legislation. I think it is a very fair rule, and my guess would be that 
it is going to be passed by voice vote.
  I really want to talk about the underlying bill because this 
afternoon, since this is a conference report, there is only going to be 
an hour of debate evenly divided on each side. So I want to talk a 
little bit about the policies in the bill right now.
  Our Nation was founded on the principle that people had freedom and 
this freedom entailed the opportunity to make choices. As we begin to 
industrialize that principle of freedom, we begin to be encapsulated in 
our, for lack of a better term, industrial policies; and part of that 
policy has been our energy policy.
  Now, there are some people and there are some countries around the 
world that think an energy policy for a country should mean the command 
and control policy where the government dictates, the government owns, 
the government decides; but that is not what we in America believe. And 
in the bill that is going to be before us this afternoon, the Domenici-
Barton Policy Act of 2005, we decided that ``energy policy'' means 
government setting the frame work, government deciding the parameters 
and the ground rules; but fundamentally we still believe in freedom of 
choice and freedom of opportunity. We believe in private property. We 
believe in economic choices.
  So the bill before us does not dictate to the American people or to 
the corporations and to the interest groups that make up America 
exactly how we should develop our energy resources. It sets the ground 
rules.
  I want to divide the energy sector into two components, stationary 
energy and mobile energy. On the stationary side, this is the best bill 
that has ever been before the Congress of the United States of America. 
It is going to fundamentally transform the way we develop our energy 
resources to generate electricity, whether it is in our coal area where 
there is great, great work on clean coal technology; in the nuclear 
area where we really revitalize nuclear power; or whether it is in the 
way we do the transmission grids; whether it is the way we site new 
transmission lines; whether it is the way that we determine what the 
reliability of our system has to be, has to be maintained.
  This is an excellent bill.

[[Page 18258]]

  Now, on the mobile source, which is primarily oil which we refine 
into gasoline, this is a good bill. But I cannot tell the American 
people that it is a great bill in the sense that it is going to reduce 
your gasoline prices next week if the House passes it and the Senate 
passes it and the President signs it.
  Here is the fundamental problem we face on our mobile energy sources. 
We consume 21 million barrels of oil every day in this country, and we 
only produce 8. You subtract the 8 out of 21 and you get 13. So we are 
importing about 13 million barrels of oil a day. On our best day, the 
United States of America did not produce more than 10 million barrels 
of oil a day, on our best day. There is nothing we can do that is going 
to generate another 13 million barrels of oil produced in the confines 
of the United States of America. It cannot be done.
  Now, we can produce more and we have an inventory and the OCS has 
been under moratory that will at least allow us to see what might be 
out there. When we come back in September in reconciliation, we are 
going to pass a provision that allows us to drill up in ANWR and maybe 
produce as much as 2 million barrels of oil today. And we have a 
component of this bill that will continue research on the hydrogen 
economy so that perhaps we can come up with an alternative to the 
internal combustion engine. And we have incentives in this bill to help 
our automobile manufacturers develop the hybrid technology so that we 
can get it more cost effective. We have some credits for people in this 
bill that could purchase hybrid vehicles.
  So we are trying to narrow the gap; but as long as we are consuming 
21 million barrels and we are only producing 8, we are going to be 
importing a fair amount of our oil. So we need to find a way to use 
that oil more effectively and this bill does that.
  It also makes it possible, perhaps, to build some new oil refineries 
in our great Nation. We have not built a new oil refinery in the United 
States of America in 35 years. This bill for the first time begins to 
take some modest steps to make that possible.
  I hope when the time comes, we vote for the rule this afternoon. I 
hope on a bipartisan basis we overwhelmingly vote for the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Committee on 
Rules for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the Domenici-
Barton Energy Conference Report because it is the national energy 
strategy that our Nation has waited on for decades. This legislation 
will ensure adequate energy supply for consumers, help to drive down 
energy costs, and provide jobs in the energy industry.
  I would like to highlight one facet of it as particular importance to 
me and my State. Coal provides thousands of jobs in West Virginia and 
produces the energy needed by customers across the country. This bill 
contains a number of provisions to support clean coal technology that 
will allow coal to continue to provide for the Nation's energy needs 
while also protecting our environment.
  First, I am pleased that the conference report includes a 20 percent 
tax credit for new Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle facilities. 
IGCC facilities are on the cutting edge of new energy technology. Other 
tax credits for Industrial Gasification and Advanced Combustion will 
also further the use of clean coal. The bill also allows for power 
plants to amortize the cost of air pollution controls over 7 years, an 
important step towards cleaning up existing coal-fired facilities.
  The Clean Coal Power Initiative, a 9 year, $1.8 billion program to 
demonstrate advanced coal technologies, created by this bill, will 
allow us to develop the next generation of clean, efficient coal use.
  The Energy Policy Act is good for West Virginia coal, West Virginia 
jobs, and great for our Nation's economy and energy security. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking 
member. They have worked in a bipartisan way in this conference 
committee to produce this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the following is an editorial that appeared in The 
Washington Post today entitled ``Energy Deficient'' and the editorial 
that appeared in today's New York Times entitled ``Energy Shortage.''

                [From the New York Times, July 28, 2005]

                            Energy Shortage

       The energy bill that has been six years in the making and 
     is nearing the president's desk is not the unrelieved 
     disaster some environmentalists make it out to be. But to 
     say, as President Bush undoubtedly will, that it will swiftly 
     move this country to a cleaner, more secure energy future is 
     nonsense. The bill, approved by a House-Senate conference 
     early Tuesday morning, does not take the bold steps necessary 
     to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, and it also 
     fails to address the looming problem of global warming.
       These shortcomings are chiefly the fault of the White House 
     and its retainers in the House. To be sure, the Senate showed 
     no more courage than the House in its refusal to increase 
     fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks, even though 
     higher standards, by common consent, are the easiest, 
     quickest and most technologically feasible way to reduce oil 
     demand and cut foreign imports.
       But the Senate did approve a renewable fuels provision 
     requiring power plants to produce 10 percent of their 
     electricity from nontraditional sources, like wind power, by 
     2010. It also approved a provision that would ask the 
     president to reduce domestic oil consumption by one million 
     barrels a day by whatever means he chose. The House conferees 
     rejected both proposals.
       Meanwhile, both houses conspired in some spectacular 
     giveaways. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil 
     and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would 
     shower billions in undeserved tax breaks on the same 
     companies, even as they wallow in the windfall profits 
     produced by $60-a-barrel oil.
       The bill's most useful provisions may take years to realize 
     their promise. Again thanks largely to the Senate, the tax 
     provisions are far more hospitable to energy efficiency and 
     renewable fuels than earlier versions of the bill, and 
     include substantial incentives for buyers of fuel-efficient 
     hybrid cars.
       More important in the long run, however, may be two 
     provisions, buried deep in the bill, that are aimed at 
     developing new energy technologies. One provision would 
     encourage the development and commercial application of 
     biofuels from agricultural products that, much like corn-
     based ethanol, might someday be used as a substitute for 
     gasoline. The other provision is aimed at developing new 
     clean-coal technologies to turn coal into a gas and, more 
     important, capture emissions of carbon dioxide, a major 
     contributor to global warming.
       These could be powerful new tools in any future effort to 
     reshape the way Americans produce and use energy. But the 
     success of both will depend on the willingness of the 
     government to put money into them. That, in turn, will 
     require a deeper commitment to a more adventurous energy 
     policy than this administration has so far displayed.

                [From the Wasington Post, July 28, 2005]

                            Energy Deficient

       Here's the nicest thing that we can say about the 
     comprehensive energy bill that the House and Senate are due 
     to take up, and will probably pass, before they leave town at 
     the end of this week: It could have been a lot worse. Unlike 
     the energy bill that the Senate filibustered in 2003, and in 
     contrast to some earlier versions, this genuinely bipartisan 
     bill contains fewer egregious pro-pollution measures and less 
     pork. It will jump-start the commercial use of new clean 
     coal, ethanol and biomass fuel technologies; promote energy 
     efficiency standards; encourage investment in the electricity 
     sector; and reinforce electricity reliability at last. It is 
     less expensive than previous bills: The $11 billion net cost 
     of the tax package plus the $2 billion direct spending comes 
     to a relatively modest (for an energy bill) $13 billion over 
     10 years, with further costs depending on future 
     appropriations.
       Nevertheless, this is a bill that leaves most of the hard 
     questions for later. Aside from a few tax breaks for 
     purchasers of fuel-efficient cars, it makes no significant 
     attempt to reduce the enormous automobile fuel demand that 
     makes this country so dependent on imported oil. While it 
     provides incentives for the construction of a new generation 
     of nuclear power plants, it doesn't deal with

[[Page 18259]]

     the unresolved long-term problem of nuclear waste. It leaves 
     out the whole question of mandatory controls on the 
     greenhouse gases that cause climate change, thereby costing 
     both an opportunity to raise revenue and create a market 
     mechanism that might have accelerated the development of 
     cleaner, more efficient technologies. It also perpetuates 
     distortions in the energy market, providing needless 
     subsidies for oil drilling offshore and on federal lands, and 
     for marginal oil wells. And, by the way, don't believe the 
     spin: This bill will not lower fuel prices anytime soon.
       Given how long Congress labored over this legislation, and 
     how much negotiation was required to get it to this stage, 
     it's hard not to be disappointed by a bill that in effect 
     preserves the status quo. It's also hard not to wonder 
     whether the era of comprehensive, 1,700-page energy bills 
     designed to appeal to multiple constituencies has passed. 
     Clearly, some of the missing pieces--especially climate 
     change and automotive fuel efficiency--will have to be dealt 
     with separately in the future.
       But it's also true that some of the less controversial 
     pieces of this bill, such as the electricity reliability 
     provisions and the efficiency standards for appliances, could 
     have been passed years-ago. Now that this process is over, 
     congressional leaders should step back, focus on the nation's 
     most urgent long-term energy needs and get to work on more 
     carefully targeted legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blume-
nauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on the rule on the energy bill.
  One is just struck by the rhetoric surrounding this because only 
people who are captive inside the beltway bubble would believe the 
rhetoric about this being a positive development for our country. 
People do not have to take the word of politicians for this. Any person 
can deal with reputable independent analysis from academics, from 
scientists, even looking at conservative think tanks to find out that 
the arguments are not sustainable.
  This is, unfortunately, serious business. It is not just a list of 
special tax breaks and dodging hard issues. This is serious business 
for our country because our addiction to huge amounts of foreign oil 
that come from unstable parts of the world dooms us to costly 
dependency and means that we will continue to finance both sides of 
what they used to call the ``war on terror.''
  This bill has no vision of a sustainable energy future for renewables 
and meaningful conservation, not window dressing but meaningful 
conservation. People are lining up in this country to buy energy-
efficient vehicles that are only available by a handful of producers, 
and there is an opportunity lost to change that in terms of fuel 
efficiency. Ten percent of the world's supply of oil is dealt with in 
our addiction to inefficient energy transportation.
  We are even falling behind not just the developed countries like 
Germany and Japan who have much more efficient use of energy; we are 
falling behind emerging countries. People on the floor are apoplectic 
about China buying an oil company, Unocal. Well, China at least is 
getting its energy house in order. As an emerging country, it has 
officially committed to a much more dramatic and aggressive program for 
renewables than the United States.
  This bill is not an energy policy. It is a list of tax breaks and 
special interest favors that does not by any stretch of the imagination 
translate into a cohesive approach which global reality today demands 
for this country, demands for any country. It spends over $7 billion in 
subsidies to oil companies, the most profitable sector of our economy 
already flush with cash. I will not detail the harmful provisions that 
are going to come forward that are unnecessary exemptions for the oil 
and gas industries for compliance with the Clean Air Act, the backdoor 
immunity to MTBE producers and distributors that unfairly and 
inappropriatly denies injured parties.

                              {time}  1100

  That will be discussed, I think, further here in the course of the 
debate.
  But the point that I want to make is that instead of being a 
milestone for energy policy in this country, people will look back at 
what Congress does--because I have no doubt that the rule will pass and 
the bill will pass--but it will be inexcusable, inexcusable, as people 
are asked by our interns in the future, by our constituents, by our 
children, how could we be so wrong-headed? What should have been a 
milestone for energy policy at this critical time will instead be a 
tombstone, a monument to an energy policy of previous decades that we 
will enact to the detriment of our economy, the environment, and our 
children for years to come.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his 
very diligent and hard work on the Rules Committee, but also his hard 
work in terms of addressing the issues relating to this energy 
conference report.
  Once again, and I want to talk a little bit about the substance, this 
administration and the Republican leadership, I believe, quite frankly, 
have put the profits of their friends in the energy industry ahead of 
the needs of the American people, ahead of the needs of our economy and 
our environment. Instead of reducing high gas prices, and I know in 
California we have some of the highest gas prices, and these gas prices 
are squeezing businesses and consumers at the pump. This bill, 
unfortunately, provides over $12.8 billion in giveaways to the oil and 
gas industries who are now making excessive profits and squeezing our 
consumers in terms of gas and oil prices.
  Instead of encouraging the development of renewable energy and 
putting the United States economy at the forefront of the green 
revolution, this shortsighted bill, and that is what I say it is, it is 
very shortsighted, it will only increase our dependence on foreign oil. 
It will further subsidize corrupt and oppressive regimes throughout the 
world. It also puts our troops on the front lines, quite frankly, of 
our energy policy.
  Instead of protecting our environment and our health by taking modest 
steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions and increase vehicle gas 
mileage, this bill would allow oil and gas companies to further pollute 
our skies, our water and our environment without paying the 
consequences. The health of the American people, I believe, is quite at 
risk as a result of this bill.
  We need a comprehensive energy bill with a vision for the future that 
embraces ingenuity, reduces our chronic addiction to fossil fuels, 
fights global warming, which we all recognize is a huge problem. Just 
look at the weather changes this year. Last year. We have got to 
address global warming. This bill could do that. It could help us 
address pollution. It could help us protect our planet. But it puts our 
economy unfortunately on the wrong path rather than on the path to 
long-term sustainability.
  While I want to commend our ranking member for at least making this 
bill much better than what it was, from what we remember when it left 
this body, it is still a bill that I believe forces us to rely on 
foreign energy sources rather than move us toward energy independence. 
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time. Unfortunately, I 
am going to have to vote against this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
additional minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), chairman 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to try to set the record 
straight about this bill and add some comments that I did not make in 
my previous statement. The Senate had 14 conferees on the bill, 8 
Republicans and 6 Democrats. Thirteen of those conferees signed the 
conference report. We had all the Republicans in the Senate and five of 
the six Democrats sign this conference report. In the House, a majority 
of the House Democrat conferees have signed the report, a majority. Of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee conferees that were general 
conferees, a majority of those conferees signed the conference report, 
including the distinguished former chairman of the committee, John 
Dingell of Michigan.
  We have a bipartisan bill that has come before the House. As I 
enunciated earlier, if your vision of an energy policy is a policy 
where the government

[[Page 18260]]

tells you what you can do and when you can do it and how you can use 
your energy, this is not your bill. But if your vision of America is a 
vision of America that says it is okay to let the private sector, with 
the appropriate environmental guidelines and open market transparency 
rules and regulations, develop its resources for the good of all the 
people, this is your bill.
  In terms of incentives for alternative energy, this bill has got more 
incentives at the individual level and at the general industrial level 
than any other energy bill that has ever been before this Congress. 
Whatever your energy source of choice is, there is something in this 
bill to help you decide if you want to maximize that choice. What this 
bill does not do is say every American has to drive a vehicle that gets 
50 miles to the gallon whether they want to or not. Those vehicles are 
available right now in the marketplace, and Americans have the right to 
choose. This bill does not dictate that choice.
  This bill also makes it possible, again without repealing or 
fundamentally changing any existing environmental law, to do some at 
least exploration and in some cases development of our onshore and 
offshore energy resources. As I said earlier, it fundamentally 
revitalizes the clean coal technology industry in this country and the 
nuclear power industry in this country.
  This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. A majority of the House 
Democrat conferees and every Republican conferee signed the conference 
report. Last night when we were before the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan and I were both unanimous in that this should 
come to the floor under a rule that both sides could support. I want to 
commend the distinguished Rules Committee, in the gentleman from 
Washington's view, presenting the best rule that has ever been 
presented on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to belabor this. I have 
great respect for the skills, the great skills, of the chair of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. But it is just laughable to suggest that 
this is not your bill if you think you ought to dictate to the American 
public that you have to drive a car that gets 55 miles to the gallon, 
as if that were the only choice. A meaningful choice to raise CAFE 
standards the way other countries have done to their great advantage. 
That would have made more choices available to the American public and 
is something that is within our power, that we could do. It has nothing 
to do with forcing Americans to drive a car that gets 55 miles to the 
gallon. But the lack of a meaningful policy dealing with vehicle 
efficiency means that it is very difficult. There is a huge waiting 
list. It took me 6 months to get a hybrid SUV.
  We are dropping the ball here. As to the notion that this is the best 
opportunity in terms of renewable energy, talk to the people in the 
industry who are ready, willing and able. Ask them if it is the best 
bill ever. That is not what I hear from people in this industry. I 
respectfully disagree.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just say in conclusion that I have great respect for Chairman 
Barton and Ranking Member Dingell. They have worked very hard on this 
bill. I think it is a better bill that is before us than the one that 
we passed here in the House. As Chairman Barton pointed out, Ranking 
Member Dingell supports this bill. There was virtually a love fest in 
the Rules Committee last night, in part a tribute to the process during 
these last several weeks.
  Having said that, some of us obviously have some philosophical 
differences, and some of us feel compelled to vote against this bill. I 
have no doubt that this bill will pass with strong bipartisan support, 
but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I feel compelled to 
oppose the bill as well. I am concerned about some of what I consider 
are giveaways in this bill that I think were unnecessary. One would 
ease environmental restrictions on oil and gas companies drilling on 
public lands. The other would give billions of dollars in, I think, 
undeserved tax breaks to companies that, quite frankly, right now are 
gouging Americans. Oil companies right now, I think, are gouging 
Americans who are paying the highest gas prices in recent memory.
  I think this bill could have been a better bill. Again, there are 
philosophical differences here. There will be a debate on the 
conference report. I have no objection to the rule. Again, let me close 
by expressing my respect and admiration for Chairman Barton and Ranking 
Member Dingell, notwithstanding the fact that I oppose their final 
product.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ years ago, President George W. Bush stood in this 
Chamber during his first State of the Union Address and said, ``We have 
a serious energy problem that demands a national energy policy. Our 
energy demands outstrip our supply. We can produce more energy at home 
while protecting our environment, and we must. We can produce more 
electricity to meet demand, and we must. We can promote alternative 
energy sources and conservation, and we must. America must become more 
energy independent, and we will.''
  Today, Mr. Speaker, this rule brings before the House a 
comprehensive, bipartisan energy plan that will help us produce more 
energy at home while protecting the environment; produce electricity to 
meet increasing demand; and promote alternative energy sources and 
conservation. This energy plan will help America meet its demands of 
today while planning for the energy needs of future generations, and it 
will allow us to become more energy independent.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, House 
Resolution 394, and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2985, 
              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 396 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 396

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 
     the bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 396 is a traditional, standard rule for 
consideration of the conference report for the fiscal year 2006 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. The rule provides 1 hour of 
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The legislation before us appropriates $3.084 billion for operations 
of the legislative branch. The bill is fiscally sound. It includes a 
modest increase from the bill of fiscal year 2005.

[[Page 18261]]

  In accordance with long practice, Mr. Speaker, each body determined 
its own fiscal requirements. As such, the conference report includes 
$1.1 billion the House of Representatives originally appropriated for 
its operations earlier this year. It also includes the $759 million the 
Senate appropriated for its operations. The appropriations for both the 
House of Representatives and the Senate includes funds for Members' 
representational allowances, leadership and committee offices. These 
funds will help Members fulfill their duties to legislate and to 
oversee.
  These funds also help Congress complete the vitally important task, 
as I have just mentioned, which is the oversight of the executive 
branch. The Constitution grants Congress broad powers that include the 
extraordinarily important power of oversight. This includes obviously 
getting to know what the executive is doing, how programs are being 
administered, by whom and at what cost, and whether officials are 
complying with the law, with the intent of the law.
  For the Capitol Police, who each and every day protect us, our 
staffs, and our constituents visiting the Capitol, the bill 
appropriates over $249 million. This level of funding will support the 
current staffing level of 1,592 officers, an additional 43 officers for 
the Library of Congress and 45 new officers for the Capitol Visitors 
Center. Also included is an inspector general for the Capitol Police to 
help the Capitol Police with administrative operations such as 
financial management and budgeting.
  The bill also includes an important piece of legislation, the 
Continuity in Representation Act of 2005. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, 
on September 11, 2001, flight 93 was headed toward us here. If it were 
not for the heroic acts of the passengers on flight 93, we could very 
well have faced a situation where Congress may not have been able to 
function. We cannot allow this to happen. We certainly have to do 
everything we can to not allow it to happen.

                              {time}  1115

  H.R. 841 would accelerate elections in case a terrorist attack leaves 
the House of Representatives with over 100 vacancies. It provides for 
the expedited special election of new Members to fill seats left vacant 
in ``extraordinary circumstances.''
  The House passed this bill earlier this year by an overwhelming 
bipartisan margin of 329 to 68. In the 108th Congress, the House passed 
a similar bill by a vote of 306 to 97. Each time the Senate has failed 
to consider this vital piece of legislation; so the Speaker wisely 
asked that this very important legislation be included in this process.
  We must not ignore the threat to our constitutional duty. It is time 
that we have legislation such as this that can handle such an 
inconceivably horrible possibility and does not leave our duty to 
legislate and oversee in limbo.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, essential to our continued ability 
to legislate, to our power of oversight and the continuity of 
government.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, for their 
leadership on this. And I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California for her hard work and friendship.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule for the Fiscal Year 2006 
Legislative Branch Appropriations conference report, and although I 
support this report, I would just like to express my general concerns 
over the exorbitant cost overruns of the Capitol Visitors Center. 
Funding contained in this report is based on the GAO's assessment of 
needs, and I truly hope that this will be the last installment needed 
to get the center completed.
  Through this measure, we will also fund the operations for our 
institution and the many supporting bodies that we rely upon daily, 
like the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, the 
Congressional Budget Office, and the Capitol Police.
  I would just like to take this opportunity to draw attention to those 
who help keep Congress running. There is a tremendous operation that 
helps my colleagues and me do the business of the American people, from 
the personnel at the Congressional Research Service that aids our 
offices in keeping up with the latest issues, to the Clerk's staff that 
records every word we speak, tracks each bill introduced, and, no 
matter the hour, is here to support us as we debate the priorities of 
the Nation. It is also the curators who impart the history of this 
great Capitol Building to visitors every single day, and painters and 
archivists that maintain the historical integrity of the buildings. It 
is not without the maintenance crews, food service workers, and so many 
that I cannot even begin to name that keep the trains running smoothly 
on the Capitol complex. I thank them all for their service.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing one of the first appropriations 
conference reports move forward today.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further 
requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________




         CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 394, I 
call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for 
our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 394, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 27, 2005 at page 17793.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to say at the beginning we currently do not have on the House 
floor the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), one of the 
opponents of the bill, but when he arrives, I want to assure those who 
are in opposition to the bill that we will yield time so that they have 
an opportunity to participate in the debate.
  With that I want to say that this is a great day. The House is poised 
to pass the most comprehensive energy policy that we have ever had 
before this body, at least in the time that I have been in the House of 
Representatives, which encompasses the last 21 years.
  In the last Congress, the House was able to adopt a conference 
report, but the other body was never able to invoke cloture and bring 
that bill to the floor.
  This bill builds on last year's bill. It is full of superb 
legislation. It is a very balanced bill both for conservation and for 
production. There is a very strong title on energy efficiency. There is 
a strong title on renewable energy and clean energy. On a bipartisan 
basis, we have even adjusted daylight savings time to help save energy.
  The bill before us today is going to promote a new generation of 
clean coal technology. It is going to promote the

[[Page 18262]]

use of our Nation's greatest domestic resource, which is coal. It is 
going to do it in a clean, environmentally safe fashion. We are going 
to introduce a new generation for nuclear power in this country. There 
are many innovations that should make it possible the next 3 to 4 years 
to begin to construct a new nuclear power plant.
  With the help of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 
Senator Craig in the other body, we have a reform in our relicensing 
process for hydroelectric plants, which, as we all know, have zero 
emissions. We also have parts of the bill that are going to vigorously 
pursue the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which has the promise to help 
relieve some of the dependency on the internal combustion engine which 
we have developed in this country. We want to give American drivers the 
opportunity to drive safe, affordable, and reliable, clean hydrogen 
cars as soon as the year 2020. That is not as far off as it seems, Mr. 
Speaker.
  In the short term, we have provisions in the bill to make it more 
efficient to use our boutique fuels. These are fuels that are a blend 
of fuels between gasoline and different types of ethanol. Under current 
rules there are as many as 19 different blends, many of them 
manufactured or refined in only one refinery. The bill before us 
reduces that number so that we have greater transportability of our 
boutique fuels between those regions of the country that need those 
fuel sources.
  We have a brand new title on siting new liquified natural gas 
terminals. We are dependent on about 10 percent of imports for natural 
gas right now, yet we have not sited a new LNG facility in this Nation 
in over 30 years.
  The bill before us will look at the permitting process. It will 
respect the States rights and local community rights, but it will 
create a process where they get a decision, and hopefully some of those 
sites will be permitted in the next 3 to 4 years, and we will be able 
to import liquefied natural gas for our Nation's economic future.
  We also have a sector that came over from the other body on a 
comprehensive inventory in the oil and gas reserves in the Outer 
Continental Shelves. This particular title is something that is a work 
in progress, and I expect later today to engage in a colloquy with some 
members of the Florida delegation to see if perhaps in the near future 
we cannot refine that title to make it more acceptable to some of the 
Coastal States that have concerns about the inventory.
  We have a strong title on research and development that would 
authorize programs for the study of energy efficiency, renewables, 
nuclear energy, fossil fuels, and much more.
  The electricity title is one of the best titles in the bill. It is a 
title that has been put together over 6 years on a bipartisan, 
bicameral basis. It is one of the titles that I am most proud of. It is 
going to usher in for our electricity industry innovations across the 
board, from the generation of electricity, to the transmission of 
electricity, to the distribution of electricity, to the consumption of 
electricity. It is truly a landmark piece of legislation in the 
electricity title.
  I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the dean of the House of Representatives, who has been in 
this body for almost 50 years, for his strong leadership on this bill 
on the minority side. I cannot tell the Members what a pleasure it was 
to have him sit with me in the negotiations with the Senate and to have 
him sit beside me in the open conference markups and educate me on how 
to do the parliamentary procedure and handle some of the sensitive 
issues that came before the conference. He is truly a giant among 
giants, and I cannot more proud. If I am as proud of anything in this 
bill, it is the fact that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
signed the conference report. And I think that is a tremendous credit 
to him and how willing he was to work within the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  It is our intent also to join with the gentleman from Texas in 
yielding some time to the opposition to this measure this morning.
  I want to begin by commending the work of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of our House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, for the strong leadership that he has provided as our 
committee has considered this measure over the past 4 years. And I want 
to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of our 
committee. He has presided over the House-Senate conference on this 
measure with grace. It was truly an open process. It was truly a 
bipartisan process. And the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
which we will accomplish today, will be a lasting tribute to the 
gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Barton) skill and to his leadership.
  Today we demonstrably advance our Nation's energy policy. Long-needed 
reliability standards will add stability and security to the 
electricity transmission grid. Modernized provisions will encourage 
cogeneration and other distributed means of producing electricity both 
efficiently and with improved environmental performance. The bill opens 
the door to a new generation of smart meters and real-time pricing 
plans so that electricity consumers can save money by operating 
appliances during times of lighter electricity demand. And we take 
meaningful steps to deploy advanced clean coal technologies that will 
encourage a greater use of coal for the electricity generation with 
superior environmental performance.
  Coal is our most abundant domestic energy reserve. Within our borders 
we have 250 years of proven coal reserves. Our bill encourages electric 
utilities to make coal, rather than natural gas, the fuel of choice for 
new electricity-generating units, with an easing of the escalating 
pressure on natural gas prices. The bill is a balanced measure which 
deserves our support.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I urge its approval by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that of the 
majority time, 10 minutes be yielded to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Boucher) to make a similar request on the minority side.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that 10 
minutes of our time be yielded to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), with the result that the majority will have 20 minutes, we on 
our side will have 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) will also have 20 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher)?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a historic failure. It will not lower 
gasoline prices. This bill does not do anything about fuel economy 
standards for automobiles and for SUVs. We put 70 percent of all the 
oil that we consume in the United States into gasoline tanks. This bill 
is silent on that. It is 2005. We now import 60 percent of all of the 
oil which we consume in America; most of it comes from the Middle East. 
One would think that we could do something about the place we put the 
oil. This bill is silent.
  With regard to renewables, all utilities in the United States could 
have been given a mandate that they have to designate a substantial 
percentage of their electrical generating capacity over the next 20 
years as renewable energy. This bill rejects that. It says, we are not 
going to move the utilities towards a renewable energy future.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a failure on two of the central technology 
issues that the 21st century should be known for. I call for a ``no'' 
vote on this bill.

[[Page 18263]]


  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am in awe, as always, of the 
gentleman of Massachusetts' rhetorical abilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee and a 
conferee.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005. After several years of trying, the time to 
pass this vital legislation is now. The President has waited patiently 
since his first week in office. We need to pass this today.
  Blackouts have affected our country, gas prices are crippling family 
budgets, and foreign energy resources have our Nation beholden to 
overseas interests. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in a 
generation. Additionally, we must begin to harness new energy sources 
for new potential. This bill wisely addresses all of these things.
  Taken together, the provisions in this legislation will diversify and 
increase our energy supply in a careful and measured way. It deserves 
passage.
  Now, it does not have everything in it that every Member wanted. This 
has been a long fight, and we all owe a great deal of gratitude to the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his patience over the last 5 
years as he has tried to guide us to an energy policy for this Nation 
that we have not had certainly since I have been in Congress. It is 
time now to do that.
  I thank personally the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his 
fair and evenhanded way, as he has been just now, giving time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who obviously opposes the 
bill. But the rest of us in here need to pass this legislation today. I 
urge us all to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), one of the conferees 
on the energy conference.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for yielding me this time. Let me then proceed 
to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), 
for his strong leadership on this matter, and also our chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), for his leadership. They have 
done a Herculean job in bringing us this energy bill that will give us 
a comprehensive and bipartisan energy policy for the future, a very 
forward-looking bill.
  Let me begin by applauding what is not in this bill. First of all, I 
think it is very significant that in this bill there will be no 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Our Arctic and sub-
Arctic ecosystems will continue to flourish.
  This bill also does not shield manufacturers of the fuel additive 
MTBE from lawsuits. This means that States and localities and 
municipalities will be able to hold these manufacturers liable when 
they pollute underground water supplies. These are two major 
environmental victories of which we should be very proud.
  But let us look at the positive things that are, in fact, in the 
bill, because here we see an energy policy emerging that will help 
America attain security and independence.
  First of all, we put in this bill mandatory reliability standards. 
Now, there are some folks in the Northeast that sat in the dark and 
suffered through scorching heat in a power outage some years ago, so 
this is very important. These mandatory standards will help us avoid 
the problems that we encountered when whole States began to go dark and 
air conditioners went off. This is very meaningful. We have never had 
mandatory electricity reliability standards for performance, for 
training of personnel, and for maintenance of the system.
  Let me look at another area, the area of hydrogen. We have almost $3 
billion in incentives for hydrogen fuel development. Now, why is that 
important? Because it looks to the future. We have a past which 
reflects a dependence on fossil fuels, oil, gas, and cars that emit 
huge amounts of pollution. We are looking at a future when cars and 
buildings will run electricity generated by hydrogen fuel cells, 
hydrogen energy generated through solar, through wind, and through 
nuclear energy. This is very important. We will see cars that only emit 
water. We think this is a good thing.
  Now, will that solve the problem of the $2.50 gas we have today? No. 
But this energy policy is looking toward the future, and I think it is 
important to understand that we are undertaking a task much like 
putting a man on the Moon in which we are saying, down the road, we 
will accomplish great things, innovative things because we are making 
those investments today, and those investments are, in fact, in this 
energy bill.
  We should also be pleased that other sources of energy are being 
enhanced in this bill. Solar energy, wind energy, biomass, all receive 
incentives for development of critical alternatives.
  We are looking at a situation in which we can tell our children and 
our grandchildren that we did something today to make their energy 
security greater and their energy independence greater. Please adopt 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  With great respect to our leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Dingell), Mr. 
Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the bill.
  This bill is a missed opportunity to provide a secure energy future 
for America. It is a bill packed with taxpayer-subsidized goodies for 
energy companies. It is a bill that will not reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased about one part of the bill: it no longer 
contains the liability waiver to the MTBE industry. Now, perhaps, 
communities with MTBE-polluted groundwater will have a fighting chance 
to get it cleaned up by the people who made the mess. I call on the 
MTBE industry to do the right thing now, stop fighting in court and in 
Congress, own up to your responsibility by sitting down and working out 
cleanup plans with these affected communities.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the rest of the bill is mostly bad news. 
At a time of record-high energy prices, the bill hands out tens of 
billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas, coal and 
nuclear power industries already making record profits.
  The bill also cuts States out of LNG siting decisions, giving power 
to the Federal Government, which, of course, always knows what is best.
  In addition, the bill does precious little to make America more 
energy efficient or to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There is 
no effort to make our cars more energy efficient. Seventy-five percent 
of the oil we use every day goes right into our gas tanks. This bill 
acts like it is okay that mileage on our autos has gone down in recent 
years, there is no connection between that and today's record gas 
prices.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill calls for new offshore drilling under 
the guise of conducting a so-called inventory.
  My friends on the other side will argue that this is just a study so 
we know what is out there. MMS already conducts surveys every 5 years 
on offshore resources. We already know where the offshore oil and gas 
is: in the central and western gulf where drilling is currently allowed 
and is under way, so why the inventory?
  Putting it simply, this is just a first step in opening up offshore 
areas now off limits to new drilling. This means new drilling off 
States like Florida, North Carolina, and California. Make no mistake: 
this inventory is the oil companies' attempt to begin dismantling the 
long-standing, bipartisan moratorium on new drilling in these areas.
  Voting for this bill means you support drilling off Florida, 
California, North Carolina, and other States. I urge my colleagues to 
vote down this bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished

[[Page 18264]]

gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Air Quality.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, in support of H.R. 6, 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and I am very pleased with the 
conference agreement before us today as the culmination of years of 
hard work and determination amongst my colleagues and friends. I 
certainly commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Dingell). I have been here 25 
years, and I have never seen an operation like the one we have gone 
through this last week where the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), worked together on hammering out a good bill; not perfect for 
either one of them, but both of them working for what has been called 
``the greatest good for the greatest number.'' These two men worked 
together, did not agree on everything, but worked together for the good 
of the people, basically for the young people of this country who will 
have to fight a war for energy if we do not find our own energy, and we 
have plenty of it here.
  We need this bill before us today. We needed it 5 years ago. But I 
gladly accept it, because we simply cannot go another day without doing 
anything we have to do to increase our domestic production of oil and 
gas, increase our energy efficiency, and step up our conservation 
efforts, all towards the goal of being less reliant on foreign 
countries, people that do not trust us, people that we do not really 
trust for our energy needs.
  I am especially pleased about the inclusion of my Ultra-deepwater and 
Unconventional Offshore Natural Gas and Research and Development 
program, which will enable the development of new technology to 
increase natural gas production from the 1,900 trillion cubic feet of 
technically recoverable reserves in North America, enough to meet over 
85 years of demand at current rates of consumption.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill for the Nation, it is a good bill 
for the Fourth Congressional District of Texas, it is good for our 
country, and it is good also for this generation of high school juniors 
and high school seniors who, using this energy policy, will be able to 
ask themselves which university or college will I enter, rather than 
which branch of service will I enter.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this very important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), another of our 
conferees.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we have before us today is a pretty good 
energy bill. The conferees worked hard to find a compromise on this 
legislation, and I think that the majority of our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will support it today.
  I want to give particular congratulations and thanks to the 
leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Dingell), and also to Senator 
Domenici and Senator Bingaman. By all working together, we do have a 
bill.
  Is it a perfect bill? No. And if we are going to work via compromise, 
it cannot be a perfect bill. I would have preferred to see fewer 
corporate tax breaks; and I think in conference, those of us on the 
main committee, we were blocked out on those tax provisions. So while I 
have some objections on some of these corporate tax breaks, overall I 
think they are fair.
  In addition, I would have liked to have seen stronger measures for 
direct relief at the pump for Americans who are suffering right now as 
we pay record-high gasoline prices. In fact, in Michigan last week, as 
I noted to the conferees, gas spiked 80 cents in one day, it went up 80 
cents, to $3.51. That was based on rumors and everything else. But that 
is how volatile the situation is out there.
  So I actually had a provision that said, stop filling the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve until a barrel of oil drops below $40 for 2 
consecutive weeks. Unfortunately, the language did not make it into the 
final bill. But we do encourage the Secretary of Energy to look at 
this, and I would like to take this time to suggest to him that he do 
something immediately to help out our domestic gasoline market. We just 
cannot continue to see spikes of 80 cents.
  Also, I would have liked to have seen stronger language on the 
underground storage issue. While we did make some improvements on this 
issue, I think we can ill-afford to allow our groundwater to continue 
contaminating our drinking water. In particular, we cannot allow MTBE 
to continue to contaminate drinking water across this country.

                              {time}  1145

  On a positive note, I am very excited and pleased that finally after 
all of the years of work, we have a permanent ban on oil and gas 
drilling in and under the Great Lakes. Whether it is a State permit or 
a Federal permit, you will no longer be allowed to do it. I am very 
pleased with that provision that I have worked for for more than a 
decade to put the provision in there.
  Also there are some provisions on nuclear energy, and I know that is 
sort of a controversial thing, but I, for one, believe if we are going 
to start worrying on dependency on foreign oil, that if we are really 
concerned about global climate change and climate change here in this 
country, we must revisit the issue of nuclear energy, and I am pleased 
this bill provides incentives to make the United States once again a 
leader in this area, and protect our environment, protect our climate 
and get America less dependent on foreign oil.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is not a perfect bill but is one that I 
can support. After 13 years and seeing so many energy bills come before 
this floor, none of which I have supported, I am pleased to be able to 
lend my support for this bill, and once again I would like to thank the 
leadership for their work on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we have before us today is a pretty good 
energy bill. The conferees worked hard to craft compromise legislation 
that I think the majority of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will support today.
  Is this a perfect bill? No. I would have preferred to see some of the 
corporate tax breaks pared back, but the Energy and Commerce conferees 
were shut out of discussions regarding tax provisions.
  In addition, I would like to have seen stronger measures to give 
direct relief at the pump for the millions of Americans who are paying 
record high prices for gasoline right now. I had a measure that would 
have provided millions of additional barrels of oil for the U.S. market 
by suspending contributions to the strategic petroleum reserve until 
the price of oil dips below $40 per barrel for two consecutive weeks. 
Unfortunately, that was dropped in exchange for language allowing the 
Secretary of Energy to voluntarily suspend contributions if he sees 
fit. I would like to take this time to suggest that he do so 
immediately, allowing more oil into the domestic market.
  I also would have liked to have seen stronger wording for secondary 
containment of underground storage tanks. While we did make some 
improvements on this issue, we can ill afford to allow our groundwater 
to become contaminated with gasoline from leaking underground storage 
tanks. In particular, we cannot allow MTBE to continue to contaminate 
drinking water across the country.
  I am happy that the ``safe harbor'' provisions for manufacturers of 
MTBE that were in the House bill were dropped. Instead, there is a 
provision allowing lawsuits to be sent to Federal court if a defendant 
wants to make a request to do so. During the conference, I asked 
Chairman Barton about the MTBE provisions in the bill and whether the 
claims filed after the date of enactment would require a case to be 
sent to Federal court. The chairman indicated that it did not require a 
case to be sent to Federal court, but gave defendants in prospective 
suits the right to ask that the case be sent to Federal courts. I 
wanted to be sure that we were not conferring any new substantive or 
subject matter jurisdiction over MTBE cases and I was pleased to hear 
from Chairman Barton that to his knowledge, the legislation was not 
doing so.
  I am happy to see that there are provisions in the bill to increase 
incentives for the nuclear power industry. While I know that there are

[[Page 18265]]

those who oppose nuclear energy, I feel that if we are going to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil, and climate change we need to explore 
increased nuclear technologies.
  A provision I am particularly proud to say made it into the 
conference is a ban on any new oil and gas drilling beneath our Great 
Lakes. This provision will improve public safety and protect the source 
of drinking water for more than 30 million residents of the Great 
Lakes. I've worked on this for more than a decade and this will benefit 
the people of the Great Lakes for generations to come.
  Lastly, I am happy to report that this bill does not include drilling 
for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is one that I can 
support and I thank Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell for 
their tireless efforts to come to the compromise before us today.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill contains about $80 billion worth of giveaways 
to the oil and gas and other industries in our country. Those giveaways 
are coming from somewhere.
  The United States has a huge deficit. We do not have any money. There 
is only one part of our government that is running a surplus, and that 
is the Social Security Trust Fund, and what the Republicans are doing 
is erecting a huge oil rig on top of the Social Security Trust Fund to 
drill for the revenues that will be given to the wealthiest industries 
in America--the oil and gas industries--that are reporting the largest 
profits in the history of any industry in the history of the United 
States.
  The Republicans are tipping the United States consumer and taxpayer 
upside down and shaking money out of their pockets.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for using his chart once again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, they have a saying in racing that to finish 
first, first you have to finish. It is a pleasure to stand up after 
several frustrating years and Congresses to be here supporting an 
energy bill. As we move from a society totally dependent upon fossil 
fuels to alternative energy, it is important to make sure that the 
infrastructure that will carry us through to alternate energy is 
functioning adequately, and I am pleased that that has been done in 
this bill. I am also pleased that, as principally led by Senator 
Domenici for a number of years, that we are beginning once again to 
look at an obvious source of energy that has been overlooked, nuclear 
energy.
  And I want to compliment the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee for his understanding that time is secondary to getting 
people to a level of agreement that allows us to present this bill on 
the floor today.
  Of course, no bill is perfect, but if you do not have a bill, you 
cannot stand up and criticize it as the gentleman just did in the well. 
I am very pleased with this work product in terms of its balance. We 
tried to create balance within the tax area. We are willing to spend 
money on an experimental basis on a number of alternative sources. As 
some do not prove out, I am hopeful that we do not turn them into 
perennial payments just because they started in the bill; that we move 
and look for those alternate sources of energy that can begin to 
augment the fundamental hydrocarbon structure and then move beyond that 
as expeditiously as possible.
  It is a balanced bill. I think you will see balanced support. Once 
again, I want to compliment the chairman for doing something that 
heretofore has not been done. It is always easy when you do it. It has 
not been done before. Congratulations to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  Mr. Speaker, the need to complete this comprehensive energy bill 
leads us to consider it without the normal accompanying statement of 
managers used to clarify and enhance understanding of the legislative 
text. Our colleagues, the chairman of the Committee on Finance and the 
ranking minority member of that committee, agree with me that those who 
follow tax legislation can and should use the Joint Committee on 
Taxation's publication, ``Description and Technical Explanation of the 
Conference Agreement on H.R. 6, Title XIII, Energy Tax Incentives Act 
of 2005, JCX-60-05, as the functional equivalent of a statement of 
managers for the purposes of completing their understanding of what the 
tax incentives provide.
  The joint committee publication has been submitted for publication in 
the Congressional Record. It can also be accessed on the joint 
committee's website--http://www.house.gov/jct/_for those who are 
interested. It is an extremely useful tool the public can employ to see 
just how much we have accomplished with this bill.
  I would also note, as a matter of clarification, section 1326 of the 
conference report, which provides for a 7-year depreciation peliod for 
natural gas gathering lines, is meant to prospectively clarify the 
depreciation of property meeting either of the two standards in 
subsection (b) of the section. This provision should not be interpreted 
as undermining any taxpayer's position versus the IRS in regard to 
current law, but instead as a clarification of the treatment of 
property meeting either of the standards described in subsection (b) 
after April 11, 2005.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush), a valuable member of our Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. I 
do not think that this piece of legislation is perfect, and there are 
many provisions in this bill that I disagree with, but overall I 
support passage of this conference report, because it contains many 
provisions that are important to me and to my district, including 
provisions affecting ethanol and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, also known as LIHEAP.
  During the markup of this House version of the bill in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, we passed my amendment, which will significantly 
increase authorized funding for LIHEAP to $5.1 billion. And I am very 
pleased that this increase was sustained during the conference 
committee and the hearings of the conference committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that this provision is so important 
to my constituents and to constituents similar to mine who suffer 
during the ravaging winter months and are often at a point where they 
have to make a decision between paying high energy costs and paying for 
medical care or paying for food.
  I want to talk for a moment about this process that we have gone 
through this year. This year's process has been infinitely better than 
last year's shoddy process, whereby the majority went behind closed 
doors and drafted a conference report with zero input from the 
minority.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know and let the Members of this 
House know that I really appreciate the fact that Chairman Barton has 
displayed a willingness to be fair and to work with me and other 
Democrats on this energy bill. We have a long history of bipartisan 
cooperation in our great committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
particularly and especially when the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) was chairman. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) for continuing this tradition. It should serve as a blueprint 
for the rest of the Congress. We would have a lot less sniping and get 
a lot more work done in the full House of Representatives were we to 
follow the leadership of Chairman Barton, the ranking member and the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  And I urge my colleagues to vote yes for this conference report.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, when it has never been clearer that the 
United States needs to catch up to the rest of the world dealing with 
energy efficiency and global warming, even the supporters of this 
legislation agree with the taglines in the New York Times and the 
Washington Post, ``it is not a disaster'', ``it could have been 
worse''.
  Forget about explaining to our grandchildren; how will the Members of 
this Congress explain to next Congress'

[[Page 18266]]

interns about why we settled for the lowest common denominator, 
continued to finance both sides of the war on terror with our continued 
dependence on Middle East oil. If we could not get landmark 
legislation, hopefully this bill will be a tombstone for the energy 
policy for the last century.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, Ben Franklin certainly would be proud, 
because as the father of daylight savings time, we are finally 
implementing his ideas in this legislation.
  I want to thank the many Republicans and Democrats that are 
supporting this legislation in both bodies. And, of course, on daylight 
savings time today, it starts the first Sunday in April, it goes 
through the last Sunday in October.
  We learned, my coauthor, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), and myself learned that there was a U.S. Government study done 
back when maybe I was in junior high school that we said that we would 
save 100,000 barrels of oil a day for every day that we extended 
daylight savings time. That was when we had 50 million fewer Americans.
  Well, guess what we do in this bill? Beginning in 2007, we will 
change daylight savings time. It will start now the second Sunday in 
March, it will go through Halloween, through the first Sunday in 
November.
  We know that traffic fatalities will decrease. We know that crime 
rates will decrease. We know that folks will get home with an hour more 
of sunlight, whether they are coming home from school or whether they 
are coming home from work. And by having it kick in 2007, we will allow 
other countries, whether they be Canada, Mexico, perhaps Europe, to 
establish their timelines the same as ours. We will add a little more 
sunshine to everybody's day.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I am in opposition to 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In my opinion, the bill does nothing to 
reduce our dependency on foreign oil. It does not reduce gas prices. It 
does not make our Nation more secure.
  Instead, the bill will increase gas prices for consumers in 
California, where I come from, by requiring the increased use of 
ethanol. It threatens our water supply by rolling back the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and a trade-off I do not find 
acceptable at all. It overrides our States rights to oppose drilling 
offshore by including language requiring an inventory.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for choosing not to include MTBE 
safe harbor provisions in the bill, but that alone does not guarantee 
that this is a good bill.
  The bill is a missed opportunity. I do not support this legislation. 
And I know we must continue this debate on cleaning up our environment 
and protecting our consumers.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this has indeed been a long process. I 
thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member for providing us with 
the leadership that has given us this balanced legislative product.
  Mr. Speaker, conservation, production, alternative energy sources, 
and new technologies, hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles are all part 
of this energy bill that we have before us today.
  In my district back in Texas, significant because we have a big solar 
panel production plant in Keller, Texas, we have a wind turbine plant 
in Gainesville, Texas, up in Cook Country. And while people know that 
we have lots of wind and lots of sun in Texas, you may not know that we 
have garbage in Texas. And in Denton, Texas, my hometown, we have a new 
biodiesel plant, and the energy for that biodiesel plant is taken 
entirely from methane from the city dump, truly a balanced way to 
achieve new sources of energy.
  Mr. Speaker, again I thank the chairman for the leadership in 
bringing this bill for us today, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this legislation. It 
does absolutely nothing to lower the outrageous price of gasoline at 
the pump. It provides precious little for research and development of 
renewable energy sources.
  What it does do is give huge subsidies to the oil and gas industries 
that are making record profits. But the main reason I am voting against 
this dog of a piece of legislation is because it gives major 
megasubsidies to the nuclear industry so that they can build more 
nuclear power plants.

                              {time}  1200

  What is the problem with this? When you have nuclear energy it 
produces a deadly by-product. That deadly by-product is nuclear waste. 
This Nation has never figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. We 
cannot safely store it. Our solution is to put it in a hole in the 
Nevada desert where we have ground water problems, seismic activity, 
volcanic activity. Why would we be spending billions of dollars of 
taxpayers' money to produce more nuclear waste that has a radioactive 
life of 300,000 years?
  Before we waste taxpayers' money on nuclear energy, let us figure out 
how to deal with the nuclear waste. This is a slap in the face and an 
insult to the people I represent.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to first recommend the 
gentlewoman of Nevada to look at section 1290 of the bill which is an 
item that the Senior Centers in Nevada strongly supports.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) 
and I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) in 
a colloquy.
  First of all, we want to thank the gentleman for his willingness to 
work with the entire Florida delegation to reach an agreement that will 
allow the States to increase control of their waters.
  Included in H.R. 6 is a provision ordering an inventory and analysis 
of oil and natural gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. Many 
are concerned that this inventory is merely a precursor to drilling off 
Florida's coast against the wishes of the Governor and our two U.S. 
Senators and the Florida delegation.
  Currently, there is a moratorium against drilling in this area, over 
here, until 2012, and these areas called the stovepipe and bulge, here 
and here to 2007. The top of the stovepipe is about 16 miles off the 
coast of Pensacola, home to a large amount of military operations.
  Mr. Speaker, can we have the chairman's assurance that he will 
continue to work with the Florida delegation to find a solution that 
encourages and ensures that drilling or exploration will not occur in 
the areas off the Florida coast against the wishes of the State?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. In addition, the chairman has stated in the past that 
each individual State should have the ability to control its own 
waters, and the decision to drill or take an inventory should rest with 
the State legislature and the Governor. Can the gentleman assure us 
that he will work with us to provide States with that ability?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with both of the 
gentlemen and the entire Florida delegation to resolve all of these 
problems so that we do what is in the best interest of

[[Page 18267]]

Florida the other States and the country. I appreciate all the work 
that the gentlemen have put into this already.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say the importance of this is it be 
a long-term solution for the State of Florida instead of having to go 
to reiteration every 2 years dealing with this moratorium. As you know, 
we worked almost 3 hours in the night trying to come up with a 
solution. We have a workable plan that we discussed with the chairman, 
and we very much appreciate the chairman's support, interest, and help.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. We know the chairman is a man of his word.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a valuable member of our Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member on 
our subcommittee for allowing me to speak for 3 minutes.
  The comprehensive energy legislation is a positive step towards a 
stable energy future for America, and I want to thank all the Members 
who worked so hard in putting this together on such an aggressive 
schedule. I especially appreciate our ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), of our full Committee of Energy and 
Commerce, and also our Chair of our subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for their hard work. I congratulate the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) on both his fairness in the committee 
mark-up and also in the floor action that we had. We actually made 
democracy work. But also I know the hard work as I watched a lot of 
conference committee on TV in the effort to get this legislation where 
it is today. I think it is a great achievement.
  The folks who are opposing it, their biggest argument is we do not do 
anything about lowering oil prices. Well, the easiest thing we could do 
is actually produce more domestically instead of importing it from 
everywhere, but they are the same folks that are opposing any more 
domestic production.
  This bill does so many good things. Energy infrastructure, the bill 
addresses the bureaucratic blocks that hamstring the growth of our 
energy infrastructure, particularly regarding natural gas terminals and 
pipelines. And I am pleased the conference committee has chosen to 
follow the blueprint of the Terry-Green LNG legislation we introduced 
last year that first recognized LNG as an international and interstate 
commerce and thus subject to ultimate Federal jurisdiction.
  We need to open at least 10 to 15 liquefied natural gas terminals in 
the lower 48 in the next 5 to 10 years in order to stabilize our 
natural gas prices, both residential and commercial prices, and protect 
millions of our manufacturing jobs.
  The petro-chemical industry is in dire need of stable natural gas 
feedstock prices as elsewhere along the Gulf Coast. Our community would 
end up looking like the Rust Belt. This committee report helps that.
  Domestic production, I am disappointed, did not go far enough in 
domestic energy supplies. America's vast offshore energy resources 
remain largely off-limits even though our coast would not be threatened 
by development. Contrary to political scare tactics of certain 
organizations, oil and gas can be safely produced, whether it is 
Florida, California, or the east coast. We have been doing it off 
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama for years. Lower 48 
production uses pipelines and not tankers so the Valdez is not even an 
example they can use.
  Mr. Speaker, the other concern I have is the loss of the MTBE issue, 
but I understand the Senate did not want to take it up. So I guess the 
folks who want to sue for MTBE can go to the courthouse. MTBE actually 
lowered our air pollution problems in my community in Houston. It was 
under the 1990 Clean Air Act. I would just hope businesses and 
communities would still continue to try to find another substances that 
would clean up our air.
  In conclusion, I am concerned about ensuring that we have adequate 
traditional energy sources because we have to rely on them for the next 
few decades. I will support anything we do in research to get 
alternatives, but we also need to make sure we can keep our lights on 
for this decade.
  The comprehensive energy legislation is a positive step towards a 
stable energy future for America.
  I want to thank all Members who have worked so hard on putting this 
together on such an aggressive schedule. This is a great achievement.


                        I. Energy Infrastructure

  The bill addresses bureaucratic roadblocks that have hamstrung the 
growth of our energy infrastructure, particularly liquefied natural gas 
terminals and pipelines.
  I am pleased that the conference committee has chosen to follow the 
blueprint of the Terry-Green LNG legislation we introduced 1 year ago. 
Our bill was the first to recognize that LNG is international and 
interstate commerce, and thus subject to ultimate Federal jurisdiction.
  We need to open up 10-15 LNG terminals in the lower 48 States in the 
next 5-10 years in order to stabilize natural gas prices, residential 
and commercial electric prices, and protect millions of manufacturing 
jobs. The petrochemical industry is in dire need of stable natural gas 
feedstock prices, or else the Gulf Coast could end up like the Rust 
Belt.
  This conference report ensures that ``not-in-my-backyard'' LNG 
opposition will not drive electric prices through the roof and drive 
manufacturing jobs overseas to Asia and Europe in search of affordable 
natural gas.


                        II. Domestic Production

  I am disappointed that the legislation does not go nearly far enough 
to increase domestic energy supplies.
  America's vast offshore energy resources remain largely off-limits, 
even through our coasts would not be threatened by development.
  Contrary to the political scare tactics of certain organizations, oil 
and gas can be produced safely off of Florida, California, and the East 
Coast. Beaches and coastal areas in the lower 48 have no need to fear a 
Valdez-like accident from offshore production.
  Lower 48 production uses pipelines, the safest form of transportation 
in the world, and will not mean more oil tankers.
  In many decades of oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, we 
have not had disasters that ruined any of the beaches or estuaries in 
Texas, Alabama, or Louisiana. Tourism at Texas beaches like Galveston 
and South Padre Island is a huge industry and we protect it seriously.
  I challenge opponents of offshore production to name one serious oil 
spill that has harmed a Gulf beach or estuary.
  Critics like to say that this bill is projected to do little to 
reduce gas prices that are squeezing Americans. That may be true in the 
short run, although if ANWR exploration is approved in the budget that 
will change. Ironically the real reason there is not enough gas price 
relief in this bill is the opponents of the bill themselves.
  The best thing we can do to stabilize gas prices is produce more oil 
at home--we cannot wave a magic wand and lower the price of Middle 
Eastern oil.


                               III. MTBE

  I am also disappointed that the Senate is unwilling to help clean up 
MTBE spills from leaking underground storage tanks.
  MTBE was developed to eliminate lead in gasoline, and by fulfilling 
the 1990 Clean Air Act's oxygenate requirement, MTBE has done much to 
reduce smog in American cities. Unfortunately, oxygenates are 
problematic when they are stored in leaky tanks.
  MTBE producers, many of which are not huge oil companies, never would 
have made MTBE without the Clean Air Act of 1990.
  In a catch-22, they now face multiple lawsuits for complying with 
federal law. As a result, U.S. industries are likely to be less willing 
to make environmentally beneficial products at the direction from 
Congress in the future.
  This bill is a great first step and I support its final passage. 
However, America's energy policy is not complete and it will require 
more work for future Congresses.


                             IV. Conclusion

  I am most concerned with ensuring we have adequate traditional energy 
resources, because we will have to rely on them for the next several 
decades. An abundant, clean energy future is possible, but it is still 
many, many years away.
  But I want to note that this bill is balanced: it has important 
energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy incentives 
and requirements. We will have more solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, 
hydro, clean coal energy as a result of this legislation.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the conference report.

[[Page 18268]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it is truly sad that a Nation that produced 
the Apollo Moon Project today will produce something with the success 
of the Hindenberg.
  The only thing that can be guaranteed about this bill is that it will 
fail. It is guaranteed that it will fail to reduce our dependence on 
Saudi Arabian oil.
  According to the Department of Energy, our dependence will rise under 
this bill from 58 percent to 68 percent failure. It is guaranteed to 
fail to deal with global warming, and the reason is you took the money 
that should have gone to emerging high-tech industries that need the 
help, the Davids, and you gave 64 percent to the Goliaths of the oil 
and gas industry. Guaranteed failure.
  It is guaranteed to fail, to send our jobs to Japan because you took 
out of the bill the provision that would bring these new fuel-efficient 
cars to be manufactured in America where they should be. Guaranteed 
failure.
  The only success that this bill will have is an energetic fleecing of 
American taxpayers. And if you can find a reason that you can take 
money from your taxpayers and give to the most profitable business in 
America at $60 a barrel oil, good luck. I cannot explain it. I do not 
think you will be able to either.
  Vote against this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), one of the distinguished subcommittee chairmen 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill, and I want to 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the outstanding job 
he did as chairman of the conference committee. It was about the most 
fair and open process that I have seen, and I think it has contributed 
to the success of this report.
  We are long overdue for a good national energy policy. We need to 
increase fuel supply. We need to encourage conservation. We need to 
encourage the use of renewable fuels, and we need to increase the 
reliability of our electrical grid. This bill does all of that and much 
more.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 6 and 
urge all my colleagues to do the same. In addition, I want to commend 
Chairman Barton and Energy Subcommittee Chair Hall for their dedication 
and hard work in making this bill a reality.
  A good national energy policy needs to address the issue from many 
aspects. It should, I think, deal with increased supply, with 
conservation, and with increased use of renewable fuels. It should also 
deal with improvements in the delivery systems for energy, including 
the reliability of our electrical grid. This bill makes significant 
improvement in all of the areas, plus more.
  This bill is not perfect, but it steps our country in the right 
direction. Certainly, anyone of us could have written an energy bill 
that we liked, but getting it to the President's desk is another story. 
The worst type of legislation, in my opinion, is the kind you cannot 
get a majority to support.
  Like it or not, an energy has to be about understanding our past 
legacy, solidifying our present reality, and preparing for our future 
destiny. I believe this conference report achieves those three goals. 
Plenty will be said today about the many provisions contained in this 
conference report, I would only like to take a brief moment to address 
two of them that directly impact our nation's past, present, and future 
energy history: leaking underground storage tanks and state energy 
production tax credits.
  Regarding LUST, or the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program, I am 
pleased that H.R. 6 contains language to help states more aggressively 
tackle the problems of leaking fuel in their groundwater. Currently, 
the Federal government has collected gasoline taxes of over $2 billion 
to provide cleanup. In reality, however, not much more than the 
interest on yearly receipts is actually used. We must reverse this 
trend.
  H.R. 6 contains many new requirements that I believe will make our 
underground tank programs more effective and efficient and our 
environment safer and healthier. Specifically, this conference report 
requires at least 80 percent of all dollars appropriated from the LUST 
Trust Fund to be sent to the States for operation leaking underground 
tank programs. It provides increases in State funding from the LUST 
Trust Fund for States containing a larger number of tanks or whose 
leaking tanks present a greater threat to groundwater. H.R. 6 also 
requires onsite inspections of underground storage tanks every three 
(3) years after a brief period for the state to update its backlog. In 
addition, the conference report establishes operator-training programs, 
where they do not already exist, institutes a specific new funding 
category to cleanup tank-related releases of oxygenated fuel additives 
in gasoline, like MTBE, prohibits Federal facilities from exempting 
themselves from complying with all Federal, State, and local 
underground tank laws, and asks States to submit an annual inventory to 
the U.S. EPA detailing the number of regulated tanks in its state and 
which of those tanks are leaking. Finally, and most importantly, this 
legislation allows states to stop deliveries of fuel to non-compliant 
regulated tanks in order to achieve legal enforcement.
  These are all strong improvements that not only meet with the spirit, 
if not the letter of recommended by the General Accounting Office, but 
most of these same provisions have previously passed the House. I urge 
their support.
  Another item I feel worthy of my colleagues' support is a measure 
protecting our states' abilities to enact laws providing incentives for 
energy production. When we are trying to encourage energy production, 
we should not pit good environmental protection against the retention 
of good jobs. My state has opted for tough, expensive, new equipment 
standards on its coal-fired electricity plants and has coupled that 
with the encouragement of good paying coal jobs. This effort though is 
in jeopardy because the law is murky enough to make it subject to 
accusations of Commerce Clause violations. Removing this cloud of 
uncertainty will further contribute to our nation's energy security, 
environmental protection, and growing economy.
  H.R. 6 contains a section that mirrors legislation that I introduced 
clarifying that a state may provide a tax credit for in-state 
electricity production from coal technologies.
  Such a credit is considered to be a reasonable regulation of commerce 
in accordance with the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, 
further encouraging states to move forward and take advantage of their 
respective resources spurring new and cleaner energy production.
  I am happy we were able to provide greater protection for the Great 
Lakes.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, to Americans who are paying record prices 
for gasoline, do not look for any relief in this legislation. You would 
think when you pay record high prices for gasoline because of supply 
and demand that those who are receiving such high prices ought to have 
enough money to reinvest it to develop more energy.
  Well, what are we doing here? We are asking the taxpayers to give 
more money to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries in order to 
produce more energy domestically. For those who think that maybe at a 
time when we are dealing with a supply and demand problem that we also 
ought to reduce the demand, there is almost nothing in this 
legislation.
  In fact, the other body, that means the Senate, had a provision that 
would have called on the President to come up with some ideas to reduce 
the demand for energy and the waste of energy and waste of oil 
particularly, just the President to come up with some ideas. Well, that 
was forced out of the bill.
  We have nothing to make automobiles more fuel efficient, nothing to 
reduce the demand. For those who think perhaps we ought to look for 
alternative renewable fuels, well, the Senate had a provision on that 
issue. It was not a very strong one. That was struck from the bill.

[[Page 18269]]

  The Republican Party has always had a tension between those who 
believe in fiscal responsibility and reducing government spending and 
those who want to reward their friends. This bill reflects the 
Republican Party, and many Democrats', support for their goal to reward 
their friends in big business.
  Then the worst part of this bill, at a time when we are fighting in 
the Middle East, when we are asking our young men and women to risk 
their lives in part to protect our security from those who have been 
financed by oil imports into the United States and around the world, we 
are going to become even more dependent on importing more foreign oil.
  This legislation is more than just a lost opportunity; it is a bill 
that I do not think is worthy of our support.
  Now, the bill is not as bad as it could have been, but it is not 
nearly as good as it should be. The American people deserve much 
better. They deserve a visionary, bold energy policy that truly makes 
our country energy independent. And the bill is also a strike at 
environmental protection.
  There was nothing more pathetic than the colloquy a few minutes ago 
with some of my colleagues from Florida who were worried about the 
beginning of drilling off the shore of Florida as we in California have 
worried about that as well. And they asked the chairman of the full 
committee for assurances that he will continue to work with them if the 
State does not want to allow the offshore oil drilling off the coast of 
Florida as we do not want it done in California. And they were assured 
that, of course, they would continue to be worked with.
  Well, those same gentleman offered amendments, and I supported them, 
to say that we should not start down that road to drilling off the 
coast. And then they offered an amendment, which I supported, to say, 
if the State does not want drilling off the Continental Shelf, off that 
coast, to let the State opt out. That was defeated.
  Now what we have in that colloquy is we will have people continue to 
work with us.
  Well, we have taken the step towards letting the oil companies drill 
off the coast of our Nation. We have taken the step to open up more 
national lands that we wanted to protect to be developed by the oil 
companies. In another bill we will open up Alaska lands to further 
drilling.
  We cannot drill ourselves out of our energy problems. We are not 
going to drill ourselves out of the global climate problems. We have 
got to get a better energy bill than the one before us. I urge Members 
to vote against it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Resources.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  While I want to start off by congratulating the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the 
great work that went into putting this bill together, I would say this 
is a good bill. It is not a great bill. I think we started with a great 
bill in the House, but in the spirit of compromise in working with the 
other body, we were able to come up with a good bill that is finally 
going to be able to pass.
  There is a lot that we need to do to have energy independence in this 
country and to lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources. A lot 
of that we did not include in this bill. Unfortunately, ANWR is not in 
this bill. It increased domestic production. We do not go as far as we 
should have in being able to streamline the process to bring in more 
alternative energy and renewable energy. A lot of that we were not able 
to get in. But it is a good first step. It is a way to move forward.
  There are a lot of things that we were able to get into this bill 
that over a period of time will increase domestic production. It is a 
great start. It is a great way for us to begin to lessen our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  One of the things that is frustrating with all of the process is that 
a lot of my colleagues voted against every single increase, anything 
that had to do with increasing energy independence in this country. We 
need to continue to work on this.
  Again, I congratulate the chairman because I do believe this is a 
good bill.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this energy bill, here are a 
few numbers we might want to keep in mind: $7.4 billion. That was Exxon 
Mobil's income in the second quarter, an increase of 32 percent. Net 
profit at Shell rose 35 percent, going from $4 billion to $5.5 billion. 
BP's second-quarter profits soared by 29 percent, revenues were $5 
billion. ConocoPhillips' earnings up 33 percent.
  One more number: $14.5 billion. That is the total amount of taxpayer 
hand-outs to oil and gas companies in this bill, the same companies 
reporting very good profit margins. With oil at $60 a barrel, not $14, 
not $28, not $32, we are paying oil companies to execute their business 
plans. So American taxpayers, American consumers are being asked to pay 
twice, once at the pump and then again on April 15.
  The sad truth is that this conference report is a lost opportunity. 
There are some very, very good provisions in the bill, but instead we 
have missed an opportunity to present a comprehensive energy policy and 
filled it instead with gifts to Big Oil. We could have accomplished 
things on conservation, we could have accomplished things on renewable 
sources, but we chose to give $14 billion of taxpayer money away to 
companies to do their business plans. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for yielding me this 
time, and also the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), both of these gentlemen, for 
their leadership on the Energy Policy Act.
  As a conferee to the tax title on H.R. 6, this bill delivers a huge 
win for Michigan soybean growers by securing an extension of the 
Federal Biodiesel Tax Incentive through 2010, a program that many 
farmers in my district depend on. Biodiesel makes sense on every level, 
our environment, national security, reducing dependence on foreign oil, 
and it is certainly better for farmers in Michigan. The tax incentive 
is expected to increase demand for biodiesel, most often made from 
soybeans. And soybeans are Michigan's fourth largest commodity in terms 
of farm income, and by far the largest crop grown in mid-Michigan.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes legislation I 
have been working on that provides consumers with a tax credit for the 
purchase of hybrid advanced technology, lean-burn diesel, and 
alternative-fuel vehicles. This incentive will help reduce the amount 
consumers pay at the pump, lessen our dependence on traditional fossil 
fuels, and achieve cleaner air.
  This bill reflects a balance between oil and gas production and 
efficiency and conservation. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
important legislation.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for yielding me this time and for his 
leadership, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) of the 
subcommittee, but let me particularly offer appreciation to the 
chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full 
committee for the hard work and dedication that they have offered, and 
also the spirit of the conference, which was open and allowed the full 
debate on what has been an enormously difficult challenge.
  This Congress has been swimming the difficult tides of negotiations 
in an

[[Page 18270]]

effort to pass a comprehensive energy bill for a very long time, and I 
believe today that we have that comprehensive legislation. Always when 
we say comprehensive, we think perfect. It is not perfect. It is not 
the perfect storm. But it does give us a roadmap that we can follow.
  I happen to agree with the elimination of the ANWR provision and the 
elimination of the MTBE liability provision, but I do think there are 
enormous strides we have made in renewables. And I want to thank again 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) of the Committee on Science, of which I am a 
member. We did work on renewables. I am delighted that amendments that 
we had, and I offered, are in this legislation regarding biomass for 
minority farmers and ranchers and the utilization of fuel cells that 
will help the research on how we can be more energy-efficient.
  I am delighted to note that we will be working further on a 2-year 
study back to Congress for those areas offshore, Texas and Louisiana, 
where environmentally safe development is going on. Domestic 
development will now get a 2-year report from the Interior Department, 
which will give us a roadmap on how we can work.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation also contains building standards to 
ensure that more of our buildings are environmentally safe or energy-
efficient. So we have to have conservation as well as domestic 
development. As I indicated, we have some challenges in this 
legislation, but I do believe we have an effective roadmap.
  We also have some aspirations, and I look forward to working on 
developing a program to add geologists that can help us find good, safe 
energy resources, and I would hope my colleagues would vote ``aye'' for 
this very good roadmap for America.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say thank you to Energy and Commerce 
Chairman Mr. Barton, and Ranking Minority Member Mr. Dingell for there 
hard and dedicated work on this important conference report. For 
several Congresses now, we have been swimming the difficult tides of 
negations in an effort to pass a comprehensive energy bill that would 
be beneficial to all Americans. I would like to thank as well Mr. 
Boucher, Mr. Ralph Hall, Mr. Boehlert, and Mr. Bart Gordon.
  While this report may not be perfect, it at least provides for no 
drilling and development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. 
In addition, the report has no MTBE liability clause. Despite this 
fact, I think it is important to work towards providing some protection 
for the States, and I look forward to working with Mr. Barton and Mr. 
Dingell in this effort. Further, under the report, there are no EPA 
restrictions with respect to the Clean Air Act. In addition, EPA can 
still regulate diesel fuel and certain Enron contracts will now be 
governed by FERC.
  Let me also note that I was able to obtain the following provisions 
in the report:


                          BIOENEREGY LANGUAGE

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 
integrated bioenergy research and development programs, projects, and 
activities $49,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 05-09. This funding 
shall be used for the training and education targeted to minority and 
social disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.


                        OIL AND GAS 2 YEAR STUDY

  Under this provision, two years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, and at two-year intervals thereafter, the Secretary of the 
Interior, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
agencies, shall transmit to Congress a report assessing the contents of 
natural gas and oil deposits at existing drilling sites off the coasts 
of Texas and Louisiana.


                           BUILDING STANDARDS

  This section calls for an assessment whether high performance 
buildings are employing voluntary consensus standards and rating 
systems that are consistent current state of the art technology and 
research and development findings. High performance buildings have been 
defined as those that effectively integrate energy efficiency, 
durability, life-cycle performance, and occupant productivity. This 
study shall be agreed upon, in conjunction with the National Institute 
of Building Sciences, no later than 120 days after the enactment of the 
act. The results of this study will provide the groundwork for future 
research, if deemed necessary and useful, as well as recommendations on 
new performance standards. This standard is important because it 
focuses building-related standards directly and the building industry 
indirectly on the concept of whole buildings or high performance 
buildings. The goal is to take the knowledge we have accumulated 
through years of Federal research and development and make sure that it 
is reflected in a comprehensive set of standards that represent best 
practices and current knowledge. For instance, if we are building low 
income housing, we hope the builder would take into consideration 
safety of the inhabitants and how construction decisions will affect 
the tenants' monthly costs. If for a little higher construction cost, 
it is possible to cut monthly energy bills in half, then we have a 
winner.


             SECONDARY ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERY USE PROGRAM

  The act establishes a research, development, and demonstration 
program for the feasibility of using batteries in secondary 
applications, including utility and commercial power storage and power 
quality. The study will evaluate the performance, life cycle costs, and 
supporting infrastructure necessary to implement this technology. This 
is a good provision environmentally. If hybrids and other electric 
vehicles take off we are going to have a problem of what to do with all 
the batteries. This provision funded a series of research projects to 
look for uses for these batteries which are likely to outlast the 
vehicles, in utility applications and elsewhere.
  In closing let me note that I also sought to include a provision that 
was not included in the report. This provision would have required the 
Secretary of Energy to establish a program to encourage minority 
students to study the earth sciences and enter the field of geology in 
order to qualify for employment in the oil and gas and mineral 
industries. While this provision did not make the cut, I am dedicated 
to including this provision in an appropriate piece of legislation by 
the end of the fall session.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is socialism at its worst. The headline makers 
of capitalism: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco are reporting the 
biggest profits in the history of any industry in the history of the 
United States and bragging about it on the front pages of the 
newspapers of our country. They are bragging about it.
  Right now, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast that he would 
qualify for a subsidy in this bill as an energy source. That is how bad 
this bill is.
  This bill so fundamentally violates all principles of capitalism that 
Exxon-Mobil, that Chevron-Texaco would come to the American people's 
Social Security System, put up an oil rig, and start drilling into the 
savings of American taxpayers, because that is who will subsidize all 
of these giveaways.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to note that although we love the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) and his visuals, it is like the ``I Love Lucy'' reruns. We 
have seen them before.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Pickering), the vice chairman of the committee.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
legislation. It is a good step forward to increase our energy supplies, 
diversify our energy supplies, provide cleaner air, help our farmers, 
and strengthen our economy.
  I first want to commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton), who has done a tremendous job of leading us to 
a great accomplishment, along with the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). It is an honor to serve on the committee 
where we have had an open process, a bipartisan process, to reach an 
agreement to move our country forward.
  It is a bill that will give us clean coal, nuclear, new technologies 
for the future, fuel cell, hybrid, as well as increasing the production 
of our traditional fuels. It is a well-balanced bill, it is a well-
crafted bill, and I am proud to support it and urge all the Members to 
support.
  And to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), he 
has been a happy warrior. It is good to know that in that bastion of 
capitalism, Boston, that we do have a proponent for Adam Smith.
  Mr. Speaker, my very strong support of this bill.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I too reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 18271]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a troubling moment. If we were in 
the military, I think that we might be charged with dereliction of 
duty. The most important security issue that this Nation has to deal 
with is the issue of energy, doing things to decrease our dependence on 
foreign energy, particularly foreign oil. We are now importing about 60 
percent of the oil that we use on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. 
This bill does little to deal with that problem.
  Instead, what it does do is it gifts the oil industry with enormous 
amounts of tax concessions and tax breaks. The oil industry, of course, 
is now suffering from a very serious problem: They have more cash on 
hand than they know what to do with. They do not know what to do with 
all the money coming in from these high gasoline prices, high heating 
prices, and yet now we are going to dump a whole bunch more money on 
them.
  We should be doing something that looks forward. If this bill were 
before the Congress in 1955, some people might say it was a forward-
looking bill. But in 2005, it does nothing but look backward and does 
nothing to help our energy dependence and overall energy situation. I 
hope we defeat it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to make a request of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey). Could the gentleman yield me 1 minute of his time, if 
possible; or do you have your speakers all utilized?
  Mr. MARKEY. Well, I have three more speakers. Could the Chair tell me 
how much time is left on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the bill still have more 
time left than the opponents of the bill, and the time was divided 40 
minutes to 20 minutes. So what we have been trying to do, honestly, is 
just to harness our smaller number of minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
time I control, which I believe is 1\1/2\ minutes, have an additional 1 
minute added to that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. One minute to each side?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, no. I need 1 more minute from somewhere, 
Mr. Speaker. So if we cannot get it from the other side, I just ask 
unanimous consent to add 1 minute to the time I control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
has 1 additional minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, knowing that time is precious and that our 
colleagues from Florida have already engaged the gentleman from 
California, I would like to raise this question in a colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, as these discussions continue toward a plan that could 
affect future oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, can the 
gentleman assure the delegations from all the States that border the 
Gulf of Mexico that any proposed plan would equitably and fairly 
consider the interests of those States?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I pledge to the gentleman that as we move 
forward with a long-term solution, that the interests of all the States 
bordering the Gulf will be protected, and the gentleman will be part of 
those discussions.
  Mr. BONNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, one final question. Can 
the gentleman also ensure that the Governors and appropriate officials 
from those States will be included in those discussions?
  Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the answer is 
yes.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our committee chairman 
for the excellent work. In my district in Tennessee, our farmers are 
pleased that we are bringing this conference report to the floor. They 
understand affordable fuels, and they are looking forward to working 
alternative fuels. Our small business community is excited about 
available energy.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I think this sends a message that 
America, this Nation, this Congress, is serious about a comprehensive 
plan and is ready and willing to address the future needs of this 
Nation's energy supply.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, in this bill there are so many preposterous provisions, 
it is impossible to list them all. But amongst them is a provision 
which after 35 years strips Governors and mayors of an ability to block 
an LNG, a liquefied natural gas facility, from being built in the 
middle of a densely populated area. This photograph shows Boston. This 
is my district. This is where one of the facilities has already been 
built, but it was built with permission.
  Now post-9/11 with terrorists targeting sites with the highest 
potential harm to Americans, this bill blocks Governors, police, and 
fire departments from blocking facilities from going into densely 
populated areas. But the bill also allows the Pentagon, Secretary 
Rumsfeld, to protect against one of these being built next to a 
military facility. Imagine that, the Republicans will protect the 
Pentagon but not civilians in densely populated areas from an LNG 
catastrophe which could maim or kill tens of thousands of people.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is packed with royalty relief for big oil and 
gas companies, tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, loan 
guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America, even as they 
are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporations in the 
history of the United States.
  It is politically and morally wrong for the United States Congress to 
come to this floor to pass legislation which will take money from the 
American taxpayers to hand over to the corporations who are now 
charging $2.30, $2.40, $2.60 at the pump to American consumers and 
reporting the largest profits in history. If they need to do new 
research, they have the money in their own pockets. That is capitalism. 
If they want to do new drilling out in ultradeep areas of the oceans, 
they have the profits to do that.
  The American taxpayer should not be funding that drilling because, as 
American consumers, they are already paying for that drilling. The oil 
companies are saying publicly that they are making so much money they 
do not know what to do with all of the profits. But even as they say 
that publicly, they are coming here to the House floor, they are saying 
to the Members, we want to erect huge oil drills on top of the Social 
Security trust fund and drill $80 billion of subsidies out of American 
taxpayers' pockets and hand it over to the oil, the gas, the coal, the 
nuclear industries that are reporting the largest profits in history.
  It is a moral and political failure because it is what is not in this 
bill that is the important energy agenda for our country. Our country 
puts 70 percent of all of the oil that we consume in gasoline tanks. We 
only have 3 percent of

[[Page 18272]]

the oil reserves in the world. OPEC has 70 percent. That is our 
weakness. Our strength is that we are the technological giant of the 
world.
  There is nothing in this bill about improving the fuel economy 
standards for SUVs and automobiles. There is nothing in this bill that 
will mandate that electric utilities increase their use of renewable 
energy so we can break our dependence upon these sources of energy that 
weaken our foreign policy by getting us deeper into the Middle East, 
emitting more pollutants which cause more asthma, more breast cancer, 
more prostate cancer as the environment alters genes to increase 
disease in our society. None of that is addressed in this bill in 2005.
  If we could roll back the clock to 1905, this would be a very good 
bill. It would be about oil, gas and coal. It is 2005, however. We 
should be talking about the new agenda, the new technology agenda for 
our country. This bill is a political and a moral and a technological 
failure.
  In addition to draining revenues out of the taxpayers' pockets to 
subsidize the wealthiest industries, we ignore the technologies which 
could break our dependence on imported oil and could send a signal to 
OPEC which would drive down the price of oil which would help our 
country's national security. I urge a ``no'' vote on this historic 
failure.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member 
on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
I begin by commending my colleagues, all of them, for the work they 
did. I want to pay particular tribute to the staff which worked long 
and hard and did a superb job, and that is the staff on both sides of 
the aisle and at both ends of this building: Senate, House, Republicans 
and Democrats. I want to pay particular tribute to my friends who 
served as conferees, all of them, whether they signed the conference 
report or not.
  I want to pay particular tribute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton) for his outstanding leadership and for the fair and 
decent way in which he conducted the business of the conference. And I 
want to pay tribute to Senators Domenici and Bingaman who did such an 
outstanding job in making it possible for us to have the kind of 
negotiations which brought us here.
  I would observe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) ran the 
conference the way it used to be run, in an open, decent, and fair 
fashion; and I express to him my thanks for the way in which he 
conducted himself and the honorable and fine way in which he conducted 
the business of the conference in the House.
  My colleagues will remember I voted against the measure in April. It 
was my view at that time that it hurt consumers, taxpayers, and the 
environment. Consumer protections in electricity and natural gas 
markets now, however, will be strengthened, and taxpayers will no 
longer be on the hook for MTBE cleanups, and the environmental risk has 
been reduced. Environmental laws have been protected, and it is a much 
better piece of legislation.
  I repeat, the conference was kept as open as it could be because of 
the leadership of my friend and colleague, the chairman of the 
committee. Again, I repeat thanks for the outstanding work of the 
conferees and the staff.
  What does this bill do? First of all, it is a much more balanced and 
collective piece of legislation than that before. It may even be better 
than either the Senate or the House bill in almost all of the 
particulars. It begins to set forth a comprehensive and balanced 
approach to the development and the use of energy resources. And rather 
than important industries being encumbered with costly mandates, 
carrying unfortunate economic effects, it lets things work in the way 
that will achieve the purposes of this Congress.
  It is major progress in establishing reliability of the electric 
grid, incremental progress in efficiency standards on developing 
renewable energy sources, and potentially very significant progress for 
clean coal technologies and significant progress for energy research 
and development programs, including research in very deep water, 
something about which there has been some unjustified criticism raised 
lately.
  Some of my colleagues will be calling this a missed opportunity. My 
auto-worker constituents will be glad that we missed an opportunity to 
impose harsh fuel efficiency requirements on home-grown auto 
manufacturers. They already make many models that are very fuel 
efficient that American consumers can buy right now.
  Others of my colleagues will cite subsidies for traditional energy 
industries, and sometimes on this matter they are right. I tried, but 
failed, to reduce many of these. But we need to encourage development 
of multiple domestic sources of energy, and many of the subsidies in 
this bill will help us develop those sources; and I would remind my 
colleagues that Congress has not infrequently, indeed, many times in 
our history, provided economic incentives for the economic development 
of this country. We are a richer, better, stronger, and happier country 
for that reason.
  Are we overpaying some particulars? Probably. Would this be the bill 
I would have drawn had I begun with it? No. It is not a perfect bill, 
but it is a solid and a good beginning to developing an energy strategy 
for the 21st century. It is the best that can be constructed at this 
time. It has been done by honorable leadership of our chairman and 
members of the conference who worked so hard. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I call the body's attention to the quote above the 
podium from Daniel Webster that starts off: ``Let us develop the 
resources of our land.'' That is what this bill is all about.
  I do not recognize the bill that my friend from Massachusetts just 
talked about. I think America is a land of hope and opportunity. We are 
a land of can-do and optimism. America is not a land of fear. It is not 
a land where we want the government to tell us what to do and how to 
make choices.
  Our country is built on the premise that men and women, given the 
proper information, can make intelligent choices about what is best for 
them. This bill before us is based on that principle. We have strong 
environmental protection. We have strong protections against those that 
misuse the authorities, but this bill is based on the premise that we 
believe in private free market capitalism to develop the resources of 
this land in a cost-efficient fashion which benefits all of America. 
All of America.
  And there are numerous provisions in this bill to give incentives to 
renewable and clean energy resources. There are numerous provisions in 
this bill to increase the efficient use of those resources. But, yes, 
there are provisions in this bill that say it is okay to use clean 
coal; it is okay to build a new nuclear power plant in this country if 
we do it in the proper way with the proper permits and the proper 
inspections. And, yes, it is okay to build new LNG facilities to bring 
more natural gas into our great Nation if we need it and if it is done 
with the proper consultation with State, local, and Federal agencies.
  This is a very, very good bill. It is for America's future. Please 
vote ``yes'' for this bipartisan, bicameral, for-America bill.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the 
Domenici-Barton Energy Policy Act.
  I want to congratulate the House Conferees and thank them all for 
their hard work. I would like to especially recognize the efforts of 
the Chairman of the Conference, Mr. Barton and the Dean of the House, 
Mr. Dingell.
  Working together with their Senate counterparts, the House Conferees 
did what many said was impossible: complete the most comprehensive 
energy legislation in a generation in less than one month.
  Mr. Speaker, completing this job was important for our Nation. 
Americans have waited too long for this legislation to get finished. 
Americans need this legislation to lower their energy

[[Page 18273]]

costs, to drive economic growth and job creation and to promote greater 
energy independence.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is important to the Nation for a number of 
reasons.
  First, this bill addresses the burden that higher gasoline prices 
place on American consumers by reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
  This legislation encourages domestic production of oil by 
streamlining the permit process for new wells. It also promotes greater 
refining capacity so more gasoline will be on the market; and it 
increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the proliferation of 
boutique fuels.
  In addition, this bill helps us reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
by unleashing the power of the American farmer.
  This legislation includes a historic Renewable Fuel Standard, which 
will result in the doubling of the use of clean-burning and renewable 
ethanol. The production and use of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 
2012 will displace over 2 billion barrels of crude oil. America has a 
strategic reserve of motor fuels in the cornfields of Illinois, the 
fields of rice in California, and the cane fields of Florida and its 
time we tap it.
  This legislation also helps alleviate the hidden tax on American 
consumers, farmers, small businesses and manufacturers that comes in 
the form of higher natural gas prices. Increased natural gas prices 
have had an adverse impact on the American economy for too long. 
Several provisions in H.R. 6, including the streamlining of the LNG 
infrastructure permitting process and the inventory of America's off-
shore resources, are significant steps toward ensuring that our Nation 
has an adequate and affordable supply of natural gas.
  Additionally, this bill provides incentives for the development of 
clean energy technologies. Included in this legislation are tax credits 
and funds for the promotion and development of clean coal technologies. 
There are important incentives for the construction of new nuclear 
power plants, including the President's proposal for risk insurance to 
protect against the difficult and lengthy regulatory process of 
building a nuclear plant. And, this bill continues our Nation's 
commitment to producing electricity through the use of solar, 
geothermal and wind power.
  Another important component of this legislation enhances our 
electricity transmission infrastructure so it can meet the needs of our 
growing economy and help reduce the potential for future blackouts. 
This bill requires the adoption of strict transmission reliability 
standards and provides incentives for building additional transmission 
capacity. This bill also includes measures to update our Nation's 
electricity laws which will attract much-needed capital to this vital 
sector of our economy.
  However, this bill is not just about the creation of energy, it also 
contains several important provisions which will help conserve energy 
as well. This bill establishes new mandatory efficiency standards for 
federal buildings. And, it sets new standards and requires product 
labeling for battery chargers, commercial refrigerators, freezers and 
other household products.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about all the positive and 
important elements in this legislation. But I believe it's enough to 
say that we should support this bill and send it to the President 
because it's the right thing for the American people. They should 
expect to have an affordable, reliable, efficient, and environmentally 
sound supply of energy and this bill assures that they will.
  Again, let me congratulate Mr. Barton and all the House Conferees and 
urge my colleagues to support this historic legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the energy legislation 
that we are debating on the House floor today. As an energy scientist 
who spent nearly a decade working at one of the Nation's premiere 
alternative energy research labs I understand the complex and 
challenging nature of moving toward sustainable energy sources. Having 
served in this body for more than 6 years, I understand the 
difficulties in balancing competing interests to obtain a policy that 
benefits the Nation. Unfortunately, this bill does not strike a balance 
that provides a productive and clear vision that will lead this Nation 
towards energy independence.
  The Energy Policy Act does not provide any solutions to reaching 
energy independence or reducing our destruction of the world the next 
generation will inherit. This legislation provides subsidies to 
industries that produce environmentally damaging and finite energy 
sources instead of investing in research that would allow our children 
to be the first generation to realize a nation that is powered largely 
by renewable energy sources. It is a bill that is designed to meet the 
needs of special interests instead of demanding higher standards for 
corporate America.
  Instead of investing in cleaner, long term solutions, this bill 
brushes aside our Nation's future energy needs in order to provide 
billions of taxpayer dollars to the oil, gas and other traditional 
energy industries to promote short-term, polluting energy sources. 
These tax incentives should not be going to industries that are 
thriving, but should be used to invest in our future by increasing 
research funding for alternative energy sources such as wind energy, 
fuel cells and fusion.
  The domination of special interests means much more than wealthy 
industries receiving tax breaks that will make them even richer. It 
means that more of our children will suffer from asthma because we did 
not demand stricter regulations on polluters. It means that children 
across this Nation will drink contaminated water because we chose to 
insulate an industry from being held accountable for their negligent 
actions. It means that our children will not have the opportunity to 
take their children to view the natural treasures that inspired them in 
their youth because we needed to open up these lands to allow oil and 
gas companies to expand their operations.
  We will never drill our way to independence domestically, yet we have 
an energy bill that is stuck in the past that yet again seeks to drill 
a little deeper, in more places. This legislation includes a permanent 
authorization of an oil and gas leasing program in the National 
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska without preserving any key wilderness and 
cultural areas in this 23 million acre region. Further, this bill 
authorizes an inventory of the oil and gas resources underneath the 
Outer Continental Shelf, OCS--a first step towards reversing the two 
decade moratorium that prohibits oil and gas drilling on the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  This bill also fails to protect American consumers. I am frustrated 
that an amendment I offered with Representative Nancy Johnson to ensure 
that consumers receive accurate information regarding the fuel 
efficiency of automobiles was gutted because it was characterized as an 
attempt to change CAFE standards. This is a consumer protection issue 
and not an attack on the automobile industry that vigorously opposed 
our legislation. Americans do care how efficient their car is, and it 
is a failure of our government that we cannot provide consumers that 
walk into a showroom to pick out a new car with a sticker in the window 
that reflects accurate information on the car's city and highway gas 
mileage.
  Before I conclude my remarks I would like to recognize that there are 
some good points in this bill. For example, the bill provides 
continuing support for the highly successful Energy Star program at the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, which 
promotes energy efficiency in buildings and products. The bill also 
authorizes annual 10 percent increases in research on energy efficiency 
and renewable energy. Additionally, it includes a few creative ways to 
reduce the consumption of energy, such as Representative Markey's 
provision to extend daylight savings time by one month.
  We need a responsible and sustainable approach to addressing our 
Nation's energy needs. On behalf of the residents of the 12th District, 
I pledge to continue to work toward the development of a balanced, 
comprehensive energy plan--one that finds environmentally friendly, 
sustainable ways to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and slow the 
degradation of our planet.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about the 
conference report to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I believe that the 
passage of the conference report for H.R. 6 is a momentous event. This 
conference report is a culmination of many years of hard work and 
negotiating on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers of 
Congress. Our country is finally adopting a national energy policy, an 
action that is long, long overdue.
  The conference report for H.R. 6 includes numerous important measures 
to promote the use of clean and renewable fuels and emerging energy 
technologies, improves the delivery and reliability of electricity 
transmission, requires energy conservation and mandates efficiency 
standards.
  With all of these great provisions in H.R. 6, I am disappointed that 
the conference report includes a provision to conduct an inventory of 
all oil and gas resources beneath all waters of the Outer Continental 
Shelf. I have constantly fought to protect Florida's coast from 
offshore oil drilling. I have joined my colleagues in the Florida 
delegation, Republicans and Democrats, in defeating numerous attempts 
to weaken the drilling moratorium on the OCS.
  To Floridians, an inventory of oil resources means drilling. To 
Floridians, there are too many uncertainties of the impact that seismic 
testing will have on sensitive ecosystems and marine life. To 
Floridians, anything but a full and permanent moratorium of drilling 
off our shores means doom.

[[Page 18274]]

  I support identifying alternative domestic sources of energy. In our 
uncertain world, the United States must look closer to home for its 
energy needs. However, the shores of Florida are too close to home. 
Florida is a unique ecological gem in our country and the world, and 
cannot be tampered with. It is also important to note that Florida's 
leading industry is tourism. If inventorying would lead to drilling, it 
would inevitably lead to a downturn in tourism to Florida.
  While I support the vast majority of H.R. 6, I must stand with my 
colleagues from Florida in voting against final passage. I remain 
committed to working with Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell and 
my Florida colleagues in a bipartisan manner as we move forward, to 
ensure that the OCS drilling moratorium continues to protect Florida.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
legislation.
  I applaud the work of the conferees and their willingness to find 
compromise and drop the most controversial and anti-environmental 
provisions, particularly the authorization to drill in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge and the liability exemption for the petroleum 
industry to finance the clean up of drinking water contaminated with 
MTBE.
  I think some of the electricity and utility provisions are more 
balanced and appropriate.
  But, I am still disappointed that this bill falls far short of what 
this institution and our nation must undertake to remove our dependency 
on oil and fossil fuels. You would think that in the two years since we 
last attempted to pass energy legislation, we would have a different 
bill. World oil supplies have tightened, the price of oil has shot up 
to over $60 a barrel, and many of our foreign sources of oil, the 
Middle East, in particular, but Africa and Venezuela as well, have 
grown even less stable.
  What we are considering today is an improvement over what the House 
passed earlier this year, but absent the two controversial provisions I 
mentioned it's still practically the same bill from last Congress. It 
even has the same bill number, H.R. 6, as last time, as if it were 
photocopied with complete indifference to the disturbing news and 
international developments that have recently come to pass.
  We are an oil-based economy, with about 60 percent of our oil 
imported from abroad. While coal, uranium and some renewable sources 
such as wind and hydro comprise a majority of the fuel used to generate 
electricity, most of our economy is dependent or exclusively reliant on 
oil, from fertilizers for agriculture, plastics for manufacturing to 
gasoline and diesel for transportation.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a crash course in developing cleaner alternative 
sources of energy and a Herculean effort to reduce our present level of 
oil consumption. Nowhere are we demanding greater fuel efficiency in 
our vehicles. This conference agreement actually extends a loophole 
that allows automobile manufacturers an exemption from today's weaker 
fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles that use ethanol. During the 
next 10 years, this loophole alone is estimated to increase our oil 
consumption by 15 billion gallons of gasoline. Had we improved vehicle 
fuel efficiency through higher Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency, CAFE, 
standards, 27 miles for light trucks and 33 for cars back in the early 
1990s, we could have displaced all the oil we imported from OPEC today. 
This bill is shamefully silent on that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is deficient and heads our country in the 
wrong direction. It rushes us closer to the day oil shortages occur and 
sets us backward on our ability to address it.
  As a nation, we are blessed with a land of immense beauty and natural 
wealth and a people of great ingenuity and resourcefulness capable of 
overcoming vast challenges and obstacles. It is unfortunate that so 
much of this legislation has the effect of exploiting the former and 
reflects such little faith in the latter.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 and thank Chairman Joe Barton and my colleagues for 
their hard work on this much needed legislation. The war on terror has 
renewed our interest as a nation in reducing our dependence on energy 
imports and in diversifying our domestic energy sector. Through the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, we can do just that through increased 
utilization of our coal supply; of nuclear energy; of renewable fuels 
such as hydrogen and of increased energy efficiency and conservation.
  In southwest Pennsylvania, no matter what we do or where we go, we 
depend on coal. Our computers, the companies we work for, our homes and 
schools, are powered by coal. The stigma on the burning of coal has 
always been its air emissions, but now major developments in clean coal 
technology will expand the benefits of coal in environmentally friendly 
ways. Establishing a comprehensive national energy policy which 
includes clean coal technology is the first step in accomplishing this 
task.
  There is more than 250 years worth of coal energy in the ground of 
southwestern Pennsylvania. It generates more than 55 percent of 
Pennsylvania's electricity and more than half of the nation's. Coal is 
America's most abundant energy resource, but to take full advantage of 
it we need to reduce emissions. Many plants have turned towards the use 
of natural gas, which in turn has led to less supply, tripling the 
price in the past decade. The increases in natural gas prices has cost 
90,000 jobs in the chemical industry alone and contributed to three 
million manufacturing job losses.
  The Energy Policy Act allows for more than $250 million per year for 
the Department of Energy's fossil program for existing and new coal-
based research and development. It calls for a national center for 
clean power and energy research as well as coal mining research efforts 
to reduce contaminants in mined coal. Research is to be focused on 
innovations at existing plants, new advanced gasification and combined 
cycle plants, advanced combustion systems and turbines as well as fuel-
related research.
  There is $1.8 billion included for the development of new clean coal 
technologies to increase the demand for coal and create 62,000 jobs 
across the country, from building new plants to mining coal. This 
includes 10,000 high-paying research jobs in the fields of math, 
engineering, physics, and science. Each job in the coal industry 
created in Pennsylvania will generate seven supporting jobs such as 
barge operators and train engineers.
  An additional $2 billion included in the Energy Policy Act encourages 
the use of new equipment to better clean the air and higher-efficiency 
power generation machinery, making the use of coal more environmentally 
friendly. This will lead to increased jobs for virtually every industry 
in the region.
  Pennsylvania is already at the center of the country's coal 
production thanks to the hardest-working, most dedicated workers in the 
world. Clean coal technology will allow the region to prosper and meet 
America's energy needs for years to come.
  The bill also boosts production of clean natural gas to help 
alleviate soaring prices for the environmentally friendly fuel. 
Specifically, the bill breaks the bureaucratic logjam that has stymied 
work on approximately 40 liquefied natural gas facilities nationwide.
  Nuclear power is a vital part of the energy mix in this country and 
in our State. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will encourage this clean-
burning energy source by promoting the construction of new nuclear 
reactors. Building a nuclear reactor creates between 2,000 and 3,000 
jobs. Running a nuclear reactor creates an estimated 1,500 jobs. These 
are highly trained trade or professional positions that pay well.
  The bill provides $2.7 billion for nuclear energy research and 
infrastructure support, including development of safe uses for spent 
nuclear fuel and advanced reactor designs, support for university 
nuclear science and engineering programs and establishment of a program 
dedicated to increasing the safety and security of nuclear power 
plants. Westinghouse here in Pittsburgh is a major developer of nuclear 
technology, and our universities are active in this area.
  To meet rising energy demands in the future, we need continued 
advances in energy efficiency and conservation--helping to reduce our 
demand on foreign supply and stimulating economic growth. Included in 
the Energy Policy Act are provisions that will save Pennsylvania 
consumers and businesses money spent on energy, so they can invest, 
spend and grow the economy and improve our standard of living.
  These include a package of energy efficiency, renewable energy and 
state energy measure that are key steps forward toward enhancing our 
natural economic drive to use existing energy supplies more 
efficiently.
  The bill authorizes more than $2 billion for a hydrogen fuel-cell 
program with a goal of launching hydrogen fuel-cell cars into the 
marketplace by 2020. Hydrogen fuel cells for stationary source use are 
being developed right here in Pittsburgh.
  Financial incentives in the bill will spur renewable energy companies 
to produce electricity from renewable and alternative fuels such as 
wind, solar, biomass and waste coal. Funding is provided for energy 
efficiency programs for public buildings, including schools and 
hospitals, and increased fuel efficiency requirements for federal 
vehicles.
  The Energy Policy Act expands the Energy Star program, a government-
industry partnership for promoting energy-efficient products; 
establishes new energy efficiency standards

[[Page 18275]]

for many new commercial and consumer products that use large amount of 
energy--providing sufficient savings on monthly energy costs; and 
dramatically increases funding for the Low Income Housing Assistance 
Program, low-income weatherization programs, and state energy programs 
to improve energy efficiency.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 recognizes that renewable fuels can be 
made from a variety of materials, including the animal fats and other 
biomass materials collected by renderers. Renderers collect and process 
materials generated from the livestock industry, as well as used 
cooking oils from restaurants. Rendering is environmentally beneficial 
because the reuse of these materials prevents pollution of surface and 
ground waters that might result from their improper disposal or 
management. Rendered materials are now used to make detergents, fabric 
softeners, perfumes, cosmetics, candles, lubricants, paints, plastics 
and biodiesel.
  Moreover, these materials can create renewable-based fuels and 
feedstocks that in turn reduce the amount of fossil fuel material 
needed to produce a gallon of motor vehicle fuel. For example, animal 
fats and other biomass materials can be introduced as renewable fuel 
feedstocks into the refinery processes, solely or in combination with 
other conventional fossil fuel derived components, in order to produce 
renewable fuels. This process will yield renewable fuel or renewable 
fuel blending components commensurate with the percentage of renewable 
material introduced to the process.
  In establishing the renewable fuel provisions of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005, Congress has intended that these provisions allow the 
broadest use of renewable materials to produce fuels and renewable fuel 
blending components in order that we might reduce our use of virgin 
oil, increase our fuel diversity and decrease our dependence on foreign 
crude oil. Accordingly, implementing regulations should consider these 
types of uses and establish compliance mechanisms to account for the 
applicable volumes within the renewable fuel programs.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Barton and all the Conferees for 
their hard work on this vital legislation and urge its quick passage.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a grave threat to America today is our 
addiction to oil, and voting for the Energy Bill is like franchising 
drug abuse.
  Republicans have written a bill that favors corporate America over 
Main Street America. This bill does not, and will not, address any of 
the critical energy issues that threaten our environment, our economy 
and our middle class.
  Sixty dollars for a barrel oil that breaks the backs and the budgets 
of Mainstream Americans is a scandal. And this legislation serves as a 
full, free and absolute pardon to those who failed to put America's 
interests ahead of special interests.
  Oil company profits have been driven obscenely high on the backs of 
American consumers, and this legislation paves an express lane for Big 
Oil to drive the American consumer into the ground.
  At a time when America needs energy vision, Republicans have given us 
their philosophy: leave no special interest behind.
  Big Oil--step right up and fill the tank with the hard earned money 
of America's middle class.
  Big Coal--step right up and pardon that coughing in the background; 
it's only Americans choking from new pollution spewing into the 
atmosphere.
  This legislation does not address the economic peril Americans face 
every time they fill up at the pump, but it will give over $14 billions 
in tax breaks and subsidies to big Republican donors.
  This energy legislation represents thinking as old as the dinosaurs, 
and just as extinct. America needs an energy vision and a commitment to 
the rapid development of sustainable, renewable, energy resources.
  The opportunities and technologies exist today to start us on a road 
to energy freedom and independence. But we are not going to get there 
with a bill that encourages predatory dinosaurs like Big Oil to roam 
the earth and destroy everything and everyone in their path.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against an energy legislation that was 
written as if we lived in 2005--B.C.''
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the energy bill on 
the floor today. As our dependence on foreign oil increases, this plan 
fails to directly confront our nation's future energy challenges. It 
provides a false sense of security to the American people that this 
Congress is serious about addressing our future energy needs and the 
skyrocketing cost of oil.
  Some of my colleagues have lauded this bill, saying that it is the 
most comprehensive energy bill to be brought to the House floor in 30 
to 40 years. While the bill may be wide-ranging, it provides no 
solutions, no tools, and no blueprint for reducing our demand for 
foreign oil or for giving families and small business owners relief at 
the gas pump.
  Over 58 percent of the oil used to transport our nation's food from 
farms to consumers, heat our homes, and get us to work or school, is 
imported from overseas. Even the Department of Energy acknowledged that 
this bill will do next-to-nothing to lower gasoline prices or reduce 
America's demand for foreign oil. In fact, the Energy Information 
Administration, EIA, predicts our dependence on foreign oil will 
increase to more than 68 percent by 2005 regardless of whether this 
energy bill is signed into law or not.
  If this bill does become law, Congress will have missed a monumental 
opportunity to make real progress in reducing our demand for foreign 
oil Even small efforts in this direction were rejected. For example, 
during conference negotiations, Republican conferees voted against a 
modest Senate proposal that would have required the President to reduce 
U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2015.
  This energy bill also fails to raise the efficiency standards for 
automobiles, which have not been increased in decades. Instead of 
challenging our nation's talented engineers to build safe cars, trucks 
and SUVs that can travel further on less gasoline, Republican conferees 
wilted to lobbyists who do not seem to believe in the American worker's 
``can do'' ingenuity anymore.
  Instead of diversifying the portfolio of the energy resources we 
depend on to power our nation, a Senate provision that would have 
required electric utilities to generate 10 percent of its electricity 
from renewable sources was dropped during conference. A handful of 
States, including my home State of Wisconsin, have adopted similar 
targets and have had tremendous success. The use of renewables in these 
States has significantly increased while their benefits and popularity 
among consumers have proved the initial ``doomsday'' predictions by 
electric utilities wrong.
  Rather than make Herculean efforts to bring renewable technologies to 
the market and expand their use, the bill provides oil and gas 
companies billions of dollars to subsidize their exploration and 
production efforts. To me, these taxpayer subsidies do not make much 
sense when the oil industry already expects to have 40 percent higher 
profits this year, with Exxon Mobil, BP, and Royal Dutch/Shell 
expecting to post a combined profit of more than $60 billion.
  Despite the many misplaced priorities in this bill, I was pleased a 
number of provisions were included in this conference report that will 
benefit our Nation as well as Wisconsin. For example, conferees made 
the wise decision to expand our use of renewable fuels, such as 
ethanol, by 7.5 million gallons over 10 years. This is good for the 
environment, good for our Nation's energy future, and good for 
America's farmers. We could have done much more, but this is an 
important step in the right direction.
  I believe now is the time to make substantial investments in 
improving technologies that generate more electricity from fewer 
resources and developing alternatives that won't pollute our 
environment. We must start today to ensure our Nation's energy security 
in the future.
  I also strongly support the electricity reliability language in the 
bill that will help shore up the procedures and rules that govern the 
flow of electricity across State borders. While the reliability 
standards are long overdue, I believe they will help keep the lights on 
and ensure that a blackout similar to the one in 2003 does not happen 
again.
  I also support the provision that will permanently ban oil and gas 
drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are among our Nation's 
most valuable natural treasures and I believe they should not be 
threatened by potential oil spills or have their beauty or recreational 
appeal tainted by massive oil rigs.
  Furthermore, I applaud conferees for not including a provision that 
would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and natural 
gas production and exploration. Destroying one of America's most 
pristine wilderness areas for a few months of oil is not the long-term 
answer to reducing our-dependence on foreign nations for oil. Energy 
bill conferees also deserve credit for not including a safe harbor 
provision that would have shielded the manufacturers of the gasoline 
additive, MTBE, from lawsuits. This measure would have made taxpayers 
shoulder the burden of cleaning up hundreds of contaminated water 
supply systems across the country at a cost of more than $30 million.

[[Page 18276]]

  Despite these positive provisions, Congress has had almost five years 
to get its priorities right, to put the American people before special 
interests, and to put forward a plan that curbs our demand for foreign 
oil. It is now clear that Congress has failed, and that this bill 
represents a lost opportunity. This House should not pass a bill that 
provides a false sense of security to the American people while failing 
to truly address the energy challenges our Nation will face in the 
future. I urge my colleagues to vote against this energy bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
conference report.
  As I've said before here on the floor of the House, America needs an 
energy policy. We need an energy policy that actually brings down 
record high gas prices, protects our environment, and truly reduces our 
dependence on foreign oil by encouraging energy efficiency and the use 
of renewable sources of energy. Unfortunately, this bill fails on all 
fronts.
  We are heavily reliant on oil to power our cars and fuel our 
lifestyle, and 58 percent of the oil we consume is imported, often from 
politically volatile regions of the world. Promoting conservation and 
raising efficiency standards must play an important role in overcoming 
our dependence on oil and reducing our reliance on imports. Today, more 
than two-thirds of the oil consumed in the United States is used for 
transportation, mostly for cars and light trucks. Increasing fuel 
efficiency would lower pressures on oil prices, enhance our national 
security, curb air pollution, and reduce the emission of greenhouse 
gases, which cause global warming. And yet, instead of truly addressing 
energy conservation and fuel efficiency, H.R. 6 hands out huge new 
subsidies to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries.
  This energy bill also harms our environment and threatens our 
drinking water by rolling back important safeguards in the Clean Water 
Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, protections which are critical in 
keeping our waterways clean and safe. Under this bill, in fact, fluid 
laced with toxic chemicals and contaminants could actually be injected 
into oil and gas wells that penetrate underground water sources, 
risking contamination of our drinking water. I absolutely can not vote 
for an energy bill that might put the drinking water of my constituents 
at risk.
  I don't think any of us believe that this energy bill is the last 
word on energy policy, and much remains to be done to meet the great 
challenges that lie before us. Until more is done, I oppose this 
conference report, and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in objection to H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act conference report under consideration by the full 
House of Representatives and the Senate this week. While the conference 
report removes many of the worst provisions from the original House 
bill, this final version does little to reduce our nation's dependence 
on foreign oil, to decrease rising oil and gas prices, to increase our 
national security, to protect our environment, or to encourage 
investment in renewable energy sources. In addition, provisions in the 
report could directly impact my constituents by excluding local voices 
and local input during hydropower relicensing, which is what is taking 
place at the Niagara Power Project, just outside my district, right 
now.
  While I applaud the hard work of my colleagues in removing many of 
the most egregious aspects of the bill--reducing the giveaways to oil 
and gas companies, removing the MTBE provision and excluding drilling 
in the Great Lakes and Alaska--I am most concerned about how this bill 
will affect my constituents in Western New York where we are currently 
embattled in a fight with the New York Power Authority over its bad 
faith negotiations to mitigate the environmental, aesthetic and 
economic effects of storage and use of NYPA equipment essential to the 
hydropower dam on Buffalo's waterfront, the Niagara River, Lake Erie 
and Western New York's economic recovery.
  Buried deep in the conference report is language that will make it 
easier for hydropower project owners to squash local concerns and 
second-guess federal agency licensing conditions by countering with 
their own favorable alternatives. Under current law, applications to 
operate a hydroelectric facility are reviewed by federal environmental 
agencies. Those agencies, with input from concerned citizens, states 
and local governments, can place conditions on the approval of a 
license, requiring the applicant to provide specified protections for 
water and wildlife. The conference report allows applicants and other 
interested parties to offer alternatives to those government 
conditions, but those alternatives must either cost less to implement 
or increase electricity production. Federal agencies are then forced to 
accept those alternatives. This means dam owners can control their own 
licenses. While the language in the conference report is an improvement 
from the original House language, this would, in effect, give 
hydropower dam owners special rights to influence federal licensing 
decisions and reduce the state, local government and concerned citizen 
roles in the decision-making process. That is a step backwards from 
current law that I am not willing to take. In Buffalo we need more 
local control, not less.
  In additional direct impact on my constituents, this bill will do 
nothing to reduce sky high oil and gas prices. The Administration's own 
Energy Information Administration acknowledges that with this bill, 
``changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are 
negligible.'' They even find that gasoline prices under this 
legislation would increase by between three and eight cents per gallon.
  Clearly, this measure is a short sighted political move aimed at 
winning friends and contributors instead of what it should be--a long 
term plan to ease the energy burden on consumers and make the United 
States safer and energy independent--and that's a shame.
  As a member of the Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, I know all too well how energy needs 
shape our foreign policy and our national security agenda. Our 
desperate need for oil pits us against China and India. It forces us 
into a position of funding governments and world leaders who funnel our 
payments to groups that are currently planning to do us harm. And our 
need for oil from foreign markets forces our brave Armed Service men 
and women into harm's way to protect our vital interests.
  But oil needn't be the lead driver in our national security policy. 
We have resources at home like water, wind and sun that, with research 
and investment, can produce cleaner energy sources and cheaper 
alternatives, can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and can create 
jobs and spur spending here at home. Just outside my district, with the 
water heaving over the Niagara Falls, we convert water into electricity 
every day. It's a shame this bill doesn't do enough for similar options 
around the country.
  All too often I hear from my constituents in Western New York that 
too many low-income families, disabled individuals and senior citizens 
are not able to afford their energy costs. My district is particularly 
hard hit with extreme cold temperatures, which cause more families to 
face unaffordable heating costs and put families and seniors at a 
higher risk of life-threatening illness or death if their homes are too 
cold in the winter or too hot in the summer.
  Because of its detrimental effects on the people in my district I 
will vote against the Energy Policy Act conference report today. It 
ignores my constituents' needs and only adds to their troubles by 
reducing local decision making, increasing oil and gas prices, 
increased their tax burden, creating more pollution, and leaving them 
less secure from foreign threats. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the energy bill conference report before us 
today is horrible for the consumer, horrible for the environment, and 
makes America neither energy independent nor more secure as a nation.
  This conference report does too little to promote renewable energy 
and energy efficiency. By promoting the interests of corporations over 
consumers, and pollution over conservation, this bill makes the United 
States much less secure.
  America's continued reliance on Middle East oil for the majority of 
our energy needs is the single largest factor that contributes to our 
lack of national security. This conference report fails to adequately 
address our reliance on foreign oil.
  Worst of all, the conference report includes a huge provision, 
inserted in the middle of the night after the conference finished its 
work, to give $1.5 billion to big oil companies from Texas.
  It would be wrong for anyone who cares about our nation's well-being, 
or the fight against extremism in the Middle East, to vote for this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Science 
Committee Chairman Sherry Boehlert and Energy Subcommittee Chair Judy 
Biggert for their hard work, leadership and willingness to work with 
the minority in developing Title IX, the Research and Development title 
of this bill.
  I would also like to call attention to a few provisions of the bill 
that I believe really illustrate the importance of utilizing our wide 
base of domestic science and technology resources in industry, the 
D.O.E. National Laboratories, universities and colleges, and training 
and trade organizations.
  Section 924(b) directs the Secretary of Energy to initiate a program 
in the field of advanced small-scale portable power technologies. 
Institutions such as Tennessee Tech

[[Page 18277]]

University, Vanderbilt University and the University of Missouri are 
conducting valuable work with fuel cells, advanced batteries, 
microturbines, nanotechnology, and thermo-electricity. Advances in 
these fields will have limitless applications both military and 
civilian.
  Section 932(e) establishes a bio-diesel demonstration program for a 
new breed of fuels that have the capability of replacing most or all of 
the petroleum diesel component in current bio-diesel mixtures with a 
non-petroleum product. Middle Tennessee State University has generation 
units that it could make available to test these new fuels at various 
levels of concentration, and I hope that DOE would consider MTSU as an 
appropriate site to conduct these tests.
  Section 933 establishes a university program to demonstrate the 
feasibility of operating a hydrogen-powered vehicle by utilizing an 
innovative suite of off-the-shelf components in current automotive 
technologies. Research is being done today at Middle Tennessee State 
University that would show the practicality of running current engine 
technology off purely sun and water as the power sources.
  Section 983 addresses the critical issue of declining U.S. 
competencies in math, science and engineering by awarding a grant to a 
Southeastern consortium of research universities for partnerships with 
teacher training colleges and National Laboratories to design, 
implement and disseminate K-16 less on plans in math and science. One 
of the country's premier organizations in this field is the Oak Ridge 
Associated Universities (ORAU). By utilizing the expert resources in 
teacher training institutions such as Middle Tennessee State 
University, I believe ORAU can play a major role in stemming the 
growing gap in our global technological competitiveness.
  Section 1010 seeks to recognize the contributions smaller colleges 
and universities can make in research and development activities and 
encourage this through greater collaboration with the traditional 
research institutions. By identifying the colleges and universities 
according to the Carnegie Classification system, this amendment defines 
accurately the categories of research institutions that will benefit 
most from collaboration.
  Section 1104 instructs the Secretary to support expanding ongoing 
activities of the National Center for Energy Management and Building 
Technologies. This important organization brings the Sheet Metal and 
Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, the Sheet Metal 
Workers, universities, and the national labs together to make sure that 
technology and skills are transferred in the heating and cooling 
industry. In my opinion, logical opportunities for expansion involve 
additional universities that are near other national laboratories like 
Oak Ridge and to initiate research, technology transfer, and training 
for related technologies such as ground source heat pumps.
  Sec. 404 instructs the Secretary to award grants to institutions of 
higher education that have substantial experience in coal research and 
show the greatest potential for advancing clean coal technologies. 
Schools such as Southern Illinois University, the University of 
Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 
and State University and the Center for Electric Power at Tennessee 
Technological University have programs dedicated to the cost-effective 
and environmentally-responsible usage of our most plentiful domestic 
energy source.
  I would also like to highlight the contributions of several of our 
members to very key components of Title IX:
  Mr. Honda's commitment to the progress of the Next Generation 
Lighting Initiative, the Stanford Linear Accelerator, and the Joint 
Genomics Institute, Nanotechnology research and development, and his 
work with Mr. Larson on transit bus demonstrations of fuel cells.
  Mrs. Woolsey and Mr. Udall's continued dedication to deploying clean, 
newable and efficient energy technologies in transportation, buildings 
and electric power production.
  Mr. Costello's diligence in ensuring that utilization of our vast 
domestic coal resources only gets cleaner and more efficient and 
universities play a major role in these efforts.
  Mrs. Lofgren's vision in support of domestic fusion energy research 
and international fusion projects that may ultimately harness the power 
of the sun and give the world an inexhaustible source of energy.
  Mr. Lincoln Davis' work to ensure good science continues at Oak Ridge 
National Lab, particularly in the field of High-End Computing.
  Mr. Miller's efforts to establish a nationwide network of Advanced 
Energy Technology Transfer Centers, to get technologies off the 
laboratory shelf and into the marketplace.
  Sheila Jackson Lee's work in electric vehicle battery recycling, 
building standards, offshore oil and gas resources and most 
importantly, her tireless commitment to science at minority-serving 
institutions.
  John Larson's continued support for the development and utilization 
of fuel cell technologies that will carry us into a future hydrogen 
economy.
  The Science Committee contributed virtually all of Title 9, the 
research and development title of this bill. While Research and 
Development programs typically have not been controversial, I believe 
the Title 9 provisions represent a major part of this legislation. The 
R&D programs authorized in this bill will provide the means to produce 
the energy that this country will need for the future.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Subtitle B of Title XV 
of the conference report to H.R. 6, the Domenici-Barton Energy Policy 
Act of 2005. This section makes many important policy changes that aim 
to increase funding of and direct additional care for underground 
storage tanks and the leaks of regulated substances that sometimes come 
from them. As the Chairman of the authorizing Subcommittee for the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act, I have been involved in oversight of the 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank program for the last five years and 
have personally taken an interest in the writing of this particular 
Subtitle. I, therefore, want to make some brief comments about the 
provisions in Subtitle B and the reasons and intent behind them.


            Section 1522. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

  This section is the longest surviving section of several Congresses 
of work on underground storage tank legislation, starting with an 
effort to amend this program in the 104th Congress to get more money 
out of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund and down to the 
states to ensure better compliance with the law. Specifically, this 
section amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to direct the Administrator 
of EPA to distribute to States at least 80 percent of the funds from 
the Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund for use in paying the 
reasonable costs for State enforcement efforts pertaining to 
underground storage tanks. This limit of 80 percent should be viewed as 
the floor and not an allocation ceiling. The Committee understands that 
past congressional legislation that twice passed the House without a 
single vote in opposition contained an 85 percent limit, but in 
deference to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its 
Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST), the limit in the bill was 
lowered to 80 percent to allow some flexibilty for the Agency to meet 
its historical allocation to the States without statutorily binding 
OUST. In addition, this section establishes guidelines for revisions to 
the allocation process that the Administrator may revise after 
consulting with state agencies responsible for overseeing corrective 
action for releases from underground storage tanks.
  This section also contains language that flows from Section 122(g) of 
the comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9622(g)) and mimics the intent of the Small 
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Public 
Law 107-118). In seeking a cost recovery action, the Administrator (or 
State) shall consider the owner or operator's ability to pay by 
weighing the ability of the owner or operator to pay all corrective 
action costs and still maintain its basic business operations, 
including consideration of the overall financial condition of the owner 
or operator and demonstrable constraints on the ability of the owner or 
operator to raise revenues. In requesting consideration under these 
provisions, the owner or operator shall promptly provide the 
Administrator (or State) with all relevant information needed to 
determine the ability to pay corrective action costs and allow for 
alternative payment methods as may be necessary or appropriate, if the 
Administrator (or state) determines that the owner or operator cannot 
pay all or a portion of the costs in a lump sum payment. Owners and 
operators are to be held fully accountable for misrepresentation or 
fraud and the Administrator (or State) is authorized to seek full 
recovery in the case of fraud or misrepresentation of all the costs for 
the corrective action without consideration of the factors in this 
section.
  This section addresses two other items. First, it prohibits the EPA 
Administrator from providing LUST Trust Fund dollars to states that 
have permanently diverted their underground storage tank cleanup funds 
to non-emergent items that are completely unrelated to underground 
storage tank programs. There has been concern that some states were 
using their underground storage tank funds to cover the costs of other 
state funding priorities. This provision is meant to apply 
prospectively and address the most egregious examples of this practice. 
This section also allows the EPA to withdraw approval of a State 
underground storage tank program that has been

[[Page 18278]]

chronically abusive in the way it has run its program. These provisions 
are not in any way meant to insist on the withdrawal of approval for 
stats that are making best efforts to comply with Federal standards 
that provide for State approval, but have had some trouble. The 
language clearly instructs the EPA Administrator and OUST to work with 
States, give States leniency whenever needed, and give States every 
effort to make their programs work. EPA must have the ability to compel 
``bad actors'' into compliance, but not to use these authorities as a 
weapon against States making ``good faith'' efforts.


         Section 1523. Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks

  On-site inspections are one of the best ways to ensure routine 
compliance with LUST program rules. This section prescribes inspection 
requirements for underground storage tanks. These provisions, which are 
consistent with the core recommendations made by the General Accounting 
Office, or GAO, (now the Government Accountability Office) requires, 
for the first time ever, that every state conduct routine inspections 
of every underground storage tank (UST) every three years. The language 
in paragraph (c)(1) of Section 1523 (a) reflects two concerns. In order 
to give States time to pass the appropriate state laws and hire the 
necessary personnel, which is essential since only 19 states currently 
operate UST programs that could meet this three year guideline, the 
provisions in this section allow the states no more than an initial 2-
year ``grace period'' to start their inspection programs. During this 
2-year period, the provisions establish that states must eliminate 
their backlog of un-inspected underground tank systems that have been 
out of compliance with federal regulations that became effective in 
1998.
  This language reflects Congress's clear intent that States eliminate 
any backlog in the inspection of and enforcement against non-compliant 
tanks. This provision is intended to apply to those LUST systems in 
operation on or before December 22, 1998. The legislation also 
recognizes that States may not be in the best position to transition to 
immediate implementation of the requirements in this section. In fact, 
in a June 2000 Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the 
Underground Storage Tank Program, EPA stated that a significant number 
of new inspectors would need to be hired or retained and trained by EPA 
or the States to make meaningful inspections occur. In addition, EPA 
estimated a total annual cost of hiring an inspector at $70,000 and 
$1,000 for one month of training.
  Next, this section establishes a mandatory requirement that States 
conduct on-site inspections of every underground storage tank located 
within their State that is regulated under Subtitle I of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act at least once every three (3) years. To aid the 
States in this effort, the legislation allows the States to contract 
with third-party inspectors to carry out these inspections.
  Finally, since 62 percent of the States either do not conduct regular 
inspections or inspect their USTs between every 4 to 10 years, the 
legislation allows a State to petition the U.S. EPA for a one-time 
grant of a one-year extension to the first mandatory three (3) year 
inspection cycle in order to meet the requirement of inspecting all 
tanks. While the language contemplates giving States every opportunity 
to do meaningful inspections and comply with all legal requirements, 
any grant of leniency must be demonstrated to EPA by the State and EPA 
is not required to provide the extra year. In addition, pursuant to 
section 9008 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991g), nothing 
in these provisions prevents a State that wants to have a more frequent 
inspection regime of their underground storage tanks from having them.


                    Section 1524. Operator Training

  In its May 2001 report and subsequent testimony before the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, GAO stated that 
one of the main causes of leaks from underground storage tanks was poor 
operation of the tank system by owners and operators. In its 
recommendations to Congress, GAO suggested instituting operator-
training programs as an important prevention tool against future leaks. 
This section instructs the Administrator, with the cooperation of the 
States, to publish guidelines for use by the States that specify 
training requirements for persons having primary responsibility for on-
site operation and maintenance of underground storage tanks, persons 
having daily on-site responsibility for the operation and maintenance 
of underground storage tanks, and daily on-site employees having 
primary responsibility for addressing emergencies presented by a spill 
or release from an underground storage tank system. This comprehensive 
list reflects the concern that responsible persons are not only in a 
position to prevent leaks, but also to respond quickly once they occur. 
Of note, the language is clear that in designing these operator 
training requirements, EPA should make every effort to differentiate 
the types of training between those persons, like underground storage 
tank owners and regional managers, who require more comprehensive and 
involved training and those persons, such as convenience store or 
gasoline station clerks whose job turnover is high and responsibilities 
are low, where training obligations should be more basic and minimally 
intensive in nature.


        Section 1525. Remediation from Oxygenated Fuel Additives

  While nothing in law prevents EPA from using existing Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank Trust Funds to remediate fuel that contains 
oxygenated additives, this section recognizes the growing concern about 
groundwater and drinking water contamination by oxygenated fuel 
additives from leaking underground storage tanks. Specifically, this 
section creates a new dedicated authorization of Federal LUST Trust 
fund dollars to be used to carry out corrective actions with respect to 
releases of a fuel containing an oxygenated fuel additive that presents 
a threat to human health or welfare or the environment. Oxygenated fuel 
additives include, but are not limited to, methyl tertiary butyl ether, 
ethanol, ethyl tertiary butyl ether, TAME, and DIPE.


     Section 1526. Release Prevention, Compliance, and Enforcement

  This section authorizes funds to be used to conduct inspections, 
issue orders, or bring actions under this subtitle by a State to carry 
out State regulations pertaining to underground storage tanks under 
this subtitle, or by the Administrator, for tanks regulated under this 
subtitle. Since many persons are concerned that appropriate protective 
measures are being taken by the States in regards to all underground 
storage tank systems, whether public or private, this section 
establishes right-to-know reporting requirements for all government-
owned tanks. In these reports, the States submit to the Administrator a 
list identifying the location and owner of each underground storage 
tank that is not in compliance with section 9003 and specifies the date 
of the last inspection and describes the actions that have been and 
will be taken to ensure compliance of the underground storage tank with 
this subtitle. The Administrator shall require each State that receives 
Federal funds to make available to the public a record of underground 
storage tanks under this subtitle. The Administrator shall prescribe, 
after consultation with the States, the best manner and form to make 
available and maintain this record, considering the most practical and 
efficient means to maintain its intended purpose. This section also 
establishes incentives for performance measures that may be taken into 
consideration in determining the terms of a civil penalty under Section 
9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.


                   Section 1527. Delivery Prohibition

  Testimony received by the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous 
Materials has stated that the use of a delivery prohibition, by States, 
against habitually non-compliant tanks has been the most effective 
enforcement tool in motivating underground storage tank owners and 
operators into resolving outstanding problems with their systems. This 
section of the bill makes it unlawful, two (2) years after the date of 
enactment, to deliver, deposit into, or accept a regulated substance 
into an underground storage tank at a facility that has been identified 
as ineligible for fuel delivery or deposit. EPA is required to work 
with States and underground storage tank owners and product delivery 
industries before prescribing minimum guidelines for how this delivery 
prohibition is supposed to work. In prescribing the minimum guidelines, 
the EPA Administrator is required to address how to determine which 
tanks are ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a 
regulated substance under the LUST program; the mechanisms for 
identifying which underground tanks are ineligible for delivery, 
deposit, or acceptance of a regulated substance under the LUST program; 
the process for reclassifying previously ineligible underground storage 
tanks as eligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a regulated 
substance under the LUST program; one or more processes for giving 
notice to product delivery industries and to underground storage tank 
owners and operators that an underground storage tank or underground 
storage tank system is ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance 
of a regulated substance under the LUST program; and a process for 
figuring out which areas might not be subject to the delivery 
prohibition. This language is intended to give the EPA Administrator 
the flexibility to work with and help states that otherwise meet these 
criteria and have successfully operated delivery prohibition programs 
to continue to do so. In addition, this section requires States

[[Page 18279]]

without such delivery prohibition programs to meet these minimum 
criteria in order to receive funding.


                    Section 1528. Federal Facilities

  In 1992, Congress enacted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act to 
send a clear signal to Federal departments and agencies that they 
should not hide behind claims of sovereign immunity in order to avoid 
compliance with State and local environmental requirements. This 
section further reinforces the point that the Federal government must 
be as protective of the environment and responsive to public health 
laws at all levels of government as private citizens are. This section 
also revises requirements for Federal agencies with jurisdiction over 
underground storage tanks or systems, or engaged in any activity that 
may result in specified actions regarding such tanks or regulated 
substances related to them, including release response activities. 
Specifically, these agencies need to report to Congress on their 
compliance with UST requirements. This section also waives claims of 
sovereign immunity with respect to substantive or procedural State 
requirements. Finally, this section continues the President's authority 
to exempt any Federal tank from compliance with such requirements if 
the exemption is in the ``paramount interests of the United States.''


                  Section 1529. Tanks on Tribal Lands

  Recognizing the unique governmental relationship between the Federal 
government and sovereign tribal governments and their tribal lands, 
this section seeks to protect persons on these lands in similar ways to 
protection requirements in other States. Specifically, this section 
instructs the Administrator, in coordination with Indian tribes, to 
develop and implement a strategy, giving priority to releases that 
present the greatest threat to human health or the environment, to 
implement and take necessary corrective actions in response to releases 
from leaking underground storage tanks on tribal lands, and to report 
within two (2) years to Congress on the status of these programs on 
tribal lands.


        Section 1530. Additional Measures to Protect Groundwater

  More recently, information has become public that has identified the 
causes of leaks from underground storage tanks and suggested ways to 
creatively address these sources of leaks. One of these sources, a 
draft study, which covered 22 States, was released by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in August 2004 showed that of all 
new releases at new and upgraded UST sites, 54 percent were due to 
improper installation and physical or mechanical damage to UST parts 
and 12 percent were due to corrosion. Though EPA has not used its 
existing authority to administratively require secondary containment, 
some States (22) have implemented their own laws requiring this feature 
or tertiary containment. On top of some technical feasibility 
questions, barriers to some States enactment of secondary containment 
requirements include costs, since installing a secondarily contained 
system costs about $27,000-$32,420 or about 20 percent more than an 
installed, single walled tank system. Additional concerns are impacts 
on businesses with underground storage tanks because it renders an 
underground tank system out of service for 21 days.
  To address the helpfulness of this groundwater protection device as 
well as allow states to contemplate other matters raised by groundwater 
professionals and the petroleum equipment industry, this section allows 
a State to choose between either secondary containment requirements or 
installer and manufacturer requirements. If a State chooses secondary 
containment, then any new installation of an underground storage tank 
that is within 1,000 feet of community water system or potable water 
well must be secondarily contained. In addition, any tank or piping 
that is replaced on an underground storage tank that is within 1,000 
feet of a community water system or potable water well must be 
secondarily contained. Repairs to an underground storage tank system, 
as defined by EPA, do not trigger any secondary containment 
requirements and gasoline dispensers must also be addressed as part of 
the secondary containment strategy. If a State chooses installer and 
manufacturer certification as well as financial responsibility 
requirements, this section requires tank installers and manufacturers 
to follow professional guidelines for tank products or comply with one 
of the new statutory requirements that are similar to subsections (d) 
and (e) of 40 CFR 280.20. In addition, this section requires installers 
and manufacturers maintain evidence of financial assurance to help pay 
corrective action costs that are directly relatable to a faulty tank 
part or installation. The lone exception to the financial assurance 
requirement is where a tank owner or operator, who already maintains 
evidence of financial responsibility under Section 9003 of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act, is also the installer or manufacturer of the 
underground storage tank. With respect to the financial responsibility 
option, the conference report references the existing financial 
responsibility authority contained in section 9003(d) of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act that applies to owners and operators. It is the 
intent of this legislation that all of the authorities and 
flexibilities contained in 9003(d) would apply to underground storage 
tank installers and manufacturers in the same way that they currently 
apply to owners and operators of underground storage tanks.


             Section 1531. Authorization of Appropriations

  In order to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates, this section 
authorizes appropriations for FY 2005 through 2009. Specifically, this 
section authorizes $50 million per fiscal year from the General 
Treasury to cover administrative expenses and those areas in the bill 
that are not specifically authorized to receive direct appropriations 
from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. In addition, from 
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, $1 billion (or $200 
million per year) is authorized for cleanups of releases from leaking 
underground storage tanks, $1 billion (or $200 million per year) is 
authorized for the cleanup of releases of oxygenated fuel additives 
from leaking underground storage tanks, $500 million (or $100 million 
per year) for on-site inspections and enforcement, and $275 million (or 
$55 million per year) for delivery prohibition and State tank program 
disclosure and operations improvements. Of further note, the reference 
to Section 9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code in the newly created 
section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act should be considered to 
mean Section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code in order to reflect 
changes made to Title XIII, Subtitle F, Section 1362 that creates a new 
Section 6430 at the end of Subchapter B of Chapter 65--amending Section 
9508(c) by striking the existing subsection 9508(c)(2) and renumbering 
subsection 9508(c)(1) as subsection 9508(c).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this energy bill. 
The American people need and deserve an energy policy that will reduce 
energy prices, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce 
pollution. This bill is not the answer.
  While it is an improvement over the House bill, it is not good enough 
for the American people. Several of the most egregious provisions have 
been removed, thanks to the tireless work of the Democratic Members who 
served on the conference committee. And I thank them for their 
contribution.
  We kept the heat on the MTBE give-away and the massive roll-back of 
the Clean Air Act until they were withdrawn. We fought to protect the 
Arctic National Refuge, making it too hot for the Republicans to 
handle--forcing them to withdraw from the energy bill their plan to 
drill in the pristine wilderness.
  Nonetheless, like its predecessors, this energy bill is a missed 
opportunity. It does not address the issues that the American people 
care about--lower gas prices at the pump, a healthy environment, safe 
water to drink, and cleaner air. This bill is still anti-taxpayer, 
anti-environment, and anti-consumer.
  It is anti-taxpayer with billions of dollars in gifts to the oil, 
gas, and nuclear industries, including a new production tax credit for 
eight years. There are some subsidies for emerging clean energy 
technologies, such as renewable energy and hybrid vehicles, but not 
nearly enough, especially compared to the give-away for the established 
energy industries.
  Then there is the special gift for the gentleman from Texas, the 
House Majority Leader. After the gavel went down on the energy bill 
conference, a provision was included that sets up a special $1.5 
billion fund for the oil industry to conduct research on how to find 
oil, and a leading contender to host the consortium is Sugar Land, 
Texas. Consortium members, including Halliburton and Marathon Oil, can 
receive awards from the fund.
  There you have it: big oil, Halliburton, and Tom DeLay, all in one 
neat symbolic package.
  At a time when Congress is trying to scrape together enough Federal 
funding for veterans' health care, Social Security, education, 
Medicare, and Medicaid, why are we giving away taxpayer money hand over 
fist to well-established, profitable companies?
  Some of these energy companies are not simply profitable. The major 
oil companies are raking in such enormous profits that they do not know 
what to do with it all. The top three oil companies (Exxon Mobil, BP, 
and Royal Dutch Shell) are expected to post a new record profit of $60 
billion this year, while this quarter's profits are 40 percent better 
than last year.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is anti-environmental. It authorizes an oil 
and gas inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf, opening the door to 
oil and gas drilling in the protected areas off

[[Page 18280]]

our shores. The House has more than once soundly voted to reject this 
proposal. Coastal Members from both sides of the aisle know that our 
beautiful beaches, shores and fisheries are priceless and should not be 
put at risk. But despite our best efforts, Republicans insisted on 
keeping the inventory in this bill.
  The energy bill carves out exemptions for the oil and gas industry 
from the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act. It is loaded 
with provisions that override local and State authority in favor of 
Federal authority. It gives the Federal Government the right to condemn 
land to build electric power lines. It gives the Federal Government the 
right to decide where gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas 
facilities will be built. It weakens States' rights to protect their 
own coastlines from oil and gas exploration.
  Last but not least, the energy bill is anti-consumer. It fails to 
protect consumers from high gasoline prices. It fails to adequately 
protect consumers from price manipulations and future Enrons. And it 
fails to protect our national security by reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  Let there be no mistake. This bill is still anti-taxpayer, anti-
environment, and anti-consumer. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the conference report.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate 
Chairman Barton on his leadership in driving this legislation to the 
finish line.
  This comprehensive energy bill is a vision. H.R. 6 aims to boost 
domestic sources of energy, increase the use of clean renewable power, 
and diversify the nation's energy portfolio. This legislation will not 
completely solve our dependence on foreign oil overnight, but it puts 
in place a number of tools to do just that. I applaud the increase of 
the use of bio-fuels, especially ethanol, to 7.5 billion gallons by 
2012. This is important to our Nebraska farmers as well as a benefit 
for all Americans.
  The repel of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) will 
allow for increased private investment in US. electricity production 
such as wind farms and other non-fossil energy sources. This is a smart 
move.
  I am pleased to see several provisions that I authorized in this bill 
including a new provision to speed up the siting of new plants for 
Liquefied Natural Gas. LNG accounts for 90 percent of fertilizer 
production costs. Increased access to LNG will help our nation's 
farmers. I also author a new program to provide incentives for the use 
of stationary fuels cells and strong increases in renewable fuel 
efforts. This legislation provides $4 billion over five years to speed 
the arrival of affordable, viable hydrogen fuel cells; create a new 
Department of Energy program to encourage the use of on-site energy 
production from fuel cells and micro-turbines; and allow the use of 
livestock methane as an eligible source under the renewable energy fund 
for public power.
  And finally this legislation includes tax incentive, which I 
authored, for increased use of energy efficient products for the home 
and office. This is a solid bill, much needed by our Nation. This 
energy bill is an opportunity to ensure a better future. The bill 
addresses present day energy problems while looking beyond the horizon 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will encourage 
development of our Nation's diverse energy resources, reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of energy, and strengthen the country's 
energy and economic security.
  The U.S. has been at the top of the economic food chain for most of 
recent history. One of the major reasons we've been so successful is 
that we recognized early-on that the foundation for economic growth is 
built with energy and minerals. But our continued success fostered 
apathy and disinterest in the energy and mineral resources that created 
this success. In the past, U.S. concerns about energy and minerals 
supplies simply centered on the general issue of availability of these 
resources for our national purposes. It did not matter if those 
resources were located in the U.S. or in another country.
  Over the years, inadequate domestic energy and minerals policies 
created a regulatory system that discouraged domestic investment. 
Capital began flowing overseas into resources-rich countries where 
regulatory and investment climates in the energy and minerals sectors 
were more attractive. As a result, the U.S. produced less and became 
increasingly reliant on foreign sources of energy and minerals. Last 
year, the U.S. imported more than 63% of its oil, placing our energy 
needs increasingly at the mercy of foreign governments. Yet the U.S. 
government continues the cycle of tolerating irresponsible energy and 
mineral policies, thereby continuing to discourage investment in 
domestic energy and mineral production. The end result is that the U.S. 
continues to send money and jobs overseas and becomes more dependent on 
foreign sources for our energy needs.
  Crude oil prices have hit nominal all-time highs, and natural gas 
prices are sustaining elevated price levels for the foreseeable future. 
Additionally, U.S. trade deficit in energy is more than 25 percent of 
our total balance of payments, and continues to increase at a rapid 
rate.
  Today, our problems are two-told. First, the issue of access to 
domestic resources is still a significant hurdle to bolstering U.S. 
energy and mineral security. Although industry's technological 
advancements in exploration and production have sustained some minimal 
growth, policies preventing access to the responsible development of 
these resources still remain. Second, the U.S. is facing a global 
resources future where we are more dependent than ever on foreign 
sources of energy and minerals while at the same time no longer 
``guaranteed'' to be the major recipient of energy and minerals from 
our traditional foreign suppliers.
  In fact, emerging economies such as China and India are forever 
altering the global commodities markets, where demand by these 
countries for resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, minerals and 
metals, is outpacing expectations.
  The road to a better quality of life starts with increased use of 
energy and mineral commodities. Economic growth rates in China and 
India have surged as have their demands for energy and mineral 
resources.
  The old ``Free World'' versus ``Evil Empire'' dichotomy of energy and 
minerals availability has been replaced by a rough-and-tumble 
marketplace for commodities. In that global marketplace, long-running 
declines in prices for energy and mineral resources have been reversed; 
and, in the case of mineral commodities, a three decade long decline 
has been reversed almost overnight.
  Our energy and mineral supply strategy for the long-term begins with 
enacting a comprehensive national energy policy that encourages 
diversity of fuel use, increased domestic production, and self-
sufficiency.
  Among other critically important provisions in this bill, my 
committee has jurisdiction over Department of Interior (DOI) and U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) programs that administer the domestic energy and 
mineral programs for federal lands and the outer continental shelf.
  Using FY 2005 budget estimates, the energy and mineral programs of 
the DOI cost around $850 million per year.
  But these programs will generate about $10.1 billion for the U.S. 
taxpayer each year, primarily from energy development and production.
  Outside of the Internal Revenue Service, these are the only programs 
that provide significant revenue to the feral treasury.
  But generation of revenue is not the only benefit of domestic energy 
production on federal lands. Production of energy domestically keeps 
money at home, creates jobs and reduces our dependence on foreign 
energy imports.
  Among other important issues, the provisions in the conference report 
before us today: encourage increased domestic production of renewable 
energy from resources like geothermal, wind, hydropower and biomass, to 
name but a few; encourage domestic production of traditional energy 
sources such as coal, oil and natural gas by streamlining the federal 
permitting process sand providing potential incentives for technically 
challenging oil and natural gas from the deep depths of the outer 
continental shelf; encourage domestic development of the more than 2 
Trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the Western U.S.; promote a 
``good Samaritan'' pilot project to help clean-up the more than 57,000 
``orphan'' wells that have become wards of the federal government; 
promote sequestration of carbon dioxide as a means of enhancing oil and 
natural gas production from old and existing wells; maximize federal 
coal production and returns to the U.S. treasury; seek to establish 
North American energy independence by launching a commission to review 
and make recommendations on how Canada, the U.S., and Mexico can 
coordinate their energy policies to reach energy independence within 20 
years; seek extensive review of the impact and challenges to U.S. 
interests created by the Chinese government's aggressive pursuit of 
global energy assets; and promote tribal energy development through 
self-governance of energy resources in Indian Country.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a good first step in the effort to 
lower energy prices and reduce our dependence on foreign energy. But 
there is no question that we must do more to increase domestic 
production. As demand across the globe continues to skyrocket, it is 
imperative for America to produce more American energy. Doing so will 
create jobs,

[[Page 18281]]

grow our economy and strengthen national security.
  Tapping the abundant energy resources we have in America will become 
more and more necessary as we go forward. All we need is the political 
will in Congress to let an American workforce get these supplies here 
at home.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the energy 
conference report before us. While the reliability standards and 
efficiency incentives in this legislation are not without merit, the 
entire package is tragically little more than a case study in missed 
opportunities and misplaced priorities.
  First, and most astonishingly, this bill does nothing to wean the 
United States from its dependence on foreign oil. In failing to make 
meaningful progress on energy independence, the conferees scrapped a 
measure designed to reduce our oil consumption by a million barrels a 
day by 2015 and refused to make long overdue improvements in our 
corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standards for cars. The 
predictable result will be less security for the Nation and continued 
pricing pressure at the pump.
  Second, rather than making robust investments in the renewable and 
advanced efficiency technologies of the future, this legislation 
lavishes billions of dollars on the polluting industries of the past. 
Particularly during this period of record profits, does anyone really 
believe taxpayers need to be giving oil and gas companies another tax 
break? The conferees' decision to abandon the renewable portfolio 
standard called for in the Senate bill is a serious mistake, and I 
regret that a forward-looking alternative called the New Apollo Energy 
Project I championed with Representatives Jay Inslee and Rush Holt was 
blocked from receiving consideration on the House floor earlier this 
year.
  Finally, this conference report turns back the clock on decades of 
hard-fought, bipartisan environmental protection. The Clean Water Act, 
Safe Drinking Water Act and National Environmental Protection Act are 
all undermined, while State authority over siting decisions for 
liquefied natural gas importation terminals is preempted. Additionally, 
the legislation abdicates all responsibility for the most looming 
ecological challenge of our time: climate change. Senate language 
calling for carbon caps to combat global warming was stripped from the 
final bill, and an amendment I offered with Representatives Wayne 
Gilchrest and John Olver to take the modest step of establishing a 
national greenhouse gas registry was quashed in April by the House 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation goes further where it shouldn't--and 
not nearly far enough where it should. It is content to see the world 
through the rear view mirror of a parked SUV while the rest of the 
world is flying down the road in hybrids passing us by. At the dawn of 
the 21st century, the United States deserves an energy policy worthy of 
its people and of the historic leadership we have always provided on 
the world stage. This is not that energy policy. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  H.R. 6 is a truly balanced bill that will ensure the infrastructure 
necessary to meet energy needs in the United States through future 
decades, reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil, making us safer 
at home, and create thousands of new jobs for American workers. This 
was accomplished, in large part, by the inclusion of several important 
energy tax incentives.
  Along with investments in renewable and clean energy incentives and 
domestic oil and gas production, H.R. 6 makes a significant commitment 
to coal. As my colleagues know, coal produces 51 percent of our 
Nation's electricity and many experts estimate that number will grow in 
the coming years.
  H.R. 6 includes a 7-year recovery period for new investments in 
pollution control facilities installed in coal-fired electric 
generation plants. The shorter recovery period will allow companies to 
make it easier to comply with new EPA regulations.
  For the first time we are making a real commitment to investing in 
clean coal technologies. The bill provides more than $1.6 billion in 
tax credits to fund IGCC and advanced clean coal projects.
  It is estimated that we have a 250-year supply of coal. H.R. 6 
ensures that this source continues to be a part of our Nation's energy 
policy and today we make a real commitment to ensure that it is more 
efficient and cleaner.
  I would like to personally thank my chairman, Bill Thomas, and his 
staff for their hard work on the energy tax incentives package. 
Throughout the last 5 years, the Ways and Means Committee has been the 
genesis of many massive social and economic reforms including several 
important tax relief bills, a Medicare and prescription drug plan, and 
a critical trade agreement. H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is 
yet another major accomplishment under Chairman Thomas's leadership.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 
6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 conference report. In particular, I 
want to thank the conferees for including a provision that will 
establish the National Priority Project Designation. This national 
award program, modeled after the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award Act, 
would promote and recognize large sustainable design building and 
renewable energy projects. In April, I sponsored the National Priority 
Project proposal as an amendment to the Energy Policy Act, which the 
House adopted by voice vote. The Senate adopted a similar amendment, 
also by voice vote, to its version of energy legislation in June. The 
Solar Energy Industries Association and the American Wind Energy 
Association have both endorsed this legislation.
  This proposal establishes four categories of designations: wind and 
biomass energy generation projects; solar photovoltaic and fuel cell 
energy generation projects; energy efficient building and renewable 
energy projects; and ``first-in-class'' projects. The legislation sets 
minimum renewable energy generation thresholds for wind, biomass, 
solar, fuel cell and building projects. Energy efficient and renewable 
energy building projects must meet additional criteria to be considered 
for designation, including: compliance with third-party certification 
standards; comprehensive integration of renewable energy and energy 
efficient features; and the use of at least 50 percent renewable energy 
overall.
  The DestiNY USA project, located in my congressional district, will 
likely apply for consideration for designation under this program. 
DestiNY USA is designed as the largest fossil fuel free building 
project in the world, with plans to deploy up to 600 megawatts of 
renewable energy generation capacity. It will employ the entire 
spectrum of renewable energy generation sources, including solar, wind, 
biomass, geothermal and micro-hydroelectric. DestiNY is just one 
example of the type of innovative, high technology projects that could 
qualify for designation. By providing an additional incentive for 
creativity and a commitment to renewable energy, the National Priority 
Project designation will help meet the goal of assuring ``secure, 
affordable and reliable energy.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference report on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. One of the 
provisions in this bill is something I've been working on for years and 
clarifies the depreciation period for natural gas gathering lines is 
appropriately 7 years. I appreciate Chairman Thomas's work on this 
provision for the years he has been the Chairman of the committee.
  Further, I am glad to see that the conferees on the tax title of the 
bill were able to reach a balance between incentives for production of 
oil and gas and other energy production with energy efficiency 
incentives and conservation incentives. I support this bill and commend 
the conferees on their hard work.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, after some late nights and a lot of hard 
work, I am pleased we have a conference report on the energy bill 
today. The House of Representatives has passed energy legislation five 
times, only to have the bills die. Keeping the lights on should not be 
a partisan issue. Filling up a gas tank should not be a partisan issue.
  Today we are finally voting to send this comprehensive plan to the 
President's desk. With gas prices soaring, I want to thank Chairman Joe 
Barton for his hard work on this much needed legislation and for 
working with me to include a provision in this bill to curb the 
production of boutique fuel blends and address this issue head-on.
  The current gasoline supply includes specially formulated boutique 
fuels which are required by law in certain communities.
  When supplies are limited, gas prices rise quickly--sometimes 
overnight. For example: Missourians can fill their gas tanks up in 
Springfield and drive 3\1/2\ hours to St. Louis. When they get there, 
they'll be filling their tanks up with a completely different type of 
gasoline. But if St. Louis ever runs short on their boutique fuel, gas 
stations there can't sell what consumers could buy back in Springfield.
  This conference report caps the number of these special fuel blends 
and allows communities faced with a shortage due to unforeseen 
circumstances, such as a refinery fire, a waiver to use conventional 
gasoline.
  This plan relies on simple economics: If we create a larger market 
for a greater amount of gasoline, we'll help drive prices down.
  This proposal moves the country one step closer to lowering the sky-
high price of gas for consumers.

[[Page 18282]]


  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Conference, I 
would like to clarify a point regarding section 1233, ``Native Load''. 
It is my understanding that section 1233 does not affect the 
Commission's authority under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power 
Act to ensure that rates are just and reasonable, and not unduly 
discriminatory or preferential.


                            refund authority

  As Chairman of the Conference, I would also like to clarify a point 
regarding section 1286, ``Refund Authority''. This section provides the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with authority to order refunds 
from overcharges on sales by large municipal utilities.
  I understand the phrase ``organized markets'', and possibly other 
related words following that phrase, may be ambiguous. I believe the 
FERC should carefully consider the purposes of this section when 
interpreting those words. That purpose is to protect all consumers from 
exorbitant electricity prices, regardless of whether the seller is a 
fully regulated public utility or, in the case of this provision, a 
publicly owned and only partially regulated utility. The impact and the 
injury from the exorbitant price is equally injurious and equally in 
need of redress.
  Therefore, I urge the Commission to give the words in question real 
meaning and to note that the Congress could have chosen other words, 
such as auction market or ISO or RTO managed market, to convey a more 
narrow and specific scope.


                              ceiling fans

  As Chairman of the Conference, I want to address a drafting error in 
Section 135, ``Energy Conservation Standards for Additional Products.'' 
An incorrect section mistakenly included starts on page 101, line 14 
and ends on page 102, line 4. Sentence (v)(l) was not agreed to and 
should be removed later in a technical correction. Also, the phrase 
``Ceiling Fans'' should be removed where it appears in section (v).
  The proper language starts on page 107, line 8 and goes through page 
112, line 10. This section (ff) is correct.
  Congressman Nathan Deal authored the original language, which did not 
receive consensus during negotiation of the conference report. 
Congressman Deal worked with Members of the Conference, industry 
representatives, and various environmental and energy efficiency 
advocates come up with some compromise language. I want to thank 
Congressman Nathan Deal for his hard work on this issue, and for 
bringing the mistake to my attention. I will work to correct this 
later.


                             boutique fuels

  As Chairman of the Conference, I want to clarify some points 
regarding Section 1541, ``Boutique Fuels'', This provision is an 
amendment to section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act to limit the 
number of boutique fuels.
  First, it is my understanding that in section 1541 ethanol when 
blended into gasoline in a concentration of 20 percent by volume be 
considered a fuel additive.
  Second, in implementing this new provision, the EPA must determine 
the total number of fuels approved under 211 (c)(4)(C) as of September 
1, 2004 and publish such a list in the Federal Register. The plain 
meaning of this provision would be that fuels initially approved by the 
Environmental Protection Agency before this date would constitute the 
``upper limit'' on the number of fuels that may be approved at any one 
time in the future under the provisions of this section.
  Specifically, as long as a fuel was initially approved by the 
Environmental Protection Agency before September 1, 2004, the fuel may 
be sold and used pursuant to a State Implementation Plan and the 
provisions of 211 (c)(4)(C) as such provisions existed before the 
amendment of that section by the pending legislation. In addition, the 
amendments that we are enacting to section 211(c)(4)(C) do not require 
that a fuel actually be distributed or sold prior to September 1, 2004, 
only that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
initially approved the fuel as meeting the requirements for a waiver 
prior to September 1, 2004.
  This interpretation of section 1541 would also hold if the 
implementation date for the sale or distribution of any fuel previously 
approved by the Administrator prior to September 1, 2004 was later 
changed at any point in time. The amendments made today to section 
211(c)(4)(C) would not prevent this sale or distribution from occurring 
nor impose any additional requirements or limitations on the 
implementation of matters related to the use of this previously 
approved fuel or a program providing for its use.
  Finally, the changes to existing law regarding waivers for fuels 
approved as part of a State Implementation Plan only apply to those 
fuels which were not previously approved by the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency before September 1, 2004. Programs such 
as the Texas Low-Emission Diesel program are not affected by the 
provisions of section 1541 even though a later State Implementation 
Plan revision or action by the State or federal Environmental 
Protection Agency may have revised the beginning date of sale of the 
fuel or other matters related to the implementation of the fuel 
program.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that 
the House is finally considering the Energy bill Conference Report 
today. More importantly it is greatly improved.
  I have had mixed feelings about the Energy bill. Members and staff on 
both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to improve it. This hard 
work has resulted in several key changes that will result in my 
approval of this Conference Report.
  One important change is that clean air initiatives were added. My 
state of Texas ranks first in the nation in toxic manufacturing 
emissions, first in the number of environmental civil rights 
complaints, and second on the amount of ozone pollution exposure. The 
clean air provisions are very important to me and my constituents.
  I am also pleased to know that provisions for drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge have been removed from the bill.
  The MTBE issue is also important to me. It is good to know that the 
provisions granting retroactive liability protection for MTBE producers 
have been removed.
  Although the Energy bill is not a perfect one, the compromise we are 
considering today is greatly improved.
  Because of these changes, Mr. Speaker, I now support this legislation 
and urge my colleagues to support it also. No bill is perfect and 
certainly this one is not perfect but I appreciate the efforts made to 
improve it.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference 
report on H.R. 6. President Bush and the Republican majority have 
pushed this legislation on the premise that we need it to solve our 
energy problems, that we need it to wean ourselves from our dependence 
on imported oil which poses a threat to our economic and national 
security.
  Sadly, the bill we have before us today fails to do that. Today we 
import 58 percent of the oil we consume, and projections predict that 
we will have to import 68 percent to meet demand by 2025. Experts 
indicate that at best, this bill would only slightly slow that rate of 
growth of dependence, rather than actually decrease our dependence on 
imported oil.
  We cannot continue to increase our consumption of fossil fuels. By 
definition, these fuels are finite in supply. They will run out some 
day, plain and simple. And as long as we continue to rely on them, we 
are going to be faced with an impending crisis.
  The bill gives billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to 
encourage oil and gas production, but these will not do much more than 
high gasoline and natural gas prices already do to stimulate domestic 
production of fossil fuels. The energy industry is already the most 
profitable industry in the nation, incentives should not be necessary.
  This bill could have really done something to reduce our consumption 
of oil by increasing fuel economy standards for vehicles, but it fails 
to do so. Increasing standards is the single biggest step we could have 
taken to reduce our oil dependency.
  This bill could have really done something to reduce our dependence 
on fossil fuels by including a renewable portfolio standard, which 
would have required the use of sustainable energy sources, but it fails 
to do so. Instead its subsidies and tax breaks encourage more of the 
same old thing--finite fossil fuels and nuclear power plants whose 
waste we do not know what to do with.
  Instead of encouraging energy conservation, renewable energy use, and 
curbs on emissions that damage our environment, the bill creates new 
exemptions in some of our nation's bedrock environmental laws, like the 
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  The bill also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which 
was instituted to protect the interests of consumers. In the wake of 
Enron, this is the wrong direction to go. And the bill rejects the 
wishes of State officials by granting the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission new authority to approve the location of terminals to handle 
the imports of liquefied natural gas.
  To solve our energy problems in the future and reduce our reliance on 
foreign sources of energy, we need a truly visionary energy policy that 
employs renewable energy sources and encourages energy efficiency and 
conservation. This bill does not provide that vision, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.

[[Page 18283]]


  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this is now the third Congress energy policy 
legislation has been under consideration. During the course of this 
period I have consistently opposed the House versions of this 
legislation. Today, however, I am pleased to be in the position of 
voting for the pending conference agreement. The fundamental reason for 
my being able to now support this legislation is because many of the 
most troubling provisions in the past House versions which caused my 
opposition are largely no longer present in the final product before us 
today.
  I have been troubled in the past by the inclusion of provisions 
waiving the National Environmental Policy Act, the opening of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to development, inappropriate and 
unseemly taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil, as well as unwarranted 
liability relief to certain fuel manufacturers. I was not gullible 
enough to think that the conference would clean the slate entirely of 
giveaways to Big Oil, but aside from that issue, these provisions that 
I have long opposed are, for the most part, not present in the pending 
legislation.
  In addition, I have opposed past versions of this legislation because 
they contained provisions which unfairly provided western coal produced 
on federal lands a competitive advantage over all other coal producing 
regions including my home State of West Virginia. Those provisions have 
been mitigated in the pending measure.
  And finally, I have been opposed to past versions of this bill 
because they lacked visionary and significant incentives to burn coal 
more cleanly and to utilize coal in a more efficient manner. The 
pending measure finally contained incentives of that nature, which will 
allow us to employ coal as a means to help wean ourselves from foreign 
sources of energy.
  This is not a perfect bill, by no means. It still contains royalty 
relief for large producers of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. It 
also contains provisions which some believe can be a precursor to 
lifting the wildly popular moratoria on oil and gas drilling off 
portions of the American coastline. I do not support those measures. At 
the same time, when I examine the tax title, and find almost $3 billion 
worth of incentives to promote the commercial application of new coal 
burning technologies, I find that finally, finally, coal is being paid 
more than lip service in our national energy policy.
  These incentives are extremely important. As I have often observed in 
the past, we as a Nation, have expended a great deal of money in 
developing clean coal technologies. Yet, the fact of the matter is that 
they have not been deployed in the commercial sense.
  After many decades of this effort, today, only a single integrated 
gasification combined cycle coal plant exists owned and operated by 
Tampa Electric. The reason is simple. Advanced plants of this nature 
are much more expensive to construct and there is no incentive for the 
electric utility industry to build them. Hence, the pressing need for 
federal incentives, so that we can begin to achieve widespread 
commercial application of these technologies, have a cleaner 
environment, and reduce our dependency on oil and natural gas.
  All in all, again, not a perfect bill but one which I believe will be 
of some assistance in expanding our national energy mix.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for 
the Energy Bill.
  Americans need an abundant supply of energy to maintain a high 
quality of life and sustain our economy.
  This comprehensive bill helps provide for our Nation's energy needs 
by encouraging domestic energy production.
  America has become too dependent on foreign oil, making our consumers 
subject to volatile prices and the whims of often hostile, 
antidemocratic leaders. We have seen the consequences as oil and gas 
prices continue to rise. The price of imported oil recently reached 
record levels of $60 a barrel. That is a full $10 more than six months 
ago and nearly $20 more than two years ago. I am well aware of the 
hardships this causes for consumers, workers and our economy.
  In my district in California the cost of gasoline has risen to $2.89 
a gallon. Many of my constituents commute to Los Angeles, which is 60 
miles away. Many others are truckers who depend on stable gasoline 
prices to put food on the table. These hard-working people are affected 
daily by our country's dependence on foreign oil.
  Nobody should make false promises that gas prices will immediately be 
lowered.
  This bill is not a quick fix, but it includes important provisions to 
help meet our country's energy needs, while also promoting energy 
efficiency, conservation and diversification, including incentives for 
alternative sources like ethanol, solar and wind.
  By decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and expanding production 
of alternative sources, we are not only protecting consumers and 
protecting our national security, but we are also protecting our 
economy by creating perhaps one million jobs.
  Improving our Nation's energy efficiency and cost efficiency is a 
bipartisan issue.
  I am pleased to support H.R. 2419 for the economic and national 
security of our country.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Barton, thank you 
for the way you managed this difficult process. Being an outside 
conferee on a bill this size can often be an exercise in futility. But 
throughout this Conference, you and your staff remained responsive and 
helpful. Also, I also want to commend all the conferees for working 
hard to listen to each other and compromise when appropriate.
  There are two sections of this bill which I am particularly excited 
about from an acquisition policy point of view. First is the section 
authorizing the continued use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts--
these contracts have, over recent years, provided agencies with an 
effective tool to rapidly improve the energy efficiency of their 
buildings without increasing costs to the taxpayer.
  Some have suggested limitations to this program, but such limitations 
will translate into reductions in the energy efficiency of government 
facilities. In my opinion, that is heading in the wrong direction and 
I'm happy to see such limitations were not included in the final bill.
  Second, this legislation authorizes the use of Other Transactions for 
the Department of Energy's critical research and development efforts. 
These arrangements support research and development without using 
standard procurement contracts, grants or cooperative agreements.
  Other Transactions authority has been used successfully in the 
Department of Defense for years to great effect. I appreciate the 
Science Committee's willingness to work with me and the Senate to craft 
language that allows the use of this valuable tool where appropriate. 
It is a shame when the government is denied a technological advance 
simply because our standard acquisition policies are not suitable for 
the development of cutting edge solutions.
  Finally, I want to note that the conference has decided to include a 
request for a report on China and the CNOOC offer to acquire Unocal. 
This report will be conducted simultaneously with the regular review 
conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. 
The report will essentially develop the same information required by 
the CFIUS review. In other words, the Conference has decided to 
duplicate the review process. The conference's time would be better 
spent studying our Nation and how we plan to secure our energy over the 
next 50 years instead of worrying about the actions of our most 
valuable trading partners. With this one exception, the Energy Policy 
Act is a step in the direction of answering those questions.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 conference report. If U.S. energy policy were 
the Titanic, Republicans would give a tax credit for bailing water 
rather than changing navigation techniques to avoid a future crisis. 
Fossil fuels are increasingly expensive, polluting, contribute to war 
and global unrest, and will run out within the next 50-100 years, and 
yet President Bush and Republicans in Congress want to ride the sinking 
ship of oil dependence to its disastrous conclusion.
  This compromise between the House and Senate Republicans shows the 
good, the bad, and the ugly of politics.
  Good: After four years getting nowhere with drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge and exempting manufacturers of MTBE from legal 
liability for groundwater contamination, the Republicans have finally 
relented and removed these provisions from the conference report.
  Bad: Now that everyone isn't focused on these high-profile issues, 
there's a sinking realization that this bill does nothing to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil and will actually raise, not lower, the price 
of gasoline, because it triples the use of ethanol. Ethanol is a 
Midwestern farm subsidy, pure and simple. It's expensive, it emits some 
air pollutants more than gasoline, and up to six times more energy is 
used to make ethanol than the finished fuel contains.
  Ugly: The bill exempts oil and gas companies from the Clean Water 
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy 
Act. To speed up oil production, oil companies can now inject fluids 
laced with toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells that penetrate 
groundwater. According to the bill, the EPA no longer has any ability 
to regulate these activities or force oil companies to prevent 
contamination of drinking water supplies.

[[Page 18284]]

  If you asked the American people how to create a secure energy 
future, they'd talk about solar and wind power, placing higher emission 
standards on SUVs, and conservation, but the great minds in the 
Republican Party don't believe in these proven strategies any more than 
they believe in the science of global warming.
  Since I know that Republicans don't like high gas prices, smog, 
asthma, or ruined wilderness any more than I do, I can only conclude 
that they are selling out the American people for their corporate 
contributors. I will have no part of it and I vote ``no'' on this 
shameful bill.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post today noted that the 
nicest thing that it could say about the comprehensive energy bill is 
that it could've been a lot worse. That's the sentiment that many of my 
colleagues and I feel today--that while clear improvements have been 
made in conference--a tribute to Chairman Barton's leadership--that 
H.R. 6 essentially preserves the status quo.
  There is no doubt that the underlying bill is a vast improvement on 
the bill we marked up this spring in committee and on the floor. Two of 
the most egregious provisions, liability protection for MTBE polluters 
and drilling in the pristine Arctic wilderness are out. We are also 
finally enacting electricity reliability standards and I was pleased to 
have worked with my colleagues Mr. Towns and Mr. Fossella to preserve 
New York's high reliability standards strengthening the underlying 
electricity title. New York has unique needs that necessitate this 
provision including having a high concentration of load in a small 
geographic area. Additionally, nearly 40 percent of the State 
population lives in NYC and close to three-fourths work there and 3 
million New Yorkers use the underground subway system every day. 
Finally, New York is home to the NYSE and other critical financial 
institutions. Although, we should have done this years ago in response 
to the rolling blackouts of 2003, I am proud to be a part of the 
inclusion of such an important policy development.
  However, I am deeply disappointed that this bill neither reduces our 
dependence on oil nor addresses climate change. The Energy Information 
Agency has stated that under the Energy Policy Act, by 2025, U.S. oil 
consumption is projected to increase to 28.3 million barrels per day 
and our country would increase its imports of foreign oil by 85 
percent. It even found that gasoline prices under the bill would 
increase more than if the bill was not enacted. What this country 
critically needs, but is not in this bill, is a policy to reduce our 
addiction to oil through the promotion of alternatives and clean 
renewables, improve automotive fuel efficiency, and reduce greenhouse 
gasses.
  Further, it is a travesty that this bill will open up our coastlines 
and wildlands to destructive oil and gas activities and evade 
environmental and consumer protections. I wish the conferees had 
included more funding for smarter, cleaner, safer, and cheaper energy 
policy in this bill that puts innovation and technology to work. While 
I am pleased that the Energy Policy Act includes $5 billion in tax 
breaks and incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy 
programs, the number pales in comparison with the $9 billion earmarked 
for oil, gas, electricity and coal. Even our esteemed U.S. Energy 
Secretary, Sam Bodman, opposed the inclusion of such measures, stating, 
``these industries don't need incentives with oil and gas prices being 
what they are today.'' We must target scarce Federal dollars wisely.
  Our energy policy is intricately tied to our national security and 
our economic well-being. We must be vigilant in opening dialogues 
between diverse groups of policy experts like the Set America Free 
Coalition and National Commission on Energy Policy as we continue to 
build and improve on current energy policies. As the co-chair of the 
Congressional Oil and National Security Caucus, I know we need to 
diversify our energy sources, reduce our dependence on unstable oil 
sheikdoms, and create skilled jobs while reducing energy costs. We must 
create policies that will protect the environment and our consumers. 
While there is improvement in this conference report, on balance, our 
goals cannot be achieved under this Energy Policy Act, and so 
regretfully I must vote against it.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 
6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. While this bill still contains 
provisions that I oppose, it is a far better bill than the one's that I 
have voted against in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that this bill contains a 
provision that will allow the Interior Department to conduct an 
inventory of oil and natural gas resources off the east coast of the 
United States, including my State of North Carolina, and other areas 
currently under a drilling moratorium. I do not think that this is a 
wise use of taxpayer dollars, considering the Administration's 
continued promise that these areas will never be drilled for oil. Let 
me state clearly that I continue my strong opposition to any effort to 
drill for oil off of the North Carolina coast.
  This bill also repeals the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act, 
which was passed in the wake of the Depression to ensure that the 
public would not be taken advantage of by utility companies. We know 
this is still being done, we have heard with the stories such as Enron. 
This law has protected the rural rate payers in States like North 
Carolina, and I oppose its repeal.
  Even in light of the negative aspects of this bill, I am voting for 
it because of the positive changes that have been included that will 
help put our country back on to the right track. This bill doubles the 
requirement for renewable fuels, and extends the tax credit for 
biodiesel. This will help our farmers and help us reduce our dependency 
on foreign oil. This bill also remove any legal waivers for companies 
that have poisoned our waters with MTBEs, and excludes the provision to 
allow drilling and development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR), to preserve this national treasure for future generations. I 
would also add that I am pleased about the increases in tax incentives 
for renewable energy such as wind and solar power.
  Mr. Speaker while this is not a perfect bill, it is a step in the 
right direction. And it deserves our support.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the 
comprehensive energy bill before us, a bill that purports to address 
the energy challenges facing this country, yet ignores the most 
fundamental issues and fails to set us on a path to a more sustainable 
future.
  Despite the fact that the transportation sector is the biggest 
emitter of harmful pollutants into our air, this bill fails to increase 
the efficiency of our cars. The technology is there, the demand is 
there, but the will is not. Although the bill offers incentives for 
consumers to purchase hybrid vehicles, this country's broken fuel 
economy program prevents it from having an effect. When an auto maker 
sells more fuel efficient cars, they are then given flexibility to 
crank out more gas guzzlers, which boggles my mind.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also fails to require our utilities to 
derive even a small percentage of their power from renewable energy, as 
voters in Colorado overwhelmingly approved last year. Enactment of a 
national renewable portfolio standard would spur innovation in the 
marketplace, attract new capital investment, create jobs, and reduce 
pollution.
  This legislation, which acknowledges that global warming is a 
problem, sets up yet another federal advisory committee to ``develop a 
national policy to address climate change.'' Maybe I am mistaken, but 
isn't that Congress' job? We had the opportunity in this bill to create 
a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas emissions that are warming 
our earth, polluting our skies, and endangering our national security 
by keeping us bound to foreign oil. Again, we had the opportunity, but 
with this bill, we are passing the buck for another Congress to deal 
with, when the problem is even more out of control.
  This bill weakens some of our most basic environmental laws, such as 
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. It 
presents some nice handouts to industry, such as billions in giveaways 
to oil companies that are already drowning in profits due to high oil 
prices, while the Nation is experiencing huge deficits and slashing 
education and health care programs.
  This bill fails to recognize that high energy costs are a function of 
both supply and demand. While it is quite generous in increasing the 
production of fossil fuels, it does not even acknowledge the oil 
scarcity problem. Instead of drilling and more drilling, we should be 
helping to curb the Nation's appetite for this rapidly declining 
resource by encouraging the development of alternative technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this bill is a marked 
improvement over previous iterations. I applaud Chairman Barton for his 
devotion to ensuring an open, transparent process with full debate on 
the issues. He has great courtesy and respect for the deliberative 
process, and I thank him for that. The bill he has put forward takes 
steps towards greater energy efficiency and conservation, ensuring the 
reliability of the electricity grid, and providing customers with 
incentives to purchase vehicles powered by alternative fuels.
  But the problems with this legislation far outweigh its benefits, and 
as such I am forced to oppose it. I wish this Congress had the courage 
to enact reforms that would set this country on a more sustainable 
energy future, but instead it seems content to stick with a status

[[Page 18285]]

quo that emphasizes extraction over conservation, pork over investment, 
and development over efficiency. Americans deserve better.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement 
on the Energy Policy Act.
  This day has certainly been a long time coming. The last major energy 
bill I was able to support was the National Energy Efficiency Act of 
1992. Since that time, there has been a clear need for follow-up 
legislation to address the significant energy challenges facing the 
country, but Congress and the Bush administration have repeatedly 
dropped the ball. Over the last 4 years, Congress has twice come close 
to approving irresponsible energy legislation that would have done 
significant harm to consumers, the environment, taxpayers, and plain 
common sense.
  As others have noted, the bill before us today--is not perfect, but 
it is much improved. I am especially pleased that the conferees dropped 
the harmful provisions in the House-passed bill that sought to open the 
Arctic Refuge to drilling and shield the MTBE industry from liability 
for the environmental damage their product has caused. There are still 
a number of provisions in this package that I would change; in 
particular, I would drop the tax and royalty-relief incentives in the 
bill for oil and gas drilling. When the price of a barrel of oil is 
near an all-time high, such public subsidies are unneeded and 
unjustified.
  I want to state clearly why this bill is worthy of passage today. Two 
summers ago, the United States and southern Canada experienced the 
worst power blackout in history that left more than 50 million people 
without electricity, including 2.3 million residents of Michigan. Two 
years later, Congress has done nothing to address the reliability of 
the electrical transmission system. Voluntary standards won't get the 
job done. We need clear, mandatory and enforceable rules for ensuring 
the reliability of the power grid. The bill before the House 
accomplishes that.
  I also support the many provisions of this legislation that spur 
development and use of renewable sources of energy and encourage 
conservation and energy efficiency. I believe that consumers, the 
environment, and energy security will be well served by the enhanced 
tax credit for Americans to purchase hybrids and other alternative 
power vehicles. Looking to the future, this bill provides significant 
resources for the development of clean-burning hydrogen.
  I know that many of my friends in the environmental community 
disagree with some of the provisions in this bill. In particular, I 
know there is concern over the incentives for nuclear energy. As one 
who has more often than not voted against nuclear power, I understand 
these concerns. The fundamental problem with nuclear energy is that we 
have not yet developed an acceptable way of dealing with nuclear waste. 
In all likelihood, it won't be sufficient to just bury the waste in a 
hole in the Nevada desert and hope it stays put for the next 20,000 
years. A much better solution is to develop the technologies to safely 
recycle or permanently isolate the waste.
  By the same token, I think most everyone now accepts that global 
warming is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The scientific 
evidence on warming is overwhelming, and we can't just ignore it as the 
administration has. We know enough now to begin addressing the problem. 
Unlike coal and petroleum, nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. 
Like it or not, nuclear power must continue to be part of the mix of 
solutions to address the global warming problem. There are other steps 
we need to take, and one essential step is finding a better solution to 
the waste problem.
  Last but not least, this energy bill permanently bans new oil and gas 
drilling in the Great Lakes. The Lakes are our State's crown jewels, 
and the heart of Michigan's multi-billion-dollar tourist industry. They 
should not be put at risk just so energy companies can extract a few 
weeks' supply of oil.
  On balance, this energy package is worthy of support, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting for it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support 
this legislation.
  There is nothing I would rather vote for than a balanced energy bill 
that sets us on a forward-looking course--one that acknowledges that 
this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil 
fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and 
our economy.
  But at a time of sky-rocketing oil prices, this report doesn't do 
what it needs to do--help us balance our energy portfolio and increase 
the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix.
  The process of developing the conference report is much improved from 
last year's contentious debate. Senate and House conferees worked 
together cooperatively and were able to compromise on a number of 
provisions and bridge difficult differences of opinion. I believe 
Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell and on the Senate side, 
Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman, have done a good job in 
this respect.
  The conference report itself is also an improvement over the bill 
passed by the House earlier this year.
  It includes an extension of the Renewable Energy Production Tax 
Credit for another 2 years, which will take us through the end of 2007. 
This is very good news. The report also includes clean energy bonds 
provisions from the Senate bill which will enable electric cooperatives 
to invest in renewable generation.
  It also removes the methyl bromide tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE, 
liability waiver that would have let industry off the hook. It's true 
that the conference report does provide a ``backdoor immunity'' that 
could derail many legal claims by denying communities and states the 
right to be heard in state forums. But I believe that the conferees 
took a big step forward by dropping the liability waiver.
  On energy efficiency, the conference report goes beyond the House 
bill in establishing new energy efficiency standards for 15 products. 
It also includes numerous energy efficiency tax provisions for 
alternative fuel vehicles, energy efficient appliances and new and 
existing homes, among others, provisions contained in the Energy 
Efficiency Cornerstone Act that I introduced with my colleague Rep. 
Zach Wamp and others.
  Electricity provisions are strengthened--not only does the conference 
report include new standards for grid reliability, but it also includes 
consumer protections in electric markets, such as new merger review, a 
prohibition on market manipulation, improved market transparency, among 
others. These protections are especially important given that the bill 
repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, which restricts 
the ownership and operations of power companies and their ability to 
control energy prices.
  Another way in which the conference report has improved on the House 
bill is its treatment of oil shale.
  This is a subject of particular concern to Coloradans, because 
Colorado has the most significant amounts of oil shale--and also the 
most experience with oil shale fever. In Colorado, we have had several 
bouts of that syndrome. The last one started during the 1970s energy 
crisis and ended abruptly on ``Black Sunday'' in 1982. That was when 
Exxon announced it was pulling out of the Colony shale project, an 
event that left an impact crater from the Western Slope to downtown 
Denver. There followed an exodus of other companies that had been 
working on oil shale--which led to an echoing exodus of jobs and of 
Coloradans who had nowhere else to turn.
  The House bill would have required the Interior Department to set up 
a new leasing program for commercial development of oil shale, with 
final regulations to be in place by the end of next year. In other 
words, it called for a crash program to meet a short, arbitrary 
deadline.
  In the Resources Committee, I tried to change that. An amendment I 
offered would not have barred oil shale development. Instead, it would 
have said that before we leap again, we should take a look and have a 
clear idea of where we are apt to land. Under my amendment, the 
Department of the Interior would be told to prepare regulations for a 
new oil shale leasing program--and to get them finished ``promptly'' 
after finishing the analysis required by NEPA and the regular process 
for developing new federal regulations.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the Resources Committee 
opposed my amendment, and so it was not adopted. The result is that 
that part of the House bill was much uglier than it should have been.
  The oil shale part of the conference report, while not necessarily a 
thing of real beauty, is definitely better. It calls for a programmatic 
environmental impact statement as the first step, and requires issuance 
of final regulations for a new commercial leasing program only after 
that statement has been completed. Further, it requires the Interior 
Department to consult with the Governor of Colorado (and the governors 
of other relevant states) and other interested parties in order to 
determine the level of support for development of oil shale (or tar 
sands) resources, and provides that leasing will then occur only if 
there is sufficient interest and support. This is a much better way to 
proceed than through the kind of crash program called for in the House-
passed bill.
  And, while I think the need for a new oil shale task force or a new 
office within DOE is doubtful at best, the conference report's 
provisions related to experimental leases are sensible and worthwhile.

[[Page 18286]]

  There were a few good things in the House bill that I am glad are 
retained in the conference report--after all, in a 1,725-page bill, 
there are bound to be some good provisions, but in this case they are 
far outweighed by the bad.
  For example, I support most of the provisions developed by the 
Science Committee, and I commend Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member 
Gordon for their bipartisan approach.
  In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included 
generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy 
efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy 
Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes the Clean Green 
School Bus Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that 
authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel 
vehicles with clean, alternative fuel buses. H.R. 6 also includes 
provisions from legislation I introduced on distributed power, which 
would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a 
strategy for research, development, and demonstration of distributed 
power energy systems.
  Unfortunately, though, as a whole this conference report--like the 
bills we've debated twice before--basically retains the status quo and 
does little to provide solutions to the real energy problems facing 
this country.
  This conference report provides oil and gas companies massive 
forgiveness of royalty payments. It exempts industry from requirements 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act when they inject harmful chemicals into 
the ground during drilling. It exempts oil and gas construction sites 
from storm water runoff regulations under the Clean Water Act. It 
authorizes up to $1.5 billion in new subsidies to the oil industry for 
ultra-deep oil drilling and exploration. It establishes an exclusion 
under the National Environmental Policy Act for oil and gas development 
activities.
  Of the bill's total $14.6 billion in tax incentives, $9.3 billion (or 
64 percent) is for traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas, 
and nuclear power. The oil and gas industries are getting these massive 
subsidies from the taxpayer at the same time that their profits have 
never been higher. Meanwhile, renewables and energy efficiency 
technologies are allocated $5.3 billion, or just 26 percent of the 
total incentives in the bill.
  And then there are all the things the bill would not do. It would not 
increase vehicle fuel economy standards, which have been frozen since 
1996. Raising CAFE standards is the single biggest step we can take to 
reduce oil consumption, since about half of the oil used in the U.S. 
goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles.
  This conference report avoids the whole question of mandatory action 
on climate change, excluding even the toothless Senate-passed 
resolution that recognized the need for immediate action by Congress to 
implement mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.
  It also does not include the Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, part 
of the Senate-passed bill, which would require utilities to generate 10 
percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Colorado is 
uniquely positioned to take advantage of alternative energy 
opportunities, such as wind and sun. Colorado's voters approved 
Amendment 37 last year, a state RPS, which is making a difference in 
our energy supply.
  But a Federal RPS would yield numerous rewards in the long-term for 
the whole country, including increased energy independence and 
security, economic development opportunities in depressed communities, 
maintaining a competitive advantage internationally, protecting our 
environment, and helping our farmers develop long-term income sources. 
The absence of an RPS in this conference report is a serious setback 
for forward-thinking energy policy.
  Most importantly, according to analyses conducted by the Department 
of Energy's Energy Information Administration, this energy bill will 
neither lower gas prices nor reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, 
with foreign imports predicted to increase from 58 percent to 68 
percent in the next 20 years. Coloradans on average are already on 
average $2.25 for a gallon of regular gas. This bill will do nothing to 
bring those prices down.
  I don't always agree with President Bush. But I think he is 
absolutely right about one thing--at $55 a barrel, we don't need 
incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. Instead, we need a 
strategy to wean our Nation from its dependence on fossil fuels, 
especially foreign oil.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we need a plan in place to increase our 
energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil 
we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30 
percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and 
politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of 
the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our 
energy vulnerability by drilling at home.
  This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every 
step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it 
takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the 
House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not 
radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology 
that exists today. Given the magnitude of the crisis ahead, we can 
surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will 
free us from our dependence on oil.
  Earlier this year, President Bush spoke at the opening of the Abraham 
Lincoln Museum in Springfield, Illinois and attempted to draw parallels 
between his goal of expanding freedom in the world and Lincoln's effort 
to expand freedom in the U.S. I have some questions about that 
comparison, but I do think it is good to consider Lincoln's example 
when we debate public policy.
  In fact, I wish President Bush and the Republicans would draw a few 
more parallels to Lincoln in their approach to energy policy--because, 
as that greatest of Republican Presidents said, ``The dogmas of the 
quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. Our present is piled 
high with difficulties. We must think anew and act anew--then we will 
save our country.''
  And while we are not engaged in a civil war, our excessive dependence 
on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security. We have an 
energy security crisis. We need to think anew to devise an energy 
security strategy that will give future generations of Americans an 
economy less dependent on oil and fossil fuels.
  Unfortunately, too much of this bill reflects not just a failure but 
an absolute refusal to think anew. Provision after provision reflects a 
stubborn insistence on old ideas--more tax subsidies, more royalty 
giveaways, more restrictions on public participation, more limits on 
environmental reviews--and a hostility to the search for new 
approaches.
  Maybe we could have afforded such a mistake in the past. But now the 
stakes are too high--because, as I said, energy policy isn't just an 
economic issue, it's a national security issue. America's dependence on 
imported oil poses a risk to our homeland security and economic well-
being.
  Unfortunately, this conference report does not think anew and is not 
adequate to the challenges of this stormy present. For that reason, I 
cannot vote for it.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, despite the President's 
oversell, this bill does nothing to improve our energy independence and 
does little to provide for a cleaner environment. The bill does nothing 
to lower gasoline prices, which are at an all-time high.
  This bill is a corporate giveaway to the largest multinational oil 
companies, coal, utility and other energy companies, who stand to 
receive a windfall of $14.5 billion in tax breaks over 10 years. 
Taxpayers are going to subsidize billions in loan guarantees to these 
industries, so the energy industry can be free to fail without having 
to face little financial risk. That is a sweet deal.
  With oil selling at $60 a barrel, this bill provides royalty-free 
drilling rights to the multinational oil companies to drill on public 
lands. This is making a sweet deal even sweeter. When the American 
consumer fills his or her car with gasoline selling over $2.30 a 
gallon, they will be secure in knowing that the record profits they are 
paying for big oil are being subsidized further at the expense of their 
tax dollars. Taxpayers are being asked to donate more than $14 billion 
in tax breaks, most of them to the oil and gas companies, the 
utilities, the nuclear industry and the coal industry. That is sweet on 
top of a sweeter deal for Big Oil. The renewable energy and energy 
efficiency industries are left with little.
  The bill preempts the ability of state and local governments to block 
the siting of Liquefied Natural Gas terminal in densely populated urban 
areas. It will weaken environmental protections with new loopholes for 
the oil and gas industry. It will allow the process of hydraulic 
fracturing, which involves injecting diesel fuel into groundwater 
supplied and exempt other industry practices from the Clean Water Act, 
exemptions and the National Environmental Policy Act.
  This bill will authorize exploratory efforts to prepare for oil and 
gas drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas that are 
currently closed to drilling. One area that I am pleased to report is 
that the bill does ban drilling in the Great Lakes.
  This exercise is an unfortunate one. It is short on helping the 
nation's energy needs

[[Page 18287]]

and long on subsidizing the oil and gas, nuclear, utility, and coal 
industries. Americans pay more than their fair share to support the 
record profit margins of the energy industry and now they are being 
asked to subsidize those record profits even more. This is a bad deal 
for American consumers. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
against the passage of this bill.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
offshore drilling provisions included in this bill.
  I am categorically opposed to this bill because of provisions which 
would increase pressure for oil drilling in the protected waters off 
Florida's coast. It would also give billions of dollars in tax breaks 
and other giveaways to traditional fossil-fuel producers.
  Included in this bill is a requirement to conduct an offshore 
inventory of oil and gas reserves. An expensive and environmentally 
damaging inventory in the protected waters of the Gulf is likely to 
increase pressure to lift the drilling moratorium off Florida's coast.
  Another provision is a reduction in royalty payments for deep gas 
wells leased in the Gulf of Mexico. Any giveaway to the oil companies 
to reduce their costs will cause an increase in production. This will 
cause more exploration.
  Florida is a beautiful state with miles of coastline. The Sunshine 
State economy depends heavily on tourism and the environment is the key 
factor in Florida's attractiveness to tourists. The tourism industry 
has an economic impact of $57 billion on Florida's economy. Not 
inconsequential is the 770 miles of gulf coastline and 5,095 of gulf 
tidal shoreline, and the hundreds of miles of beaches.
  Florida's coastline is a treasure not just for Floridians, but all 
Americans and the rest of the world. For years Florida's delegation has 
worked together to protect our coastline and natural resources. Even 
conducting an inventory of resources in the Gulf of Mexico will begin 
to destroy the efforts we have made as a state to preserve our 
sensitive lands. As long as there are rigs in the area, the potential 
for devastation to Florida's beaches persists. Florida's beaches are 
not something we can afford to compromise. This decision goes against 
everything that Floridians have worked for over so many years. 
Certainly, the people of Florida do not support this ill-advised 
decision.
  The impact of offshore drilling threatens irreversible scarring to 
the landscape, affecting thousands of species, each critical to the 
ecosystem. The great weather, pristine beaches, and marine wildlife are 
the number one draws to our fine state. By moving forward with even a 
resources inventory, you risk a multi-billion dollar industry for only 
a few barrels of oil.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 6, the omnibus energy bill. H.R. 6 is an important step 
toward increasing our Nation's energy independence by investing in 
energy efficiency and alternative energy sources.
  As a member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, I support measures 
in H.R. 6 to encourage and increase the use of renewable and 
alternative energy sources. H.R. 6 includes important tax incentives 
for energy efficiency programs and renewable energy sources, such as 
wind and solar production. This measure also includes a tax credit of 
up to $3,400 for certain hybrid cars and trucks. As a cochair of the 
House Biofuels Caucus, I also support raising the renewable fuels 
standard to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, which is more than triple the 
current amount.
  Over the past several Congresses, there have been several issues that 
have continually blocked congressional passage of comprehensive energy 
legislation, and I commend the conference committee on eliminating 
these controversial provisions from this final conference report. H.R. 
6 does not include a provision providing for drilling in the Alaskan 
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which had been part of past energy 
legislation. This pristine 1.5 million acre coastal plain is often 
referred to as ``America's Serengeti'' because of the presence of 
caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and many 
other species living in a nearly undisturbed state. While some consider 
this area to be one of the most promising U.S. onshore oil and gas 
prospects, studies indicate that this area could only provide 6 month's 
supply of oil, 10 years from now, and consequently have no significant 
effect on our nation's dependence on foreign oil.

  Past versions of the energy legislation have also contained a safe-
harbor provision for producers of MTBE and other fuel oxygenates from 
product liability claims. Under previous energy bills, states and 
cities would have been prevented from bringing against potential 
offenders ``defective product'' lawsuits, which some cities have 
employed to recapture the cost of MTBE cleanups. The U.S. Conference of 
Mayors has stated that the cost of cleanup could run more than $29 
billion. If our states and localities were forced to pay these costs, 
the real costs would be borne by taxpayers. I commend the conference 
committee for eliminating this costly provision, and not making 
taxpayers responsible for the actions of a few MTBE producers.

  While I voted for H.R. 6, there are several provisions that concern 
me. The conference agreement fails to adequately address climate change 
by not including even the modest proposal adopted by the Senate. This 
provision, authored by Senator Chuck Hagel, would use tax credits to 
encourage, but not require, industry reductions in greenhouse gas 
emissions, including carbon dioxide. Furthermore, the conference 
agreement also requires an inventory of oil and natural gas resources 
in offshore areas, including areas now closed to drilling. I am 
concerned about this provision, because it could lead to opening these 
environmentally sensitive areas to offshore drilling. In addition, I am 
also disappointed that the final conference report did not include a 
``renewable portfolio standard'' that would have required utilities to 
get 10 percent of their electricity from alternative energy sources, 
such as wind and solar power, by 2020.

  While this is not a perfect bill, I believe it is an important first 
step in creating a comprehensive energy policy that invests in energy 
efficiency and alternative energy sources. We owe it to our children 
and grandchildren to develop and implement energy policies, which will 
decrease our dependence of foreign oil and that protect consumers, 
communities, and environmentally sensitive areas.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the last time Congress 
enacted an energy bill was in 1992--13 years ago. Since that time, 
Republicans and Democrats alike have made clear that as a part of our 
national homeland security strategy, we must wean the country off of 
foreign oil. Yet, the bill before us would not achieve that goal. For 
that reason Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  There is no doubt that the final House-Senate energy bill is vastly 
better than the House-passed bill. It extends the renewable electricity 
production tax credit and provides tax credits for energy efficiency, 
which, together, will catalyze investment and usage of the next 
generation of energy technology. It also would re-fund the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund, which provided $42 million to clean-up the 
Delaware River after the November 2004 oil spill and was on track to be 
depleted by 2009. I hope no other region in the country experiences a 
similar incident; we must be prepared to adequately respond if it does.
  Additionally, the bill does not include unnecessary liability 
protections for the manufacturers of the gasoline additive known as 
MTBE or allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--
authorities that would have put our precious natural resources at-risk 
while doing very little to reduce our dependence on imported oil.
  While I am pleased with these improvements in the bill, I do not 
support investing $14.6 billion in taxpayer funding on energy policies 
that ultimately will not reduce our dependence on and usage of foreign 
oil over the next 11 years.
  My colleagues, the bill fails to include a renewable energy portfolio 
standard of 10 percent by 2020.
  It fails to adequately invest in renewable energy and energy 
efficiency technologies by only providing 26 percent of the bill's tax 
incentives for the development of cleaner, less expensive energy 
sources under our control; while allocating $2.6 billion in tax 
benefits for oil and gas industry. Industries that are already 
profiting from record high oil prices, which are currently over $60 per 
barrel.
  It fails to increase to automotive efficiency standards--a policy 
that would save up to 67 billion barrels of oil over the next 40 years, 
which is 10 to 20 times greater than the potential oil supply that 
could be extracted from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill fails to send us in a new direction, and that 
is unacceptable. We cannot leave ourselves positioned to return years 
from now and still be searching for ways to end our reliance on foreign 
oil.
  With nations like India and China rapidly increasing their 
consumption of oil we must set the nation on a course to energy 
independence. That requires a balanced energy policy that aids domestic 
production but, more importantly, sends us in a new direction by 
investing in renewable and energy efficient technologies. This 
conference report failed to accomplish this goal.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act of

[[Page 18288]]

2005 Conference Report. Completion of this energy bill is yet another 
step forward in our struggle for energy security and independence. A 
reliable and affordable energy supply is crucial to America's economic 
vitality, security, and quality of life.
  While this final conference report is not perfect, we continue to 
make progress towards promoting energy conservation and efficiency; 
increasing the use of all domestic energy resources, including coal; 
improving energy infrastructure; and promoting the development of 
advanced energy technologies.
  The combustion of fossil fuels is essential to our energy policy and 
must continue to be a part of a balanced energy plan for this country. 
Coal is absolutely critical to our nation's economic health and global 
competitiveness. Coal accounts for more than 50 percent of U.S. 
electricity generation, far ahead of nuclear power, natural gas, 
hydroelectric power, petroleum and other sources. There is no present 
alternative to coal to meet our energy needs. New and improved 
technologies hold the promise of far greater emissions reductions and 
increased efficiency.
  Clean coal provisions are included in the final conference report 
that would assist in burning coal more efficiently and cleanly. These 
clean coal technology initiatives encourage the development of new 
technologies for cleaner, higher efficiency coal combustion in new and 
established plants with the hope of achieving a healthier environment 
while maintaining jobs. Specifically, the conference agreement includes 
a $1.8 billion authorization for the Secretary of Energy to carry out 
the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which will provide funding to those 
projects that can demonstrate advanced coal-based power generating 
technologies that achieve significant reductions in emissions. Further, 
the bill authorizes $1.14 billion for coal research and development. I 
fought hard for robust funding for coal within the fossil energy 
research and development budget and I was glad to see they were 
included in the final version.
  Additionally, I authored two provisions which were retained in the 
final conference report and greatly benefit Southern Illinois. First, I 
secured $75 million to create a program to develop advanced 
technologies to remove carbon dioxide from coal emissions and 
permanently sequester it below ground. Illinois is one of the leading 
states when it comes to research on carbon sequestration and Southern 
Illinois is listed as one of the prime spots for carbon sequestration, 
which is one of the technologies the FutureGen project is designed to 
use. Second, the bill authorizes the Clean Coal Centers of Excellence. 
Under this provision, the Secretary of Energy will award competitive, 
merit-based grants to universities that show the greatest potential for 
advancing new clean coal technologies. Southern Illinois University 
Carbondale (SIUC), which I represent, continues to be a leader in clean 
coal technology research, doing extensive work at its Coal Research 
Center. With funding and collaborative support from industry and 
government, SIUC has conducted long-term projects relating to surface 
mine reclamation, mine subsidence, coal desulfurization, coal 
characterization and combustion, coal residue management and 
utilization, coal market modeling, and environmental policy. Faculty, 
staff, and students in fields as diverse as engineering, science, 
business, education, law, and agriculture have contributed to the 
University's international reputation in coal research. The past two 
energy conference reports named Southern Illinois University as a 
``Clean Coal Center of Excellence'' and the school is well-positioned 
to be a potential recipient of the award again this year. It is a 
testament to SIUC's high caliber research program that it was also 
named as a university to study and commercially deploy transportation 
fuel technology using Illinois coal. Finally, I am pleased this 
legislation promotes clean fuels by providing tax incentives for clean 
coal technology. This will greater enhance our ability to use Illinois 
basin coal.
  In addition to the clean coal provisions, the energy conference 
agreement contains provisions instrumental in helping increase 
conservation and lowering consumption. Included in this are ethanol 
provisions that are used as a replacement and additive for gasoline 
consumption. Illinois currently produces 800 million gallons of ethanol 
per year. Under this legislation, ethanol use would increase, nearly 
doubling the current production level. The renewable fuel standard 
(RFS) in the bill is expected to increase the average price of corn 
paid to farmers 6.6 percent, or 16 cents per bushel and increase 
average net cash income to farmers by $3.3 billion over the next 
decade, or more than six percent. Increased production of ethanol will 
greatly benefit the agricultural industry in Southern Illinois.
  Mr. Speaker, this energy bill will shape energy policy for the next 
decade and beyond. I am glad coal and ethanol remain an integral part 
of our energy future and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
energy bill conference report, but I do so with very strong 
reservations. Although I believe we missed many opportunities to make 
this energy bill truly comprehensive, I also believe that the 
conference report is an improvement over the House-passed energy bill.
  It is a sad indictment of the way the Majority is running this 
Congress that it has taken us 5 years to pass an energy bill and the 
final product falls far short of what I believe the American public 
wants. I will vote for this conference report, but this bill lacks 
boldness and vision. There is more we can and must do to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, lower skyrocketing gas prices, protect our 
environment, and steer our country in a more forward-thinking direction 
on energy policy. I am pleased, however, that the bill makes strides in 
encouraging alternative energy research and production. Specifically, 
$3.2 billion is included for renewable energy production incentives and 
$1.3 billion is allotted for energy efficiency and conservation.
  I was disappointed to see that a Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, 
was not included in the bill. The Senate-passed bill included an RPS 
that would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their 
electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, 
and geothermal, by the year 2020. Studies conducted by the Energy 
Information Administration illustrate that a federal RPS could save 
consumers $19 billion. Moreover, 20 States have already enacted RPS 
requirement, many of which go beyond the Senate-passed provision. A 
federal RPS would have established a nationwide market-based trading 
system to ensure that renewables are developed at the lowest possible 
price. I strongly supported this provision, and over 70 of my 
colleagues signed onto a letter with me to conferees urging them to 
keep the RPS in the bill. The Senate conferees voted in a bipartisan 
manner to keep the RPS in the bill, but the House conferees stripped 
the provision. I hope that my colleagues will work with me in the 
future to support H.R. 983, a bill with bipartisan support that I 
introduced to create a federal RPS of 20 percent by 2027. The time for 
a federal RPS has come.
  We also missed an opportunity to address the serious problem of 
global warming. I believe that the amendment Senator Bingaman offered, 
and that passed, expressing the sense of the Senate that mandatory 
action on climate change should be enacted was an important step 
towards congressional action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While 
I am disappointed that we could not do more, and that this sense of the 
Senate amendment was stripped from the conference report, I am pleased 
that the conference report includes a provision to establish a new 
cabinet-level advisory committee, charged with developing a national 
policy to address climate change and to promote technologies to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the provision allows the Energy 
Department to authorize demonstration projects designed to test 
technologies that limit harmful emissions. The long-term solution to 
solving the global warming problem lies in the creation of new 
technologies and the Federal Government has a key role to play in 
promoting technological innovations. I believe we should have done 
more, something along the lines of the recommendations made recently by 
the National Commission on Energy Policy, but it is critical that we do 
something, and this climate change provision is the least we can do to 
begin the process of slowing global warming.
  I am very pleased that a provision included in the House-passed bill, 
giving $30 million to uranium mining companies, was stripped from the 
bill. If enacted, this provision would have posed a grave threat to the 
water resources of two Navajo communities in northwestern New Mexico 
where four uranium in-situ leach mines have been granted conditional 
licenses by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed ISL 
mining--which could still happen even without the $30 million subsidy--
would leach uranium from an aquifer that provides high-quality 
groundwater to municipal wells in and near these communities--an 
aquifer that is the sole source of drinking water for an estimated 
15,000 Navajos. I thank the conferees for heeding the wishes of over 
200 members of the House--as well as the Navajo Nation Council--to 
strip this provision from the bill.
  The liability waiver for oil companies who used methyl tertiary-butyl 
ether, MTBE, which has contaminated 1,861 water systems serving 45 
million Americans in 29 States, including New Mexico, was also changed 
in the final bill. I strongly opposed that provision, which

[[Page 18289]]

would have placed the coffers of oil companies ahead of Americans whose 
lives have been adversely affected by this negligence.
  Finally, one of my great concerns with the House-passed bill was a 
provision allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR). I am glad this provision was stripped in conference, and I will 
continue to oppose efforts by the oil industry to drill in ANWR. I have 
witnessed first-hand the tremendously diverse wildlife that will be 
hurt if drilling occurs in the area. The small benefits are simply not 
worth the cost.
  I would like to commend my home State Senators--Domenici and 
Bingaman--who worked together in a very bipartisan manner to write this 
bill. I know it was a difficult task. I look forward to working with 
them and with their counterparts here in the House, to continue work on 
energy policy issues such as global warming, fuel efficiency standards, 
and further reducing our energy dependence.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Conference Report on H.R. 6. This comprehensive energy plan will help 
America become more energy self-sufficient, create hundreds of 
thousands of new jobs and spur innovation for accessing new energy 
sources.
  Nearly every sector of our economy is affected by high energy prices. 
Manufacturing facilities, the transportation industry and agricultural 
businesses all depend on affordable and reliable supplies of 
electricity, fuel and fertilizers to thrive in today's international 
economy.
  All Americans, directly and indirectly, pay for the price of products 
or services that depend on various forms of energy. No one is immune 
from rising energy costs, and I am pleased the House has taken the lead 
in passing this long-term energy plan to help address energy 
reliability, supply and prices.
  The Conference Report provides tax incentives within five main 
categories to improve energy production, transportation and efficiency. 
This balanced approach helps ensure we are taking care of current 
energy needs while also planning for future demand.
  If America wants an internationally competitive economy that can 
fully contend with emerging economic superpowers of the 21st century, 
we must take actions now to reduce barriers to competitiveness. Having 
a secure and reliable source of energy is vital to keeping and creating 
high-quality, high-paying jobs in America. The provisions contained in 
this energy conference agreement are reliable options the private 
sector can use to make us more competitive.
  Other countries have been more pro-active than we have in preparing 
for future energy needs. Brazil is projected to be completely energy 
self-sufficient within a few years. What once was considered an 
illusory dream may now become reality because Brazil recognized a 
problem and committed to a long-term solution. It may have taken them 
years to develop renewable energy sources, but Brazil is now a leader 
in ethanol production. As a result, its economy has been able to curb 
costs associated with higher crude oil prices.
  H.R. 6 provides a renewable fuel standard that requires 7.5 billion 
gallons to be used annually by 2012. This provision will help increase 
our ethanol and biodiesel production at a time when alternatives to 
foreign oil are greatly needed. By ramping up the production of 
alternative fuel sources, we are going to take positive steps toward 
more secure and reliable means of meeting our energy demands into the 
21st century.
  Kansas' agriculture economy will also reap the benefits of increased 
uses for crops. We are learning more and more that today's farmers not 
only put food on our tables but they also play an important role in 
reducing emissions and helping us become less dependent on Middle East 
oil for our fuel needs. By expanding markets for agriculture 
commodities, producers and rural communities will see new sources of 
revenue.
  Another conservation provision in the energy bill is the 4-week 
extension of Daylight Savings Time. By simply extending Daylight 
Savings Time 3 weeks in the spring and 1 week in the fall, we will 
reduce energy consumption equal to about 100,000 barrels of oil per day 
for four weeks. This energy saving time provision will also contribute 
to lower crime and fewer traffic fatalities.
  As we look toward the future, we also need to be realistic about 
current energy demands. That is why the energy bill helps oil and gas 
producers increase domestic production, expand distribution 
capabilities and increase refining capacity. H.R. 6 provides $2.6 
billion in tax incentives to accomplish these goals. Currently, small 
refiners are eligible for percentage depletion deductions if their 
refinery runs do not exceed 50,000 barrels on any day of the year. The 
energy bill increases that barrel limit to 75,000 barrels, which will 
encourage greater production by America's smaller refiners.
  The energy Conference agreement contains just over $3 billion in tax 
incentives that will bolster our electricity infrastructure. Measures 
such as reducing the depreciation period for assets used in the 
transmission and distribution of electricity from 20 years to 15 years 
will encourage more upgrades to the system. And tax credits, such as 
the one for new nuclear power facilities, will help investors and 
utilities take risks needed to create clean, reliable sources of 
electricity.
  Three separate tax credits were established for investments in clean 
coal facilities that produce electricity, and power plants will be able 
to amortize the cost of air pollution control facilities over 84 
months. These incentives help energy producers meet stringent air 
quality standards. By rewarding power plants that accelerate 
implementation of pollution controls, we are helping create a cleaner 
environment.
  Kansas is known for many wonderful things; one trait not so popular 
is our abundant source of wind. But as we find better ways to harness 
this natural Kansas resource, Kansas' abundant supply of wind may prove 
invaluable. The energy bill contains numerous tax incentives aimed at 
helping expand alternative sources of energy such as wind. Many Kansas 
landowners have also expressed strong support for expanded use of wind 
energy. Small wind farms can provide increases in the local tax base 
while creating additional revenue for the landowners.
  Hydrogen fuel cell technology continues to improve, and I am pleased 
the final energy bill included many options for integration of this 
emerging technology into the marketplace. I am hopeful we will see more 
and more public marketplace uses for hydrogen fuel cells. The fuel cell 
provisions in H.R. 6 help take us in that direction.
  This is a good plan that House Republicans and the Bush 
Administration have been working on non-stop for more than 4 years. I 
am very pleased we are finally successful in sending a national energy 
plan to the President's desk.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Conference 
Report to H.R. 6, the so-called comprehensive energy bill before us 
today. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, which 
represents bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, bad fiscal 
policy, and bad nonproliferation policy.
  H.R. 6 does nothing to address the issue of America's continuing 
dependency on imported oil. It does nothing to require more fuel 
efficient vehicles. It does nothing to reduce pump prices now or in the 
future, but it does shower wealthy oil and natural gas companies with 
unneeded tax breaks, royalty-free drilling on public lands, and 
exemptions from environmental laws.
  We can and must do better if we are to seriously address the energy 
needs of our Nation. We should strike a sound policy balance by 
pursuing improvements in fuel technology and energy efficiency, 
maintaining a clean environment, and preserving our wilderness areas 
and public lands.
  Frankly, this bill is an embarrassment--after six years of discussion 
and negotiation, the best we have to offer is a bill that in effect 
preserves the status quo? Instead of providing forward-looking policy 
ideas for a sound energy future, H.R. 6 is content to drive us into the 
future by looking through the rearview mirror with its heavily weighted 
dependence on fossil fuels.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority of subsidies in H.R. 6 go to the oil, gas, 
coal and nuclear industries, leading to more pollution, more oil 
drilling and more radioactive-waste-producing nuclear power.
  By contrast, only a small percentage of the tax breaks would go to 
energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives that could actually 
save consumers money and reduce our dependence on dirty energy sources.
  By refusing to commit to improving and investing in sustainable fuel 
technology, we are putting our technology and manufacturing industries 
at a competitive disadvantage at a time when the rest of the planet is 
searching for alternatives to fossil fuels.
  American consumers are being squeezed at the pump while the big oil 
companies are reaping record profits and the Republican Leadership is 
passing an energy bill that will further raise gas prices.
  How in good faith can we go back to our constituents with a national 
energy policy that does not address the future, does not address short 
term fixes or long term solutions?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation so we can develop a 
comprehensive energy policy that looks to the future and doesn't rely 
on repackaged out-dated technologies from the past.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the Energy Policy Act that the House passed 
yesterday includes a commitment by Congress to make a

[[Page 18290]]

significant investment for research and development into renewable and 
alternative sources of energy. As demand for clean and reliable energy 
increases, it is imperative that America's young people be introduced 
and educated in conservation and alternative energy. To decrease 
foreign dependence, we must increase our knowledge and ability to 
foster our own forms of energy. With that in mind, it is with great 
pleasure that I inform this body of some recent educational 
achievements in alternative energy sources.
  The Dell-Winston Solar Challenge is an educational competition among 
high school teams from across our Nation using solar powered cars. The 
competition began ten years ago at the Winston School in Dallas, Texas, 
to promote science and engineering to high school students. This unique 
competition has grown significantly since its inception. Technology and 
Learning magazine has named this Solar Race Challenge as one of the 10 
Most Innovative Projects in Education.
  In an effort to produce a competitive solar-powered vehicle, teams 
spent up to eighteen months designing and building the sun-fueled 
racers. The nine teams crossed the finish line at the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory in Pasadena, California, after an eight-day race that began 
in Round Rock, Texas. The 1600-mile competition concluded this year as 
the winning team set a new race record with a top speed of 57 miles per 
hour. I am immensely proud that the winner of this race is located in 
my district, from the city of Houston, Mississippi.
  This race team from a town with about 4,000 people consistently 
dominates the competition from much larger cities and schools. This 
remarkable team from the Houston Vocational Center is under the 
guidance of adviser and race coach Keith Reese. The team includes: 
captain Katie Weaver and members Tyler Davis, Austin Jordan, Stefanie 
Barkley, Brister Bishop, Matt Jernigan, David Peel, Leign Anna 
Springer, Mason Faulkner, Quinton Grice, Callie Weaver, Katie Weaver, 
Jesse Lal, Roderick Wiley, and Andrea Westmoreland. I am proud of each 
one these individuals. Their hard work and dedication is evident in the 
finished product.
  The winning tradition of this team includes more than the 
aforementioned teachers and students. This project has grown into a 
community event. Support from the City of Houston is as consistent as 
the team's success. It is evident that these constituents have 
recognized the positive impact projects like these provide.
  Year after year dedicated students and teachers build and race these 
advanced solar powered machines. This year marks the fifth consecutive 
time the Houston Race Team has won the coveted title. To quote Bubba 
Weir, the Executive Director of The Mississippi Alternative Energy 
Enterprise, ``The Program integrates classroom principles in a real-
life situation that fosters learning and encourages the students to 
work to the best of their ability.''
  This team brings much more than a trophy back to Mississippi; they 
bring a renewed emphasis and excitement to the fields of science and 
energy research. As the number of students studying math and science 
decreases nationwide, programs such as these pay dividends in increased 
interest in these fields. Dr. Lehman Marks, the founder and director of 
the Dell-Winston Race described it as ``A Challenge that helps teach 
high school students the 21st century skills they need to be successful 
in the future, whether it's to become the scientists and engineers of 
tomorrow or wherever their paths may lead.''
  I am encouraged when I see future leaders taking the initiative to 
compete and excel in this demanding contest. Programs like this 
demonstrate the importance of implementing new education techniques. 
Projects outside the classroom environment generate learning that 
enhances knowledge students receive from traditional instruction. The 
challenges in the fields of math and science are changing, and I am 
proud that Mississippi's educators are training students to meet these 
challenges head on.
  The success of the Houston solar race team has spread statewide, and 
many other Mississippi schools are beginning to experiment in 
alternative energy education programs. It is good to see young 
Mississippians leading the way through these innovative projects. 
Congratulations to the Houston Solar Race Team for an extraordinary 
performance and a job well done. The city of Houston, Chickasaw County, 
the entire State of Mississippi, and the United States of America are 
very proud of you.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, Congress had the opportunity 
and the charge to develop a comprehensive energy policy that would make 
America safer, decrease our dependency on foreign oil, and invest in 
the next generation of clean and renewable energy.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 6 fails the current and future needs of our 
Nation miserably. As gas prices and oil industry profits rise, this 
bill rewards oil and gas companies with $2.8 billion in tax breaks and 
provides $1.4 billion in tax breaks for coal producers. These corporate 
giveaways only continue our addiction to Middle Eastern oil and enable 
our dependency on old and polluting technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. needs to be a world leader in energy self-
sufficiency through conservation, alternative energy sources, and 
responsible leadership from the White House and Congress. Regrettably, 
this bill fails on all those counts. It neglects to include a Renewable 
Portfolio Standard, which would have required large electric companies 
to obtain 10 percent of their power from clean renewable energy sources 
by 2020. This act, once again, fails to increase much-needed fuel 
efficiency standards of cars and trucks.
  As if this bill was not already bad enough, a new provision appeared 
after the conference committee had adjourned, which steers $1.5 billion 
to a private consortium located in the home district of Republican 
Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It provides that the consortium, of which 
Halliburton is a member, can keep up to 10 percent of the funds for 
administrative purposes. This is an outrage and a mockery of the 
democratic process.
  America deserves a comprehensive energy policy that invests in the 
development of the next generation of fuel sources like fuel cells, 
hydrogen power and home grown Minnesota fuels like ethanol. I was 
pleased to see the measure tripling the amount of ethanol required in 
gasoline by 2012, but this bill could have done so much more to 
liberate our Nation from Saudi Arabian and Middle Eastern oil and move 
our Nation toward a sustainable and energy-independent future.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an energy bill for 1950, not 2050. It would have 
been difficult to support this outmoded policy decades ago, and I 
certainly cannot vote for it today.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, of everything that can be said about this 
$15 billion giveaway to the oil and gas industry--that it does nothing 
to alleviate the record high costs of oil, nothing to reduce our 
dependence on oil--the worst may be that it is a missed opportunity. 
And that is because it fails to harness America's entrepreneurial 
spirit to develop new sources of energy. It is a continuation of the 
status quo at a time when we need a new American energy policy--bold 
new thinking to foster energy independence and grow our Nation's 
economy in a way that addresses the threat of global warming.
  But instead, this bill provides billions in tax breaks for oil 
companies already reaping record profits. It does little to encourage 
development of new forms of energy. And it restricts States' abilities 
to protect their own natural resources.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are rightly concerned about how our dependence 
on foreign oil affects our foreign policy. This bill does nothing to 
reduce that dependence. If anything, it enshrines that dependence into 
law. Today we import 58 percent of our oil, and by 2025 we will still 
import between 64 and 68 percent of our oil, even after enacting this 
legislation. Nor does it reduce skyrocketing gasoline prices--something 
even the president has conceded.
  And that is because this bill rejects common sense ideas that could 
help us reduce our need for foreign oil. The conference committee 
rejected a measure that would have required America to decrease its oil 
consumption by 5 percent by 2015. At a time when Americans are fed-up 
with high gasoline prices, we should be looking for ways to reduce 
their need to fill-up at the pump. But the committee also rejected a 
modest proposal that would have increased the fuel efficiency of our 
cars by one mile per gallon per year for the next 15 years.
  The final version of this bill also rejects a Senate proposal to 
require utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from 
renewable sources by 2020. This provision would have helped us to 
significantly reduce our dependence on traditional polluting sources of 
electricity. Another missed opportunity.
  As if the lack of new thinking in this bill weren't enough, it also 
declares war on States' rights when it comes to protecting their 
citizens. The bill would eviscerate the role of the States in the 
siting of LNG facilities and grant sole jurisdiction in such matters to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. This provision flies in 
the face of the Coastal Zone Management Act. CZMA is a unique 
partnership between coastal States and the Federal Government that 
allows States to protect their own coastal resources. This is an 
especially important law for Connecticut, where the commerce that comes 
from the Long Island Sound fishing grounds,

[[Page 18291]]

ports and recreational area makes it a $5 billion economic asset. 
Because our State's economy depends on the Long Island Sound, we 
believe that the State has the obligation to protect it from possible 
environmental harm.
  Rather than passing this legislation, we ought to be reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil by improving our energy efficiency and 
maximizing our domestic energy production in an environmentally sound 
way--by investing in cleaner, more secure energy sources such as solar, 
wind, biomass and fuel cell technology. My State of Connecticut is a 
leader in fuel cell technology, with several businesses doing research 
that is on the cusp of revolutionizing the way our Nation powers its 
homes, cars and businesses. This bill should be investing in American 
small businesses like Proton Energy in Wallingford, Nxegen in 
Middletown and Danbury's Fuel Cell Energy--companies that already do 
over $300 million worth of fuel cell business and move us closer to 
true energy independence.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes 20th century solutions for 21st 
century energy challenges. It neglects the realities of a changing 
world--that our dependence on foreign oil has real consequences for our 
foreign policy, that the warming of the planet will have a serious 
impact on the lives of all Americans. It ignores our entrepreneurial 
spirit and technological know-how to develop and harness new forms of 
energy. And it ignores the rights of States to look after the interests 
of their citizens.
  America can do better--and deserves better--than this conference 
report. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one of the features of H.R. 6 that 
will make a material difference in the protection of groundwater are 
the provisions making key reforms to the Leaking Underground Storage 
Tank (LUST) program. The lack of serious attention to leaking tanks has 
been one of the main causes of groundwater and drinking water 
contamination by fuel and fuel additives. I applaud our Subcommittee 
Chairman, Paul Gillmor, who authored the LUST provisions in H.R. 6 and 
that I have enthusiastically included in this legislation. In addition, 
I agree with and support his interpretation of these provisions, as 
outlined in his Extension of Remarks that appeared in the Congressional 
Record on July 28, 2005, on pages H6964-H6966. There are two specific 
provisions that deserve special mention.
  First, in order to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates, the 
reference to Section 9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code in the 
newly created section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act should be 
considered to mean Section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code in 
order to reflect changes made to Title XIII, Subtitle F, Section 1362. 
This Section of H.R. 6 creates a new Section 6430 at the end of 
Subchapter B of Chapter 65. It amends Section 9508(c) by striking the 
existing subsection 9508(c)(2) and renumbering subsection 9508(c)(1) as 
subsection 9508(c). As the chief author of this bill, it was never my 
intent to see LUST defunded and this instance should not be interpreted 
nor construed as nothing more than a drafting error since the 
historical construct and intent of the provisions in section 9014(2) of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act are consistent with past versions 
addressing authorizations of appropriations under Subtitle I of the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act. Should it be necessary, I intend to 
immediately pursue statutory changes necessary to ensure proper use of 
collected transportation fuel taxes in the LUST program under the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act.
  Second, Section 1530 on Title XV addresses additional methods to 
protect groundwater, including state requirements on the use of 
secondarily contained underground storage tank systems or conversely 
requiring states to use installer and manufacturer requirements. If a 
state chooses secondary containment, then any new installation of an 
underground storage tank that is within 1,000 feet of community water 
system or potable water well must be secondarily contained. In 
addition, any tank or piping that is replaced on an underground storage 
tank that is within 1,000 feet of a community water system or potable 
water well must be secondarily contained. Repairs to an underground 
storage tank system, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), do not trigger any secondary containment requirements and 
gasoline dispensers must also be addressed as part of the secondary 
containment strategy. If, however, a state chooses installer and 
manufacturer certification, as well as financial responsibility 
requirements, this section requires tank installers and manufacturers 
to follow professional guidelines for tank products or comply with one 
of the new statutory requirements that are similar to subsections (d) 
and (e) of 40 CFR 280.20. In addition, this section requires installers 
and manufacturers to maintain evidence of financial assurance to help 
pay corrective action costs that are directly relatable to a faulty 
tank part or installation. The lone exception to the financial 
assurance requirement is where a tank owner or operator, who already 
maintains evidence of financial responsibility under Section 9003 of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, is also the installer or manufacturer of 
the underground storage tank. I want to make clear that with respect to 
the financial responsibility option, the conference report references 
the existing financial responsibility authority contained in section 
9003( d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that applies to owners and 
operators, and as such, it is the intent of this legislation that all 
of the authorities and flexibilities contained in 9003( d) apply to 
underground storage tank installers and manufacturers in the same way 
that they currently apply to owners and operators of underground 
storage tanks.
  H.R. 6 also adds a new section 3022 to Title XXX of the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992. The new section states: ``It is the sense of Congress that 
Federal agencies conducting assessments of risks to human health and 
the environment from energy technology, production, transport, 
transmission, distribution, storage, use, or conservation activities 
shall use sound and objective scientific practices in assessing such 
risks, shall consider the best available science (including peer 
reviewed studies), and shall include a description of the weight of the 
scientific evidence concerning such risks.''.
  For too long, documents and studies have been produced that do not 
reflect science, but rather a given policy bias mixed with elements of 
science. These documents and studies are then paraded forward as if 
they are risk assessments. This sense of Congress specifically finds 
such an approach unacceptable. I want to note that use of the weight of 
the scientific evidence is a specific recommendation in the 1997 Final 
Report of the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment 
and Risk Management. On page 4 of that report the Commission states: 
``A good risk management decision . . . is based on a careful analysis 
of the weight of scientific evidence that supports conclusions about a 
problem's potential risks to human health and the environment.'' On 
page 23 of that report the Commission states: ``Making judgments about 
risk on the basis of scientific information is called `evaluating the 
weight of the evidence.' . . . . It is important that risk assessors 
respect the objective scientific basis of risk and procedures for 
making inferences in the absence of adequate data.'' On page 38 of that 
report the Commission states: ``Risk assessors and economists are 
responsible for providing decision-makers with the best technical 
information available or reasonably attainable, including evaluations 
of the weight of the evidence that supports different assumptions and 
conclusions.
  It is important the Federal agencies conform their risk assessment 
practices to these principles.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the conference report 
has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the conference report on H.R. 6 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on H. Res. 392 and H. Res. 396.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 275, 
nays 156, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 445]

                               YEAS--275

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)

[[Page 18292]]


     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--156

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brady (PA)
     Payne
     Schakowsky

                              {time}  1310

  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, and 
Messrs. SERRANO, KIND, BARTLETT of Maryland, and DAVIS of Illinois 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. HERSETH, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mr. SCOTT of Virginia changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2361, 
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The pending business is the 
question of agreeing to the resolution, House Resolution 392, on which 
the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402, 
nays 4, answered ``present'' 23, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 446]

                               YEAS--402

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George

[[Page 18293]]


     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--4

     Capuano
     Cooper
     Dingell
     Stupak

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--23

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gohmert
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Otter
     Pence
     Price (GA)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sodrel
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brady (PA)
     Paul
     Payne
     Schakowsky


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1318

  Mr. POE changed his vote from ``present'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``present.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2985, 
              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of 
agreeing to the resolution, House Resolution 396, on which the yeas and 
nays are ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 375, 
nays 27, answered ``present'' 24, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 447]

                               YEAS--375

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--27

     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Doggett
     Frank (MA)
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Markey
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Obey
     Olver
     Ryan (OH)
     Stark
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Wu

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--24

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gohmert
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     Miller (FL)
     Otter
     Pence
     Price (GA)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sodrel
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brady (PA)
     Feeney
     Paul
     Payne
     Reynolds
     Schakowsky
     Thompson (MS)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

[[Page 18294]]



                              {time}  1326

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




                        MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate has passed bills and a Joint Resolution of the 
following titles in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

       S. 302. An act to make improvements in the Foundation for 
     the National Institutes of Health.
       S. 447. An act to authorize the conveyance of certain 
     Federal land in the State of New Mexico.
       S. 655. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to the National Foundation for the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention.
       S. 1517. An act to permit Women's Business Centers to re-
     compete for sustainability grants.
       S.J. Res. 19. Joint Resolution calling upon the President 
     to issue a proclamation recognizing the 30th anniversary of 
     the Helsinki Final Act.

                          ____________________




          REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1295

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name 
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1295.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW-COST, TIMELY HEALTHCARE (HEALTH) ACT OF 
                                  2005

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 385 and 
as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) to 
improve patient access to health care services and provide improved 
medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system 
places on the health care delivery system, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 5 is as follows:

                                 H.R. 5

       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 ``Help Efficient, Accessible, 
     Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) Effect on health care access and costs.--Congress finds 
     that our current civil justice system is adversely affecting 
     patient access to health care services, better patient care, 
     and cost-efficient health care, in that the health care 
     liability system is a costly and ineffective mechanism for 
     resolving claims of health care liability and compensating 
     injured patients, and is a deterrent to the sharing of 
     information among health care professionals which impedes 
     efforts to improve patient safety and quality of care.
       (2) Effect on interstate commerce.--Congress finds that the 
     health care and insurance industries are industries affecting 
     interstate commerce and the health care liability litigation 
     systems existing throughout the United States are activities 
     that affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high 
     costs of health care and premiums for health care liability 
     insurance purchased by health care system providers.
       (3) Effect on federal spending.--Congress finds that the 
     health care liability litigation systems existing throughout 
     the United States have a significant effect on the amount, 
     distribution, and use of Federal funds because of--
       (A) the large number of individuals who receive health care 
     benefits under programs operated or financed by the Federal 
     Government;
       (B) the large number of individuals who benefit because of 
     the exclusion from Federal taxes of the amounts spent to 
     provide them with health insurance benefits; and
       (C) the large number of health care providers who provide 
     items or services for which the Federal Government makes 
     payments.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to implement 
     reasonable, comprehensive, and effective health care 
     liability reforms designed to--
       (1) improve the availability of health care services in 
     cases in which health care liability actions have been shown 
     to be a factor in the decreased availability of services;
       (2) reduce the incidence of ``defensive medicine'' and 
     lower the cost of health care liability insurance, all of 
     which contribute to the escalation of health care costs;
       (3) ensure that persons with meritorious health care injury 
     claims receive fair and adequate compensation, including 
     reasonable noneconomic damages;
       (4) improve the fairness and cost-effectiveness of our 
     current health care liability system to resolve disputes 
     over, and provide compensation for, health care liability by 
     reducing uncertainty in the amount of compensation provided 
     to injured individuals; and
       (5) provide an increased sharing of information in the 
     health care system which will reduce unintended injury and 
     improve patient care.

     SEC. 3. ENCOURAGING SPEEDY RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS.

       The time for the commencement of a health care lawsuit 
     shall be 3 years after the date of manifestation of injury or 
     1 year after the claimant discovers, or through the use of 
     reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, 
     whichever occurs first. In no event shall the time for 
     commencement of a health care lawsuit exceed 3 years after 
     the date of manifestation of injury unless tolled for any of 
     the following--
       (1) upon proof of fraud;
       (2) intentional concealment; or
       (3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no 
     therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of 
     the injured person.
     Actions by a minor shall be commenced within 3 years from the 
     date of the alleged manifestation of injury except that 
     actions by a minor under the full age of 6 years shall be 
     commenced within 3 years of manifestation of injury or prior 
     to the minor's 8th birthday, whichever provides a longer 
     period. Such time limitation shall be tolled for minors for 
     any period during which a parent or guardian and a health 
     care provider or health care organization have committed 
     fraud or collusion in the failure to bring an action on 
     behalf of the injured minor.

     SEC. 4. COMPENSATING PATIENT INJURY.

       (a) Unlimited Amount of Damages for Actual Economic Losses 
     in Health Care Lawsuits.--In any health care lawsuit, nothing 
     in this Act shall limit a claimant's recovery of the full 
     amount of the available economic damages, notwithstanding the 
     limitation in subsection (b).
       (b) Additional Noneconomic Damages.--In any health care 
     lawsuit, the amount of noneconomic damages, if available, may 
     be as much as $250,000, regardless of the number of parties 
     against whom the action is brought or the number of separate 
     claims or actions brought with respect to the same injury.
       (c) No Discount of Award for Noneconomic Damages.--For 
     purposes of applying the limitation in subsection (b), future 
     noneconomic damages shall not be discounted to present value. 
     The jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for 
     noneconomic damages. An award for noneconomic damages in 
     excess of $250,000 shall be reduced either before the entry 
     of judgment, or by amendment of the judgment after entry of 
     judgment, and such reduction shall be made before accounting 
     for any other reduction in damages required by law. If 
     separate awards are rendered for past and future noneconomic 
     damages and the combined awards exceed $250,000, the future 
     noneconomic damages shall be reduced first.
       (d) Fair Share Rule.--In any health care lawsuit, each 
     party shall be liable for that party's several share of any 
     damages only and not for the share of any other person. Each 
     party shall be liable only for the amount of damages 
     allocated to such party in direct proportion to such party's 
     percentage of responsibility. Whenever a judgment of 
     liability is rendered as to any party, a separate judgment 
     shall be rendered against each such party for the amount 
     allocated to such party. For purposes of this section, the 
     trier of fact shall determine the proportion of 
     responsibility of each party for the claimant's harm.

     SEC. 5. MAXIMIZING PATIENT RECOVERY.

       (a) Court Supervision of Share of Damages Actually Paid to 
     Claimants.--In any health care lawsuit, the court shall 
     supervise the arrangements for payment of damages to protect 
     against conflicts of interest that may have the effect of 
     reducing the amount of damages awarded that are actually paid 
     to claimants. In particular, in any health care lawsuit in 
     which the attorney for a party claims a financial stake in 
     the outcome by virtue of a contingent fee, the court shall 
     have the power to restrict the payment of a claimant's damage 
     recovery to such attorney, and to redirect such damages to 
     the claimant based upon the interests of justice and 
     principles of equity. In no event shall the total of all 
     contingent fees for representing all claimants in a health 
     care lawsuit exceed the following limits:
       (1) 40 percent of the first $50,000 recovered by the 
     claimant(s).
       (2) 33\1/3\ percent of the next $50,000 recovered by the 
     claimant(s).
       (3) 25 percent of the next $500,000 recovered by the 
     claimant(s).
       (4) 15 percent of any amount by which the recovery by the 
     claimant(s) is in excess of $600,000.
       (b) Applicability.--The limitations in this section shall 
     apply whether the recovery is

[[Page 18295]]

     by judgment, settlement, mediation, arbitration, or any other 
     form of alternative dispute resolution. In a health care 
     lawsuit involving a minor or incompetent person, a court 
     retains the authority to authorize or approve a fee that is 
     less than the maximum permitted under this section. The 
     requirement for court supervision in the first two sentences 
     of subsection (a) applies only in civil actions.

     SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL HEALTH BENEFITS.

       In any health care lawsuit involving injury or wrongful 
     death, any party may introduce evidence of collateral source 
     benefits. If a party elects to introduce such evidence, any 
     opposing party may introduce evidence of any amount paid or 
     contributed or reasonably likely to be paid or contributed in 
     the future by or on behalf of the opposing party to secure 
     the right to such collateral source benefits. No provider of 
     collateral source benefits shall recover any amount against 
     the claimant or receive any lien or credit against the 
     claimant's recovery or be equitably or legally subrogated to 
     the right of the claimant in a health care lawsuit involving 
     injury or wrongful death. This section shall apply to any 
     health care lawsuit that is settled as well as a health care 
     lawsuit that is resolved by a fact finder. This section shall 
     not apply to section 1862(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)) or section 
     1902(a)(25) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(25)) of the Social Security 
     Act.

     SEC. 7. PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

       (a) In General.--Punitive damages may, if otherwise 
     permitted by applicable State or Federal law, be awarded 
     against any person in a health care lawsuit only if it is 
     proven by clear and convincing evidence that such person 
     acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant, or that 
     such person deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury 
     that such person knew the claimant was substantially certain 
     to suffer. In any health care lawsuit where no judgment for 
     compensatory damages is rendered against such person, no 
     punitive damages may be awarded with respect to the claim in 
     such lawsuit. No demand for punitive damages shall be 
     included in a health care lawsuit as initially filed. A court 
     may allow a claimant to file an amended pleading for punitive 
     damages only upon a motion by the claimant and after a 
     finding by the court, upon review of supporting and opposing 
     affidavits or after a hearing, after weighing the evidence, 
     that the claimant has established by a substantial 
     probability that the claimant will prevail on the claim for 
     punitive damages. At the request of any party in a health 
     care lawsuit, the trier of fact shall consider in a separate 
     proceeding--
       (1) whether punitive damages are to be awarded and the 
     amount of such award; and
       (2) the amount of punitive damages following a 
     determination of punitive liability.
     If a separate proceeding is requested, evidence relevant only 
     to the claim for punitive damages, as determined by 
     applicable State law, shall be inadmissible in any proceeding 
     to determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded.
       (b) Determining Amount of Punitive Damages.--
       (1) Factors considered.--In determining the amount of 
     punitive damages, if awarded, in a health care lawsuit, the 
     trier of fact shall consider only the following--
       (A) the severity of the harm caused by the conduct of such 
     party;
       (B) the duration of the conduct or any concealment of it by 
     such party;
       (C) the profitability of the conduct to such party;
       (D) the number of products sold or medical procedures 
     rendered for compensation, as the case may be, by such party, 
     of the kind causing the harm complained of by the claimant;
       (E) any criminal penalties imposed on such party, as a 
     result of the conduct complained of by the claimant; and
       (F) the amount of any civil fines assessed against such 
     party as a result of the conduct complained of by the 
     claimant.
       (2) Maximum award.--The amount of punitive damages, if 
     awarded, in a health care lawsuit may be as much as $250,000 
     or as much as two times the amount of economic damages 
     awarded, whichever is greater. The jury shall not be informed 
     of this limitation.
       (c) No Punitive Damages for Products That Comply With FDA 
     Standards.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) No punitive damages may be awarded against the 
     manufacturer or distributor of a medical product, or a 
     supplier of any component or raw material of such medical 
     product, based on a claim that such product caused the 
     claimant's harm where--
       (i)(I) such medical product was subject to premarket 
     approval, clearance, or licensure by the Food and Drug 
     Administration with respect to the safety of the formulation 
     or performance of the aspect of such medical product which 
     caused the claimant's harm or the adequacy of the packaging 
     or labeling of such medical product; and
       (II) such medical product was so approved, cleared, or 
     licensed; or
       (ii) such medical product is generally recognized among 
     qualified experts as safe and effective pursuant to 
     conditions established by the Food and Drug Administration 
     and applicable Food and Drug Administration regulations, 
     including without limitation those related to packaging and 
     labeling, unless the Food and Drug Administration has 
     determined that such medical product was not manufactured or 
     distributed in substantial compliance with applicable Food 
     and Drug Administration statutes and regulations.
       (B) Rule of construction.--Subparagraph (A) may not be 
     construed as establishing the obligation of the Food and Drug 
     Administration to demonstrate affirmatively that a 
     manufacturer, distributor, or supplier referred to in such 
     subparagraph meets any of the conditions described in such 
     subparagraph.
       (2) Liability of health care providers.--A health care 
     provider who prescribes, or who dispenses pursuant to a 
     prescription, a medical product approved, licensed, or 
     cleared by the Food and Drug Administration shall not be 
     named as a party to a product liability lawsuit involving 
     such product and shall not be liable to a claimant in a class 
     action lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor, or 
     seller of such product. Nothing in this paragraph prevents a 
     court from consolidating cases involving health care 
     providers and cases involving products liability claims 
     against the manufacturer, distributor, or product seller of 
     such medical product.
       (3) Packaging.--In a health care lawsuit for harm which is 
     alleged to relate to the adequacy of the packaging or 
     labeling of a drug which is required to have tamper-resistant 
     packaging under regulations of the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services (including labeling regulations related to 
     such packaging), the manufacturer or product seller of the 
     drug shall not be held liable for punitive damages unless 
     such packaging or labeling is found by the trier of fact by 
     clear and convincing evidence to be substantially out of 
     compliance with such regulations.
       (4) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in any health 
     care lawsuit in which--
       (A) a person, before or after premarket approval, 
     clearance, or licensure of such medical product, knowingly 
     misrepresented to or withheld from the Food and Drug 
     Administration information that is required to be submitted 
     under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 
     et seq.) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 262) that is material and is causally related to the 
     harm which the claimant allegedly suffered; or
       (B) a person made an illegal payment to an official of the 
     Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of either 
     securing or maintaining approval, clearance, or licensure of 
     such medical product.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF FUTURE DAMAGES TO 
                   CLAIMANTS IN HEALTH CARE LAWSUITS.

       (a) In General.--In any health care lawsuit, if an award of 
     future damages, without reduction to present value, equaling 
     or exceeding $50,000 is made against a party with sufficient 
     insurance or other assets to fund a periodic payment of such 
     a judgment, the court shall, at the request of any party, 
     enter a judgment ordering that the future damages be paid by 
     periodic payments. In any health care lawsuit, the court may 
     be guided by the Uniform Periodic Payment of Judgments Act 
     promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on 
     Uniform State Laws.
       (b) Applicability.--This section applies to all actions 
     which have not been first set for trial or retrial before the 
     effective date of this Act.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Alternative dispute resolution system; adr.--The term 
     ``alternative dispute resolution system'' or ``ADR'' means a 
     system that provides for the resolution of health care 
     lawsuits in a manner other than through a civil action 
     brought in a State or Federal court.
       (2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who 
     brings a health care lawsuit, including a person who asserts 
     or claims a right to legal or equitable contribution, 
     indemnity or subrogation, arising out of a health care 
     liability claim or action, and any person on whose behalf 
     such a claim is asserted or such an action is brought, 
     whether deceased, incompetent, or a minor.
       (3) Collateral source benefits.--The term ``collateral 
     source benefits'' means any amount paid or reasonably likely 
     to be paid in the future to or on behalf of the claimant, or 
     any service, product or other benefit provided or reasonably 
     likely to be provided in the future to or on behalf of the 
     claimant, as a result of the injury or wrongful death, 
     pursuant to--
       (A) any State or Federal health, sickness, income-
     disability, accident, or workers' compensation law;
       (B) any health, sickness, income-disability, or accident 
     insurance that provides health benefits or income-disability 
     coverage;
       (C) any contract or agreement of any group, organization, 
     partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse 
     the cost of medical, hospital, dental, or income disability 
     benefits; and
       (D) any other publicly or privately funded program.
       (4) Compensatory damages.--The term ``compensatory 
     damages'' means objectively verifiable monetary losses 
     incurred as a result of the provision of, use of, or payment 
     for (or failure to provide, use, or pay for)

[[Page 18296]]

     health care services or medical products, such as past and 
     future medical expenses, loss of past and future earnings, 
     cost of obtaining domestic services, loss of employment, and 
     loss of business or employment opportunities, damages for 
     physical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, 
     physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of 
     enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of 
     consortium (other than loss of domestic service), hedonic 
     damages, injury to reputation, and all other nonpecuniary 
     losses of any kind or nature. The term ``compensatory 
     damages'' includes economic damages and noneconomic damages, 
     as such terms are defined in this section.
       (5) Contingent fee.--The term ``contingent fee'' includes 
     all compensation to any person or persons which is payable 
     only if a recovery is effected on behalf of one or more 
     claimants.
       (6) Economic damages.--The term ``economic damages'' means 
     objectively verifi-
     able monetary losses incurred as a result of the provision 
     of, use of, or payment for (or failure to provide, use, or 
     pay for) health care services or medical products, such as 
     past and future medical expenses, loss of past and future 
     earnings, cost of obtaining domestic services, loss of 
     employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities.
       (7) Health care lawsuit.--The term ``health care lawsuit'' 
     means any health care liability claim concerning the 
     provision of health care goods or services or any medical 
     product affecting interstate commerce, or any health care 
     liability action concerning the provision of health care 
     goods or services or any medical product affecting interstate 
     commerce, brought in a State or Federal court or pursuant to 
     an alternative dispute resolution system, against a health 
     care provider, a health care organization, or the 
     manufacturer, distributor, supplier, marketer, promoter, or 
     seller of a medical product, regardless of the theory of 
     liability on which the claim is based, or the number of 
     claimants, plaintiffs, defendants, or other parties, or the 
     number of claims or causes of action, in which the claimant 
     alleges a health care liability claim. Such term does not 
     include a claim or action which is based on criminal 
     liability; which seeks civil fines or penalties paid to 
     Federal, State, or local government; or which is grounded in 
     antitrust.
       (8) Health care liability action.--The term ``health care 
     liability action'' means a civil action brought in a State or 
     Federal Court or pursuant to an alternative dispute 
     resolution system, against a health care provider, a health 
     care organization, or the manufacturer, distributor, 
     supplier, marketer, promoter, or seller of a medical product, 
     regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim is 
     based, or the number of plaintiffs, defendants, or other 
     parties, or the number of causes of action, in which the 
     claimant alleges a health care liability claim.
       (9) Health care liability claim.--The term ``health care 
     liability claim'' means a demand by any person, whether or 
     not pursuant to ADR, against a health care provider, health 
     care organization, or the manufacturer, distributor, 
     supplier, marketer, promoter, or seller of a medical product, 
     including, but not limited to, third-party claims, cross-
     claims, counter-claims, or contribution claims, which are 
     based upon the provision of, use of, or payment for (or the 
     failure to provide, use, or pay for) health care services or 
     medical products, regardless of the theory of liability on 
     which the claim is based, or the number of plaintiffs, 
     defendants, or other parties, or the number of causes of 
     action.
       (10) Health care organization.--The term ``health care 
     organization'' means any person or entity which is obligated 
     to provide or pay for health benefits under any health plan, 
     including any person or entity acting under a contract or 
     arrangement with a health care organization to provide or 
     administer any health benefit.
       (11) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means any person or entity required by State or 
     Federal laws or regulations to be licensed, registered, or 
     certified to provide health care services, and being either 
     so licensed, registered, or certified, or exempted from such 
     requirement by other statute or regulation.
       (12) Health care goods or services.--The term ``health care 
     goods or services'' means any goods or services provided by a 
     health care organization, provider, or by any individual 
     working under the supervision of a health care provider, that 
     relates to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any 
     human disease or impairment, or the assessment or care of the 
     health of human beings.
       (13) Malicious intent to injure.--The term ``malicious 
     intent to injure'' means intentionally causing or attempting 
     to cause physical injury other than providing health care 
     goods or services.
       (14) Medical product.--The term ``medical product'' means a 
     drug, device, or biological product intended for humans, and 
     the terms ``drug'', ``device'', and ``biological product'' 
     have the meanings given such terms in sections 201(g)(1) and 
     201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     321) and section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 262(a)), respectively, including any component or raw 
     material used therein, but excluding health care services.
       (15) Noneconomic damages.--The term ``noneconomic damages'' 
     means damages for physical and emotional pain, suffering, 
     inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, 
     disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and 
     companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of 
     domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and 
     all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
       (16) Punitive damages.--The term ``punitive damages'' means 
     damages awarded, for the purpose of punishment or deterrence, 
     and not solely for compensatory purposes, against a health 
     care provider, health care organization, or a manufacturer, 
     distributor, or supplier of a medical product. Punitive 
     damages are neither economic nor noneconomic damages.
       (17) Recovery.--The term ``recovery'' means the net sum 
     recovered after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred 
     in connection with prosecution or settlement of the claim, 
     including all costs paid or advanced by any person. Costs of 
     health care incurred by the plaintiff and the attorneys' 
     office overhead costs or charges for legal services are not 
     deductible disbursements or costs for such purpose.
       (18) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 
     and any other territory or possession of the United States, 
     or any political subdivision thereof.

     SEC. 10. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Vaccine Injury.--
       (1) To the extent that title XXI of the Public Health 
     Service Act establishes a Federal rule of law applicable to a 
     civil action brought for a vaccine-related injury or death--
       (A) this Act does not affect the application of the rule of 
     law to such an action; and
       (B) any rule of law prescribed by this Act in conflict with 
     a rule of law of such title XXI shall not apply to such 
     action.
       (2) If there is an aspect of a civil action brought for a 
     vaccine-related injury or death to which a Federal rule of 
     law under title XXI of the Public Health Service Act does not 
     apply, then this Act or otherwise applicable law (as 
     determined under this Act) will apply to such aspect of such 
     action.
       (b) Other Federal Law.--Except as provided in this section, 
     nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect any defense 
     available to a defendant in a health care lawsuit or action 
     under any other provision of Federal law.

     SEC. 11. STATE FLEXIBILITY AND PROTECTION OF STATES' RIGHTS.

       (a) Health Care Lawsuits.--The provisions governing health 
     care lawsuits set forth in this Act preempt, subject to 
     subsections (b) and (c), State law to the extent that State 
     law prevents the application of any provisions of law 
     established by or under this Act. The provisions governing 
     health care lawsuits set forth in this Act supersede chapter 
     171 of title 28, United States Code, to the extent that such 
     chapter--
       (1) provides for a greater amount of damages or contingent 
     fees, a longer period in which a health care lawsuit may be 
     commenced, or a reduced applicability or scope of periodic 
     payment of future damages, than provided in this Act; or
       (2) prohibits the introduction of evidence regarding 
     collateral source benefits, or mandates or permits 
     subrogation or a lien on collateral source benefits.
       (b) Protection of States' Rights and Other Laws.--(1) Any 
     issue that is not governed by any provision of law 
     established by or under this Act (including State standards 
     of negligence) shall be governed by otherwise applicable 
     State or Federal law.
       (2) This Act shall not preempt or supersede any State or 
     Federal law that imposes greater procedural or substantive 
     protections for health care providers and health care 
     organizations from liability, loss, or damages than those 
     provided by this Act or create a cause of action.
       (c) State Flexibility.--No provision of this Act shall be 
     construed to preempt--
       (1) any State law (whether effective before, on, or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act) that specifies a 
     particular monetary amount of compensatory or punitive 
     damages (or the total amount of damages) that may be awarded 
     in a health care lawsuit, regardless of whether such monetary 
     amount is greater or lesser than is provided for under this 
     Act, notwithstanding section 4(a); or
       (2) any defense available to a party in a health care 
     lawsuit under any other provision of State or Federal law.

     SEC. 12. APPLICABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall apply to any health care lawsuit brought in 
     a Federal or State court, or subject to an alternative 
     dispute resolution system, that is initiated on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, except that any health 
     care lawsuit arising from an injury occurring prior to the 
     date of the enactment of this Act shall be governed by the 
     applicable statute of limitations provisions in effect at the 
     time the injury occurred.

[[Page 18297]]



     SEC. 13. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that a health insurer should be 
     liable for damages for harm caused when it makes a decision 
     as to what care is medically necessary and appropriate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 385, the Chair 
at any time may postpone further consideration of the bill until a time 
designated by the Speaker.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the HEALTH Act, which is identical to 
two other bills that passed the House during the last Congress. The 
HEALTH Act is modeled on California's Medical Injury Compensation 
Reform Act, called MICRA, which has resulted in California's medical 
liability premiums increasing only one-third as much as they have in 
other States.
  MICRA's reforms, which are included in the HEALTH Act, include a 
$250,000 cap on noneconomic damages; limits on the contingency fees 
lawyers can charge; a fair-share rule by which damages are allocated in 
direct proportion to fault; reasonable guidelines, but not caps, on the 
award of punitive damages; and a safe harbor from punitive damages for 
products that meet FDA safety requirements.

                              {time}  1330

  According to the nonpartisan organization Jury Verdict Research, the 
median medical liability award has more than doubled in the last 7 
years to $1.2 million.
  Doctors and other health care providers are being forced to abandon 
patients and practices, particularly in high-risk specialties such as 
emergency medicine, brain surgery and obstetrics and gynecology.
  Women are particularly hard hit, as are low-income neighborhoods and 
rural areas. According to a report by the Department of Health and 
Human Services, ``Unless a State has adopted limitations on noneconomic 
damages, the cost of these awards for noneconomic damages is paid by 
all other Americans through higher health care costs, higher health 
insurance premiums, higher taxes, reduced access to quality care, and 
threats to quality of care.''
  Many doctors are no longer available to treat patients. Mary Rasar's 
father did not get the medical care he needed following a car accident 
last summer, because the only trauma center in his area closed for 10 
days due to medical liability costs. Her father died from those 
injuries.
  Melinda Sallard, a 22-year-old mother, was forced to deliver her own 
baby on the side of the road after her physician stopped delivering 
babies and her hospital's maternity department closed because of rising 
medical liability costs.
  Leanne Dyess' husband Tony sustained head injuries in a car accident 
and could not find a neurosurgeon to treat him because rising liability 
costs had forced insurers to drop their coverage. Tony was airlifted to 
a hospital in another State that still had neurosurgeons, but 6 hours 
had passed, and it was too late. As a result Tony suffered permanent 
brain damage.
  In my hometown, the CEO of San Antonio's Methodist Children's 
Hospital has seen his premiums increase 400 percent. He has been sued 
three times. In one case the only interaction with the person suing was 
that he stepped in her child's hospital room and asked simply, how is 
your child doing? Each jury cleared him of any wrongdoing, and the 
total amount of time all three juries spent deliberating was less than 
an hour. But the doctor's insurance company spent a great deal of time, 
effort and money in his defense.
  It is no surprise the American College of Emergency Physicians found 
that large majorities of both rural and urban hospitals had inadequate 
on-call specialists coverage. And there has been a 40 percent reduction 
in medical students entering obstetrics and gynecology.
  According to the chair of the OB/GYN department at the Yale School of 
Medicine, ``Within 2 years we will be faced with a very real 
possibility of having to shut down our high-risk obstetrical practice, 
a practice that cares for the sickest mothers in the State.''
  As for legitimate cases of medical malpractice, nothing in the HEALTH 
Act prevents juries from awarding very large amounts to victims, 
including children. The HEALTH Act does not limit in any way an award 
of economic damages to injured victims. Economic damages include lost 
wages or home services, medical costs, the cost of pain-reducing drugs, 
therapy and lifetime rehabilitation care.
  In fact, in just the last few years, juries in California have 
awarded the following damages to medical malpractice victims: An $84 
million award to a 5-year-old boy, a $59 million award to a 3-year-old 
girl, a $50 million award to a 10-year-old boy, a $12 million award to 
a 30-year-old homemaker, and a $27 million award to a 25-year-old 
woman. Other examples include damages of 
$7, $22, $25, $30, and $49 million, all in just the last few years. 
Awards of these same sizes would be available under the HEALTH Act. 
Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health stated that ``we 
found no evidence that women or the elderly were disparately impacted 
by the cap'' on noneconomic damages in California under MICRA.
  The HEALTH Act will work. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, ``Under the HEALTH Act, premiums from medical malpractice 
insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent 
below what they would be under current law.''
  The American people support the HEALTH Act. The Gallup poll found 
that 72 percent of those surveyed favor a limit on the amount patients 
can be awarded for noneconomic damages. The HEALTH Act also respects 
the judgments of State legislatures because it does not preempt any 
State law that limits damages, be they higher or lower than the limits 
provided for in the HEALTH Act.
  Finally, this legislation is supported by some 200 organizations, 
including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American 
College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists, and the Council of Women's and Infant's Specialty 
Hospitals.
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of those who need health care, for the sake 
of health care providers who simply want to practice their professions, 
please join me and these selfless organizations in supporting the 
HEALTH Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The Chair understands that the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will control 40 minutes as the 
designee of the minority leader, and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) will control 20 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir. That is correct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Now, the reason that many people might support this bill is that they 
do not know that inside the bill, if they were asked, are you for 
legislation that makes it harder to sue drug companies and HMOs, I do 
not think you would get the same polling results.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record after these remarks 
letters and reports in opposition to H.R. 5 from the American Bar 
Association, Public Citizen, and the American Federation of State, 
County and Municipal Employees and the National Conference of State 
Legislators.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. This is a special interest 
bill before

[[Page 18298]]

us today. The bill would supersede the law in all States in the Union 
to cap noneconomic damages, to cap and limit punitive damages, to cap 
attorneys' fees for poor victims, to shorten the statute of 
limitations, to eliminate joint and several liability, and to eliminate 
collateral source.
  That is a pretty large menu. But, more amazing, this bill comes 
before us today without the benefit of a committee hearing, or a 
committee markup, and under a totally closed rule. How do you like 
that?
  Rather than helping doctors and victims, this measure pads the 
pockets of insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, and 
manufacturers and distributors of defective medical products and 
pharmaceuticals, and it does so at the expense of innocent victims, 
particularly women, children, the elderly and the poor. We have a bill 
today for you.
  So let us cut the charade and get to the heart of the problem, and 
the insurance industry is the greatest place to start. This month we 
found out that the insurance industry has increased premiums by more 
than 100 percent over the last 5 years, while the claims they have paid 
out were essentially the same, were flat.
  This may have something to do with the fact that the insurance 
industry, which is exempt from antitrust laws, is not immune from 
collusion, price fixing, and other anticompetitive problems that they 
would be subject to if they did not have an antitrust exemption.
  It is also clear that a legislative solution, largely focused on 
limiting victim rights, available under our State tort system will do 
little other than increase the incidence of medical malpractice, which 
is already the third leading cause of preventable death in our Nation.
  So under the proposal, we here in Congress would be saying to the 
American people, we do not care if you lose your ability to bear 
children. We do not care if are you forced to bear excruciating pain 
for the reminder of your life. We do not care if you are permanently 
disfigured or crippled. We are going to limit your recovery no matter 
what.
  The proposed new statute of limitations in this bill takes absolutely 
no account of the fact that many injuries caused by malpractice or 
faulty drugs take years, sometimes decades, to manifest themselves. 
Under this proposal a patient who is negligently infected with HIV 
blood and develops AIDS 6 years later would be forever barred from 
filing a liability claim.
  The so-called periodic plan provisions are really nothing less than a 
Federal installment plan for the health maintenance organizations. The 
measure we have here right now would allow insurance companies 
teetering on the verge of bankruptcy to delay and then completely avoid 
future financial obligations. And they would have no obligation to pay 
interest on the amounts that they owe their victims.
  And guess who else gets a sweetheart deal under the legislation? The 
drug companies. The producers of such killer devices like the Dalkon 
Shield, the Cooper-7 IUD, high-absorbency tampons linked to toxic shock 
syndrome, and silicone gel implants all would have completely avoided 
the billions of dollars in damages that they have had to pay had this 
bill been law.
  Do you really want to do this today, my colleagues? It would help 
insulate Vioxx claims for liability, adding insult to injury to 
hundreds of thousands of individuals and families who suffered heart 
attacks or lost their life as a result of this dangerous drug.
  I conclude. Nearly 100,000 people die in this country every year from 
medical malpractice. And at a time when 5 percent of our health care 
professionals cause 54 percent of all medical malpractice injuries, 
just a few, a few doctors causing all of this problem, the last thing 
we need to do is exacerbate this problem while ignoring the true causes 
of medical malpractice, the crisis that exists in this country today.
  My colleagues, I urge you to please do not accept this antipatient, 
antivictim legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the material I referred to previously is as follows:

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                        Denver, CO, July 26, 2005.
     Re H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely 
         Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005.

     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert and Representative Pelosi: On behalf 
     of the National Conference of State Legislatures, I am 
     writing to express strong, bipartisan opposition to the 
     passage of federal medical malpractice legislation, H.R. 5, 
     the ``Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare 
     (HEALTH) Act of 2005,'' which is scheduled for a vote in the 
     House of Representatives on Wednesday, July 27.
       Medical malpractice, product liability and other areas of 
     tort reform are areas of law that have been traditionally and 
     successfully regulated by the states. Since the country's 
     inception, states have addressed the myriad of substantive 
     and regulatory issues regarding licensure, insurance, court 
     procedures, victim compensation, civil liability, medical 
     records and related matters. In the past two decades, all 
     states have explored various aspects of medical malpractice 
     and products liability and chosen various means for remedying 
     identified problems. To date, twenty-nine states have enacted 
     medical malpractice legislation in their 2005 legislative 
     sessions.
       NCSL's Medical Malpractice policy explicitly and firmly 
     states that ``American federalism contemplates diversity 
     among the states in establishing rules and respects the 
     ability of the states to act in their own best interests in 
     matters pertaining to civil liability due to negligence.'' 
     That diversity has worked well even under the most trying and 
     challenging circumstances. The adoption of a one-size-fits-
     all approach to medical malpractice envisioned in H.R. 5 and 
     other related measures would undermine that diversity and 
     disregard factors unique to each particular state.
       Federal medical malpractice legislation inappropriately 
     seeks to preempt various areas of state law. All 50 states 
     have statutes of limitations for medical malpractice suits. 
     All 50 states have rules of civil procedure governing the 
     admissibility of evidence and the use of expert witnesses. 
     More than half of the states have caps on noneconomic damages 
     and limitations on attorney's fees in medical malpractice 
     cases.
       This issue was scrutinized again at NCSL's last Fall Forum. 
     Our review included assessing whether circumstances had 
     developed or were so unique that only federal action could 
     provide an adequate and workable remedy. We again examined 
     recent state actions, policy options and experiences. We 
     discussed at length how various proposed or anticipated 
     pieces of federal legislation fared against NCSL's core 
     federalism questions. Those questions included (1) whether 
     preemption is needed to remediate serious conflicts imposing 
     severe burdens on national economic activity; (2) whether 
     preemption is needed to achieve a national objective; and (3) 
     whether the states are unable to correct the problem. The 
     resounding bipartisan conclusion was that federal legislation 
     is unnecessary.
       NCSL's opposition extends to any bill or amendment that 
     directly or indirectly preempts any state law governing the 
     awarding of damages by mandatory, uniform amounts or the 
     awarding of attorney's fees. Our opposition also extends to 
     any provision affecting the drafting of pleadings, the 
     introduction of evidence and statutes of limitations. 
     Furthermore, NCSL opposes any federal legislation that would 
     undermine the capacity of aggrieved parties to seek full and 
     fair redress in state courts for physical harm done to them 
     due to the negligence of others.
       Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. For 
     additional information, please contact Susan Parnas Frederick 
     or Trina Caudle in NCSL's Washington, D.C. office.
           Respectfully,

                                      Senator Michael Balboni,

                                           New York Senate, Chair,
     NCSL Law & Criminal Justice Committee.
                                  ____



                                                Public Citizen

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2005.
     Re please oppose H.R. 5--``HEALTH Act of 2005.''

       Dear Representative: H.R. 5, a bill dealing with civil 
     liability for medical malpractice, would shield doctors, 
     HMOs, hospitals, nursing homes, drug makers, and medical 
     device manufacturers from legal and financial responsibility 
     for harms inflicted by their misconduct. At the same time, it 
     would punish victims of medical negligence by making it more 
     difficult for them to recover fair compensation for their 
     injuries. We strongly oppose this bill and urge you to vote 
     against it.
       We are enclosing a detailed fact sheet evaluating the major 
     provisions of this misguided legislation, whose more 
     egregious features include:
       An arbitrary, non-adjustable $250,000 cap on non-economic 
     damages--the lowest limit imposed by any state that has 
     adopted caps

[[Page 18299]]

     since they first appeared 30 years ago--regardless of the 
     severity of injury, number of malfeasors, or number of 
     defendants involved.
       Insulation from liability for nursing homes, HMOs, drug 
     companies, and medical device manufacturers, and protection 
     from punitive damages for products that are FDA approved or 
     generally recognized as safe and effective.
       Federalized standards for medical malpractice liability 
     that preempt existing state laws in an arena that is 
     traditionally the purview of state legislatures and courts.
       The fact sheet is accompanied by our analysis of medical 
     malpractice judgments over the ``crisis'' period 2000 to 
     2004, showing that total payments to plaintiffs for 
     malpractice judgments have dropped 37.5 percent, when 
     adjusted for inflation, over the past five years. This 
     demonstrates--contrary to what proponents of denying legal 
     rights to victims contend--that lawsuits are not the engine 
     driving skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums.
       For the reasons stated above, and more fully described in 
     the enclosures, we urge you to protect consumers by voting no 
     on H.R. 5.
           Sincerely,
     Joan Claybrook,
       President.
     Frank Clemente,
       Director, Congress Watch.
                                  ____



                                     American Bar Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2005.
       Dear Representative: We understand that in the near future 
     the House is expected to consider H.R. 534, legislation to 
     preempt substantial portions of the state medical liability 
     laws. On behalf of the American Bar Association, I urge you 
     to vote against passage of H.R. 534. The ABA opposes H.R. 534 
     because it would interfere with the traditional state 
     regulation of medical liability laws and restrict the rights 
     of injured patients to be compensated for their injuries.
       For over 200 years, the authority to promulgate medical 
     liability laws has rested with the states. This system, which 
     allows each state autonomy to regulate the resolution of 
     medical liability actions within its borders, is a hallmark 
     of our American justice system. Because of the role they have 
     played, the states are the repositories of experience and 
     expertise in these matters. If enacted, H.R. 534 would pre-
     empt the rights of the states to continue to administer the 
     medical liability laws.
       Currently, states have the opportunity to enact and amend 
     their tort laws, and the system functions well. Congress 
     should not substitute its judgment for the systems that have 
     thoughtfully evolved in each state over time. To do so would 
     limit the ability of a patient who has been injured by 
     medical malpractice to receive the compensation he or she 
     deserves.
       The ABA is especially concerned about the provisions in 
     H.R. 534 that would place a cap on pain and suffering awards 
     in states that have no such cap. The ABA opposes caps on pain 
     and suffering awards which ultimately harms those who have 
     been most severely injured. Instead, the courts should make 
     greater use of their powers to set aside verdicts involving 
     pain and suffering awards that are disproportionate to 
     community expectations.
       Medical professional liability expenditures account for 
     less than two percent of national health care expenditures. 
     Provisions contained in H.R. 534 to cap non-economic damages 
     would not eliminate the less than two percent of health care 
     costs attributable to medical professional liability since 
     very few people are the subject of such caps. Any savings in 
     the cost of health care would be a small fraction of the less 
     than two percent figure.
       There is no question that malpractice premiums have risen. 
     The question is why. There is no evidence that the legal 
     system has caused the spike in rates. And there is no 
     evidence that caps will be effective in reversing the trend. 
     In fact, not even data provided by the AMA in June 2004 
     supports the idea that placing caps on damages can avert a 
     medical malpractice crisis in a particular state, or that 
     states that fail to enact caps are certain to have a crisis. 
     At that time, eight states that were listed by the AMA as 
     ``in crisis'' (Florida, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, 
     Nevada, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia) had already enacted 
     caps on non-economic damage awards. Fourteen other states 
     that had such caps were, according to the AMA, ``showing 
     problem signs,'' and just six of the states that had enacted 
     caps were considered by the AMA to not be ``in crisis'' or 
     ``showing problem signs.'' This follows a June 2003 report by 
     Weiss Ratings, Inc., which found that caps on non-economic 
     damages have failed to prevent sharp increases in medical 
     malpractice insurance premiums, even though insurers enjoyed 
     a slowdown in their payouts.
       A July 2003 General Accounting Office study of the causes 
     of malpractice insurance increases found that, while 
     malpractice awards have contributed to increased premiums, 
     ``a lack of comprehensive data at the national and state 
     levels on insurers' medical malpractice claims and the 
     associated losses prevented us from fully analyzing the 
     composition and causes of those losses.'' In fact, relevant 
     studies have since been released that analyze and challenge 
     the alleged link between the tort liability system and 
     malpractice premiums. Two notable studies suggest that the 
     issue is much more complex.
       One such study, in Texas, found no evidence to support a 
     link between rising malpractice premiums in Texas and the 
     frequency of claims and size of payouts, despite Texas voters 
     having passed a constitutional amendment in 2003 that sharply 
     restricted non-economic damages in medical malpractice 
     lawsuits. The Texas study was developed by researchers at 
     three major universities. An examination of the comprehensive 
     database of closed malpractice claims maintained by the Texas 
     Department of Insurance found that the number of paid 
     malpractice claims (adjusted for population growth) was 
     roughly constant between 1991 and 2002, the frequency of such 
     claims actually declined, the frequency of individual jury 
     awards in malpractice cases declined, and the percentage of 
     claimant verdicts showed no upward trend.
       Similarly, a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation showed 
     that capping damages in medical malpractice cases does not 
     reduce doctors' exposure to malpractice claims. The Kaiser 
     Family Foundation report on medical malpractice was released 
     on May 27, 2005. The report provides trend data for 
     malpractice claims. It shows that the total dollars in 
     physician medical malpractice claim payments remained 
     relatively constant during the period from 1991 to 2003 
     (13,687 in 1991, compared with 15,287 in 2003). The average 
     number of malpractice claims per physician declined 
     relatively steadily over the period.
       The American Bar Association analyzed the Kaiser Family 
     Foundation report's new state malpractice data (available at 
     http://www.statehealthfacts.org/r/malpractice.cfm) on the 
     number of paid claims per 1,000 physicians in each state in 
     2003, the latest year for which data is available. The chart 
     attached as Appendix ``A'' lists the number of claims per 
     1,000 active, non-federal physicians and shows whether the 
     state had caps on noneconomic or total damage caps in 2003. 
     This data shows the number of paid claims per 1,000 active 
     non-federal physicians is not related to whether a state has 
     caps on damages or not. For example, the average claims for 
     1,000 physicians ranged from a high of 30.5 in Indiana, which 
     had damage caps in 2003, to a low of 5 in Alabama, which did 
     not have caps on non-economic or total damage caps in 2003.
       It is obvious that those affected by caps on damages are 
     the patients who have been most severely injured by the 
     negligence of others. No one has stated that their pain and 
     suffering injuries are not real or severe. These patients 
     should not be told that, due to an arbitrary limit, they will 
     be deprived of the compensation they need to carry on. Yet 
     H.R. 534, if enacted, would result in the most seriously 
     injured persons who are most in need of recompense receiving 
     less than adequate compensation.
       On July 14, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a quite 
     lengthy and well-thought-out opinion, found caps in 
     malpractice cases to be unconstitutional. Ferdon v. Wisconsin 
     Patients Compensation Fund, et al., Case No. 2003AP988. As 
     part of its analysis of the issues, the Court noted that the 
     cap put in place ($350,000) was apparently based on the 
     assumption that the cap would help to limit the increasing 
     cost and possible diminishing availability of health care, 
     although the immediate objective was apparently to ensure the 
     availability of sufficient liability insurance at a 
     reasonable cost. Slip op. at 45. The Court found no rational 
     relationship between ``the classification of victims in the 
     $350,000 cap on non-economic damages'' and the equally 
     desirous objective of compensating victims fairly, both those 
     who suffer non-economic damages above and below the cap. Slip 
     op. at p. 50. The Court found that the cap is ``unreasonable 
     and unnecessary because it is not rationally related to the 
     legislative objective of lowering medical malpractice 
     insurance premiums'' and it creates an undue hardship on 
     those whose non-economic damages exceed the cap and is thus 
     arbitrary. Slip op. at pp. 49, 53. The Court came to its 
     conclusion after reviewing an analysis of studies done within 
     the state by the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance and of 
     studies outside the state. Slip op. at pp. 59-66.
       We urge you to vote no on H.R. 534.
       Sincerely,

                                            Miles J. Zaremski,

                                     Chair, ABA Standing Committee
                                on Medical Professional Liability.

        Medical Malpractice--Is MAG Mutual Gouging Its Doctors?

       Georgia's largest medical malpractice writer took in nearly 
     triple what it paid out.
       This gain is in addition to the $17,312,654 gain made by 
     investing its doctors' money.
       Insurance reform--not tort reform--is needed to reduce 
     medical malpractice premiums.
       Source: taken directly from the company's annual statement 
     for the year ending December 31, 2004. All data is from the 
     Five Year Historical Data Page: information on Net Paid 
     Losses is line 61, Net Premiums

[[Page 18300]]

     Written is line 12, and Net Investment Gain is line 14. 
     Dollar figure for investment gain represents total investment 
     multiplied by percentage of premiums written of total for the 
     state. Statement available at: http:naic.org/cis. MAG Mutual 
     Insurance Company is the largest insurer in Georgia with 
     42.3% of the market (AM Best).

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) the primary author of the bill 
itself.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) for yielding me the time.
  With all due respect to the distinguished ranking member, let me say 
that in response to his comments, this is a special interest bill. That 
is right. It is a special interest bill. It is a special interest bill 
for the American consumer of health care, for our patients. That is 
where the special interest is; not, Mr. Speaker, the insurance 
industry, not drug companies or manufacturers of medical devices.
  The insurance industry, of course, offers a broad range of products. 
It could be health insurance. It could be automobile insurance. It 
could be homeowners insurance. It could be an umbrella policy for 
general liability. And, yes, of course there is a product line called 
medical liability insurance.
  But let me tell you what is happening to the insurance industry in 
regard to that piece of their business. In my home State of Georgia, 3 
years ago we had 20 companies that offered that line of business. Today 
we have one. We have gone from 20 to 1, and that is a mutual company.

                              {time}  1345

  If these insurance companies were making out like bandits, as the 
other side of the aisle and the opposition to this commonsense bill are 
suggesting, then they would not be quitting the business in droves. 
They would be continuing to stay in the business and raising those 
premiums and making these tremendous profits.
  I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what is happening with the industry of 
insurance in regard to other product lines. The gentleman may be right 
on that. But in regard to this line of business, I can tell you they 
are losing money even when they have good returns on their investments, 
as did Mag Mutual in Georgia several years ago. In fact, the return on 
their very conservative investments, they are very restricted by the 
insurance commissioner in that very conservative portfolio of 
investments, returned them $7 million; but they still are losing money 
because of these outrageous claims and the expense of defending so many 
frivolous lawsuits.
  In regard, Mr. Speaker, to the drug companies and the manufacturers 
of medical devices that the distinguished ranking member mentioned, 
this bill would only relieve them of punitive damages, that is all, 
punitive damages, if it is shown that they did deliberately market a 
drug or a device that they knew was harmful to a patient and they 
deliberately withheld that information from the FDA. It does not 
relieve them of liability for being named in a lawsuit. It is only the 
punitive damages.
  If they are guilty of something like that, of withholding information 
deliberately, we went through this with the tobacco industry in regard 
to lung cancer, the punitive damages can be in the hundreds of millions 
and, maybe if it is a big Fortune 500 company, billions of dollars.
  So this is a distraction from the real problem. And the real problem, 
Mr. Speaker, is that we have an unlevel playing field. That is all it 
is. This bill, H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2005, is not going to take 
away anybody's right to sue if they have been injured and to seek 
economic damages and payments for medical care for the rest of their 
lives.
  The gentleman from Texas explained to us that many of these cases in 
California, a State that since 1979 has had a cap on noneconomic so-
called ``pain and suffering'' at $250,000, these cases that he just 
talked about, $10 million, $20 million, $30 million worth of economic 
awards, people are not being denied access to that care, Mr. Speaker. 
This is only to balance the playing field so that we do not have this 
situation in this country where we are supposed to have the greatest 
health care in the world, and yet our specialists are dropping out. 
They are not delivering babies. They are not getting involved in high-
risk pregnancies. They are not manning emergency rooms. They are not 
doing newer surgery.
  Because of all the defensive practice of medicine, every specialist 
practices in two areas: his or her specialty and also the specialty of 
defensive medicine, and it is driving up the cost of health care and 
people cannot afford to get health insurance. That is all we are 
talking about here, Mr. Speaker, of leveling the playing field. It is 
not taking away anybody's right to sue. It is not denigrating or 
bashing the legal profession.
  Those attorneys who specialize in personal injury, most of them do a 
great job representing their clients well. My brother is an attorney. 
My daughter is an attorney. We are not here to bash the legal 
profession. But we just want to ask them to give us an opportunity to 
level this playing field to make it fair for everyone. And so this idea 
that the other side suggests that we are taking away anybody's rights 
is absolutely not true, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me say some of the things that this bill does do besides limiting 
noneconomic to $250,000. What it does, Mr. Speaker, is something called 
``collateral source disclosure.'' Current law did not allow a jury to 
know that a plaintiff in a malpractice case has health insurance or has 
a disability policy. So when they are calculating all of these economic 
losses and loss of wages, it is not known by the jury that maybe that 
disability policy gives them 80 percent of their earnings or their 
income for their whole life or that they have health insurance.
  The other thing, and I will conclude on this, Mr. Speaker, the other 
things this bill does is it stops this issue of joint and several 
liability where, when multiple defendants are named, the person, the 
doctor who has the deepest pockets, who may have had very little to do, 
if anything to do, maybe just walked down the corridor on a Saturday 
and said hello to the patient, but they happened to have the most 
insurance and the deepest pockets so they pay all of the claims.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Kelly), a subcommittee Chair of the Committee on 
Financial Services.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5. Listen to 
why. For many years, the world has come to New York for medical care. 
But between 1998 and 2002, 70 percent of New York's neurosurgeons, 60 
percent of the OB-GYNs in New York, 60 percent of New York's orthopedic 
surgeons, and 60 percent of the general surgeons in New York were sued.
  Mr. Speaker, it is impossible that all of these physicians were bad 
doctors. We can all agree that there are some physicians that may be 
better than others, but it would be difficult to come to the consensus 
that more than half of the physicians in several vital practice areas 
have performed this poorly.
  This is a problem. In New York, the average jury award increased from 
$1.7 million in 1994 to $6 million in 1999, which was an increase of 
350 percent. New York physicians are now paying 34 to 50 percent more 
in 2005 for the same insurance coverage they had in 2002. This is in 
part due to an across-the-board average rate increase of 7 percent for 
the 2004-2005 policy year. In 2001, six of the top eight medical 
malpractice awards in the United States came from New York courts. In 
2002, 7 of the top 10 jury verdicts in medical negligence cases were 
from New York courts. And in 2003, it was four of the top six.
  The cost is not just to the doctors. It is a cost we all ultimately 
share. There are steps this Congress can take in solving the problem. 
The HEALTH Act is a step that is both reasonable and fair. It is 
reasonable because it calls for a cap on unquantifiable damages. State 
laws that otherwise cap damages at

[[Page 18301]]

specific amounts, even at higher amounts than those provided in the 
HEALTH Act, would remain in effect. The act is fair when it allows for 
the full recovery of economic damages. In other words, when damages can 
be quantified, they are unlimited in the HEALTH Act.
  The HEALTH Act is going to help solve the national crisis we are 
seeing in medical malpractice. Without this legislation, doctors will 
not just leave the area where they practice; they will leave the 
profession. I urge support of the HEALTH Act.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 5--The HEALTH Act of 2005.
  Between 1998 and 2002, the largest insurer of physicians in New York 
state had: 70 percent of its neurosurgeons sued, 60 percent of OB-GYNs 
were sued, 60 percent of orthopedic surgeons were sued, and 60 percent 
of general surgeons were sued.
  Mr. Speaker, it is impossible that all of these physicians are bad 
doctors.
  We can all agree that there are some physicians who may be better 
than others--but it would be difficult to come to the consensus that 
more than 50 percent of physicians in several vital practice areas have 
performed this poorly.
  There is a problem.
  Just in New York, the average jury award increased from $1.7 million 
in 1994 to $6 million in 1999--an increase of 350 percent.
  New York physicians are now paying 34-50 percent more in 2005 for the 
same insurance coverage they had in 2002. This is in part due to an 
across the board average increase of 7 percent rate increase for the 
2004-05 policy year.
  In 2001, 6 of the top 8 medical malpractice awards came from New York 
courts.
  In 2002, 7 of the top 10 jury verdicts in medical negligence cases 
were from New York courts. And in 2003, it was 4 of the top 6.
  But, there are also steps that this Congress can take towards solving 
this problem.
  We have learned today that the HEALTH Act is a step that is both 
reasonable and fair.
  It's reasonable because it calls for a cap only on unquantifiable 
damages. State laws that otherwise cap damages at specific amounts, 
even at higher amounts than those provided in the HEALTH Act, would 
remain in effect under the HEALTH Act.
  The Act is fair where it allows for full recovery of economic 
damages. In other words, when damages can be quantified, they are 
unlimited under the HEALTH Act.
  The HEALTH Act will help solve the national crisis that we are seeing 
in medical malpractice liability insurance.
  Without this legislation doctors will not just leave the area where 
they practice, they will leave the profession. Patients, who are the 
real victims in this crisis, will be left to suffer and die because 
there is no one to provide the care.
  As a member of the Medical Malpractice Crisis Task Force, I ask my 
colleagues to recognize that there is a problem, and this legislation 
is one great step in the direction towards solving that problem.
  Please support the HEALTH Act of 2005.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just let the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Kelly) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) know about the 
General Accounting Office report that found there is no evidence that 
caps on damages have reduced losses or helped consumers. They found, 
instead, that the contention that premiums are rising because there is 
a surge in jury awards is a myth and that while premiums have increased 
claims payments of insurance companies have remained essentially flat.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member, and I thank him for his continued leadership on this 
issue.
  It looks as if this is deja vu. We have been at this table for a 
number of years, and I am delighted that the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) cleared it up. When you have a daughter that is a lawyer, 
I know you have a great affection for lawyers. And I appreciate the 
fact that he recognizes that as physicians care for the sick, lawyers 
have to keep the doors of justice open. For that reason, if anyone gets 
up on the floor of the House and cites the number of lawsuits, 60 
percent of the doctors being sued, that has nothing to do with those 
cases that prevailed.
  Most Americans understand the distinction between frivolous lawsuits 
and so does the court system. But, really, what this bill is premised 
on is absolutely false, and Americans should know that because I have 
heard from so many with so many tragic incidents, amputated legs, 
individuals at hospitals who have died not because of what they went 
into the hospital for but because they caught an infection in the 
hospital.
  But as it relates to insurance and low rates, let me cite a study 
that is the prevailing trend in America. A new study by the former 
insurance commissioner of Missouri, Jay Angoff, shows that insurance 
companies are gouging doctors. The study shows that insurance premiums 
are skyrocketing, while payouts have remained flat or in some cases 
even decreased. There is no evidence that we are making a dent with 
this medical malpractice oppressive legislation--oppressive 
legislation, in insurance rates.
  In particular, it is a shame that when you have a tragedy in your 
family, someone who lost their life because of negligence, and there 
are three defendants, the general trend is that you go against the 
defendant with the deepest pockets. That defendant who is well-situated 
will go against the others who contributed to that terrible tragedy.
  Now, this bill locks the door, closes out the bus driver, the 
teacher, the nurse's aid, the oil refinery worker, absolutely closes 
them out. It also denies children who are innocent, under 18, enhanced 
economic damages. That was my amendment, to take away that cap of 
250,000, to take away that cap of 250,000 on noneconomic damages 
because we do not know long range with all these tables about what 
someone will be needing the rest of their life after they have been 
maimed, after they have been disabled, or after they have died and what 
their family will need.
  This is a tragic day because first of all this bill came to the floor 
with no committee work, no rules work of sorts, all amendments died; 
and we have failed. Herman Cole of Connecticut we have failed, whose 
wife slipped into a coma when in a procedure for a tubal ligation. Her 
blood pressure dropped dangerously and damagingly low and the doctor 
and anesthesiologist ignored the warning signs. What is he supposed to 
do? What is he supposed to do about his wife, Sadie, who is now in a 
vegetative state?
  This is a bad bill. I hope my colleagues will have enough courage to 
vote for those who have been injured and vote against special interest.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the ``Medical 
Malpractice Bill.'' Not only is the overall bill bad, but the process 
in which the majority followed was flawed as well. This bill came 
straight to the floor and bypassed both committees of jurisdiction. 
This begs the question, ``what are the proponents of the bill so afraid 
of that they need to rush to the floor. Both the House Judiciary and 
Energy and Commerce Committees have been bypassed and this should not 
have been done on such an important piece of legislation. Given the new 
information that is available about the insurance industry gouging 
doctors, shouldn't the committees at least have had the opportunity to 
review the new information?
  Turning to the bill itself, it should be noted that this bill applies 
across the board to all cases, not just frivolous cases. It applies no 
matter how much merit a case has, or the extent of the misconduct of 
the hospital, doctor or drug company. The bill applies regardless of 
the severity of the injury. Those most hurt by the bill are the most 
catastrophically injured. In addition, it undermines our constitutional 
right to trial by jury. The bill limits the power and authority of 
jurors to decide cases based on the facts presented to them. Washington 
politicians should not be making these decisions--juries should.
  This legislation also reduces the accountability of hospitals, 
nursing homes, HMOs and drug companies. This will hurt patient safety. 
Patient safety must come first. We should be cracking down on the small 
number of doctors responsible for most of the malpractice. This will 
reduce both incidents of malpractice and lawsuits. Doctors and 
hospitals must be required to tell their patients or the patients' 
families when they know they have made a medical error, rather than 
allowing them to keep their mistakes secret.

[[Page 18302]]

  This bill completely ignores the insurance industry's major role in 
the high price of medical malpractice insurance premiums. We must 
protect the legal system and make it accessible for everyone seeking 
justice, accountability and adequate compensation for devastating 
injuries or death.
  In discussing the flaws of this bill, I would be remiss if I did not 
take a moment to mention some of the families who have survived medical 
malpractice.
  Kim and Ryan Bliss of Florida, whose 8\1/2\-month-old daughter died 
when the doctor inserted an adult IV in her jugular and caused an air 
bubble to go directly into her bloodstream.
  Herman Cole of Connecticut, whose wife slipped into a coma when, 
during a procedure for tubal ligation, her blood pressure dropped 
dangerously and damagingly low and the doctor and anesthesiologist 
ignored the warning signs. Herman's wife Sadie has been in a vegetative 
state ever since.
  Diane Meyer of Nevada, who was diagnosed with kidney stones and was 
sent home to pass them, despite the fact that one was too large and was 
poisoning her body from within. Doctors later discovered this but 
failed to call Diane, who then slipped into a coma and later had to 
have both legs amputated below the knee.
  Mark Unger of Oregon, whose mother was diagnosed with Burkitt's 
lymphoma in early 2001 and was injected with 1000 times more 
methotrexate than the appropriate dosage by a doctor who did not follow 
protocol. Mark's mother passed away in April 2001.
  John McCormack of Massachusetts, whose 13-month-old daughter died 
while awaiting surgery to repair a malfunctioning shunt in her skull, 
while the attending physician slept through repeated pages because his 
beeper was set to vibrate and didn't wake him, leaving two neurosurgery 
residents in charge of her care.
  Deborah Gillham of Maryland, who suffered injury when, during a 
routine laparoscopic procedure to look for a cyst on her left ovary, 
her physician punctured her colon.
  Before closing, let me take a moment to speak on two amendments I 
would have offered had the rule not been so restrictive. My first 
amendment would have eliminated one of the many egregious provisions in 
the bill. In essence, it would eliminate the one-size-fits-all limit on 
awards for non-economic loss (i.e. pain and suffering damages) of 
$250,000. Typically, such damages exceed $250,000 only in cases 
involving catastrophic injuries such as deafness, blindness, loss of 
limb or organ, paraplegia, severe brain damage or loss of reproductive 
capacity. Limiting patients' rights to sue for medical injuries would 
have virtually no impact on the affordability of malpractice coverage. 
States with little or no tort law restrictions experience the same 
insurance rates as states that have enacted tort restrictions.
  My second amendment also focused on the $250,000 cap for non-economic 
loss (i.e. pain and suffering damages). This amendment would have 
carved out an exception for plaintiffs or a person(s) representing a 
minor. In summary, the $250,000 cap for non-economic loss (i.e. and 
suffering damages) would not apply with respect to an injury to an 
individual who is under 18 years of age. Minors are more vulnerable in 
regards to injuries they suffer and the consequences of those injuries. 
Furthermore, the impacts of an injury suffered by a minor due to 
malpractice will be felt for a much longer time period than for an 
adult. This is especially true of children who suffer injuries at birth 
due to malpractice. These children will more likely have to suffer the 
consequences of these injuries for the rest of their lives.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of Committee on the Judiciary and 
an expert on this subject.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, like so many 
States, Wisconsin was facing a medical liability crisis, not just 
because medical liability premiums were soaring, not just because 
insurance carriers were discontinuing the sale of medical liability 
insurance, but because too many physicians felt forced to leave their 
practice, leave their specialty, or leave the State for a more 
affordable State.
  But 10 years ago in Wisconsin, we figured out a reasonable answer. I 
led the fight to create a new medical liability system where injured 
parties receive every single dollar of economic damages to which they 
are entitled. But where there is a modest cap on noneconomic damages, 
things like pain and suffering, loss of society, loss of companionship, 
you know what? It worked.
  We hear a lot about studies here. We know as a fact in Wisconsin it 
worked. In a short period of time, Wisconsin became one of only six 
States not to have a medical liability crisis. As a result, as the 
State medical society reported, physicians, especially those in high-
risk specialties, actually moved into our State from States like Ohio 
and Pennsylvania and Florida and Illinois. It worked.
  But, sadly, Mr. Speaker, my State recently lost its way. Even though 
by any reasonable measure our reforms work, the Wisconsin courts struck 
them down. We can only hope that Wisconsin enacts a new medical 
liability reform act. But until then, we should pass the HEALTH Act. It 
will not only help Wisconsin doctors and patients but those in every 
State facing a medical liability crisis.
  This bill is State-friendly. It does not preempt State reforms. If a 
State like Wisconsin has a cap on noneconomic damages, whether that cap 
is higher or lower, that cap will take effect. More important, it is 
doctor-friendly. It is patient-friendly. It will help us get a handle 
on at least a small portion of our health care costs. It will encourage 
doctors to continue to practice in vital specialties, and it will 
attack defensive medicine. I urge support for the HEALTH Act.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  One of the problems we are going to have during this debate is the 
fact we are here under a closed rule. We will not have the ability to 
highlight or fix the shortcomings of the bill, so we will go back and 
forth on sound bites. We have already heard that this has been 
described as a proconsumer bill, notwithstanding the fact that I am not 
aware of any recognized consumer group that is supporting it.
  Mr. Speaker, we say we have lost doctors because of the malpractice 
crisis, but we did not say anything about the reimbursement rates for 
some specialties, who are not getting paid as much, nor is there a 
suggestion that tort reform has actually produced more doctors. Because 
we have the same list of ineffectual initiatives that we have had in 
other tort reform bills, reducing victims' rights without doing 
anything with malpractice rates, we will try to discuss the provisions 
of the bill.
  First, the rule rejected the alternative offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) that would have actually reduced malpractice costs and helped 
underserved areas without going overboard in helping and relieving from 
liability the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies, which means that the 
doctors will have to pay more of the responsibility for malpractice. We 
cannot consider that.
  But let us come to the specifics. This legislation preempts State 
law. The National Conference of State Legislators has already 
considered this bill, and they have rejected it. Their opinion, the 
National Conference of State Legislators, have suggested this bill will 
make matters worse.
  We have caps on damages, not on damages for wages and things like 
that, but for elderly, for children, for those who are without lost 
wages, they will be hurt. Incredibly, the cap on damages has not been 
shown to do anything about malpractice premiums. Those States with caps 
are paying the same malpractice premiums as those without caps.
  We have heard about this fair share provision that says everybody 
just pays their fair share or more. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking 
about here is a group with insurance, and which insurance company will 
pay. Some States have dealt with this and said if a doctor is at least 
60 percent responsible, he can be held fully responsible, but for 
others, maybe you can have a fair share. This says everybody involved. 
In other words, you have to

[[Page 18303]]

go after each and every physician, with a separate case against each 
and every one for every 1 or 2 percent responsibility they have. We 
have had the problem of having to sue so many doctors. Well, this 
requires you to sue each and every doctor.
  We have heard about the collateral source rule; that if you have 
insurance, and listen up small businesses, if you are providing health 
care for your employees, and you have an employee who gets into a 
malpractice-induced coma, and somebody has to pay it, and your employee 
has gotten a recovery from the malpractice insurance, if the small 
business is paying the responsibility, the physician, the guilty party, 
will get credit for all of your health insurance, and you are going to 
have to continue to pay under that health insurance.
  We limit attorneys' fees in this legislation, which will do nothing 
to reduce malpractice premiums. We have different statutes of 
limitations, which will confuse people, and lawyers will miss the 
filing deadlines because of all this confusion.
  We need insurance reform which will reduce premiums, not just attack 
victims. We need worthwhile legislation that will reduce the premiums. 
This will not do it. We need to defeat the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, opponents of reform claim that the current crisis is 
driven by a small number of so-called bad doctors. But as Yale Medicine 
Professor Dr. Robert Auerbach has explained, ``The American Trial 
Lawyers Association has perpetrated myths on the American public, 
including the myth that a very small proportion of all physicians are 
responsible for the majority of claims. This is a sort of statistical 
magic, because, unfortunately, a small proportion of the physicians in 
high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics and gynecology and 
neurosurgery, are responsible for a disproportionate number of the 
claims.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton), former chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  First of all, I am for medical malpractice reform. I think it is 
extremely important we address this issue. However, I have a real 
problem with this bill. In section 7, item (c), under punitive damages, 
it in effect will protect the pharmaceutical industry against class 
action lawsuits by parents who have had their children damaged by 
mercury in vaccines that causes neurological problems, such as autism.
  We had hearings on this for about 6 years, and we had scientists from 
all over the world, and the mercury in vaccines is a contributing 
factor to autism and other neurological disorders in children. It is in 
adult vaccines as well.
  Now, I will not go into specifics of the language in here, but 
according to attorneys I have talked to in the last couple of days, it 
protects the pharmaceutical companies against class action lawsuits. I 
would not have a problem with that if there was another avenue for 
these parents to go to get money.
  We created the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund to take care of that. 
It was supposed to be nonadversarial. Unfortunately, parents have 
gotten nothing out of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, even though 
there is $3 billion there. So there is only one avenue they have, and 
this legislation, the way I read it, blocks that.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has worked with me on this, 
and I think he shares some of the same concerns that I have, and he is 
welcome to say a word or two if he wants to, but what I want to ask of 
the manager of the bill, would the gentleman work with me to try to 
clean this up so that that problem does not exist anymore; so they at 
least have an avenue to deal with this?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have spoken 
about this before. I happen to think that the problem lies with current 
law and not with this particular piece of legislation. But in any case, 
I share the gentleman's concerns and will work with him to address 
those concerns as this bill progresses to conference committee.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
assurances.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
yielding to me, and let me just add to what the gentleman was saying. 
There is a lot of active research on this, and the research is not 
conclusive, so we do not need to act right now.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the Record a Dear Colleague letter 
which I sent to Members regarding this legislation:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2005.

  The Vaccine Liability Waiver in the Medical Malpractice Legislation 
             Will Hurt Autistic Children and Their Families

       Dear Colleague: As we debate medical malpractice this week, 
     I want to bring to your attention a provision in the bill 
     that would waive vaccine manufacturer liability. Section 7(c) 
     of the legislation states that no punitive damages may be 
     awarded against a manufacturer or distributor of a medical 
     product based on a claim that the product caused harm, unless 
     the company violated FDA regulations. Essentially, this means 
     as long as the vaccine goes through the regular FDA approval 
     process, the company is shielded from liability.
       In the 1980's, roughly 1 in 10,000 American children were 
     diagnosed with some kind of autism spectrum disorder. Today, 
     that number has risen to 1 in 166 with the number rising 
     alarmingly as children have been required to get more and 
     more shots containing the mercury-based preservative 
     thimerosal During my tenure as Chairman of the House 
     Committee on Government Reform, and as Chairman of the 
     Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, I chaired numerous 
     hearings examining the alarming increase in autism in this 
     country over the last several decades. We also conducted a 
     four-year long investigation into the facts and theories 
     surrounding the connection between mercury in vaccines 
     (thimerosal) and autism and other childhood and adult 
     neurodevelopment disorders, such as Alzheimer's. Credible 
     scientific evidence points to a connection between 
     thimerosal, autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.
       Many of the families of thimerosal's victims did not know 
     about the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program--the 
     no-fault compensation system that provided for quick and fair 
     recovery for those who experience injuries related to a 
     vaccination which Congress established in 1986--and were 
     unable to file claims within the 3 year Statute of 
     Limitations. Thousands of families were left out in the cold, 
     unable to get into the program. They are out there with 
     nothing. Their houses are being sold, they are going 
     bankrupt, they are spending all their money and leading 
     desperate lives trying to help their kids, and they cannot do 
     it. Therefore, the only recourse they had was to file a class 
     action lawsuit.
       As the number of thimerosal injured children grew, concerns 
     over the potential financial impact of these class action 
     lawsuits, and the growing scientific research demonstrating a 
     connection between thimerosal and autism, and the subsequent 
     effect on the pharmaceutical industry's bottom line prompted 
     supporters of the Pharmaceutical industry to slip sections 
     1714 through 1717 into the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     effectively killing all thimerosal class action lawsuits. In 
     the 11th hour without any debate, without anybody knowing 
     about it until it was too late, these lawsuits were stopped 
     in their tracks.
       Fortunately, the language was ultimately removed after 
     being discovered by several deeply concerned Members of both 
     the House and Senate. Section 7(c) of the Help Efficient, 
     Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005 
     (H.R. 5) is arguably a thinly veiled attempt to resurrect the 
     ill-conceived Homeland Security Act provisions of 2002, and 
     although Section 10 of the bill exempts vaccine cases before 
     the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, if a 
     vaccine claimant exercises his or her right to opt-out of 
     VICA and bring a lawsuit in state or Federal court or has no 
     recourse but to file a lawsuit because of the Statute of 
     Limitations, Section 7(c) of H.R. 5 will fully apply to limit 
     that civil claimant's rights.
       Congress should strike this provision from the medical 
     malpractice legislation. We serve the interests of the 
     American people, not the pharmaceutical industry.

[[Page 18304]]

       Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Burton,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have demonstrated that they 
either do not have a plan to fix the problem of the uninsured, or they 
simply do not care. Instead, they drag out the same tired giveaways to 
insurance companies year after year while trampling on the rights of 
consumers and patients.
  This bill is a perfect example. It does nothing to address the real 
causes of rising malpractice rates, but instead protects insurance 
companies from their own poor business practices. It protects the 
pharmaceutical companies. It protects the manufacturers of medical 
devices. It protects everyone except the victims of medical 
malpractice.
  We are told the bill is necessary to drive down insurance rates 
because juries are awarding too much money to plaintiffs. But the fact 
is lawsuits account for less than 2 percent of health care costs, as 
they always have, according to CBO. The average jury award has hardly 
increased at all in the last decade. In the last year, claims payments 
have decreased, gone down, by 9 percent, according to HHS, yet 
insurance premiums continue to rise.
  So where is the crisis? Not in huge runaway juries and not in 
exorbitant awards. Yet we have here a spectacular assault on the rights 
of consumers and patients. A cap on noneconomic damages of $250,000 
might have been reasonable in 1975 when it was first imposed in 
California, but today, and with increasing inflation, it is worth less 
and less.
  When we considered this bill in committee last year, I offered 
amendments to raise the cap to $1.5 million, or at least to index it to 
inflation so it does not get inflated down to worthlessness. Party line 
vote: Cannot do that.
  But the biggest weakness of this bill is that it will not work. 
Anyone who thinks insurance rates will go down as a result of this bill 
is being sold a bill of goods. This bill merely hopes the insurance 
executives will, out of the goodness of their hearts, reduce the rates 
they charge doctors. But there is no mechanism to guarantee this. 
Instead, the bill will simply lead to higher bottom lines for the 
insurance companies and protect the careless insurance companies and 
the careless manufacturers.
  Every attempt by Democrats to mandate that savings be passed along to 
doctors in the form of lower rates was voted down by the Republicans. 
Mr. Speaker, we should not be misled by this bill's supporters. Do not 
believe for a second that insurance rates will go down as a result of 
this bill. This bill should be seen for what it is: a gift from the 
Republican majority to the big insurance companies at the cost of 
patients' rights, and deluding the doctors and the health care 
practitioners who are being led down the garden path.
  If it were meant to help them, why do the Republicans refuse to put 
into this bill a provision that mandates that the savings that this 
bill will supposedly accomplish, at least some of those savings, are 
passed along to doctors in the form of lower malpractice rates? It will 
not happen.
  The true thing we should do is to crack down on the 1 or 2 percent of 
doctors who cause 90 percent of the insurance claims who should not be 
practicing medicine, and better regulate the insurance companies. That 
is what we should do to solve this problem. Instead, we have this feel-
good bill that will injure already injured patients and will do nothing 
for the doctors.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, the last two commentators in opposition to 
this bill talked about the biggest problem with this bill being the 
lack of consumer protection.
  I am going to tell my colleagues that the biggest consumer protection 
in this bill is limitation of contingency lawyer fees. When a person is 
injured severely, they ought to walk out of that courtroom at the end 
of the day with the preponderance, the largest portion, of that 
judgment in their pocket and not in the pocket of the lawyers. And that 
is consumer protection at its very best.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Keller), a valued member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I support common-sense medical liability reform because it will 
increase patients' access to lifesaving health care, and it will save 
taxpayers over $30 billion a year in unnecessary defensive medical 
tests.
  Let me give a real-life example. The Orlando Regional Medical Center 
is a large hospital located in the heart of my district in Orlando, 
Florida. It is home to the only Level I Trauma Center in central 
Florida which specializes in treating patients with severe brain and 
spine injuries.
  Unfortunately, this important trauma center is in danger of closing 
because we only have a handful of neurosurgeons left in Orlando, and 
they cannot afford to pay the medical liability insurance premiums of 
over $250,000 a year. As a result of this liability crisis, this top-
rated trauma center had no choice but to turn away over 1,000 patients 
last year.
  Now, what happens when neurosurgeons are not available? We do not 
have to guess. I personally met with Mrs. Leanne Dyess, who testified 
before the Committee on the Judiciary. Her husband, Tony Dyess, 
suffered a very serious head injury in a car accident. The family had 
excellent medical insurance. What they did not have a was a 
neurosurgeon. All the neurosurgeons in her area had left town because 
they could not afford the liability insurance. As a result, it took 6 
hours to transport Mr. Dyess to a different location, but it was too 
late. He needed to be treated within the first hour. Mr. Dyess is now 
permanently brain damaged. He is unable to communicate, work, or to 
provide for his family.
  Mr. Speaker, some opponents of this legislation say it is not 
Congress' problem, let us just leave it up to the States. Well, it is 
our problem, because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
estimates that this legislation will save taxpayers over $30 billion a 
year by avoiding unnecessary medical tests which are ordered by doctors 
under Medicare and Medicaid because of defensive medicine.
  It does not have to be that way. Neurosurgeons in California, where 
they have a $250,000 cap, pay an average of only $59,000 a year in 
liability insurance, not the $250,000 they pay in Orlando, Florida. Let 
us bring common sense back to our health care system and give patients 
access to trauma centers and neurosurgeons.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner), a valuable member of the Committee on the Judiciary.


                        request to amend h.r. 5

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I move by unanimous request that we amend 
H.R. 5 to include a cap on premium increases for the duration of the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The Chair cannot entertain that 
request at this time.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I am making a 
unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman restate his request?
  Mr. WEINER. Certainly. My unanimous consent request is that H.R. 5 be 
amended by unanimous consent, the consent here of both the majority and 
the minority, that premium increases, health insurance premium 
increases, be limited to zero for the duration of the period of this 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will have to see the gentleman's 
amendment to see if it meets the Speaker's guidelines for recognition.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

[[Page 18305]]


  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to what 
guidelines the gentleman refers. I know there have been guidelines 
about bringing a bill up at all, but I am not aware of any guidelines 
that govern the deliberations of a bill once it has been brought 
forward. Could the Speaker enlighten us as to what guidelines he is 
discussing?
  I am not aware of guidelines that deal with the bill once it is 
before us. I understand they have dealt with whether or not you 
consider the bill.

                              {time}  1415

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). It would be inappropriate for 
the chair to entertain a unanimous consent request for the 
consideration of a nongermane amendment absent conformity with the 
Speaker's guidelines.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary 
inquiry. Would someone point to the rule of the House? First, Mr. 
Speaker, I must say ``inappropriate'' does not seem to me to be a 
parliamentary term. Something is either in order or it is out of order. 
Appropriateness may deal with etiquette, it may deal with how well 
Members are dressed and how nice they look, but I understood under 
parliamentary procedure you are either in order or not in order. Would 
someone refer to me the section of our rules, Jefferson's Manual, which 
talks about appropriateness?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman would approach the Chair, 
the Chair will gladly point out the rule.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, why would I have to approach 
the Chair? This is a public forum. I believe this notion of 
appropriateness is a gloss on the rules that does not exist. Can we not 
have a citation to the rule of appropriateness?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The guidelines are carried in section 956 of 
the House Rules and Manual.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary 
inquiry. We are told that these guidelines supersede the rules, during 
the consideration of a bill that unanimous consent is not in order? I 
had not previously heard that. Further, I understood they dealt with 
whether or not Members were recognized. Once recognized, as the 
gentleman from New York was, I am not aware of any restriction on what 
the gentleman can do as long as it is within the rules. Those 
guidelines dealt with recognition, as I understood it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Recognition for unanimous consent requests 
is at the discretion of the Chair following the guidelines followed by 
several successive Speakers.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is the Chair 
ruling a unanimous consent request which expresses the unanimous desire 
of the House of Representatives, is the Chair refusing that to be put 
to the body?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will reiterate that conferral of 
recognition for a unanimous consent request is at the discretion of the 
Chair according to the Speaker's guidelines.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary 
inquiry. Does that mean any unanimous consent request to amend a bill 
is out of order unless it meets what standard? Could the Chair 
enlighten us as to how one would become in order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A unanimous consent request for the 
consideration of a nongermane amendment would have to have received 
clearance by the majority and minority floor and committee leaderships. 
The Chair has not seen the gentleman's amendment and is unaware of such 
clearance.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Is the 
concern that it is not in proper form? There has not been a point of 
order that it is not germane.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is a matter of recognition.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I have been recognized, so that is not the 
issue. Is the issue the form of the unanimous consent request?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman would submit his amendment, 
the Chair would examine it.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, if I can be further heard on the unanimous 
consent request, and I believe the paperwork is on the way, it is a 
very simple matter. The sponsor of the legislation says he wants to do 
what is right for consumers. Over and over we have heard the connection 
between the legislation and reducing premiums. All I am saying is, if 
we all agree upon that, let us include the language herein.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman making a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. WEINER. No, I want to be heard on my unanimous consent, and I was 
recognized.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has not recognized the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner) on his unanimous consent request. The 
gentleman is, however, recognized for the time yielded to him.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I still have a unanimous consent that is, I 
believe, in the hands of the Parliamentarian now.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) 
withdraws his unanimous consent request.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I think all of the assembled 
Parliamentarians, staffers, the histrionics of the other side, the 
apoplexy over the idea that perhaps we might actually reduce premiums 
is fairly instructive to this debate.
  We had no hearings on this. We had no chance to mark it up. We had no 
chance to include a reduction in premiums.
  The gentleman from Georgia said this is a pro-consumer thing. If you 
really wanted it to be pro-consumer, you would reduce premiums. I would 
ask any Member on the other side of the aisle who supports this bill to 
simply say, We do not really care about reducing premiums.
  Mr. Speaker, who we are fighting for in this bill is the insurance 
industry; they are getting protected. The HMOs, they are getting 
protected. The pharmaceutical companies, that is who is being protected 
by H.R. 5. But, frankly, do not deceive the American public by what 
this bill will do.
  Insurance prices will not go down. Do Members know how we know this? 
First of all, the industry themselves have said in public that they 
have no intention of reducing premiums if this legislation is passed. 
We can look at other States that have caps. Find me one where insurance 
premiums went down. Look at California, ask them whether their premiums 
have gone down.
  Frankly, the only way we know for sure that premiums will go down is 
to cap the premiums, but you will not do that. Not only will you not do 
that; you will do everything possible to avoid even considering it. 
That is why committee was bypassed.
  And do not also say that doctors are going to face fewer claims as a 
result of this legislation. They are already seeing fewer claims since 
they did in 2001. There were 25 per 1,000 physicians in 2001. There are 
19 per 1,000 physicians in 2003. If we had a hearing in committee, we 
might find out what it is this year. You cannot say that, and you also 
cannot say this: you cannot say the amount being paid out in claims 
against physicians has reduced in States where there are caps.
  You want us to be a Nation where there are caps. Let us look at the 
States where the caps are in place. The lowest number of claims per 
1,000 physicians is in a State that does not have a cap, and the 
highest are among the States that do have the caps. What this issue is 
really all about, it is about who you all are fighting for and who we 
are fighting for.
  You are fighting to take away the right of a jury. Your citizens, 
your constituents who apparently are brilliant enough to elect you, but 
not smart enough to solve a case that deals with medical malpractice, 
you are taking the right of a family who wants to take on a 
megapharmaceutical company or a mega-HMO, and the only way they

[[Page 18306]]

can bring that suit is to make sure they get enough money out of that 
company that they learn the lesson and they do not do it again.
  Mr. Speaker, there is some irony here. You control the legislature, 
you control the executive, you control the judiciary, and still you do 
not trust any of those people to make the decisions. Only you know how 
much each and every one of these cases will yield.
  Mr. Speaker, I have an alternative idea: get rid of the bad doctors, 
get rid of the bad lawyers, get rid of the bad judges, and get rid of 
this bad bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) for a unanimous consent request.


                       Request to Offer Amendment

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
offer an amendment which is in writing at the desk and is germane.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Frank moves to strike on page 11 lines 10 through 25 
     and page 12.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the unanimous consent 
request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the amendment I sought to 
offer which was kept out by an objection from the bill's manager would 
have dealt with the section referred to by the gentleman from Indiana. 
I also, like the gentleman from Indiana, am prepared to vote for, as I 
have in the past, some restrictions on medical malpractice.
  But what we have in this bill which has not gotten a lot of 
attention, and the gentleman from Indiana pointed it out, is a total 
exemption from punitive damages for drug manufacturers who get an FDA 
approval even though we have seen flaws in the FDA approval process.
  What the majority has now made clear, they are insisting that this be 
taken in whole. The gentleman from Indiana made a good point, an 
objection to this amendment, and I share his objection. What I do not 
share is his faith that this is going to be taken care of.
  The gentleman from Indiana, my good friend, was uncharacteristically 
mellow today in accepting an assurance that this will be looked at. I 
agree it will be looked at. It will be held up to the light. It will be 
turned upside down, and it will be looked at and looked at and looked 
at until it is signed into law, and then people will still be able to 
look at it as the law and those drug companies will have that 
exemption.
  So what I offer today, and one might have thought under democratic 
procedures this would have been allowed, was simply to vote on that. I 
was, in the spirit of bipartisanship, acting on the suggestion of the 
gentleman from Indiana. Forget about everything said about medical 
malpractice; the amendment I sought to offer and was blocked from 
offering by that objection, as we were by the Committee on Rules' 
heavy-handedness, simply would have allowed this body to decide whether 
as part of a medical malpractice bill you would give an exemption from 
punitive damages to drug companies. That is not medical malpractice. 
That is not related to the core of this bill. The majority will not 
even allow this to be discussed.
  I think it is wrong to give that kind of exemption certainly without 
a lot more consideration, but what is even more wrong is this further 
abuse of power. The majority simply will not allow this House, like the 
gentleman from Indiana, elected representatives of the people, to 
decide on whether or not we give an exemption to the drug 
manufacturers.
  They take medical malpractice, a sympathetic issue, and use it to 
cloak immunity for the drug manufacturers in part, and then arrogantly 
refuse to allow the House to vote on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say what I have said before. We are working with 
the people of Iraq and we are trying to get them to implement 
democracy. To the extent anyone from Iraq is watching the proceedings 
here, I would say to them, Please do not try this at home. Please do 
not, in the Iraqi Assembly, show the contempt and the disregard and the 
arrogance for minority rights and democratic procedures, and maybe 
majority rights. I should amend this. They are not afraid of minority 
rights; they are afraid if we had an open and honest vote on this that 
a majority would decide not to let the drug companies carry out under 
that darkness.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say I appreciate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who just spoke, voting for this legislation 
in the last Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary and now a 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the HEALTH Act. It is called the 
HEALTH Act for a very good reason. It is going to help a number of 
people who now are finding it very difficult to have access to health 
care.
  We have considered this bill twice in the last Congress, I believe 
once in the first Congress when I was here, and objecting to this as 
unfamiliar to Members is simply disingenuous. This issue is so well 
known, not only to Members, but to the general public, that it scores 
as one of the most important issues when asked nationwide what we need 
to address.
  The other side of the aisle suggested we deal with bad doctors, bad 
lawyers, and bad judges. Well, bad doctors, bad lawyers, and bad judges 
are regulated by the States. The problem is that medical malpractice 
reform should have been dealt with by the States, but my State of 
Pennsylvania has not handled the problem. Many States have not acted to 
deal with this problem and avert further crisis.
  Patients needing care face a real crisis in access to care. The wait 
is too long, the cost is too high. Physicians are quitting because of 
the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. From 2003 to 2004, 
Pennsylvania doctors faced double-digit medical malpractice insurance 
increases. The reason: out-of-control lawsuits.

                              {time}  1430

  According to the National Medical Practitioners Database, payouts in 
my State of Pennsylvania have risen from $187 million in 1991 to nearly 
$500 million in 2003. These excessive lawsuits have gotten so out of 
control, as I mentioned earlier, that many doctors have quit the 
practice of medicine. That means patients do not have physicians to 
even see.
  Last year I met with a dozen doctors from my district. Of the dozen, 
nearly all of them raised their hand when I asked them if they had 
children. One doctor said his wife refuses to allow her kids to study 
medicine. We need to address this issue, and we need to address it 
today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is 
right. I did vote for this bill last year, because I thought it was 
about medical malpractice and did not read it carefully. In fact, what 
happened was I made the mistake last year that the gentleman from 
Indiana might make this year. I believed that they would honestly talk 
about medical malpractice, and it did not occur to me they would try to 
sneak into this bill something that gave partial immunity to the drug 
manufacturers.
  So I admit that I did not read it thoroughly, but I will not when the 
gentleman is managing bills make that mistake again.

[[Page 18307]]


  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I had a revelation during the course of 
the exchange about capping premiums. What I found particularly 
fascinating was that my good friend from Georgia, our own Dr. Phil, is 
an advocate for wage control. In other words, cap those fees as long 
as, I guess, it is lawyers. Maybe not for CEOs, but at least we know 
that he is a proponent of wage controls for lawyers.
  But when it comes to price control, it seems that the majority has a 
problem. So you are in favor of capping wages, but not in favor of 
capping prices, because really that is what it comes down to. I guess 
it is a new tradition within the Republican Party.
  In any event, for all the reasons that others have suggested, I think 
not only does this qualify as a bad bill because it is not going to 
accomplish the goal of lowering premiums, but I think, and I would 
suggest, it is a cruel bill, because this cap on so-called noneconomic 
damages impacts the most vulnerable among us, mothers who stay at home 
and particularly children, because they have no economic damages. They 
do not have such economic damages as the loss of potential earnings. So 
apart from their medical bills, all of their losses are noneconomic, 
like a lifelong physical impairment, or maybe a mental disability, or 
disfigurement. This bill will deny them the possibility of a life that 
at least has a modicum of respect and dignity in compensation for their 
loss, a loss which, by the way, they had no involvement in other than 
being the victim.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce and a former member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, they are asking what are we for and what 
is this bill all about? I will tell you what we are for, what this 
majority is for, and what this bill is about. It is about preserving 
access to health care in our local communities, lots of communities, 
like my Seventh District of Tennessee. It is not about sitting here and 
saying, oh, we think all it is going to take to address health care is 
a big, fat Federal Government. It is about access to health care in our 
local communities.
  Americans know that our health care costs are soaring. They also know 
that trial lawyers many times view our hospitals and our health care 
providers as a limitless ATM.
  That is the reason I cosponsored this legislation. My constituents 
have had enough. They have grown ill and fatigued with the stories that 
are out there, with seeing their local doctors run out of town, with 
seeing practices close up, and with knowing that they have access to 
less and less available health care. We know that only one in seven OB-
GYNs now deliver babies for fear of being sued, and the national 
medical liability rate has risen almost 500 percent since 1976.
  This is an issue that affects our families. It affects women. It 
affects children. It affects our rural communities. This bill is a way 
to assist in preserving health care for our local communities.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who has followed this subject ever since he has 
come to Congress.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I speak as both the son of a doctor and the 
son of a nurse. I introduced the Vioxx amendment that would prohibit 
this special liability protection for the pharmaceutical companies. 
Many Americans across the country are watching the Vioxx trial in Texas 
where the Ernst family has lost their loved one, a marathon runner, a 
personal trainer, who died a premature death because he took Merck's 
Vioxx medication, and the FDA was not provided with all the information 
that should have warned of the dangers from that. According to the 
FDA's doctor, approximately 55,000 premature deaths occurred because of 
Vioxx. That is the trial the American people are watching.
  And then they tune in here to this Congress. What is this Congress 
trying to do? They are trying to protect Merck and the other 
pharmaceutical companies in a way that no other industry would get that 
type of protection from any liability. This Congress would intervene in 
that civil trial down in Texas where the Ernst family is trying to get 
their proper redress from the premature death of a marathon runner who 
had a heart attack because the information was withheld.
  The irony of this whole situation is just last year, this Congress, 
bipartisan, said the FDA did not have the proper resources to regulate 
these medications. And now you want to hide behind the FDA's Good 
Housekeeping seal to give protection to an industry in a way that no 
other industry in America gets.
  Last year this Congress gave the pharmaceutical industry $132 billion 
in additional profits through the prescription drug benefit. Now you 
want to give them liability protection in a way that no other industry 
gets. You are like the gift that keeps on giving. There is a gift ban 
that is on in this Congress, and at some point the pharmaceutical 
industry has got to be held accountable just like everybody else.
  The Ernst family lost a loved one. According to the FDA, about 55,000 
other deaths also have occurred. Let us have a debate about medical 
malpractice. Don't muck it up with your political goals of trying to 
protect the pharmaceutical industry and other families from the proper 
redress of the courts.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, regarding Vioxx, some have alleged the company knowingly 
misrepresented or withheld information from the FDA. If so, they would 
be denied the protections in the bill because the bill specifically in 
section 7 says and excludes any instances in which a person, before or 
after premarket approval, clearance, or licensure of such medical 
product, knowingly misrepresented to or withheld from the FDA 
information that is required to be submitted.
  If we look at the language of the bill, we can see that what the 
gentleman said is not relevant.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to the U.S. Congress, I served 
14 years in my State general assembly. I spent a lot of time on this 
issue, dealing with issues like caps on noneconomic damages, collateral 
sources, periodic payments, joint and several liability modifications 
and venue shopping. I just heard some statements from the other side, 
well-intentioned, but, I must respectfully say, misguided, that simply 
mandating a premium reduction will not solve this problem. What will 
happen is what happened in my State.
  In 1975, a State-administered medical liability program was created 
because no one wanted to write insurance in the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania in 1975. We were in a crisis. That did not solve the 
problem. That State-administered program is broke. My general assembly 
has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to pay doctors' 
medical liability premiums and hospitals' premiums. That is what will 
happen if you mandate that premium reduction. It sounds good, but it 
does not fix it.
  The Governor of my State, Ed Rendell, a Democrat, I talked to his 
insurance commissioner a couple of years ago. I said, if this is an 
insurance problem, let's look at the numbers. For every dollar paid at 
that time in medical liability premiums, there was $1.27 in losses 
incurred; $1 in, $1.27 out. That is an insurance problem. No one wants 
to write insurance. So if you mandate a premium reduction or hold it 
harmless, the State is going to have to set up a program, and they are 
going to have to find the money, and they are going to turn to the 
taxpayers. That is what is happening. We are in crisis.
  This legislation we are dealing with helps deal with this issue 
because providing for caps on noneconomic damages, Mr. Speaker, will 
help restore some level of predictability and stability to the 
insurance marketplace. You need to have people wanting to

[[Page 18308]]

write insurance in these States. Competition will help you actually 
drive down costs. I know that some might find that unbelievable, but it 
will work. It has to work.
  I rise to speak in favor of H.R. 5, the Health Act of 2005.
  This bill addresses one of the central issues in health care today: 
the way in which unpredictable, out-of-control legal judgments are 
driving up health care costs. This bill sets caps on punitive and non-
economic damages that result from malpractice litigation. This is 
important because, as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, under 
this act, medical liability premiums would be an average of 25 to 30 
percent below what they would be under current law.
  High medical liability premiums are creating serious doctor 
recruitment and retention problems in my State, especially in so-called 
``high risk'' disciplines such as neurosurgery, orthopedics, emergency 
medicine, I and obstetrics. In my district, the crisis created in part 
by outrageous malpractice judgments is best exemplified by the 
experience of St. Luke's Hospital.
  St. Luke's has been recognized nationally 17 times for clinical 
excellence. Despite this accomplishment, St. Luke's became the target 
of a frivolous, outrageous lawsuit in the fall of 2000. As a direct 
result, St. Luke's professional medical liability costs increased more 
than $4 million in just 2 years.
  As a result of medical liability issues, Pennsylvania hospitals face 
challenges retaining neurosurgeons, without whom trauma centers cannot 
operate. In fact, a few years ago, another regional hospital serving my 
district--Easton Hospital--lost all of its neurosurgeons to other 
States. And Lehigh Valley Hospital, an extraordinary three-hospital 
network and the largest employer in my district, experienced a fivefold 
increase in their liability costs over the past few years.
  Nothing about this bill prevents a litigant from seeking his or her 
day in court. In California, which was the model for the current health 
act, plaintiffs with legitimate claims still enjoy large recoveries. 
The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has determined that 
California has controlled medical liability insurance premiums much 
better than has my home State, Pennsylvania. In fact, in Pennsylvania 
the medical liability crisis is so acute that the legislature has 
appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to assist physicians and 
hospitals with rapidly rising medical liability premiums. That's like 
placing a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. Structural reform is needed; 
taxpayers bailouts--Band Aids, if you will--don't solve the underlying 
problem.
  For all these reasons, I believe that congressional intervention is 
essential in the form of support for the Health Act of 2005.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) 
smoked out the truth about this bill a couple of minutes ago when he 
simply asked that the bill include a provision that would require a 
flat medical malpractice premium rate. He smoked out the truth, and 
what we now know is that this bill is not about providing access to 
health care. It is not about solving a health care crisis. What it is 
about is protecting the insurance industry.
  In fact, a study by the insurance commissioner of Missouri found that 
while malpractice premiums for doctors doubled from 2000 to 2004, 
malpractice claims during the same period increased less than 6 
percent. Insurers themselves admit that capping medical malpractice 
payments will not reduce premiums. In fact, States that have caps have 
higher premiums than States without caps in every medical field, 
including internists, surgeons and OB-GYNs.
  The proponents of this bill claim that large payouts are driving up 
the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. In fact, the opposite is occurring in Florida where the 
average amount insurers are paying for claims has gone down 14 percent 
since 1991. At the same time, however, premiums charged by insurers 
have increased 43 percent. In particular, overall claim payouts for 
Florida's largest medical insurer, FPIC, dropped 22 percent in the last 
4 years. Outrageously, remarkably, this same insurer saw a 154 percent 
increase in profits for the first quarter in 2004.
  This legislation needs to be seen for what it is. It is not about 
helping doctors. It is not about helping patients. The only goal of 
this legislation is to ensure even higher profits for insurance 
companies while not doing a blasted thing to help the sick people in 
America, to help the people that provide the medical services to our 
people. This bill will not do one iota to improve health care in this 
country. The gentleman from New York smoked it out just right.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to speak 
on this important issue today.
  Mr. Speaker, we, of course, passed this bill some 2 years ago last 
March. Down in Texas we passed a bill 2 years ago this September and a 
constitutional amendment that would essentially provide the same type 
of cap on noneconomic damages that we are discussing here today in H.R. 
5.
  It has been said before that the States are great laboratories for 
the Nation. If that is the case, let us examine what has happened in 
Texas in the 2 years since the cap has been passed. When I ran for 
Congress in the year 2002, we started the year 2002 with 17 insurers in 
the State of Texas. By the time I took this office at the start of 
2003, we were down to two insurers. It is pretty hard to get 
competitive rates when you have driven 15 insurers out of the market. 
Since the passage of the Proposition 12 in September of 2003, which 
allowed a cap on noneconomic damages, we have had 12 insurers come back 
to the State, which has provided competitive rates, and Texas Medical 
Liability Trust, my old insurer of record before I left medical 
practice, immediately dropped its rates 12 percent after the passage of 
Proposition 12 and then dropped its rates another 5 percent for a total 
of 17 percent in the first year since Proposition 12 was passed.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, an unintended consequence of the 
passage of Proposition 12 in Texas was what has happened in private, 
not-for-profit hospitals.

                              {time}  1445

  The Cristus Health Care System in south Texas, a self-insured 
hospital system, realized a $12 million savings from the first 9 months 
after that proposition was passed, money that was put back into nurses' 
salaries, capital expansion, the very things we want our hospitals to 
spend money on if they were not having to pay it for noneconomic 
damages.
  And, finally, I just cannot let pass the statement about price 
controls. Physicians have lived under price controls, certainly all of 
my professional career, for the last 25 years. We have managed, 
sometimes poorly. But what happens when we have price controls is we 
end up with lines, and one of the biggest problems we have right now is 
that doctors are dropping out of practice, and we do not have the 
practitioners there to provide care for the patients.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me this very precious time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a doctor's wife. There is nobody in this body that 
wants medical malpractice reform more than I. My husband's medical 
malpractice has gone up exponentially every single year for absolutely 
no reason, and if I thought for a minute that this legislation would 
cure that problem and provide relief for the doctors of this country, I 
would be all over this legislation.
  Unfortunately, this piece of legislation will not do what the 
Republican side of the aisle says it will. And if the Republican 
leadership really wanted to provide relief for the doctors, we would 
have legislation on the floor that the bipartisan Congress could vote 
on and support and pass and put before the President for signature.
  This is a bill not to help the doctors. This bill contains and limits 
claims against negligent hospitals, drug companies, medical device 
manufacturers, nursing homes, HMOs, and insurance

[[Page 18309]]

companies. This bill is not for doctors. This bill is a gift to the 
insurance companies. There is no provision, there is not one line, one 
sentence in a 26-page bill, that would ensure that the savings that was 
realized by the insurance companies would be passed on to the doctors. 
The doctors will continue to suffer while the insurance companies will 
get happier and richer.
  There is a medical crisis in this country. There is a crisis in 
access to health care. This is not the legislation that is going to 
cure that. And for those people who talk lovingly and glowingly of the 
insurance companies and the marketplace and competition will lower the 
cost for the doctors, let us have another thought about that. Since 
when, since when, can the doctors put their faith in the insurance 
companies when it is the insurance companies that are messing up the 
doctors? I do not like to see the doctors being used by the insurance 
companies to do the insurance companies' dirty work.
  Let us get a reality check here. Let us not pass this dog of a piece 
of legislation. Let us work together and pass legislation that is truly 
going to provide medical malpractice reform and lower premiums for the 
doctors. They need it, and they deserve it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise because this outstanding bill we are voting on today is so 
important to my constituency. Skyrocketing insurance premiums have been 
diminishing our Nation's health care delivery system for far too long. 
Women have been affected severely as OB/GYN doctors have stopped 
delivering babies because financially it does not make sense for them 
to practice in that area. The physicians who bring life into this world 
are too often forced to reject high-risk patients out of fear of future 
litigation. Trial lawyers continue to harass America's doctors. 
Physicians continue to face the burden of skyrocketing insurance 
premiums.
  As a mother and grandmother, I know this is not acceptable. The 
HEALTH Act of 2005 will provide the means to take action and thwart the 
efforts of greedy trial lawyers. In turn, this will help Americans, 
specifically women, obtain better access to the health care they need 
and deserve. More doctors will stay in business, creating more 
treatment options, less expensive care, and better access to health 
services for all Americans.
  Health care dollars should be spent on patients in the hospital, not 
on lawyers in a courtroom. This bill will direct more health care 
dollars to treating and curing patients, which is what our health care 
system should be about.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I urge 
our Senators to drastically improve America's health care system by 
passing this bill as soon as possible.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), who serves with distinction on 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unconscionable 
medical malpractice liability bill. This bill will do nothing to reduce 
the skyrocketing health care costs in this country. All it will do is 
deprive people who are already sick and injured of justice.
  Mr. Speaker, it is undeniable that most Americans do not have access 
to affordable health care and that many specialists and trauma centers 
are closing their doors. But instead of addressing our health care 
crisis head on, my Republican colleagues have come up with H.R. 5.
  H.R. 5 is as deplorable as it is ineffective. Trying to stabilize 
medical malpractice insurance rates by capping legitimate victims' 
damages is akin to trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun. I 
know that H.R. 5 will not magically keep medical malpractice insurance 
rates down and keep doctors in business because the bill is modeled 
after California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, better known 
as MICRA.
  My Republican colleagues love to sing the praises of MICRA. But guess 
what? MICRA did not work. MICRA's caps on pain and suffering damages 
have not reduced insurance rates for doctors in my State. MICRA was 
signed into law in 1975, but medical malpractice insurance rates did 
not stabilize until years after MICRA was passed. In fact, between 1975 
and 1993, California's health care costs rose 343 percent, nearly twice 
the rate of inflation and 9 percent higher than the national average 
each year.
  When California's insurance rates stabilized, it was because the 
State passed legislation to directly deal with the insurance problem. 
They passed an insurance reform bill known as Proposition 103.
  It is a shame that the Republican leadership of the House is further 
victimizing victims instead of getting at the root of the real problem. 
Where is the Republican leadership on the real health care issues that 
Americans care about? Where is a Republican House bill to provide 
health care for every working family? Where is a Republican House bill 
to encourage more students to go into medicine and nursing and for 
practicing doctors to keep their doors open? Where is a Republican 
House bill that deals directly with medical malpractice insurance 
rates?
  My Republican colleagues have not offered bills that will help reform 
our health care system. Legislation like that would have prevented the 
forest fire before it even began. Instead, House Republicans cap 
legitimate victims' damage awards. H.R. 5, without insurance and health 
care reform, is meaningless. H.R. 5 simply reinjures the legitimate 
victims of medical malpractice, and we should vote ``no'' on H.R. 5.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Miss McMorris).
  Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I also rise in support of H.R. 5, which will bring needed medical 
liability reform to health care providers in Washington State.
  As I travel around eastern Washington, I hear from desperate doctors 
and health care providers that these lawsuits are increasing costs to 
patients and driving doctors out of business. It is not unusual to hear 
that doctors are being forced to drop their insurance or stop 
delivering babies, or younger doctors are quitting to practice 
overseas. This is at a time when we have a health care personnel 
shortage. This has happened in areas within my district, such as 
Odessa, Republic, and Davenport, where we have no OB/GYNs, and pregnant 
women must travel over an hour now for care. Additionally, it is 
becoming impossible to recruit and retain specialists, such as 
neurosurgeons and cardiologists, when 30 to 50 percent experience 
lawsuits annually. Emergency care is in no better shape with over 30 
percent of trauma surgeons being sued each year. This is unacceptable 
for 21st century health care.
  Skyrocketing medical liability insurance costs for doctors and health 
care providers has caused the American Medical Association to declare 
that Washington State is in a medical liability crisis. In the past 10 
years, the average jury findings in my State have increased 68 percent. 
As well, the number of million-dollar settlements has risen almost ten 
times.
  This is an important bill that limits excessive lawsuits, but also 
ensures that those who are truly harmed are going to get their day in 
court. Over the past few years, had this law been enacted, Washington 
would have saved an estimated $53 million. HHS estimates that by 
setting reasonable guidelines for these noneconomic damage awards, we 
will save between $70 billion and $126 billion in national health care 
costs annually.
  H.R. 5 will bring common-sense reform to outrageous liability rates 
and will protect patients' access to quality and affordable health 
care.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

[[Page 18310]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  All the public should know on this bill is that no Democrats were 
allowed to make any amendments to this bill. They were not allowed to 
debate this bill. Even the great gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, no amendments allowed. None. No 
thought required by half of the Congress. And do the Members want to 
know why? Because this bill is really the pluperfect payback of the 
Republican Party to the insurance industry. This bill will victimize 
patients in the courtroom after they have already been victimized in 
the operating room. That is what it is all about.
  The premise of the bill is this, and it is not a bad premise: If they 
are willing to lower the amount of money that somebody can receive for 
the pain and suffering that they have had inflicted upon them by some 
medical operation, then, in turn, there will be a lowering of the 
premiums that doctors have to pay. That is kind of the trade-off that 
the Republicans have. Lower return for the patients for their pain and 
suffering, but we also get, as a result, lower premiums for the 
doctors.
  But 2 years ago when I made the amendment in the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce that would have said that all of the savings from the pain 
and suffering of patients would then go to lowering of premiums for 
doctors, every Republican voted against that because the insurance 
industry does not want the money to go to lower premiums for doctors. 
And then this year when I wanted to make an amendment in the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce that would have said the same thing, lower 
premiums, I was not allowed to make the amendment. Out here on the 
House floor, I was not allowed to make the amendment.
  So it is not about lowering the premiums for physicians with the 
money that is ``saved'' from the money that would have gone to someone 
whose family had been harmed because they might have lost their sight, 
their limbs, their ability to bear children, their ability to fully 
function in society. All of those savings for the insurance industry, 
they are very real. But the lowering of medical malpractice fees is 
only illusory.
  And, secondly, the bill will protect the pharmaceutical industry from 
liability as long as the drugs that harm patients are FDA-approved. The 
FDA approval is designed to protect patients from harmful drugs, but it 
should not waive a company's responsibility for drugs they put on the 
market. With all of the recent reports about how FDA approved drugs 
that harmed people, from Vioxx to Bextra to Accutane to Paxil, now is 
not the time to limit patients' access to the courts, but that is what 
the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry is going to get 
on the House floor today.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lungren), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and former attorney general of California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  I would like to just make some comments on some of the suggestions 
that have been made that MICRA does not work in California and refer 
only to those parts of this bill that are patterned after MICRA.
  Prior to the time that I came to Congress for the first tour, I did 
medical malpractice cases in California, primarily on the defense side 
for doctors and hospitals, but I also handled some plaintiffs' cases. 
In fact, I think I had one of the first successful lawsuits against an 
HMO in the entire country.
  MICRA came into California at a time when we had a crisis, when we 
had a medical crisis of doctors leaving the State of California or 
stopping their practice.

                              {time}  1500

  It was particularly acute in some specialties, but it was across the 
board. The evidence is there. The history is there. I can tell you it 
was there; I saw it.
  In 1975, the legislature, in response to that problem, passed MICRA. 
That is what this is patterned after. It had a $250,000 limitation on 
pain and suffering. It had these other recommended changes with respect 
to recovery. It has not stopped successful lawsuits against doctors who 
have, in fact, committed malpractice.
  But what it has done is it has taken a part of the process that 
basically abused the process out. And what it has done is stabilize 
what was otherwise a tremendous spiral in the medical malpractice 
premiums that doctors saw.
  Now, some have suggested that is not the case in California. What I 
can tell my colleagues is it stopped the exit of doctors from the State 
of California. It stopped the exit of specialists from practice in the 
State of California. And while it did not diminish entirely the 
increases, it stopped the trajectory of increases. As a result, it did 
provide a very serious partial solution to the problem that we found in 
California.
  That is the model. To the extent this bill is modeled after MICRA, 
that is the model we are talking about.
  So if people want to talk about pilot projects, we have a 20-plus-
year pilot project in the State of California. Ask the medical 
community whether or not it has been effective. Ask the patients who 
now have availability to the services of doctors who otherwise they 
would not have had we not done something in the State of California.
  So for those who are wondering whether or not this will work, at 
least that part of the bill that is patterned after MICRA will. We have 
now had a 20-plus-year pilot project, and it has proven to be 
successful.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to know that this 
bill is based on the California program MICRA, and premiums for medical 
malpractice insurance grew more quickly between 1991 and 2000 than the 
national averages. Just remember that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5. It is an ill-
conceived, ill-crafted bill that does nothing to help drive costs down. 
Studies have shown that this is not the way to go. In fact, insurance 
companies are the ones that are gaming us right now.
  In California, malpractice rates have actually come down because we 
have enacted tough legislation, as was mentioned earlier. We need to do 
more to provide for, I would say, a level playing field so that the 
insurance companies do not walk away taking advantage of our consumers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5. As 
many of my colleagues have pointed out, there are various troublesome 
aspects of this bill, including the recent study that demonstrated 
clearly the rising cost of insurance premiums, while the claims have 
remained steady in terms of the ultimate litigation outcomes of those 
claims that have been filed. So we should not be passing any 
legislation that is not more comprehensive to hold insurance companies 
accountable as well.
  But H.R. 5 is also troublesome because of its blatant disregard for 
States' rights. In South Dakota's 2004 legislative session, a bill 
modeled on H.R. 5 was defeated in committee on a unanimous bipartisan 
vote. I think this sends a strong signal that H.R. 5 does not provide 
the type of comprehensive solution to medical malpractice insurance 
premiums that States are looking for and will stifle innovation in the 
States that has been important to the health care industry.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply very quickly to the point that was 
made, and that is that this bill does not violate any States' rights. 
Section 7(a), it very clearly says that if any State has any cap of any 
amount, be it

[[Page 18311]]

higher or lower than the caps in the bill, then that State's cap will 
prevail.
  So this recognizes States' rights. It is friendly to States' rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and also chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Law.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on 
this bill. I rise in strong support of the bill, and I would urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The costs of the tort system continue to take their toll on the 
Nation's economy. Medical professional liability insurance rates have 
skyrocketed, causing major insurers to drop coverage or raise premiums 
to unaffordable levels. We have heard case after case where this last 
occurred nationwide. In fact, in my home State of Ohio, it has been 
designated as a ``crisis State'' by the American Medical Association.
  According to some estimates, premiums are now rising in Ohio anywhere 
from 10 percent to 40 percent, with many doctors involved in specialty 
practices such as obstetrics seeing their premiums rise by 100 percent, 
100 percent or, in some cases, even more. Obviously, this has a 
negative impact on both patients and doctors, causing higher costs and 
forcing many doctors to close their practices.
  The HEALTH Act, this act that we are debating here this afternoon, 
addresses this crisis by eliminating frivolous lawsuits and making 
health care more accessible and more affordable. We have been talking 
about doing that for years. This is a bill where we can actually do 
something about making health more affordable.
  The HEALTH Act has enjoyed strong support in the House of 
Representatives in past Congresses, and I strongly urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation if 
they are serious about bringing the high cost of health care in this 
country down to affordable levels.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the American health care system is in crisis, in part, 
because of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates. This 
crisis, however, is not the result of frivolous lawsuits, but of 
insurance industry practices.
  The so-called solution that we are debating today, carving out 
enormous new liability exemptions for health insurers, pharmaceutical 
companies, medical device manufacturers, and nursing homes would not 
lower doctors' malpractice insurance rates by one dollar. Too many 
doctors are struggling to keep their practices afloat under the burden 
of enormous insurance premiums but, instead of helping them, what we 
are doing today is penalizing the severely injured patients and the 
families of those who die a result of medical negligence without 
providing any relief to the doctors from high malpractice insurance 
rates.
  A new study, and we have been talking about it today, by the Kaiser 
Family Foundation, found that since 2001, there has been a 25 percent 
decrease in the average number of medical malpractice claims per 
physician.
  Now, if medical malpractice claims have decreased, why do insurance 
premiums continue to increase? We have been talking today about MICRA, 
the California insurance program. Now, it is true, the State capped 
medical malpractice payments in 1975; but despite this, as we just 
heard from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), malpractice 
premiums rose 450 percent over the next 13 years. Only after 1988, when 
California also implemented insurance reform, did the rates go down. 
But, today, instead of insurance reform, we are focusing entirely on 
capping damages.
  Now, even the spokesman for the American Insurance Association, 
Dennis Kelly, said these words. He said, ``We have not promised price 
reductions with tort reform.''
  So I want to ask my colleagues, why are we doing this bill today? 
What is the real reason for this bill? If the malpractice insurance 
companies are not going to reduce insurance premiums for these 
beleaguered doctors, why are we passing this bill? And what is the 
cause of the increasing insurance rates?
  Some suggest that rate hikes are due to insurer investment losses. 
Others point to old-fashioned price gouging. This year, for example, 
the Washington State insurance commissioner ordered insurers to refund 
more than $1 million in premiums to physicians because rate hikes were 
unjustifiable. But I tried to do an amendment, I did it in committee 
last time when we heard it, and I tried to submit it to the Committee 
on Rules: let us do a study. Let us figure out why these rates are high 
and why Dennis Kelly says they are not going to go down.
  The Republican majority refused to even allow a study of malpractice 
insurance rates and why they are so high. That is what this bill is 
really about. Because billion-dollar insurance companies have Federal 
antitrust exemptions, they are allowed to legally fix prices, and this 
has helped the industry gain a record $25 billion in annual profits.
  Now, there is one thing we can agree on across the aisle: Congress 
must stop this price-gouging of physicians. But granting blanket 
liability protection to negligent nursing homes, to pharmaceutical 
companies, and insurance companies, without addressing insurance 
billing practices, does nothing to solve the problem for these doctors. 
And what is worse, the immunity for these other industries will be 
broader than any State tort reform law. It will do nothing to help the 
doctors; and in the end, it will serve to severely limit the rights of 
many millions of Americans.
  It undermines our health care system to penalize victims of medical 
negligence in the name of relieving doctors' burdensome malpractice 
premiums when, actually, nothing is being done to reduce those 
premiums. Unfortunately, I think this is as a result of an aversion of 
some in Washington to what I would call fact-based policymaking.
  Now, there is a solution. We could work across the aisle to reduce 
medical malpractice insurance rates, and we could do this by passing 
bipartisan insurance reform. This would get to the root of the crisis 
by reducing artificially inflated insurance rates for doctors and not 
punishing injured patients.
  One further note. I hear all day that States are having a terrible 
problem: doctors cannot get insurance, OB/GYNs are leaving. If this is 
a State problem, I say to my colleagues, if States are having these 
issues, I want to know why we are trying to address it at a Federal 
level. This is not traditionally a Federal issue. The States can do it.
  One further note. Anyone reading this bill would know, for the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota's (Ms. Herseth) State and every other 
State, this bill would supersede any other rate or caps they might have 
with the Federal law. That is wrong. I think we should abide by States' 
rights and defeat this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, what was just said was actually contradicted by the 
Government Accountability Office. The GAO found that rising litigation 
awards are responsible for skyrocketing medical professional liability 
premiums. The report stated that ``GAO found that losses on medical 
malpractice claims, which make up the largest part of the insurers' 
costs, appear to be the primary driver of rate increases.''
  The GAO found that insurers are not to blame for skyrocketing medical 
professional liability premiums. The GAO report states that insurer 
``profits are not increasing, indicating that insurers are not charging 
and profiting from excessively high premium rates.''
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that the opponents of this 
legislation are forgetting, I hope not ignoring, a study by the Harvard 
Medical Practice. What this study found is that over half, over half of 
the filed medical professional liability claims they studied were 
brought by plaintiffs who suffered either no injuries at all or, if 
they did, such injuries were not caused by their health care providers, 
but rather by the underlying disease itself.

[[Page 18312]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my time, I hope sufficient time, to 
refute some of these statements that have been made in opposition. I 
want to start with the gentlewoman from Colorado who just spoke. It is 
absolutely wrong about the issue of Federal law superseding State law 
in cases where the State has already addressed the issue.

                              {time}  1515

  Let us say the issue of caps, my State of Georgia passed a law this 
year, and the caps there are $350,000. That would be applicable State 
law would apply. It is only when States have not addressed the issue 
when the Federal law would speak.
  I want to also address something the gentlewoman said in regard to 
this bill being nothing. I have heard this not just from her, but from 
number of other speakers on the other side in opposition, talking about 
that this is nothing but a protection for the insurance industry, and 
it is another bail-out of protection for the pharmaceutical industry, 
and they are relieved of all liability, which is absolutely untrue, Mr. 
Speaker.
  In fact, last night when we were talking about the rule, the 
gentleman from Arkansas, a registered pharmacist, opposed the rule and 
the bill basically for the same reason. I would like to remind him. I 
hope the gentleman is listening to the discussion this afternoon. But 
this would protect a pharmacist who prescribes a drug, a legally FDA-
approved drug, that the pharmacist had no idea that there might be a 
problem or an adverse reaction. This is what this bill does. That would 
protect the pharmacist from punitive damages in a case like that, where 
there was no deliberate intent to harm the patient.
  So it is very important that all of our colleagues understand the 
truth here. The gentleman from Illinois kept talking about the Vioxx 
case, and the marathon runner. Well, if Vioxx and the company that 
makes that drug is guilty of withholding pertinent information that 
they had in clinical trials, and they knew that it was a harmful drug 
that they put out there on the market and exposed patients to that 
drug, then they are going to pay one heck of a price for that, yes, in 
punitive damages.
  So they are not relieved from that under this bill. It is only when 
they did everything right and they were approved by the FDA that they 
would have any relief from punitive damages.
  There are plenty of great athletes, Mr. Speaker. I remember an All-
American basketball player from St. Joseph's University 10 or 15 years 
ago that dropped dead on the basketball court. He was not taking Vioxx. 
But we will see how that case turns out.
  The issue was brought up, Mr. Speaker, about young children who are 
injured, and they do not have a job or profession, so they need this 
pain and suffering compensation that can be infinity, hundreds of 
millions of dollars, rather than a cap at 250-, when the truth is the 
triers of fact, Mr. Speaker, the jury, can determine the life span, the 
expected life span of that child and what their earnings would be over 
the course of that lifetime. The same thing in regard to a stay-at-home 
mom who was a professional maybe, an attorney possibly, before she 
decided to become a mother and a homemaker. Those earnings would be 
calculated as well.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, a little while earlier a speaker in opposition, 
the gentleman from New York, he made this statement: It comes down to 
the issue of who we are fighting for. I am really not sure who the 
gentleman in the opposition is fighting for. I suspect that I know who 
they are fighting for. Does ATLA sound familiar to you, my colleagues?
  But I am going to tell you who we are fighting for. We are fighting 
for the patient. We are fighting for their right to have the ability to 
access needed specialists in health care, and they are not going to be 
there if we do not level this playing field.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, no one disputes that rising medical malpractice premiums 
are a major, major problem. Unfortunately this bill before us will do 
nothing to solve that problem. It would limit consumers' ability to 
hold negligent doctors, profit-driven HMOs, insurance companies, and 
prescription drug companies accountable.
  The claim is made that excessive or frivolous lawsuits are the cause 
of rising premiums. The problem is that lawsuits affected by the bill 
are by definition not frivolous.
  Where large damages are awarded, it is a jury that has found that the 
patient has been severely harmed, and, in fact, over the last 5 years, 
malpractice insurance payments to patients have actually gone down, and 
that while premiums continue to go up. Now, something is wrong with 
that ratio.
  There is no evidence that capping the damages to an injured person 
because of malpractice is the way to solve this problem. It will not 
lower premiums. It will not even stabilize them. All this bill will do 
is to make very sure that as the malpractice insurers collect 
outrageous premiums, they will be able to continue to pay out even less 
to the patients who have actually been harmed. This will penalize 
innocent victims of medical negligence.
  Furthermore, the bill goes far beyond lawsuits against doctors. It 
would also protect drug companies and HMOs from lawsuits filed by 
people injured because of their policies.
  In 3 years of considering this issue, the majority has not presented 
a shred of evidence that drug companies need these protections. They 
are making billions of dollars in profits. If this bill becomes law, 
the ability of injured patients to hold negligent drug companies 
accountable would be dramatically limited. We have all seen the recent 
stories about Cox-2 inhibitors, other medications. So many have tragic 
outcomes. They highlight the fact that drugs may harm patients. Those 
studies expose how dangerous this bill can be. We should be helping 
doctors with malpractice insurance premiums. But this bill is not going 
to help doctors, and it will hurt patients.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Let us 
look for real solutions to rising medical malpractice premiums.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleagues might be interested in some 
quotes. One quote is from a former Democratic Senator, and the other 
quote is from a liberal Washington Post columnist. I would like to read 
those now.
  Former Democratic Senator George McGovern has written that ``legal 
fear drives doctors to prescribe medicines and order tests, even 
invasive procedures that they feel are necessary. Reputable studies 
estimate that this defensive medicine squanders $50 billion a year, 
enough to provide medical care to millions of uninsured Americans.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is from a prominent liberal commentator, Michael 
Kinsley. He wrote in the Washington Post, ``Limits on malpractice 
lawsuits are a good idea that Democrats are wrong and possibly foolish 
to oppose. Republicans are right about malpractice reform.''
  Mr. Speaker, also we have a number of polls showing that the American 
people support the HEALTH Act. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of 
the American people support exactly what we are trying to do. Just this 
week a poll conducted by Harris Interactive showed that 74 percent of 
those surveyed support reasonable limits on the award of noneconomic 
damages and limiting payments to personal injury attorneys.
  A poll by the Harvard School of Public Health found the following: 
``More than 6 in 10, 63 percent, say they would favor legislation that 
would limit the amount of money that can be awarded as damages for pain 
and suffering to someone suing a doctor for malpractice.''

[[Page 18313]]

  The same poll found that 69 percent of the people surveyed say a law 
limiting pain and suffering awards would help either a lot or some in 
reducing the overall cost of health care.
  Finally, the results of a recent Gallup poll show that the American 
public strongly supports the HEALTH Act. The survey asked whether those 
surveyed would favor or oppose a limit on the amount patients can be 
awarded for their emotional pain and suffering. Mr. Speaker, 72 percent 
were in favor. That means three-quarters of the American people favor 
this HEALTH Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of H.R. 5. 
Despite its name, this bill is a poor attempt to make health care more 
efficient, accessible, affordable or timely.
  It is not even a serious attempt to lower malpractice insurance 
costs. I agree that Congress needs to comprehensively address medical 
malpractice issues. I understand and sympathize with doctors facing 
rising premiums. But this bill is not the answer.
  Malpractice premiums are rising as costs in all segments of health 
care are rising. And doctors, according to this USA Today article, 
still pay less for malpractice insurance than they do for their rent. 
And as the headline says here, ``Hype outpaces facts in medical 
malpractice debates.''
  I am opposed to this legislation for many reasons. First, it has 
never been brought to the floor with any consideration by the Energy 
and Commerce Committee or the Judiciary Committee. No hearings were 
ever held. And there were no opportunities to amend this bill, to 
include provisions that might actually help solve the problem of 
premium increases.
  The majority believes that the answer to lower medical malpractice 
premiums is to institute an arbitrary $250,000 cap on noneconomic 
damages in malpractice suits. However, large jury awards are not the 
cause of the problem. Only 1.3 percent of all claims result in a 
winning verdict. But the noneconomic caps hurt the children and the 
low-income wage-earners the most.
  Do we really want to create a capped system where the makers of 
Vioxx, Accutane, Celebrex and any other drug are suddenly off the hook 
because of a weak FDA, and the only thing to keep them remotely honest 
is the trial system?
  In addition, this legislation undermines the foundation of our court 
system, trial by jury of our peers. If we trust juries to determine 
whether a person is guilty or innocent and should die in a death 
penalty case, surely we can trust juries to determine compensation for 
victims in medical malpractice. The fact is that juries are cautious, 
and patients only prevail in one of every five cases that ever go to 
trial.
  Let me tell you what the bill fails to do. It fails to address the 
real driver of medical malpractice insurance costs, the insurance 
industry itself.
  The insurance industry investments tanked in the beginning of this 
decade because of a weak stock market, and now the industry is 
squeezing health care providers in an effort to protect their bottom 
line. Why are we not looking at the insurance industry, including the 
fact health insurers continue to be exempt from antitrust legislation?
  In addition, the bill does not address the rising health insurance 
costs. The Congressional Budget Office, our own CBO, found that even 
large reductions in medical malpractice costs will have little effect 
on health care costs.
  Finally, the bill does nothing to address the two root causes of 
medical lawsuits, medical errors and bad actors in the health care 
system. It is a tragedy that medical errors account for almost 100,000 
patient deaths each year, but Congress has done very little to address 
this issue.
  The bill also does nothing to address the fact that 5 percent of all 
doctors are responsible for 54 percent of the malpractice claims paid. 
Why do we allow health care providers to practice if they have a long 
record of errors?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a little earlier today, we 
talked about the insurance industry and its role in this issue. But let 
us be very clear. We need the structural reforms contained in the 
HEALTH Act, H.R. 5, in order to continue to provide access to quality 
care for our constituents and patients of the United States.
  We also need to incent insurance companies to write policies in our 
States, which they will not do indefinitely in this current 
environment. And I remember a few years ago when people said, when the 
crisis was acute in Pennsylvania, they said the problem is the 
insurance companies invested money foolishly in the stock market. Well, 
a lot of people lost money in the stock market a few years ago. At that 
time the insurance companies in my State had about 8 to 10 percent of 
their money in equities. Most of it was in investment-grade bonds, 
which did rather well. But that really was not the cause of the 
problem.
  But let me tell you about the city of Philadelphia. In my State, many 
people want to get their cases heard in a Philadelphia courtroom. Why? 
Because the juries pay more. According to Jury Verdict Research, at 
that time the average jury verdict award in Philadelphia was over a 
million dollars, and the average everywhere else in the State was under 
a half million. No wonder people wanted to go to Philadelphia.
  In fact, President Bush even cited Philadelphia in a speech he made 
in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where trauma centers were closing down. What 
the President said there is that in the city of Philadelphia, there 
were more jury awards, more dollars sent out by Philadelphia juries 
than in the entire State of California, a State of 35 million people, 
and Philadelphia a city of 1.5 million people.
  How is that? The system is broken. I am in the Lehigh Valley of 
Pennsylvania, 60 miles north of Philadelphia. One hospital, St. Luke's, 
was hit with a $100 million jury verdict in a Philadelphia courtroom. 
In a Philadelphia courtroom. It was an outrageous decision. It was 
settled for something less than that, I will tell you that right now. 
But it was an outrageous situation, could have bankrupted a major 
institution that has been nationally recognized on many occasions for 
clinical excellence. That is one of my problems.
  We have also heard, too, that this is not a Federal problem. Does the 
word Medicare mean anything to anyone around here? Medicare will save 
billions of dollars over 10 years if we enact the reforms contained in 
this legislation.
  Furthermore, in many States again like mine in Pennsylvania, to amend 
the constitution to permit caps on noneconomic damages literally is a 
4- to 5-year process.

                              {time}  1530

  But we cannot wait 4 to 5 years to solve this problem. That is why we 
need the HEALTH Act now. We can do it much more quickly. It is 
absolutely critical. A Band-Aid will not stop the bleeding. Structural 
reforms are required.
  As I mentioned a little earlier today, in my State, taxpayers, 
particularly cigarette smokers, that is who is paying the bill for 
doctors' premiums and hospitals' medical liability premiums, that is 
who is paying the bill because no one wants to write insurance, and the 
State-administered fund is broke. They will have to find hundreds of 
millions of dollars more come January 1 to fix this problem.
  The point is, structural reform is needed. Taxpayer bail-outs and 
Band-Aids will not fix the problem. I commend the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his leadership on this issue. A former 
colleague, Jim Greenwood, I thank for his leadership in the last 
session; and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) as well. I 
want to thank them for their leadership. I urge passage of H.R. 5.

[[Page 18314]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Ms. DeGette) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time. I rise today not only as a lawmaker but also as a former judge 
who tried many malpractice cases in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, to voice my 
disapproval of H.R. 5, the medical malpractice legislation that 
irresponsibly limits what might be rightfully owed to an injured 
plaintiff.
  My previous experiences have taught me to respect the independence of 
our court and the jury system. Our judicial system must remain 
uninhibited in order to be effective. In direct contradiction to this 
fundamental democratic principle, H.R. 5 limits the capacity of a jury 
to deliver a fair verdict by capping the amount of noneconomic damages 
at $250,000. I say that the facts of each case should be able to 
control.
  Thomas Jefferson once stated: ``I consider trial by jury as the only 
anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to 
the principles of its Constitution.'' By handcuffing the jury, this 
Congress would be trampling on this democratic principle.
  Let me say that we can sit here on the floor of this House and talk 
about a number, $250,000. But it does not reach to a courtroom where we 
have an injured plaintiff who has the ability to put evidence on in the 
courtroom to say to the jury and to the judge that these are the facts 
of our case that deserve to have the law applied to it and have the 
jury render a verdict.
  It would be unfair in my mind as we look at the drug company 
advertisements. It used to be that the doctor would recommend the drug 
to the patient. Anymore, you turn on the TV and the TV is telling the 
patients, Get that purple pill; it will make a difference in your life.
  Why should we allow drug companies who spend millions of dollars to 
entice parties into getting a particular drug without knowing any 
information to be let loose or let go for these reasons.
  I say vote against H.R. 5, the medical malpractice legislation, 
because it is not what we need to help our plaintiffs.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me share with my colleagues the result of three 
studies, and let me emphasize that these studies are not about 
hypothetical situations. They are not theoretical studies. They are 
studies of the actual experiences of States that have enacted reforms 
similar to the ones we have in this bill that we are talking about 
today.
  According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, States 
with reasonable legal reforms including caps on noneconomic damages 
enjoy access to more physicians per capita: ``We found that States with 
caps on noneconomic damages experienced about 12 percent more 
physicians per capita than the States without such a cap. Moreover, we 
found that States with relatively high caps were less likely to 
experience an increase in physician supply than States with lower 
caps.''
  Mr. Speaker, also, research shows that California reforms, which the 
HEALTH Act is based on, have not resulted in unfair awards to deserving 
victims. A recent comprehensive study of California's MICRA reforms by 
the Rand Institute concluded that under MICRA, ``awards generally 
remained quite large despite the imposition of the cap, and 
California's reforms have not resulted in any disparate impact on women 
or the elderly.''
  Mr. Speaker, in another study, researchers at the Harvard School of 
Public Health stated that ``we found no evidence that women or the 
elderly were disparately impacted by the cap by noneconomic damages in 
California under MICRA.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we make sure that all our 
colleagues are clear on some of the issues that have been discussed 
here today. I know there has been some hyperbole maybe on both sides of 
the issue, and I want to be very clear.
  This bill protects our patients, first and foremost, and gives them 
an opportunity to have access to affordable health care and to the 
specialist that they need and when they need them. It also helps our 
physicians, our doctors be able to stay in practice when they have an 
opportunity to have a stable medical malpractice insurance premium that 
they have to pay.
  Yes, there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that section 7 in regard to 
punitive damages, that is applicable to our doctors as well as to 
companies that make medical equipment. It also is applicable to drug 
companies that provide us with life-saving drugs if they have done so 
in a fashion that is not negligent and not deliberately intended to 
harm a patient.
  Here is an example, Mr. Speaker: things like time released infusion, 
chemotherapy, treating cancer patients, insulin pumps for diabetics, 
titanium hip replacements, artificial heart valves. If the makers of 
these life-saving devices were subject to punitive damages every time 
something through no fault of their own went wrong, we would be in the 
situation that we were in a year and a half ago in regard to the flu 
vaccine. Nobody wants to get involved in that business for the fear of 
a lawsuit. And with the government setting prices on flu vaccines, the 
profit margin to begin with was very limited.
  So this section 7 is a very important provision in this bill, Mr. 
Speaker. So again, I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
understand that this is not a bad provision. This is a good provision.
  Mr. Speaker, also one of the speakers in opposition, well, actually 
several of the speakers in opposition, said that this bill has been 
brought to us, we have had no hearings, we have had no opportunity, we 
have had no voice. It is not true, Mr. Speaker.
  This is the fourth time in 3 years that this exact same bill, H.R. 5, 
has been dealt with on the floor of this House. It is the exact same 
bill.
  I joined this body in 2003. We dealt with it in 2003. We dealt with 
it in 2004, and here we are with the exact same bill. Section 7 was in 
the bill, the section in regard to punitive damages. Nothing has 
changed. In fact, in the Committee on Energy and Commerce this 
February, a hearing was held on medical liability and some 15 witnesses 
were at that hearing, Mr. Speaker. So it is untrue to suggest that we 
have not had hearings and they have not had an opportunity. They know 
this bill.
  It is a good bill. We have passed it three times. We are going to, in 
a few minutes, pass it for a fourth time; and, hopefully, the other 
body will do the same thing so we can get this to the President for his 
signature and level this playing field once and for all.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, there are better ways to solve this problem 
than to strip Americans of the right to trial by jury. Fundamentally, 
this bill takes the right of trial by jury of your peers away from 
Americans and gives that authority to politicians who have never heard 
any of the evidence.
  Take this case about a 4-year-old girl I know from Yakima, 
Washington, named Nichole. Several years ago, she went in with a 
urinary tract problem. The doctors put in a foley catheter. When you do 
that, there is a balloon they put in your bladder that is inflated to 
hold the catheter. This was traumatic to this 4-year-old girl. When 
they went to deflate the catheter, it would not deflate. So they tried 
to deflate it by sticking a steel wire up

[[Page 18315]]

through her urethra to try to puncture the balloon so they could pull 
the catheter out. They tried it many times. This was traumatic to this 
young girl. It did not work.
  So they finally had to inject a solvent up her urethra to dissolve 
the rubber and it dissolved the rubber and it also dissolved part of 
her bladder and severely burned her bladder because of the malfunction 
of a negligently designed and manufactured foley catheter.
  Now, who is better to make a decision for that 4-year-old girl about 
what is justice? Teachers, truck drivers, insurance salesmen sitting in 
a jury who have heard the evidence and who have looked at Nichole and 
understand the future dysfunction she may have and the trauma she had, 
or 435 politicians who are clueless about that specific case?
  Where is the wisdom from the Creator that these politicians are 
vested in to tell us what Nichole went through? Nobody knows except 
maybe someone who was at that trial.
  This is moving authority from jurors, citizens, the people who are 
sitting up in the gallery right here and taking it away from you and 
putting it in the pockets, first of Members of Congress, through the 
lobbyists for the drug companies and the medical companies. And by the 
way you, know what happened because of Nichole's case? That company 
cleaned up its act, and it started a new quality-control mechanism so 
that we will not have future Nicholes, because we had a medical 
negligence system that protected the Nicholes of this world.
  There is a problem. This is not the best way to solve it. Respect 
America, democracy, and our jurors.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are to refrain from referring to 
persons in the gallery.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague who just spoke that 
our separation of powers provides that all aspects of the government 
are limited to some extent. If juries or judges give outrageous awards, 
like any other exercise of government power, they should be subject to 
reasonable checks and balances.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to remind my colleagues that unnecessary and 
frivolous litigation is threatening the viability of the life-saving 
drug industry. To encourage the development of life-saving drugs, the 
HEALTH Act contains a safe harbor from punitive damages from a 
defendant whose drugs or medical product comply with rigorous rules or 
regulations. The provision is manifestly fair.
  Why should a drug manufacturer be found guilty of malicious conduct 
when all they did was sell a product approved as safe under the 
comprehensive regulations of the FDA? Claims for unlimited economic 
damages and reasonable noneconomic damages could still go forward under 
the HEALTH Act. The safe harbor does not apply if relevant information 
was misrepresented or withheld from the FDA.
  Eight States have, in fact, provided an FDA regulatory compliance 
defense against damages just like this bill. Those States are Arizona, 
Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah. 
Opposing this bill jeopardizes those State laws. And the Members who 
are from those States might want to remember that.
  Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. Without legal reform, 
patients will continue to go without needed doctors: women will 
continue to deliver babies on the side of the road because the nearest 
OB/GYN is hundreds of miles away; parents will continue to be forced to 
watch as their child with brain injury suffers because lawsuits forced 
the nearest neurosurgeon to stop practicing.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining and has the right to close. The gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) has 5 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask why we are 
not doing more to ensure fewer mistakes are made in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody disputes that malpractice premiums are heavily 
impacting many physicians. I think very few of us would dispute that 
there are frivolous claims filed. All of the justifications for this 
bill about losing physicians in high-risk practices are real concerns.
  So why is it that we are spending this time debating a bill that 
won't address this problem? Repeatedly dramatizing the problem doesn't 
make this bill a solution. This bill does nothing to prevent frivolous 
lawsuits. It doesn't rein in the bad actors, in penalizes those who are 
the most grievously injured.
  Experience shows that the link between awards or settlements and 
premiums is tenuous at best. An exhaustive study published this month 
showed that premiums have gone up 120 percent over the last 5 years 
while claims were flat. The GAO has found no evidence that caps on 
damages hold premiums down.
  But even if this bill could work--it would not, Mr. Speaker, but even 
if it could--we are completely missing the real issue.
  We are fighting about how or how not to compensate the victims of 
mistakes and hold negligent providers accountable. Shouldn't we be 
talking instead about how to ensure fewer mistakes in the first place?
  We are talking about closing the barn door but the horse is already 
galloping across the field.
  Mr. Speaker, Sorrel King can teach us all a lesson. Several years 
ago, her 18-month-old daughter Josie suffered severe burns and was 
rushed to the ICU at Johns Hopkins Hospital.
  She got the world-class care you would expect and they saved her 
life. She was going home in just a few days. And then communications 
were botched, orders were lost, and Josie was administered a drug she 
was not supposed to get, over Sorrel's objection. And even then, 
further warning signs were missed.
  Josie King wound up dying of dehydration in one of our Nation's 
finest hospitals. Johns Hopkins settled with Sorrel and her family. 
And--here is where we can learn something--Sorrel turned around and 
gave the money back to Hopkins to create a new patient safety program.
  Mr. Speaker, like Sorrel, we need to spend less effort apportioning 
blame and more effort making our system safer and better. Hundreds of 
thousands of our constituents die in hospitals every year not in spite 
of the care they get, but because of it. These are mostly systems 
problems, not the result of individual negligence.
  Last year I introduced the Josie King Act to begin transforming 
health care delivery so that the system itself is driving better 
quality at lower costs. It laid out a roadmap to bringing health care 
into the information age and promoted the development of uniform 
quality metrics so that providers, the public, and purchasers have a 
clearer picture of which providers get the best outcomes for patients.
  Now we are finally beginning to see attention to these priorities, 
which, unlike the current debate, have bipartisan support. We won't 
reach agreement about capping damages to patients who are hurt, but we 
can agree that the system should hurt fewer people.
  We can pass strong health IT legislation this year, like the bill Mr. 
Murphy from Pennsylvania and I introduced or the one that was reported 
out of committee in the other body.
  We can pass legislation this year to begin linking reimbursements to 
outcomes and quality. I know we have strong leadership on both sides of 
the aisle, in several committees and in the House leadership, for both 
of those things.
  Until we begin aligning incentives in health care so that providers 
who go the extra mile to make their patients better or, even better, 
keep them healthy--people are going to keep getting hurt.
  Until we begin aligning incentives in health care so that the tools 
of the information age can help make care more accurate and more 
efficient.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friends on other side that physicians 
need lower malpractice rates. I also believe that the best way to get 
fewer lawsuits is to get fewer mistakes. Let's keep our eyes on the 
ball and make our health care system better, safer, and more efficient 
and make everyone better off.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority 
leader.

[[Page 18316]]


  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette) for yielding me this time and for her leadership on issues 
that relate to the health and well-being of the American people.
  I also want to salute the two distinguished ranking members, first 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) of the Committee on the 
Judiciary for his leadership on this important legislation; and I 
especially want to acknowledge the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), who this year celebrates his 50th anniversary in Congress, 
and every day of those 50 years he has worked to improve access to 
quality health care for all Americans. But particularly on this 40th 
anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, it is worth noting the 
contributions of the gentleman from Michigan in providing health care 
security for millions of Americans and for upholding the fundamental 
principle that Democrats believe in: Health care is a right, not a 
privilege.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican medical 
malpractice bill. Let me begin with this simple fact: Under President 
Bush, 5.2 million more Americans have joined the ranks of the 
uninsured. Today, 45 million Americans have no health insurance. The 
bill before us does not, nor does any other Republican bill during this 
so-called Health Week, provide health insurance to one single American.
  This bill is not about solving the urgent health insurance crisis 
that affects millions of American families, nor is it about improving 
our health care system, containing costs, or even lowering medical 
malpractice insurance premiums. Instead, the Republican medical 
malpractice bill, first and foremost, is a windfall to the big drug 
companies at the expense of Americans who have been injured or killed 
by harmful and unsafe drugs. Once again, protecting the big drug 
companies is at the top of the Republican agenda.
  The Republicans have attempted to hide the true purpose and the real 
reason for this bill. It contains a special liability waiver for drug 
companies for the types of injuries caused by drugs. Under this 
Republican bill, when Americans are injured, or even killed, by drugs 
that have been negligently marketed, they will not be able to obtain 
justice and hold drug companies wholly accountable.
  The Republican leadership, beholden to the pharmaceutical companies, 
refused to allow amendments that would strike this unjust provision. As 
with the Medicare prescription drug bill, where Republicans prohibited 
the government from negotiating for low prices for seniors, and forbade 
Americans from purchasing lower-priced drugs from Canada, this is yet 
another example of the Republicans being the handmaidens of the 
pharmaceutical industry.
  The Republican medical malpractice bill is an extreme bill that is an 
injustice to consumers, and it unconscionably rewards irresponsible 
drug companies. If we are to remain a Nation that seeks justice for 
all, the special liability waiver for drug companies must be removed. 
Unfortunately, the Republicans refused to permit the consideration of 
the Emanuel-Berry amendment to remove this unjust and reprehensible 
provision.
  Apart from pandering to drug companies, this bill utterly fails to 
achieve its stated purpose. It will not lower medical malpractice 
insurance premiums, nor does it address the real cause. The real cause 
of high malpractice premiums is not the payouts for malpractice claims. 
Former Missouri State Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff issued a recent 
study showing the amount collected in premiums by major medical 
malpractice insurers has doubled. The amount received in premiums has 
doubled, while the claims paid out have remained flat, resulting in 
excessive profits and excessive reserve surpluses.
  The Angoff study found that insurance companies are charging far more 
for malpractice insurance than actual payments or estimated future 
payments warrant. This finding is also supported by numerous studies 
that document that in States that have enacted caps or damage awards, 
they have not seen their premiums for malpractice insurance lowered.
  Rather than addressing insurance companies' refusal to lower rates, 
the Republican bill instead interferes with the rights of injured 
Americans to be compensated for their injuries and have their claims 
heard by a jury of their peers. If enacted, the cap on damages would 
severely harm women, children, and the elderly who have been injured. 
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow the Democratic 
substitutes by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to be offered.
  The Democratic substitute supports sensible approaches that permit 
only valid claims to go forward. More significantly, the Democratic 
substitute addresses real causes for premium increases and offers real 
solutions for the doctors. It repeals the antitrust exemption for 
insurance companies. It provides targeted assistance to help physicians 
stay in crisis areas.
  We all respect the magnificent contribution that doctors provide to 
our society. It is not only a profession, it is a vocation, and we 
literally could not live without them. So it is with great respect for 
them that I say they deserve better than this bill, which purports to 
help them.
  President Harry Truman said it so well: ``The Democratic party stands 
for the people. The Republican party stands, and always has stood, for 
special interests.'' That was true almost 60 years ago when he said it, 
and it is certainly true today. Let us uphold the public interest. Let 
us stand up to the big drug and insurance companies, and let us oppose 
this unjust bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as 
we are prepared to close on this side.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas says that this bill does not 
preempt State law. In fact, the bill includes a sweeping preemption of 
State law which is designed to override State laws that protect 
consumers and patients while keeping in place State laws that favor 
doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs, pharmaceuticals and medical 
device manufacturers, and other health care defendants.
  In fact, the only laws that this bill does not supersede are the ones 
that protect those groups, and that is at the great risk to patients.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very important reasons 
to oppose this bill, but I want to focus on one of the most egregious 
parts of the legislation that has nothing to do with medical 
malpractice. Under this legislation, if a drug or medical device 
manufacturer sells a dangerous product that causes harm to a consumer, 
so long as that product received FDA approval prior to being marketed, 
a court would be prohibited from awarding punitive damages against that 
manufacturer. This marks a dramatic change in current law by 
transforming FDA product approval into a shield against liability.
  Time and again we have seen that the FDA approval process cannot or 
does not guarantee the safety of drugs and other medical products. 
Every day our concerns increase about the adequacy of the FDA's 
postmarket safety programs. And we have seen numerous instances in 
which despite receiving FDA approval, drugs and medical devices, have 
been pulled from the market because of the emergence of severe dangers 
associated with their use.
  Mr. Speaker, we have not given the FDA the tools or the ability to 
approve a drug so that all the things that would happen after that 
approval will not occur, such as the failure of the company that 
manufactures it to make sure they follow their own safety standards; or 
that new risks that are not known at the time of the approval will 
never arise.
  We have to rely on the civil justice system as an additional layer of 
protection for American citizens. In court,

[[Page 18317]]

consumers harmed by dangerous medical products are given the 
opportunity to hold the pharmaceutical companies accountable for their 
wrongdoing. Confronted with the looming threat of liability, 
pharmaceutical and medical device companies have every incentive to 
ensure that their products are safe before they are marketed, and that 
they continue to be safe once on the market.
  We have seen mounting evidence that drug and device companies can 
withhold key data from physicians, fail to conduct needed safety 
studies, and carry out misleading advertisement campaigns even when 
they know of the risks of their products. Yet instead of safeguarding 
an individual's right to hold a drug and device company accountable for 
this kind of conduct, this legislation offers sweeping protection for 
those companies.
  A company might mislead doctors about the safety of its drug and 
continue to aggressively promote the use of a dangerous drug in spite 
of studies raising questions as to its safety. Under this legislation, 
such company would have a shield from liability for punitive damages 
for this behavior. This is an issue that should be decided on the 
evidence and in court.
  If we fail to preserve the right of Americans to hold manufacturers 
of dangerous medical products accountable, we will fail to uphold our 
responsibility to American consumers to protect against unsafe products 
and medical devices.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my colleagues who are not usually 
concerned about States rights that if they will look at section 11 of 
the bill, they will find the bill respects the right of any State to 
set a cap of any amount, be it higher or lower, than the caps in the 
bill itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the HEALTH Act is the only proven legislative solution 
to the current medical liability insurance crisis. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, under this bill, ``Premiums for medical 
malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 
30 percent below what they would be under current law.''
  H.R. 5 allows unlimited awards of economic damages. These include 
past and future medical expenses, lost or past and future earnings, the 
cost of obtaining domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of 
business or employment opportunities. Deserving victims can be awarded 
tens of millions of dollars in damages, as we have already seen in the 
States that have similar reforms to those contained in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Harvard Medical Practice Study found that over half 
of the filed medical professional liability claims they studied were 
brought by plaintiffs who suffered either no injuries at all or, if 
they did, such injuries were not caused by the health care providers, 
but rather by the underlying disease.
  H.R. 5 is modeled on California's legal reforms. Those reforms have 
resulted in California's medical liability premiums increasing at a 
rate that is only one-third the rate of those of other States.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to act, and we need to act now. The nonpartisan 
Annals of Medicine predicts that the current doctor shortage could get 
worse, and we could lose 20 percent of needed doctors in the coming 
years. Let us protect patients everywhere. Let us pass the HEALTH Act.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my concern 
regarding the passage of H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-
cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005 also known as the medical 
malpractice bill. Although some believe that ``reforming'' medical 
malpractice litigation will ultimately serve as a solution for 
skyrocketing healthcare premiums, it is my belief that this legislation 
is both misguided and harmful to the American people.
  One of the most contentious provisions within H.R. 5 is a $250,000 
cap on awards for non-economic damages. Placing such a cap allows 
corporations the opportunity to build into their bottom line a certain 
amount of liability. Currently, we have a judicial system that creates 
a fine balance between free corporate enterprise viability and consumer 
protection. The medical malpractice bill will disrupt this equilibrium 
in the name of reducing ``frivolous'' lawsuits without taking into 
account the implications for those making legitimate claims. This bill 
has the potential to reduce the incentive for corporations to remedy 
defective products,and instead may allow those entities to easily 
assume the loss incurred by ultimately accounting for the cost 
liability, a sum inevitably less than their sometimes lucrative 
profits.
  I respect the efforts of all of my colleagues to address the concerns 
of their constituencies. However, I would be remiss in that duty if I 
did not oppose legislation that erodes consumer protection and the 
ability of the courts to determine appropriate punitive measures for 
negligent defendants.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support efforts to 
address the medical malpractice problem we have in this country today. 
There can be no doubt that doctors are paying excruciatingly high 
premiums and as a result, patients,and our medical system are 
suffering. However, I do not believe that H.R. 5 will do anything to 
solve this problem. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, this 
legislation will only lower expenses for the insurance industry and 
limit compensation for those victims who need it the most.
  Later in this Congress, I will be introducing legislation to offer an 
alternative to the idea of caps on compensation. Instead of limiting 
victim awards, my proposal is to limit the involvement of the insurance 
industry in the medical malpractice system. Physicians will no longer 
have to worry about the cost of their medical malpractice insurance. 
The practice of defensive medicine and its toll on our medical system 
would be eliminated.
  In addition, my proposal will ensure that the small number of doctors 
who are responsible for a large number of malpractice suits, will be 
critically examined. According to the National Practitioner Data Bank, 
11% of physicians are responsible for half of all malpractice payments 
made between September 1, 1990 and December 31, 2003.
  Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed S. 544, an important 
first step in addressing one of the root causes to the situation we 
face today. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act will create 
a voluntary reporting system for errors and ``near misses.'' This 
information can then be analyzed so that better medical practices can 
be established.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to address the other root causes of rising 
medical malpractice premiums. Caps are an old and ineffective solution. 
My proposal will be a substantive and constructive reform for the 
entire system. I urge my colleagues to keep an open mind in trying to 
solve the medical malpractice problems we face today.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time in the 5 years I have 
been a member of the United States Congress, I will be opposing a 
flawed Republican bill which would limit damage awards to patients 
injured by medical malpractice. While Republicans claim their measure 
would reduce insurance costs for doctors by discouraging frivolous 
lawsuits--which they blame for driving up insurance premiums and 
reducing access to health care for patients--the Republicans 
legislation completely ignores the rate-setting process followed by the 
insurance industry. Furthermore, a 2002 study by the Congressional 
Budget Office found that the effect of even a very large reduction in 
malpractice costs would have a small effect on individual health care 
premiums.
  This bill broadly defines ``medical malpractice action'' to protect 
HMOs, insurance companies, nursing homes and drug and device 
manufactures for a broad range of liabilities, including suits by 
physicians against those companies. Furthermore, the bill caps non-
economic awards for pain and suffering of $250,000, and punitive 
damages at $250,000 or twice economic damages, whichever is greater.
  All this measure really does is place legal obstacles on patients 
injured by wrongful conduct. Under this bill, individuals face time 
limits that would require an injured person to file health care 
lawsuits no later than three years after the date of the injury or one 
year after discovering the alleged malpractice, whichever occurs first. 
In addition, there are limits to attorney contingency fees, which would 
potentially force inured persons, faced with medical bills and lost 
wages, to finance lawsuits they otherwise cannot afford.
  Support of tort reform say large million-dollar damage awards in 
medical liability suits are the reason that the cost of malpractice 
premium insurance are so high. I believe premium increases represent 
only one part of the

[[Page 18318]]

problem facing many doctors throughout the nation and these increases 
are not necessary linked to damage awards. Even some insurance industry 
insiders say that recent increases in malpractice premiums have nothing 
to do with lawsuits or jury awards, and that tort reform will not 
reduce premiums. Rather, increases have been driven by the insurance 
underwriting cycle and insurance companies' bad investments.
  Mr. Speaker, rather than truly deal with a crisis faced by medical 
doctors, this bill is simply crafted to benefit the insurance industry 
at the expense of victims of medical malpractice. Instead of fruitless 
passing this flawed bill for the 4th time in less than five years, we 
should be working hard to provide health care to the 45 million 
Americans who are uninsured today.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the HEALTH 
Act of 2005.
  The medical liability crisis have been growing over the last decade 
and is rapidly developing into a patient access crisis as well.
  Frivolous lawsuits are overwhelming our legal system and wasting 
billions of dollars each year.
  In 2004, more than 70 percent of medical liability claims did not 
result in payments to plaintiffs and only 1.1 percent of claims 
resulted in a plaintiff's verdict.
  In cases where the defendant prevailed at trial, the average defense 
costs were $87,720 illustrating the high cost of unfounded claims.
  Frivolous lawsuits further drive up costs by encouraging physicians 
to practice defensive medicine ordering additional tests that are not 
necessary to provide quality care. Physicians are also less likely to 
try new and innovative medical treatments.
  The resulting increase in medical malpractice premiums are 
threatening access to quality care by forcing physicians to move their 
practices, retire early, and limit services. The situation is 
particularly critical for ob-gyns. From 2003 to 2004, increases in 
rates for ob-gyns were as high at 66.9%. Illinois premiums rose from 
$138,031 to $230,428.
  H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, will increase patient access to health care 
services and provide improvised medical care by reducing the excessive 
burden the liability system place on the health care delivery system. 
This bill: Ensures that patients receive adequate compensation while 
limiting non-economic damages to $250,000. Sets a statute of 
limitations of three years after the date of manifestation of injury or 
one year after the claimant discovers the injury to ensure timely 
resolution; allows the introduction of collateral source benefits and 
the amount paid to secure such benefits as evidence; authorizes the 
award of punitive damages only where: (1) it is proven by clear and 
convincing evidence that a person acted with malicious intent to injure 
the claimant or deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury the 
claimant was substantially certain to suffer, and (2) compensatory 
damages are awarded. Prescribed qualifications for expert witnesses.
  States including Louisiana and California that have instituted their 
own liability reforms that include caps on non-economic damages have 
shown proven success and as a result, these states are not facing a 
medical liability crisis.
  I urge my colleagues to support the HEALTH Act and ensure patient 
access to quality medical care.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5.
  Proponents of this legislation make numerous false claims.
  They claim that ``tort reform'' will magically reduce doctors' 
skyrocketing malpractice premiums.
  But the truth is that even a spokesman for the American Insurance 
Association couldn't promise price reductions with tort reform.
  Supporters also claim that capping non-economic damages will make 
malpractice insurance more affordable for doctors.
  But the truth is that the example set by my home state of 
California's MICRA law proves this isn't the case. Enacted in 1975, it 
wasn't until after 1988, when California passed insurance reform under 
Proposition 103 that malpractice insurance rates began to stabilize.
  Proponents even claim that this bill will protect patients' rights.
  But the truth is that H.R. 5 would strip away the rights of patients, 
especially women, seniors, children, and lower income families.
  But Mr. Speaker, let's give credit where credit is due. This bill 
does protect someone: It protects HMOs, the insurance industry and the 
pharmaceutical companies.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of false claims and gifts to HMOs, we need a 
bill like the Conyers-Dingell substitute that was not made in order.
  Unlike H.R. 5, the Conyers-Dingell bill is balanced and would 
eliminate frivolous lawsuits, increase competition, and reduce costs, 
without sacrificing crucial protections.
  Let's be real, Mr. Speaker. This bill is yet another example that 
shows where Republican priorities lie--with their contributors--HMOs 
and insurance companies.
  Patients and people deserve more.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the false claims and vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 5.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there are two ways of dealing with the 
medical malpractice problem. One is to take the approach that the House 
Republican leadership has chosen for years; a narrowly drawn proposal 
that appeases their partisan supporters but doesn't solve the problem. 
As I said last year, the rationale was weak and there was little 
evidence it would succeed. Instead, it may do more harm to the health 
care community and doctors. Most important, because it is so narrow and 
partisan, it's very unlikely to become law. Pushing a political 
solution is the approach that has been tried repeatedly and is what 
Oregon voters rejected again at the polls last year.
  The other approach is to work cooperatively, bringing people to the 
table to make progress. This is what appears to be happening in Oregon 
in the aftermath of the last defeat. In Oregon, doctors, hospitals, and 
other healthcare professionals are working with consumer advocates, 
trial lawyers, and people from government to fashion a solution that is 
acceptable; to make progress building on cooperation and trust.
  Between the two approaches it's clear that the narrow, partisan, and 
unbalanced approach is not only questionable on its merits, but is a 
political dead end. I see no reason to change my longstanding 
opposition to both the narrow solution and to the approach that created 
it. Given the nature of the crisis of healthcare in the United States, 
the problems will only get worse; politicizing them will only put off 
the day when real progress is achieved.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5. This 
legislation will not reduce medical liability premiums, and it unfairly 
and arbitrarily discriminates against those most severely injured by 
medical errors.
  I have consistently heard from physicians in Central New Jersey that 
the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance represents a growing 
crisis. The rising premiums have compelled many physicians to leave the 
state or leave medicine altogether. My wife is a general practice 
physician, so I fully appreciate the gravity of the situation facing 
many doctors. The rising cost of insurance poses obvious dangers for 
access to care, particularly for populations most in need.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor a 
bill that does not reduce premiums for physicians and imposes an 
arbitrary cap on damages for the most severely injured victims of 
malpractice or negligence.
  Capping non-economic damages at $250,000 for patients who have won a 
medical malpractice tort will not result in lower insurance premiums 
for physicians. Just listen to what the insurance industry itself has 
said. ``We have not promised price reductions with tort reform,'' said 
Dennis Kelly, an American Insurance Association spokesman in the 
Chicago Tribune. In fact, over the past few years, payouts for medical 
malpractice cases have remained flat while premiums have continued to 
rise, in some cases doubling.
  Because of insurance companies over-charging doctors for insurance, 
the fifteen largest insurers have accumulated a surplus that is double 
what they actually need to pay claims. We should be debating how to 
most effectively rebate this surplus to the doctors, rather than 
looking for ways to reward them for the squeeze that they are executing 
on our healthcare system. The insurance industry is gouging medical 
doctors and is trying to use patients as a scapegoat.
  Imposing a cap on damages inherently affects the patients most 
severely injured by malpractice or negligence. Setting the cap at 
$250,000 is an insult to all those who have had their lives permanently 
changed by medical errors. The figure is lifted directly from the 1975 
California MICRA law. Adjusted for inflation, this amount would be 
close to $1 million in 2005 dollars. $250,000 does not come close to 
compensating for loss of life or permanent disability or disfigurement.
  I am disappointed that, for the third time in three years, the Rules 
Committee has eliminated any opportunity to amend the legislation. I am 
particularly disappointed that the Rules Committee disallowed 
substitute legislation by Ranking Members John Conyers and John 
Dingell. Their bill would weed out frivolous lawsuits, require 
insurance companies to pass savings on to health care providers, and 
provide targeted assistance to the physicians and communities who need 
it the most. That Congress is not permitted even to consider

[[Page 18319]]

this legislation as an alternative demonstrates that the bill we have 
before us cannot survive on its own merits.
  As liability insurance premiums continue to rise for physicians 
across the country, the Republican leadership continues to prescribe 
the same tired and ineffective legislation. For good reason, this bill 
has not survived the legislative process for the past three years, yet 
we are once again debating whether to enrich insurance companies at the 
expense of victims of medical malpractice and negligence.
  We need a comprehensive, fair, and effective approach to lowering 
insurance premiums for physicians. The legislation we have before us is 
none of the above. I encourage my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we can all agree on one thing--the 
skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance impacts every doctor and, 
indeed, every American. But contrary to what this majority has repeated 
time and again, the reason for these soaring costs has nothing to do 
with frivolous lawsuits.
  Indeed, a new report by the Center for Justice and Democracy found 
that in the last 4 years, the 15 largest malpractice insurers increased 
premiums by 120 percent--more than doubling premiums. And what about 
all those frivolous lawsuits supposedly driving those costs? The same 
report found that claims during that same period rose by just 5.7 
percent. In my State of Connecticut, the contrast between claims and 
rates is even starker, with premiums for our 3 largest malpractice 
insurers shooting up 213 percent over the last 4 years while claims 
have increased only 1.6 percent.
  So, let's call this situation what it is, Mr. Speaker--insurance 
companies gouging doctors. To inflate their own profits, insurance 
companies are putting doctors at risk, destabilizing our health care 
industry and driving up costs for everyone.
  And what is this majority's response? Granting authority to State 
insurance commissioners to order refunds for doctors when excessive 
rates are imposed? Requiring insurance companies to get approval before 
rate increases? Demanding that States set standards for actuaries to 
calculate rates?
  No. Their response: ``blame the patients.'' Limit damages. Drive a 
wedge between the parties being hurt the most by rising malpractice 
costs--doctors and patients. At all costs, it seems they are saying, do 
not hold the insurance industry's feet to the fire on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate ought to be about helping doctors--about 
doing something meaningful to ensure they can afford to continue 
practicing medicine. Instead, this bill would insulate insurance 
companies from having to follow any kind of responsible guidelines 
regarding how malpractice insurance rates are set. And, as such, this 
bill will do nothing to actually drive those rates down--an admission 
the insurance industry itself has acknowledged.
  None of this is to say that we do not need to crack down on frivolous 
lawsuits--indeed, last year I voted to penalize lawyers who file 
frivolous suits with a tough ``3 strikes and you're out'' rule. And 
today, Democrats wanted to offer a substitute, which would have taken a 
comprehensive approach to the malpractice insurance crisis. Our bill 
would have prevented frivolous lawsuits but also required insurance 
companies to pass some of their savings on to health care providers, as 
well as providing assistance to the physicians and communities who need 
it the most.
  We had also hoped to strike a provision of this bill that would have 
protected manufacturers such as the makers of Vioxx from liability. But 
again, Republicans prevented that amendment from coming to the floor 
today for consideration. And little wonder--I would not want to justify 
why Republicans were protecting the makers of a drug found to be 
responsible for thousands of deaths either.
  Mr. Speaker, in the face of premium increases that are 20 times 
faster than malpractice claims increases--frivolous or otherwise--this 
legislation is irresponsible, plain and simple. I urge my colleagues to 
do right by doctors and families by opposing this bill. Let's come back 
and pass a bill that will actually address the malpractice insurance 
crisis.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, 
the HEALTH Act.
  Will County, Illinois, part of which I represent, no longer has any 
practicing neurosurgeons. A recent survey found that 11 percent of OB/
GYNs no longer practice obstetrics in my home State of Illinois. And 
more than half of OB/GYNs in the State are considering dropping their 
obstetrics practice entirely in the next 2 years due to medical 
liability concerns.
  Women and children are the first to suffer in a crisis like this. As 
a mother and a grandmother, I don't want to see pregnant women driving 
to another State because they can't find an OB/GYN in their own area. I 
don't want to see injured children transported miles away from their 
homes because there are no pediatric neurosurgeons left to treat head 
injuries. And I don't want to see health insurance premiums climb so 
high that employers can no longer afford to provide benefits to their 
workers. We need reform and we need it now.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the 
Republican medical malpractice bill, and the process by which it is 
being debated in this House.
  Today, the House will vote on H.R. 5, a bill to impose caps on 
damages that may be awarded for medical malpractice, defective 
products, and other health related wrongdoings. Like many Members of 
this House, I am concerned about the rising cost of medical malpractice 
insurance and its impact on physicians and their patients, but H.R 5 is 
the wrong medicine for this national problem.
  I oppose H.R. 5 because it will not reduce medical malpractice 
premiums. What's more, it protects manufacturers of faulty 
pharmaceutical devices and medical equipment from product liability 
actions, and overturns North Carolina State law. H.R. 5 also limits the 
ability of injured persons to bring suits against pharmaceutical 
companies, HMOs, and nursing homes, thus setting a dangerous precedent 
allowing these entities to escape the law in even the most severe cases 
of neglect and abuse. Finally, H.R. 5 undermines North Carolina's 
patient protection statutes, which are some of the strongest in the 
Nation.
  My colleagues, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Conyers, have drafted an 
alternative amendment to H.R 5. This alternative will help courts weed 
out frivolous lawsuits without restricting the rights of legitimate 
claims, repeal the Federal anti-trust exemption for medical malpractice 
insurance companies, thereby increasing competition and lowering 
premiums, and provide targeted assistance directly to physicians, 
hospitals, and communities in medical malpractice crisis areas. 
Finally, the alternative establishes an independent advisory commission 
to examine and recommend long-term solutions to this important issue. 
Unfortunately the Republican Leadership has denied Representatives 
Dingell and Conyers the opportunity to offer this alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue of medical malpractice insurance is an 
important one. H.R. 5 will without a doubt harm America's patients. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5 and to support the 
motion to recommit the bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I'm reluctantly voting against 
H.R. 5, which would limit medical malpractice awards.
  I am not opposed to considering legislation that would do something 
to respond to real problems. But I do not think this bill merits that 
description.
  In fact, I think the vote today has more to do with politics than 
with policy--and if I had any doubts on that point, they ended when the 
Republican leadership refused to permit any amendments at all to be 
considered. Stifling debate is not the way to develop good policy.
  As in the past, the bill's supporters argue that unless the tort laws 
are changed, doctors will not be able to afford malpractice insurance 
and so will give up providing medical care. And, again, opponents say 
the bill would do nothing to affect insurance rates.
  I think we're beating a dead horse. Both sides have dug in and aren't 
willing to compromise. In the meantime, we aren't doing anything to 
reform our medical liability system and we aren't doing anything to 
make health care more affordable and accessible for Americans.
  Our system is inherently adversarial and we've continued this finger-
pointing game and done nothing to improve patient safety and health 
care access, which is what we're really talking about here.
  I think we need a system that is non-punitive and encourages openness 
and improvement so that doctors can report medical errors without fear 
of being sued. This will help us understand medical errors and improve 
procedures and patient safety. Fewer medical errors will result in 
fewer medical malpractice suits, which in turn will help keep 
malpractice insurance rates and health care premiums down.
  That's why I have supported legislation to create a voluntary medical 
error reporting system under which patient safety organizations, on a 
confidential basis, would receive information on reported errors for 
analysis. They would then be expected to develop and disseminate 
evidence-based information to help providers implement changes in 
practice patterns that help to prevent future medical errors.
  In addition to that, I think we should explore ideas like alternate 
dispute resolution, no-fault systems, and medical courts.
  I also want to make it clear that I am not opposed in principle to 
capping damages. That

[[Page 18320]]

has been done in Colorado and some other states, and I think there is 
evidence indicating that it can help keep health care costs down and 
keeps doctors accessible. However, I think this bill's low and 
arbitrary limits on damages will hurt those at the bottom of the income 
scale the most. Also, I don't think we should be shielding large and 
powerful HMOs and drug companies from liability. So, I cannot support 
the bill as it stands.
  Mr. Speaker, ultimately this issue is about health care access and 
patient safety. If we aren't going to compromise, I hope we'd start 
thinking outside the box on how to end the logjam. I offer these ideas 
as a way to get there, because we aren't going to get there from where 
we are today.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 5, the Medical Malpractice bill.
  H.R. 5 may have been conceived with good intentions, but it is a bad 
bill. It is a particularly bad bill for low income Americans.
  If a patient is injured by a caregiver due to medical malpractice, 
and that patient sues, it should be up to a judge or a jury--not the 
U.S. Congress, to decide how much compensation should be awarded.
  Injured patients who don't get their fair compensation will suffer. 
They will suffer in two ways. First of all, it's hard to put a blanket 
price on damages resulting in life or limb.
  Secondly, if the compensation is not sufficient, what will happen to 
the disabled patient when the money runs out? Who, then, will pay for 
their long-term care, or for the children of someone permanently 
disabled or even killed?
  I'll tell you who will pay for them: the American taxpayer. Those 
children and disabled people will enroll in federal programs to help 
them exist day by day. American taxpayers pay for those programs.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill won't do anything to lower the cost of health 
care.
  This legislation is good intentions that will have bad consequences. 
I ask my colleagues to consider very carefully who will end up paying 
at the end of the day.
  The American taxpayers--you and I, not the care providers at fault--
will end up paying for the damages incurred from medical malpractice.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, 
legislation to limit non-economic damages that victims may seek when 
injured by medical malpractice. My primary objection to this bill stems 
from the Congress imposing its will on the states regarding an issue 
that rests squarely within State jurisdiction.
  The states are responsible for licensing medical professionals and 
for regulating the insurance industry. In fact, the states have had 
jurisdiction over medical malpractice for more than 200 years, and it 
should continue to be that way. This legislation would unnecessarily 
preempt the laws of states that have taken measures to address this 
issue. At least 30 states have enacted laws with regard to non-economic 
damages, so it is unconscionable that anyone would argue that the 
medical malpractice issue is trapped in a regulatory vacuum.
  In 2003, the State of Texas saw a need for action on medical 
malpractice and enacted a cap on non-economic damages. Having served in 
the Texas State Legislature, I know first-hand that state legislatures 
are best positioned to determine whether and how to address the medical 
malpractice situation in their individual states. The State of Virginia 
enacted a different cap that best balances the needs of consumers, 
physicians and health care institutions in that particular state. The 
situation is different in each state, and a Washington-knows-best 
approach ignores the hard work and tough decisions that individual 
states have made.
  On a substantive level, I oppose this legislation based on two 
provisions with significant flaws. First, the bill includes a firm 
$250,000 cap on non-economic damages without providing for inflation 
adjustment in future years. While that figure mirrors California's 
MICRA law, it is important to recognize that California's cap has not 
been adjusted for inflation in approximately 30 years. Further, 
California's law was crafted during a time when a $250,000 cap would 
have sufficed for all but the most egregious jury awards--which, I 
might add, the judge has the discretion to overturn. That is certainly 
not the case in the 21st century, and I object to the Congress placing 
a price on pain and suffering. A cap on non-economic damages would 
create a one-size-fits-all figure for each and every case of medical 
malpractice. Members of Congress do not hear the details of each 
medical malpractice case. Members of juries do, which is why they are 
best equipped to determine the appropriate non-economic damages based 
on the facts of each case.
  This legislation also contains a dangerous provision that would 
provide drug companies and device manufacturers with an affirmative 
defense against punitive damages as long as their products had FDA 
approval. This provision presupposes that FDA approval is an air-tight 
process whose integrity need not--and legally cannot--be questioned. 
Considering the FDA's recent track record with regard to Vioxx and 
other pharmaceuticals that have been removed from the pharmacy shelves, 
it is clear that the integrity of the FDA approval process has been 
compromised. Until some serious reforms are implemented at the FDA, the 
FDA stamp of approval should not provide any company with an 
affirmative defense against punitive damages. Such a provision would 
only provide drug and device manufacturers with even less of an 
incentive to report known adverse events before their products go to 
market and ensure that their products are as safe as possible. Given 
these concerns, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and 
leave this issue to the states, which have clear jurisdiction, as well 
as the ability and willingness to handle this delicate issue.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong 
support of H.R. 5 and my interest in seeing that one significant 
concern is addressed, should this bill move through the Senate.
  As a practicing physician I know how important this bill is to 
ensuring that Americans have access to good medical care. For too long 
too many limited resources have been misdirected away from patient care 
and have instead been spent to unnecessary malpractice awards and the 
practice of defensive medicine. Defensive medicine offers little in 
terms of better patient outcomes, but it adds billions of dollars to 
the cost of medical care. I know this not only because studies show 
this is the case, but I used to practice defensive medicine every day.
  This bill makes sure that there is fair treatment for those 
individuals who do suffer serious adverse medical outcomes, while 
ensuring that our legal system is not overwhelmed with frivolous 
lawsuits.
  A serious concern I have with the bill, and an issue I have raised 
with the chairman and others, is how it treats liability reform for 
manufacturers of drugs and vaccines. With respect to pharmaceuticals we 
are often unable to recognize all adverse reactions until we have post-
marketing information. This post-marketing safety data, such as in 
cases like Vioxx, is provided to FDA on a voluntary basis by the 
manufacturers. I agree with the intent of the bill which is to ensure 
that Americans have greater access to potentially live saving 
pharmaceuticals. However, it is equally important that we fully examine 
the implications of such provisions on safety and the willingness of 
manufacturers to come forward with adverse information.
  I am also concerned that H.R. 5 offers significant liability 
protection for vaccine manufacturers, while failing to fix the broken 
vaccine injury compensation program (VICP). It is critically important 
that these two not be separated. The VICP is very broken and it would 
be wrong to cut off access to the courts without addressing the serious 
deficiencies that exist in the compensation program today. As it 
operates today, the VICP has essentially imported the tort system into 
the program. That was not how the program was designed to operate. If 
both the liability problem and the VICP deficiencies are not fixed 
fairly, then our nation's immunization program will suffer serious 
problems and parents could increasingly reject childhood immunizations 
for their children.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5. The 
Republican leaders of this House have denied us our right to offer an 
alternative to the over-broad and ill-conceived legislation that is 
before us today and have bypassed both committees of jurisdiction. Why 
are they so afraid?
  Are they afraid we will demonstrate that their bill will create 
excessive litigation as opposed to reducing it? H.R. 5 is ambiguously 
drafted, leaving its readers to surmise what its provisions could 
possibly mean. Federal and State courts would take years trying to sort 
it all out.
  Are they afraid we will discuss how their legislation shields HMOs, 
insurance companies, and drug manufacturers from all sorts of 
skullduggery? The proponents of this legislation offer no evidence that 
these privileged industries need additional protections, yet H.R. 5 
grants them a special status under the law that is unprecedented.
  Are they afraid we will show how this unprecedented immunity bath for 
their favorite industries will hurt the rights of injured patients? 
There is a human cost to this legislation that we must not forget.
  Are they afraid we will tell how H.R. 5 would hurt women, seniors, 
and low-income families

[[Page 18321]]

by limiting non-economic damages to $250,000? Because a large part of 
economic damages is an individual's income, such a system would place a 
higher value on the lives of CEO's. My friends, every human life is 
worth more than $250,000.
  Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are quite determined to move 
quickly and harshly. Their legislation reaches well beyond malpractice 
and offers no guarantees of assistance to providers and communities. 
Physicians and patients are asked to cross their fingers and hope that 
some of the benefits given to large corporations will trickle down to 
them. And women, seniors, and low-income families are left to pay the 
human cost of these corporate benefits. It is wrong.
  But the rising cost of malpractice insurance is a real problem--
requiring careful, balanced, and targeted legislation. Regrettably my 
colleagues will not have the opportunity to vote for the balanced 
package that my friend from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, and I have crafted. 
Perhaps their greatest fear is that you would prefer a bill that truly 
helps physicians, hospitals and nurses, while protecting the rights of 
patients and doctors over HMOs. I urge you to support the motion to 
recommit and oppose final passage of H.R. 5.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, we have been told that weapons of mass 
destruction required an invasion of Iraq, that ketchup is a vegetable, 
and that global warming is a vast, left-wing conspiracy. Now, the great 
minds of the Republican Party want us to believe that lawyers are to 
blame for skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums.
  Respected insurance, health care, and legal experts all show that 
insurance companies, with their record surpluses, are to blame for 
rising premiums. Who are you going to believe? I cast my vote with the 
experts, and against H.R. 5, the so-called Help Efficient, Accessible, 
Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005.
  This bill arbitrarily caps payments for pain and suffering at 
$250,000 and extends liability protection not only to doctors, but to 
HMOs, nursing homes and manufacturers of drugs and medical devices. 
Furthermore, the President and other Republican proponents claim that 
this bill will halt skyrocketing medical costs. That's hogwash. Even 
the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has found that the this 
bill would have a negligible effect on health care spending, ultimately 
reducing insurance premiums by less than one-half of one percent.
  Ineffective legislation is one thing, but this bill is legislative 
malpractice. It would mean that a child permanently disabled by an 
incompetent doctor would receive only $250,000 to be compensated for a 
lifetime of pain and the inability to lead a full life. If this bill 
were enacted, nursing homes that abuse our seniors, HMOs that deny 
critical care, and drug companies that market dangerous drugs like 
Vioxx can take your life for a guaranteed low price set by their 
friends in Congress.
  The implication of limiting damages and attorneys' fees is that 
greedy lawyers and their irresponsible clients are somehow faking 
medical errors or blaming natural medical problems on innocent doctors. 
Given that medical errors are the eighth-leading cause of death in this 
country, exceeding car accidents, breast cancer, and AIDS, that 
suggestion is off base. Anyone who's ever been at the bedside of 
someone in the hospital and received 12 different answers from 12 
different care providers about treatment instructions knows the risk of 
a serious medical error.
  This bill does nothing to reduce medical errors, and it won't reduce 
malpractice premiums. Between 2000 and 2004, claims payments rose by 
less than 6% while insurers' net premiums rose by 120%. The money isn't 
going to lawyers--it is padding the pockets of wealthy insurance 
companies, and they have no intention of ending the windfall even if 
this bill passes.
  I support the Democratic bill, which Republican leaders won't allow 
to come up for a vote. That bill reforms the insurance industry--breaks 
up insurance monopolies and gives doctors the right to challenge 
premium increases--and has sensible tort reform without blocking 
compensation for injured patients. Unlike the Republican bill, any 
savings by insurance companies would be required to actually reduce 
malpractice insurance premiums and 50% of punitive damage payments 
would go to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to reduce 
medical errors.
  If high premiums and medical errors are the problem, the Democratic 
bill seems like a logical solution. So logical in fact, so tempting 
even to my Republican colleagues, that their leadership won't even 
allow them to vote on the Democratic alternative. I urge my colleagues 
to reject this sham and force this House to consider real legislation 
to solve this national crisis.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, 
the next step in the ongoing struggle to reform medical malpractice 
liability. Skyrocketing insurance premiums are debilitating our 
Nation's health care delivery system and liability insurers are either 
leaving the market or raising rates to excessive levels. In turn, more 
physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers are severely 
limiting their practices, moving to other states, or simply not 
providing care. Without a change, the exodus of these providers from 
the practice of medicine will continue, and patients will find it 
increasingly difficult to obtain needed health care.
  H.R. 5 would help to lower the costs associated with health care 
coverage by encouraging the speedy resolution of claims, limiting 
lawyers' fees, and imposing caps on non-economic damages.
  I urge the House to once again pass medical malpractice reform to 
help lower the cost of quality health care and make it accessible to 
more Americans.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my concerns about 
H.R. 5 and to urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Motion to 
Recommit.
  I think we all agree that skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums 
are spiraling out of control and demand our immediate attention.
  As a former member of the California Legislature, I voted to uphold 
MICRA on three separate occasions and I think that doctors everywhere 
deserve the same protection. MICRA is a model for federal reform 
because it has produced a stable, competitive medical liability 
insurance market while ensuring prompt and fair payments to those 
injured and in need.
  While I am pleased that H.R. 5 adopts the basic framework of MICRA, I 
am deeply concerned about other elements of the bill that provide cover 
to special interests, including liability protection to HMOs, 
pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical device manufacturers.
  Now is not the time to give greater protections to pharmaceutical 
companies that put unsafe drugs like Vioxx on the market. Such 
protections have nothing to do with the liability insurance crisis 
facing doctors and should be stripped from this bill.
  I am also concerned that the caps California established in 1975 
under MICRA were never indexed to inflation: To provide the same level 
of compensation in today's dollars, the cap would have to equal 
$800,000. Put another way, the $250,000 MICRA cap has decreased in 
value since 1975 to approximately $70,000.
  With that in mind, I believe we should adjust the $250,000 cap to 
reflect its current value. As we all know, health care costs--including 
hospital charges and medical fees--have risen dramatically since 1975. 
If we are going to model our national law after the 1975 MICRA model, I 
suggest that we start by using realistic figures that reflect 2005 
dollars.
  Despite these concerns, in 2003 and again last year, I voted for H.R. 
5 with the expectation that improvements would be made in conference 
with the Senate.
  Unfortunately, that did not happen, and today we are considering a 
bill under a Rule that blocked a number of reasonable amendments, 
including a substitute offered by my colleague from Michigan, the 
ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
  While I plan to support this legislation today, my continued support 
is predicated on substantial changes as the Senate attempts to align it 
more closely to California's MICRA law. If this happens, I will support 
the conference report.
  However, I--as well as a number of physicians I know--will oppose a 
bill that provides inappropriate protection to drug companies, HMOs and 
medical device makers.
  I hope that my colleagues in the House leadership will take these 
concerns into mind as debate moves forward on this critically important 
issue.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the United States has been blessed with 
the best system of medicine in the world. But we are having a crisis of 
access. This problem is not a case of whether a patient has health 
insurance. You may not be able to find a doctor to treat you.
  The headlines are replete with stories of women having to drive 
several hours because they cannot find a doctor to deliver their baby. 
If you are in a car accident in southern Illinois and need a 
neurosurgeon, you will be airlifted to another State because there are 
no neurosurgeons left to treat you.
  Litigation has escalated and awards have skyrocketed. Multi-million 
dollar court decisions and jury awards have left doctors with medical 
liability premiums increase 40 to 50 percent per year.
  Doctors in certain fields of high-risk fields of medicine can expect 
to be sued at least once in their career.

[[Page 18322]]

  As a result, doctors are retiring or leaving the practice of 
medicine. Emergency rooms and rural facilities have closed. Many other 
doctors are moving to States that have taken action to cap jury awards, 
which stabilizes malpractice costs.
  I know of one OB-GYN in Illinois who left her practice to go back to 
being a pharmacist where she could earn more money and not worry about 
malpractice premiums. She explained that after paying malpractice 
insurance, she and another physician made $50,000. A third doctor made 
$60,000 and the fourth doctor made $70,000. Their office manager made 
more than all of them: $75,000.
  Thirty years ago, California passed comprehensive medical liability 
reform. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 
States that have limited noneconomic damages have seen premium 
increases by less than 20 percent. States without limits on noneconomic 
damages have seen premiums increase on average of 45 percent.
  This is quantifiable evidence that medical liability reform works. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, for 4 years we've been debating what to do 
about the malpractice premium crisis. We clearly have a problem but 
what's not so clear is what the solution should be.
  I'm a Californian, and in my State, we have a law titled the Medical 
Injury Compensation Reform Act, MICRA, that has been mentioned many 
times on the floor. This law was passed by a Democratic legislature and 
signed by a Democratic governor in 1975. It's been on the books ever 
since, without a single change. MICRA has contributed to stabilizing 
premiums in California, but without other reforms, we would still be 
facing the same skyrocketing increases as other States.
  The Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare, HEALTH, 
Act of 2005 has been described as a Federal version of MICRA. I 
respectfully dispute this assertion.
  The HEALTH Act places a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages for suits 
against physicians, insurers, HMOs and nursing homes as well as drug 
and medical device manufacturers. MICRA limits that cap solely to 
physicians. The Health Act also places a cap on punitive damages. MICRA 
does not.
  One of the reasons MICRA has worked is because it's prescribed in its 
scope. If we're to get to the heart of exorbitant medical malpractice 
insurance, we have to focus our efforts on those who truly need our 
help. I'm concerned that extending these provisions to those outside of 
the physician community may have a harmful effect on patient care and 
on our legal system.
  Patients must also be fairly compensated for any wrongs that befall 
them, but this bill also uses MICRA's cap level of $250,000, which has 
not been updated for inflation since the law was passed in California 
in 1975. When adjusted for inflation, $250,000 from 1975 is now worth 
only approximately $68,000.
  This bill also does not contain any mechanism for studying the 
insurance industry and its role in the premium crisis. A review of the 
insurance industry is critical to understanding the problem and 
possible solutions. While MICRA was enacted in 1975, premiums in 
California continued to rise. MICRA did not address, collectively, the 
problem of rapidly escalating premiums faced by California doctors. 
Only because California voters enacted stringent insurance rate reform 
after tort reforms failed did doctor's premiums fall.
  In 1988, California enacted insurance reform law, Proposition 103, 
which has saved physicians and other medical providers hundreds of 
millions of dollars by regulating the premiums insurance companies are 
allowed to charge. Premiums dropped and stabilized in the years 
following passage of Proposition 103. I urge my colleagues to 
accurately look to the experience in California. My State enacted both 
tort limits and insurance reform.
  This is a multi-faceted problem. If we are to truly help physicians, 
we have to look at this issue from all angles and implement solutions 
across all levels.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the HEALTH Act.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the Republican 
Medical malpractice bill.
  This bill is bad medicine for American consumers. It is a bitter pill 
for our seniors, our children, and the middle class.
  The Republican majority will stop at nothing to prevent access to the 
legal system for those who are hurt. First they said that all they 
wanted to do was limit class action lawsuits to Federal courts. Now 
that they have succeeded, they are back again, to take more rights away 
from American patients and consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority will distort the facts, but the American 
people will not be deceived.
  The bill places a $250,000 cap on pain-and-suffering awards in 
medical malpractice lawsuits. $250,000. Is that what a lifetime of pain 
and suffering at the hands of malpractice is worth?
  Would you want your mother, grandfather or child to be in that 
situation? As the bills pile up, and the Republicans say, sorry, but we 
have sold out to the special interests?
  The bill makes it much harder for patients injured by medical errors 
to seek redress. It shortens the time for patients to prove they were 
hurt by malpractice. It gives legal immunity to drug makers, those same 
companies that have already killed and maimed people with products that 
were prematurely released on the market.
  Many of us are alarmed at the skyrocketing cost of medical care, 
including patients, who are the consumers. However, medical malpractice 
is not the reason for these increasing costs. It is medical 
mismanagement and corporate greed.
  The Washington Post had an article this past weekend about the health 
care system for our seniors. The frightening truth? Some health care 
providers deliberately, or indifferently, provide bad medical care, so 
that they can increase the costs of treatment, while patients become 
even sicker. Wounds become infected, equipment is covered with dust, 
and sterile techniques are not used.
  It sounds like the plot of a bad medical thriller, or medical 
practice in some remote corner of the globe, but it is happening, right 
here in America, to your father or mother, grandmother or grandfather.
  So, I say, stop picking on the legal system, which fights for the 
rights of the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the injured.
  Many of the rights that consumers enjoy today are the result of path-
breaking legal decisions and the lawyers who were willing to stand up 
and fight.
  The Republicans would like to take us back to a darker time, when 
corporations ruled and the underserved had no rights. We must say, no; 
we must oppose this bad medicine. Enough is enough. We must oppose this 
bad bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest challenges 
facing our Nation's health care system today is the medical malpractice 
insurance crisis. My State of Georgia is one of 18 States that have the 
highest, most significant medical malpractice insurance premium costs, 
and it is costing our Georgia and our entire country dearly. Because 
when our health care industry is in danger, we are all threatened.
  Who among us is not a patient, who among us does not need and deserve 
quality medical care? At its heart, this crisis is a patient care 
issue. Every one of us wants ourselves and our loved ones to receive 
the highest quality health care possible.
  We have to address the issue of medical malpractice insurance and the 
extremely high cost of health care. In 2000, Georgia physicians paid 
more than $92 million to cover jury awards. That amount was the 11th 
highest in the Nation despite the fact that Georgia ranks 38th in total 
number of physicians in the United States.
  Forty percent of the State's hospitals faced premium increases of 50 
percent or more in 2002. St. Paul, the State's second largest insurance 
carrier, stopped selling medical liability insurance last year. 
Remaining insurers have reportedly raised rates for some specialties by 
70 percent or greater. Some emergency room physicians, OB-GYNs and 
radiologists have not yet found a new carrier.
  Our health care system is suffering immensely, but some say that this 
moment in time will pass, that this crisis does not warrant taking 
serious action. But study after study proves them wrong.
  Earlier this year, the Georgia Board for Physician Workforce released 
a study showing the effects of the medical liability crisis on access 
to health care for Georgia's patients. For example, the study shows 
that 17.8 percent of physicians, more than 2,800 physicians in Georgia, 
are expected to limit the scope of their practices which is by far the 
largest effect of the medical liability insurance crisis on access to 
medical care.
  These physicians are expected to stop providing high-risk procedures 
in their practices during the next year in order to limit their 
liability risk. Nearly 1 in 3 obstetrician/gynecologists and 1 in 5 
family practitioners reported plans to stop providing high-risk 
procedures, indicating that access to obstetrical care may be 
significantly reduced during the next year as a result of the medical 
liability insurance crisis.
  In addition, nearly 11 percent or 1,750 physicians reported that they 
have stopped or plan to stop providing emergency room services. Six 
hundred and thirty physicians plan to

[[Page 18323]]

stop practicing medicine altogether or leave the state because of high 
medical malpractice insurance rates. About 13 percent of doctors 
reported that they had difficulty finding malpractice insurance 
coverage.
  In fact, at one particular Georgia hospital, the hospital could not 
give credentials to a surgeon and add that physician to its staff 
because the surgeon could not afford to buy medical malpractice 
insurance. In another instance, an obstetrician-gynecologist had to 
close his Georgia practice and work for a health care agency because he 
could not afford to buy medical malpractice insurance.
  What happens to the patients that his hospital could have treated but 
now it cannot because it does not have the surgeons that it needs? What 
happens to the mothers who need a doctor to provide pre- and post-natal 
health care but cannot find one because doctors are leaving the 
profession due to the high cost of medical malpractice care?
  In addition, Georgia is heavily dependent on other states to train 
physicians. Approximately 70 percent of participating physicians in 
Georgia completed training in another State. High costs of medical 
malpractice liability insurance may reduce the attractiveness of 
Georgia as a location for medical practice. High professional liability 
insurance costs are a significant financial problem for teaching 
hospitals, reducing the already limited funding available for faculty, 
residents, and other medical education costs.
  Even more upsetting, the high cost of medical malpractice insurance 
for doctors and hospitals disproportionately affects seniors, minority 
and low-income patients. The physicians and hospitals who depend on 
Medicare reimbursements and who serve the over 44 million uninsured 
Americans every day cannot afford to pay higher insurance premiums. We 
need to ensure that these communities have access to quality health 
care and the best physicians or the health disparity that currently 
exists will continue to deepen and create a two-tier health care 
system.
  But it is not only medical care in the present that is threatened, 
but also into the future. Many of the medical schools in our State are 
saying now that many of students are having second thoughts about even 
coming into the medical profession.
  These statistics prove that Georgia's doctors cannot wait. More and 
more each day, good, principled health care providers are confronting 
the possibility of being unable to treat their patients because of out-
of-control medical malpractice insurance premiums. There is no question 
that Congress must act, and act immediately.
  I support H.R. 5 because doctors, hospitals, and the health care 
industry are caught in the middle between insurance companies and 
lawyers. Doctors are being squeezed by their medical malpractice 
insurance premiums and by the high amounts being awarded to injured 
patients. Doctors need to see results; they need to know that if this 
bill becomes law that their insurance premiums will go down. The 
message must reach the insurance companies that premiums have to go 
down so that the medical profession can survive and access to health 
care is improved. The health care industry must have relief and this 
bill, although not the final answer, is the first step in addressing 
the problems that affect doctors and the health care industry.
  We must help doctors, physicians and dentists, hospitals, other 
health care providers, and, ultimately, American patients who are 
suffering in untold ways. Immeasurable damage is occurring in our 
Nation's health care delivery system because of the high cost of 
medical malpractice insurance. With the passage of this bill, the House 
of Representatives will send a clear and salient message to the 
insurance industry, and that message is: Bring down the cost of medical 
malpractice insurance for physicians and hospitals.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 5, the so-called HEALTH Care Act of 2005. Quite simply, the 
problems that we should be addressing today are burdensome malpractice 
insurance rates, patient safety, and access to health care. This bill 
addresses none of these. In another attempt to cede power from States 
to the Federal Government, this bill would impose nationwide limits on 
the compensation injured persons can receive in medical malpractice 
cases.
  We have all heard the stories of doctors leaving their practices 
because they cannot afford their malpractice insurance rates. For the 
6-year period from 1998 through 2003, medical malpractice insurance 
premiums in my State of Connecticut increased, depending on the 
insurance company, between 37 percent and 241 percent for internal 
medicare, 35 percent and 185 percent for general surgery, and 45 
percent and 128 percent for obstetrics/gynecology. During that same 
period of time, the consumer price index only rose 13 percent and the 
medical consumer price index rose 24 percent. I certainly cannot 
imagine running a business where one of my expenses was that out of 
line with the rest of my income and expenses. How can we expect doctors 
to do that when they provide such an important service to us all? The 
end result is the loss of good doctors practicing and diminished access 
to health care. The bill we are debating today does not address the 
underlying problem and has many flaws.
  First, it would remove authority on the issue of tort reform from 
States, where it has traditionally resided, and preempt various areas 
of State law, including important consumer protections. Each State has 
its own issues with regard to medical malpractice and tort law and a 
one-size-fits-all solution imposed by the Federal Government is not the 
answer.
  Second, it would restrict the ability of injured patients to be 
compensated for their injuries. An inflexible $250,000 cap on 
noneconomic damages would punish victims of malpractice and cause 
significant inequalities in compensation for women, children, seniors, 
and lower-income workers. A woman who loses a pregnancy or her 
fertility is not judged to have high economic value, but juries can 
recognize the human value of her losses. A child with no job or income 
will obviously have a limited economic value, but juries can recognize 
the human value of his future. Even with the same injuries, a corporate 
CEO would receive a much larger economic damage award than a minimum-
wage worker or a mother who stays at home to raise her kids, but a jury 
can recognize the human value of their pain and suffering.
  My final objection to this legislation is the manner in which it was 
brought to the floor. It was never debated in committee and was 
reported to the floor with a closed rule. In fact, the Rules Committee 
has rejected 67 amendments to this legislation over the past 3 years. 
This is the third time the House has voted on this legislation in the 
past 3 years and the third time it has been the wrong answer for 
doctors and patients. This is just another example of the majority 
bringing the same legislation to the floor year after year knowing that 
it will go nowhere because it is the wrong answer for Americans. 
Legislation offered by the ranking members of the Judiciary Committee 
and the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Dingell, 
have been ignored as well as legislation offered by the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth. Americans deserve to have all of these 
bills debated side by each.
  Mr. Speaker, I conclude by urging my colleagues to join me in 
opposing H.R. 5 and working on real solutions for reasonable 
malpractice rates, improved patient safety, and accessible health care.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5--the so-called HEALTH Act of 
2005--is anything but healthy.
  If there was even the remotest possibility that H.R. 5 could help get 
efficient, accessible, low-cost, timely health care to the American 
people, it would probably get 435 votes in this House.
  However, H.R. 5 does absolutely nothing to achieve the admirable 
goals embodied in its misleading name. It does absolutely nothing to 
address the specific problem it is purported to fix: skyrocketing 
medical malpractice insurance premiums.
  Let me be perfectly clear. I am in complete agreement with this 
bill's supposed and stated purpose: to help get efficient, accessible, 
low-cost, timely health care to all Americans. I agree that one of the 
obstacles to low-cost, accessible health care is outrageous medical 
malpractice liability insurance premiums charged to physicians and 
other health care providers throughout our Nation. I also agree that 
some litigation strategies contribute to the escalating costs of our 
Nation's health care by encouraging providers to order tests, 
procedures and treatments that may not be medically necessary. I agree 
with the supporters of H.R. 5 that high malpractice insurance premiums 
charged by carriers have led some physicians to abandon high-risk 
specialties and patients.
  I ask you though to look at the legislation before us. H.R. 5 
contains about 4,000 words. In those 4,000 words, the word ``premium'' 
appears only once; the word ``insurance'' appears only 5 times; and the 
word ``cost'' appears 14 times, the vast majority in the definitions 
and not the operative clauses of the bill.
  I ask you to consider whether H.R. 5 is really about skyrocketing 
medical malpractice insurance premiums as its proponents claim. I have 
looked very carefully at this bill, and, after much reflection, have 
reached the only reasonable conclusion: It is not.
  I stand here today because someone needs to stand up for American 
physicians. Someone

[[Page 18324]]

needs to stand up for the American health care system.
  The proponents of H.R. 5 tell us medical malpractice insurance 
premiums are skyrocketing out of control. There is no dispute that 
malpractice insurance premiums are increasing at an alarming rate. We 
agree on that.
  There is no question that medical malpractice premiums are escalating 
across the country, particularly for physicians in high-risk 
specialties and certain geographic centers. In some cases, premiums 
have increased so dramatically that physicians have relocated their 
practices, reduced their services, or retired early. While there is 
little doubt that something must be done to alleviate this crisis, H.R. 
5 is no solution.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that if you limit 
the amount that insurance carriers have to pay for legitimate claims, 
then insurance rates will fall.
  But I ask you to consider the fact that the American Insurance 
Association--the American Insurance Association--has repeatedly and 
specifically denied that tort reform will result in premium savings. 
Sherman Joyce, the president of the American Tort Reform Association, 
has stated, ``We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass 
tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.''
  So, by the insurance industry's own admission, H.R. 5 will not stem 
the tide of rising medical malpractice insurance rates. Nevertheless, 
our friends on the other side would have us believe that limiting the 
exposure of insurance carriers is a panacea. It is not.
  H.R. 5 is a hoax. It is a sham, and our friends on the other side 
know it. It is a fraud on the American medical establishment by 
insurance carriers who want to limit their exposure but will not commit 
to reducing premiums.
  Please read the bill. H.R. 5 has absolutely no provision requiring 
the reduction of medical malpractice premiums, despite the fact that 
our friends believe that it is these high premiums that are crippling 
the health care system. Nevertheless, there is not a single word in 
this bill that directly calls for reductions in premiums: zero, zilch, 
nada, nothing, and they know it. It is a scam. H.R. 5 is absolutely 
nothing more than a boon, a windfall for the insurance industry.
  Our friends on the other side tell us that damage caps will solve the 
premium crisis. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider the fact that in 
States that have enacted caps, the medical malpractice insurance 
premiums are higher than in States that have no caps. The carriers do 
not want us to know that.
  In fact, in California--the State the other side holds up as a 
shining example of the benefits of legislation like H.R. 5--the average 
premium is $27,570, fully 8 percent higher than the average of all 
States that have no caps on noneconomic damages.
  Recently, the American Medical Association issued a list of States 
that it concluded were in crisis due to exploding medical malpractice 
insurance rates. Five of those States have caps on noneconomic damages 
like the one proposed in H.R. 5. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they are still in 
crisis.
  One of those States is Florida, where, despite having caps of just 
the kind proposed by H.R. 5, obstetricians and gynecologists pay the 
highest premiums in the Nation for medical malpractice insurance, some 
in excess of $200,000 per year. Florida has caps, and Florida has a 
crisis. So, Mr. Speaker, damage caps alone are not the solution to the 
problem.
  If you look further at the California example, it becomes clear that 
damage caps alone are not an effective premium-reduction measure. In 
the 12 years after California passed MICRA, medical malpractice 
premiums rose 190 percent. Only after California passed Proposition 
103--actual insurance reform--did medical malpractice premiums 
stabilize. Since California passed insurance reform--not medical 
malpractice reform--its medical malpractice premiums have been more 
stable than in most States.
  Mr. Speaker, the lesson to be learned from California is that 
measures like H.R. 5 do not reduce medical malpractice insurance 
premiums. The facts simply do not bear it out.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side insist that 
one-size-fits-all approach of H.R. 5 is the last and best cure for the 
crisis of escalating malpractice insurance rates.
  Some of our colleagues are, like me, very deeply concerned about 
rising malpractice insurance rates. Some of our colleagues have 
expressed an inclination to vote for this bill in order to get the ball 
rolling, in order to take a first step toward solving the premium 
crisis. But I want to be very clear: If H.R. 5 is our first step, as 
the saying goes, it's a doozy. It is a step on the backs of doctors, 
hospitals and patients to help out greedy insurance carriers. It is 
certainly a step in the wrong direction. H.R. 5--as the best evidence 
proves--is an ill-conceived, ill-advised bill that will not--let me 
repeat--will not solve the problem. This bill helps insurance 
companies--period.
  Recent articles in newspapers across the country show in clear and 
compelling ways that this crisis is as complex as it is serious. 
``Malpractice litigation is only part of the cause of the huge 
increases in insurance premiums. The insurance industry's pricing and 
accounting practices . . . play [at least] as big a role.''
  The insurance company patrons of our friends on the other side want 
to hide behind what they consider out-of-control jury awards. Again, 
Mr. Speaker, the facts simply do not support this claim.
  Over the past few years, many physicians have been hit with medical 
liability premium increases of 25 to 400 percent. Yet, according to The 
Journal of Health Affairs, during the past decade, malpractice payouts 
have grown approximately 6.2 percent per year. That's almost exactly 
the rate of medical inflation: an average of 6.7 percent between 1990 
and 2004.
  Moreover, contrary to the claims of proponents of H.R. 5, juries are 
not overly sympathetic to plaintiffs, as evidenced by the rate at which 
physicians prevail in medical malpractice suits. Dr. Barry Manuel, 
chairman and CEO of ProMutual Group, one of the Nation's leading 
malpractice insurance carriers, reported in 2001 that ``we continue to 
close 60 percent of all claims without payment, and of those cases we 
are forced to defend in court, we prevail in 90 percent.'' In addition, 
many of the leading scholars studying the problem have concluded that 
despite conventional wisdom, juries in fact often favor physicians.
  Neil Vidmar, a professor at Duke University School of Law and a 
leading scholar in the field, states unequivocally that ``the assertion 
that jurors decide cases out of sympathy for injured plaintiffs rather 
than the legal merits of the case . . . have been made about 
malpractice juries in the United States since at least the nineteenth 
century. Yet, research shows no support for these claims.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, one begins to wonder what has caused such 
extraordinary increases on medical malpractice insurance premiums 
during the past few years.
  Well, investment losses, like those of average Americans, and a weak 
economy have made a greater dent in the bottom lines of insurance 
companies than malpractice payouts.
  The difference between insurance companies and average Americans is 
that most of us can't give ourselves a raise to cover our losses. A 
medical malpractice insurance company can--and does. It alone controls 
the premium rates it charges our country's doctors. I think you can 
guess what malpractice carriers have done in response to the general 
economic climate in the past few years.
  The truth is that medical malpractice insurance carriers are asking 
doctors, hospitals and patients to pay for underperforming investments. 
It is as simple as that. They know it. We have asked the insurance 
carriers to commit to reducing premiums in this bill. They will not do 
it. They will not even talk about it. That is because they have 
absolutely no intention of reducing medical malpractice insurance 
premiums.
  The bottom line is that H.R. 5 is a jackpot for insurance carriers, 
and it is the doctors, hospitals and patients that are going to pay for 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a minute about the cap on 
noneconomic damages. If H.R. 5 becomes law, we will be speaking with a 
loud and clear voice that the injuries victims of medical malpractice 
suffer are valued in direct relation to how much money those victims 
have. The unfortunate consequence of this legislation is that--
regardless of the severity of your injury, regardless of how long you 
suffer, regardless of its effect on even the most basic functions of 
your life, the things we take for granted every day, regardless of 
whether you can ever play with your children again, regardless of 
whether you can ever hug your grandchildren again, regardless even 
whether you or your child or your wife or mother die due to medical 
malpractice--no one's injury is ever worth more than $250,000.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to equate 
``noneconomic damages'' with ``pain and suffering.'' But ``pain and 
suffering'' is a misleading label. What is capped is recovery for 
disability and disfigurement, among other things, not just ``pain and 
suffering.'' H.R. 5 lumps together everything that is not ``economic'' 
and calls it ``noneconomic''--subject to a $250,000 cap that the bill 
does not even adjust for inflation.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle go to great lengths to 
emphasize that H.R. 5 in no way limits economic damages as long as they 
are objectively quantifiable monetary damages. In other words, if a 
surgeon loses

[[Page 18325]]

his hand and is unable to perform surgery again, the injury he will 
suffer is greater than that suffered by a carpenter who loses his hand 
due to medical malpractice and is never again able to do his job. Why? 
Well, under H.R. 5 the answer is simple: The surgeon makes more money, 
so his economic damages are greater. Not to worry, they tell us, both 
of them can get up to $250,000 in addition to soothe their wounds.
  The same is true in the case of an injury suffered by a working 
mother when compared to a mother working inside the home. Do our 
friends on the other side of the aisle believe that those women's 
husbands or children will understand the difference?
  At many jobs, the loss of a leg, for example, may not prevent a 
worker from earning a living. But it will make it difficult to enjoy 
``noneconomic'' pursuits like playing soccer with your kids, or 
basketball and volleyball with friends, or a multitude of other things 
that make life enjoyable.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 instructs that the value of life is capped at 
economic losses plus $250,000. That seems inconsistent with the 
administration's recent characterization of the value of life as 
``immeasurable.'' Remarkably, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle have taken out their calculators, and they have measured the 
immeasurable. Perhaps they should call the White House, and let them 
know.
  While the proponents of H.R. 5 appear already to have figured it all 
out, I want to ask them: How much is hugging your grandchildren worth? 
How much is kissing your husband or wife worth? How much is the ability 
to walk or to drive or to play a round of golf worth? How much is your 
ability to feed, bathe and clothe yourself worth? How much is seeing 
your children grow up worth? How much is your life worth?
  I honestly don't know, and I don't think we should be answering those 
questions for every American either.
  Whether it's losing a limb, or an eye, or just the freedom to be able 
to go where you want and do what you want, how many of us would trade a 
lifetime of disability or disfigurement, not to mention pain, for 
$250,000?
  The very real consequence of this legislation is that it punishes the 
most economically vulnerable members of our society to the benefit of 
greedy insurance companies. It discriminates against children, against 
women, against older Americans, against ethnic minorities, against the 
poor. And for what, Mr. Speaker? History shows us the only winners 
emerging from H.R. 5 are the medical malpractice insurance carriers--
not the doctors, hospitals and patients our friends on the other side 
of the aisle purportedly seek to help.
  I urge you to vote against this ill-conceived and mean-spirited 
legislation.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, 
the so-called HEALTH Act. The civil justice system is about giving 
injured consumers their day in court, allowing them the opportunity to 
hold wrongdoers accountable, recover damages and change dangerous 
behaviors. H.R. 5 is a frontal assault on those consumer rights.
  H.R. 5 is a dangerous, anti-consumer bill that would impose an 
arbitrary ceiling $250,000--on the amount a patient injured by medical 
malpractice, HMO denials, nursing home abuse or defective drugs or 
medical devices could receive for noneconomic damages, no matter how 
devastating the injury. In many cases, the victim may have few out-of 
pocket losses, but suffer great harm. For example, an l8-year old woman 
who loses her ability to have a child for the rest of her life may 
suffer no monetary loss. Under H.R. 5, the most she could recover in a 
medical malpractice lawsuit would be $250,000.
  Politicians should not impose arbitrary caps on non-economic damages. 
We are no substitute for a jury of one's peers, which has the ability 
to look at the facts and weigh the evidence in individual cases. There 
are some who say that it is appropriate to limit non-economic damages 
since economic damages are not capped. But non-economic damages are not 
``extras,'' they are not inconsequential. Unbearable and long-term 
pain, loss of sight and mobility, the inability to bear children, the 
loss of an infant or a grandparent--these may not be as easily 
quantifiable as lost wages but the losses are just as real. And, for 
many consumers who have been injured or lost a loved one, noneconomic 
damages might be the only damages available.
  The National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform has provided 
actual histories of nursing home residents harmed by medical 
negligence. Frances G's physician described her as ``the victim of 
gross nursing home neglect. Her pressure sores and dehydration were 
inexcusable.'' Her nursing home was consistently understaffed, her 
physician's orders were repeatedly ignored, and she endured 
excruciating and continual pain from pressure sores but was given no 
pain medication. Gertrude H., according to charge nurses, was grossly 
neglected and suffered life-threatening pressure sores. Her physician 
stated that, ``I have no doubt that Gertrude experienced severe and 
unrelenting pain from June 27, 2000 to February 6, 2001, from the deep, 
eroding pressure sores.'' Because both Frances and Gertrude were senior 
citizens, any compensation would come in the form of non-economic 
damages. Do my colleagues really believe that $250,000 is 
``reasonable'' compensation for Frances and Gertrude and their 
families?
  Children are also adversely affected by caps on non-economic damages. 
Shannon Hughes had a long and difficult labor. The doctor was called 
repeatedly and finally showed up at her 35th hour of labor. At 37 
hours, the doctor performed an emergency C-section. The umbilical cord 
was twice wrapped around the child's neck. Tyler suffered cardiac 
arrest for 18 minutes. As a result, Tyler, who is now 7 years old, is 
severely brain-damaged and bedridden. He must be turned every two 
hours, is fed through a tube, suffers seizures daily and is non-
communicative. Shannon says, ``My son has no future but pain and 
suffering. No politician in Washington has the right to decide what is 
proper compensation for him.'' Like many parents, Shannon may need to 
use whatever noneconomic damages she received in order to pay for 
Tyler's care once her economic compensation runs out. In many 
instances, because of rising medical costs and new technologies, the 
damages awarded for medical care run out while the medical bills keep 
coming.
  Tyler survived, but many babies do not. Where medical malpractice 
results in the death of a child during labor, a mother most often will 
not have any physical injury but only emotional distress of losing her 
child. In this case, under the proposal by H.R. 5, no amount of 
economic damages will be awarded, and the non-economic damages would be 
capped at $250,000.
  Non-economic damage caps have a disproportionate effect on women who 
work inside the home, children, senior citizens, children and low wage-
earners who are more likely to receive a greater percentage of their 
compensation in the form of non-economic damages if they are injured. 
But caps on damages are not the only anti-consumer provisions in this 
legislation.
  In addition to the arbitrary ceiling on non-economic damages, H.R. 5 
lets wrongdoers--those found guilty of medical malpractice--decide 
whether to pay damages on a periodic basis, even if the injured 
consumer wants and needs damages paid upfront.
  H.R. 5 eliminates joint and several liability. This means that a 
consumer injured by more than one wrongdoer will not be fully 
compensated if one of those wrongdoers declares bankruptcy or cannot 
pay their share.
  H.R. 5 eliminates the collateral source rule, which could mean that 
an injured consumer's health insurer--not the wrongdoer--pays the 
medical bill.
  H.R. 5 also places limits on punitive damages, gives special 
protections for drug companies and medical device manufacturers, caps 
attorneys' fees for plaintiffs but not defendants, and shortens the 
statute of limitations. Finally, it includes a state preemption 
provision that leaves in place state laws more favorable to medical 
providers and organizations while overturning state laws more favorable 
to injured consumers.
  While it is clear what H.R. 5 would do in terms of eliminating 
consumers' rights, it is equally clear what it won't do. No insurance 
company executive has yet to come forward to say that passage of H.R. 5 
would reduce medical malpractice premiums. In fact, according to 
American Insurance Association spokesman Dennis Kelly, quoted in the 
January 3, 2005 Chicago Tribune, ``We have not promised price 
reductions with tort reform.'' The General Counsel for the American 
Tort Reform Association admitted that ``There is no question that it is 
very rare that frivolous suits are brought against doctors. They are 
too expensive to bring.'' (Los Angeles Times, 10/22/04).
  At the same time, multiple studies have indicated that medical 
malpractice premiums are not connected to jury award or settlement 
levels. A recent analysis of the top 15 medical malpractice insurers 
found no rise in payouts from 2000 to 2004, at the same time that 
premiums doubled. Some companies significantly increased premiums while 
their claims actually decreased. A study by the Economic Policy 
Institute found that the number of tort cases fell 4 percent from 1993 
to 2002 and that the real causes of higher premiums were economic 
factors and insurers' investment decisions.
  H.R. 5 takes away consumers' rights and particularly hurts women, 
children and seniors,

[[Page 18326]]

while doing nothing to help doctors with high malpractice insurance 
premiums. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
opposition to H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2005. I rise to oppose this 
legislation, not because I do not recognize the crisis that is brewing 
in the area of medical malpractice insurance, but because this 
legislation tries to remedy this crisis with the wrong prescription.
  Many of my distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 
expressed their concern regarding the access to healthcare that their 
constituents face. We all recognize this is a major problem in our 
country. In addition, physicians are constantly under increased 
pressure throughout the nation to deal with the increased burden that 
high malpractice premiums pose to their livelihood. In my home state of 
Illinois, only two neurosurgeons can be found south of Springfield 
because malpractice insurance rates are so out-of-control. Due to this 
shortage of neurosurgeons, patients with serious brain injuries are 
airlifted to St. Louis, many times costing them valuable minutes that 
can mean the difference between life and death. To remedy this 
situation as well as the overall problem of liability premium 
increases, my state imposed caps on non-economic damages to offer a 
quick fix to keep fleeing doctors. Currently, there are some 21 other 
states with similar caps.
  While caps give the appearance of remedying this crisis in some 
states, they do nothing to stem the tide of ``frivolous lawsuits.'' 
Frivolous lawsuits by definition are lawsuits without merit. According 
to the Physicians Insurers Association of America, the trade group 
representing physician-owned insurance companies, 70% of malpractice 
lawsuits are dismissed and only 0.8% of cases actually go through a 
trial and reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
  Advocates of caps argue that this 0.8% is what drives up the cost of 
malpractice insurance. They argue that out-of-control jury awards drive 
up malpractice premiums. Are we to assume that this 0.8% of cases which 
go through fair trial, find in favor of the plaintiff, are in fact 
``frivolous''? I would argue that the 70% of cases which are dismissed 
are the ``frivolous cases,'' and this 0.8% represents many egregious 
cases of malpractice.
  Without addressing this problem, this bill does nothing to stop 
``frivolous lawsuits,'' it only limits the claims of a person who 
suffers a terrible and often extreme example of malpractice. Minor 
injuries or pain and suffering do not receive massive awards. I ask my 
colleagues, if you or one of your family members suffered a 
tremendously egregious example of malpractice, would you want to be 
limited in what you or your family member could be compensated? I am 
sure your response, much as mine is that you would not.
  My colleagues, we can debate over and over again on legislation such 
as this, but all the debate in the world will not lead to solving this 
problem when we are headed in a direction such as this. As many of my 
colleagues have pointed out, a recent study of the 15 largest 
malpractice insurers in the country found that insurers substantially 
increased their net premiums by an average of 120% while both their 
payments and projected future claims payments were flat or decreasing 
over the past few years. This directly contradicts the insurance 
industry's claims that premiums are increasing due to increased jury 
awards. Many of these same insurers even admit that capping malpractice 
awards will not reverse the trend of rising premiums. The malpractice 
insurance industry is unjustifiably raising their premiums, gouging 
doctors, and pushing for legislation that only does one thing: pits 
doctors against their patients.
  If Congress is really serious about fixing this problem it will 
develop a system which benefits patients most while sidelining the 
interests of big business. Physicians are in the business of caring for 
patients, and I appreciate the burden they face with increased 
malpractice premiums. I am fully aware that this burden affects their 
ability to practice the profession they love. I only hope that in this 
struggle to find a remedy to this problem, the few patients who are 
harmed as a result of malpractice will not be further harmed by a limit 
on a just compensation.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Health Care 
(HEALTH) Act. It is irresponsible to limit patients' access to the 
civil justice system, particularly without any guaranteed decrease in 
the cost of malpractice insurance coverage. This measure contains no 
provision requiring insurers to lower their rates once these so-called 
reforms are in place. As a result, it would leave countless patients 
deprived of relief while failing completely to help our struggling 
health providers.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am deeply troubled by the rising cost 
of malpractice insurance. Doctors across the country are being 
adversely affected by an increase in medical liability insurance 
premiums. These increases are making it more costly for physicians to 
practice, and rising insurance rates could eventually mean that 
patients no longer will have easy access to medical care. Doctors 
completing residencies in expensive areas are seeking better rates 
elsewhere, and physicians already in the market are leaving. I 
recognize that this is becoming a national crisis.
  There is wide agreement that something must be done to ensure 
reasonable rates and protect access to health care. Unfortunately, the 
leadership has presented us with a partisan bill, identical to that 
which we voted on in two previous Congressional sessions. Nothing in 
this legislation would decrease premium costs or increase the 
availability of medical malpractice insurance. Instead, it would make 
detrimental changes to the health care liability system that would 
extend beyond malpractice and compromise the ability of patients and 
other health care consumers to hold pharmaceutical companies, HMO's and 
health care and medical products providers accountable.
  Once again, we are presented with a bill that the leadership claims 
will lower costs of medical liability insurance for doctors, but fails 
to address the rate-setting process followed by the insurance industry. 
Insurance companies benefit from a federal exemption to antitrust laws, 
which allows them to collectively raise premiums without fear of 
prosecution. A recent study of the annual statements of the 15 largest 
medical malpractice insurers found that insurers substantially 
increased their premiums while both their claims payments and projected 
future claims payments were decreasing. Other studies suggest that rate 
changes in premiums are closely tied to the fluctuations of the stock 
market--not the increases in claims from frivolous lawsuits.
  Perhaps most troubling to me is that nothing in this bill stipulates 
that savings earned as a result of the ``reforms'' must be passed along 
to doctors, through a lowering of their own insurance costs. In light 
of the lack of transparency requirements of the insurance industry, 
there is no mechanism to hold them accountable to actually lower costs. 
I believe this must be the crux of any meaningful reform measure.
  I recognize that the rapid increase in insurance premiums is having 
real effects on the health care industry. Not only does it drive up the 
cost of health care for consumers and doctors--it is having an impact 
on the medical professional workforce. Residents are being encouraged 
to enter lower-risk fields of practice and doctors are making decisions 
about their careers based the costs of insurance.
  The Democratic motion to recommit proposes to address these issues by 
allowing patients to seek redress and providing assistance to 
physicians and hospitals in need. Specifically, this alternative would 
end frivolous lawsuits by requiring affidavits to be filed by qualified 
specialists certifying that the case is meritorious. It would also 
establish an independent advisory commission to explore the impact of 
malpractice insurance rates, particularly in areas where health care 
providers are lacking. These are the steps that we must take in order 
to adequately address this problem.
  In addition to meaningful systemic reform, any responsible approach 
to the issues of medical malpractice insurance costs should include 
efforts to reduce medical errors in the first place. Reports show that 
there preventable medical errors that kill nearly 100,000 hospital 
patients a year. The utilization of electronic health records at our 
hospitals can go a long way in this effort. The Veteran's 
Administration (VA), which relies heavily on information technology, 
has been the first large health system in the nation to replace paper 
charts with this fully electronic record. Electronic medical records 
and the efficient use of technology can be a significant agent for 
change in health care quality across all settings, reducing not only 
inefficiencies, but the number of medical errors as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill, 
support the Democratic alternative and commit to working together on 
reform measures that will result in significant change, benefiting 
doctors and consumers alike.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act.
  This country's health care system and its providers are currently 
faced with a crisis in regard to medical liability coverage. 
Skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums have taken an enormous toll 
on the physicians and hospitals in my district in Western and

[[Page 18327]]

Central Pennsylvania. I have encountered many situations all over the 
communities that make up the 9th district where doctors have moved to 
lower-liability states, have reduced the scope of their practices, or 
have chosen to retire in the face of this growing malpractice crisis. 
This must not be allowed to continue.
  I strongly disagree with those that would say there is no problem. 
Currently, only 4 percent of physicians practicing in Pennsylvania are 
under the age of 35 and students graduating from our medical schools 
are choosing not to stay and practice in State. As our older doctors 
retire or limit their practices there is no one to continue their 
important work. This real and increasing threat to patients' access to 
quality care cannot be ignored. The medical liability system in this 
country is in desperate need of reform.
  We must act now to reverse a dangerous litigious trend that is 
eliminating doctors faster than we can replace them. I urge my 
colleagues to support and vote in favor of H.R. 5.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will 
debate and vote on a proposal that supporters claim will solve the 
problem of increasingly unaffordable medical malpractice insurance 
premiums for our Nation's doctors. They argue that outrageous jury 
awards are to blame for rising healthcare costs.
  I am afraid this bill is not the end-all, save-all solution to our 
health care crisis; and, in fact, I fear it will do nothing to relieve 
the burden our doctors face. If we are serious about lowering the cost 
of medical malpractice insurance why aren't we addressing the issue of 
insurance reform or ways in which we can weed out bad doctors, or for 
that matter, trial lawyers who abuse the court system?
  This bill does little more than set a 1970's era cap on jury awards 
for medical malpractice cases, an action which will only hurt those who 
are already suffering--the patients and their loved ones.
  An analysis of State by State medical malpractice insurance premiums, 
obtained from the Medical Liability Monitor, compared with caps on 
damages reveals no conclusive evidence these caps work. In fact, 
according to one survey, insurance premiums in states with caps were on 
average $4170 higher than those in States without caps.
  This bill goes much further than simply addressing the medical 
malpractice insurance dilemma; it even sets caps on damages for nursing 
home neglect, unsafe prescription drugs, and a variety of other health-
related industries. In 2004, Congress and others raised questions about 
the safety and effectiveness of several FDA-approved biomedical 
products on the market, including certain antidepres-
sants, Merck's pain relief drug, Vioxx, Boston Scientific's cardiac 
stents, and other drugs and medical devices. Evidence has suggested 
that there were problems with these items during clinical trials.
  Does this Congress really want to protect companies who knowingly put 
dangerous products on the market? I know I don't.
  H.R. 5 does not go nearly far enough to address the climbing medical 
malpractice insurance rates or the healthcare crisis our constituents 
are trying to negotiate. I again pose the questions, why doesn't this 
bill address the insurance industry; why aren't we trying to weed out 
bad doctors; or punish trial lawyers who abuse the system?
  We need something more than caps on jury awards to lower the cost of 
health care in this country.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I support 
reform of our nation's medical liability system. I also believe that 
doctors and medical institutions who are experiencing unsustainable 
increases in their malpractice premiums deserve relief. Before coming 
to Congress, as Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, I worked to 
craft legislation that brought significant changes at the state level, 
including reasonable caps on non-economic damages. It worked well to 
hold down the cost of premiums and make our State's malpractice system 
a much fairer one.
  The problems in our Nation's medical liability system require a 
multi-faceted approach that includes addressing the causes of premium 
increases, reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits, and limiting the 
number of medical errors. I support enacting fair reforms that will 
continue to permit injured patients to hold wrongdoers accountable, and 
I am willing to support legislation that provides for reasonable caps 
on non-economic and punitive damages.
  In recent years, I have seen so-called malpractice ``reform'' bills 
come to the floor of this House. Those bills provided an inequitable 
approach--limiting patients' access to the courts and imposing strict 
limits on compensation for their injuries, no matter how serious the 
injury or how egregious the malpractice, while doing nothing to lower 
malpractice premiums. Fortunately, they were not enacted into law.
  I had hoped that this year's legislation would be the product of 
careful deliberation at the committee level. I had hoped that the 
authors would take into consideration the rights of patients and 
balance them carefully with the need to alleviate the burden of 
escalating malpractice insurance costs. Unfortunately, once again this 
year, the bill before us does neither. In fact, the leadership has 
simply rolled out a bill that is nearly identical to the one we 
considered in the last Congress. There were no hearings, no markups, 
and today, there are no opportunities to amend the bill. The same bill, 
the same bill number, the same disregard for the rights of patients, 
the same ineffectual approach to helping physicians.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to a few aspects of this bill. 
First, this bill contains an arbitrary cap of $250,000 on non-economic 
damages. Non-economic awards compensate patients and their families for 
real injuries, and sharply capping them will disproportionately hurt 
families, children, seniors, and others who have lower or fixed 
incomes.
  Second, H.R. 5 provides a shield against punitive damages for 
manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices as long as they 
have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. At one 
time, the FDA shield might have been less controversial. After all, the 
FDA has long been considered the gold standard for prescription drug 
quality and safety, and for years its seal of approval was viewed by 
the American public as a guarantee that drugs were safe. But in light 
of developments related to several other pharmaceuticals approved by 
the FDA, this provision is truly baffling. Cases involving life-
threatening complications from these drugs have raised fundamental 
questions about the safety determinations made by the FDA.
  In 2004, the Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings to examine 
safety Issues surrounding the prescribing of antidepressants to 
children. At that time, several members of the Committee criticized the 
FDA for failing to take prompt action to address these concerns. Last 
September, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market after a study showed it 
doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients taking the 
drug for more than 18 months. Since then, it has been reported that 
more than 130,000 persons have suffered heart attacks as a result of 
taking Vioxx. Richard Matthews of Thurmont, Maryland, was one of the 
first reported fatalities from Vioxx. According to an Associated Press 
account, Richard's wife, Lisa, said her husband had no previous heart 
problems and died in 2002 at age 42 of a heart arrhythmia only a few 
days after he began taking Vioxx. Several Congressional committees have 
responded to these events by initiating investigations of drug safety 
issues, including the FDA's procedures for evaluating the safety of 
prescription drugs.
  Given the questions that have arisen about FDA's effectiveness, it is 
truly astonishing that the leadership is here promoting a bill that 
prohibits the awarding of any punitive damages and limits non-economic 
damages for drugs and devices approved by the FDA. This bill, H.R. 5, 
was referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, the same committee 
that acknowledged problems at the FDA. Did the committee's members try 
to amend this bill to strike or tone down the FDA provision? There was 
no opportunity. H.R. 5 was introduced one week ago, July 21, referred 
to the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committees, which did not hold 
a hearing or mark-up, and then brought to the floor today. The FDA 
shield is an irresponsible provision that should have been stricken 
from this bill. We have no opportunity to strike it today, because an 
amendment that would have done so was not made in order by the Rules 
Committee. It may endanger the health and lives of thousands of 
Americans. It will certainly deny them the opportunity to receive fair 
compensation when they are injured.
  Third, I firmly believe that we must reduce medical errors in our 
health care system if we are to reduce the number of malpractice cases. 
It has been nearly six years since the 1999 report of the Institute of 
Medicine, IOM, entitled ``To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health 
System.'' That report focused a great deal of attention on the issue of 
medical errors and patient safety. IOM estimated that between 44,000 
and 98,000 people die in hospitals each year as the result of medical 
errors.
  Even using the lower estimate, this would make medical errors the 
eighth leading cause of death in this country, higher than motor 
vehicle accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. This House has just passed 
S. 544, legislation intended to reduce medical errors and improve 
patient safety. But its passage by a nearly unanimous vote of 428 to 3 
is a clear indication that Congress knows there are valid

[[Page 18328]]

cases whose victims deserve their day in court. The patient safety bill 
has not yet been signed into law. I hope it will be law soon, and that 
it will help improve patient safety. But each case is an individual 
case, and those who are harmed by medical errors deserve just 
compensation for their injuries.
  Finally, I must question why the authors of this bill are not 
addressing malpractice insurance premium increases in this bill. The 
provisions of H.R. 5 would not reduce the rates that insurance 
companies charge providers. We have an alternative that would directly 
address the problems of frivolous lawsuits and insurance industry 
abuses. But once again this year, the base bill, H.R. 5, contains no 
provisions that will lower malpractice premiums.
  Mr. Speaker, I must tell you, malpractice premium costs are the 
reason that providers ask me to support medical malpractice reform. 
These are practitioners who truly love their professions, and they are 
troubled by dramatic increases in their malpractice rates, increases 
that they must pay whether or not there have been any malpractice 
claims filed against them in the past year. They say that they want to 
continue practicing medicine next year, but they may not be able to 
afford to. When I ask if they would like to see provisions in the bill 
that limit their premium increases, they emphatically reply yes. So it 
is puzzling that this bill, which the authors say was written to help 
physicians stay in business, fails to address their central concern by 
even monitoring insurance companies' rate hikes. In fact, there are no 
provisions anywhere in the bill that affect malpractice insurers.
  In sum, H.R. 5 represents a missed opportunity for this House. We 
could have produced a bill that would truly make a difference, in 
lowering malpractice premiums, in placing reasonable caps on non-
economic damages. I am disappointed that we don't have a better bill, a 
more responsible bill that we can vote on today. I urge my colleagues 
to reject this approach, which will do nothing to improve access to 
care, nothing to hold insurance companies accountable for premium 
increases, and nothing to make our nation's medical liability system 
more fair.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
5, the Republican Medical Malpractice legislation. This flawed bill 
provides sweeping liability protections to pharmaceutical and insurance 
companies, provides inadequate protections for doctors, and will do 
nothing to lower health care costs.
  Doctors are rightly frustrated over the significant increases in 
medical liability insurance premiums and I am truly concerned that 
additional costs make it more difficult for physicians to stay in 
practice. However, I do not believe that this legislation addresses the 
real problem, which lies with the insurance companies.
  Republicans have for years claimed that the rising costs of 
malpractice insurance are due to a dramatic increase in malpractice 
lawsuits. However, a recent study of the 15 largest insurance companies 
shows that over the past 5 years, premiums have doubled while claims 
payments have been reduced or remained static. This study proves that 
insurance companies are simply increasing their profits on the backs of 
our physicians.
  Another totally outrageous provision of this bill is the sweeping 
liability protection for pharmaceutical companies. This bill states 
that if a product has gone through the Food and Drug Administration 
approval process, no punitive damages can be awarded against the 
manufacture of the device or drug later. If this were to become law, 
the manufacturers of Vioxx would be protected from lawsuits from the 
families of those harmed or killed by this faulty medication. It is 
unacceptable to put into law that pharmaceutical and insurance 
companies are without accountability when their products or decisions 
knowingly cause harm.
  This Republican bill will hurt patients who are harmed by medical 
malpractice by arbitrarily capping damages and denying justice to 
injured patients and their families. This is not only unfair, it is 
unnecessary. New information shows that there is no link between the 
existence of malpractice caps and insurance premiums.
  Finally, because medical malpractice accounts for less than one 
percent of national health care costs, this legislation will do nothing 
to reduce health care premiums. Families across America are struggling 
to afford quality health care and the numbers of uninsured are on the 
rise. We need to address the real issues involved in the dramatic 
increase in health care costs, such as the cost of prescription drugs, 
provider shortages, uninsur-
ance, and the cost of new technologies.
  This Congress must become serious about increasing access to quality 
health care. We need to put families, not pharmaceutical companies, 
first. I support the Democratic substitute which would have weeded out 
frivolous lawsuits but allowed justice for injured patients. Democrats 
were ready to take steps to really reduce insurance premiums by 
requiring insurance companies to give half of their savings to 
reductions in medical malpractice rates for doctors. Finally, this 
substitute would create a commission to evaluate the real causes of 
increases in premiums as well as insurance reform proposals. We all 
recognize that this is an important issue. This substitute will give us 
an opportunity to work together, with accurate information, to make 
real progress for patients and providers.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 5, Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Health-
care (HEALTH) Act. This bill would hurt patients who are harmed by 
medical malpractice by arbitrarily capping damages, denying justice to 
injured patients and their families.
  This bill makes a number of changes to current law affecting medical 
malpractice lawsuits filed in Federal and State court, including 
limiting the amount of non-economic and punitive damages that could be 
awarded to a plaintiff, and restricting the contingency fees that can 
be charged by attorneys. The bill also pre-empts State laws that 
conflict with the enforcement of any of its provisions. The measure 
does not, however, pre-empt any State statutory limits on the amount of 
compensatory, punitive or total damages awarded in health care 
lawsuits. The provisions of the measure dealing with caps on awards 
would apply only to those States that have no statutory limits on 
damage awards in health care lawsuits.
  The bill seriously restricts the rights of injured patients to be 
compensated for their injuries, while rewarding insurance companies for 
bad investment decisions and doctors for practicing bad medicine. In 
the 13th District of Michigan and in many districts across the country, 
physicians have either retired prematurely or relocated their 
practices. The supporters of this bill claim their proposal would 
reduce insurance costs for doctors. This bill does not lower premiums 
for doctors, contains no insurance reforms, and would not address the 
rising cost of health care.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Democratic 
substitute, which would directly address rising premiums by reforming 
malpractice insurance and stopping frivolous lawsuits. The Democratic 
substitute does not restrict the rights of injured patients who file 
meritorious claims. It requires certification, with civil penalties, 
that a pleading is not frivolous, factually inaccurate or designed to 
harass. It includes a 3-year statute of limitation; establishes an 
alternative dispute resolution process; limits suits for punitive 
damages; and applies 50 percent of awards from any punitive damages to 
a patient safety fund at HHS. Finally, it requires insurance companies 
to develop a plan to give 50 percent of their savings to reductions in 
medical malpractice rates for doctors.
  It is unfortunate the Democratic Substitute was not adopted. H.R. 5 
in its present form does not address rising premiums and denies justice 
to injured patients and their families.
  Vote against H.R. 5.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we need a fix for our 
healthcare system, but H.R. 5 is not it. Limiting patient's legal 
redress and compensation is not it. The punishment should fit the crime 
and if a doctor or drug company does harm knowingly or negligently to a 
patient they should be compensated to make them whole. That is the 
standard and it should be decided on a case by case basis according to 
the facts of each case. It makes me very uncomfortable to place a cap 
and effectively a dollar amount on what an impact an injury has on an 
individual's life.
  The main group that benefits are big drug companies who will be able 
to evade their responsibilities injured parties.
  The bill will seriously restrict the rights of injured patients to be 
compensated for their injuries, while rewarding insurance companies for 
bad investment decisions and doctors for practicing bad medicine. It 
will do almost nothing to make insurance more affordable or available 
for doctors. That is the bottom line. In a State like Florida where 
topic of healthcare is on the tip of every tongue it is important that 
we take the right steps to solve our mounting healthcare costs.
  I am sensitive to the physicians and medical students who plead with 
me to make it affordable to practice. I know that physicians are now 
being forced to make specialty choices based on how much malpractice 
insurance costs, but let's be honest to our colleagues if not these 
poor students, the Republican leadership has trotted this bill out for 
purely political purposes--no hearings were held on the measure, nor 
did either committee with jurisdiction mark up the bill. This bill was 
only introduced last week.

[[Page 18329]]

  If H.R. 5 becomes law, this bill would have serious consequences for 
sick and injured patients. The measure's $250,000 cap on non-economic 
damages will hurt those at the bottom of the income scale the most. 
While corporate chief executive officers would receive economic damage 
awards that could easily reach into the millions of dollars, minimum-
wage workers and stay-at-home moms would receive a pittance. The cap on 
punitive damages is similarly unjust. It imposes an impossibly high 
standard of proof, completely eviscerates the deterrent that effect 
punitive damages have on egregious misconduct of defendants, and would 
not affect how large drug companies test and market their products.
  When investment income decreased because of stock market declines, 
insurance companies hiked premiums, reduced coverage and then blamed 
the legal system for a ``liability insurance crisis.'' This bill also 
contorts the American legal system, first by taking the issue of tort 
litigation out of the hands of the states, where it has traditionally 
resided, and by severely limiting juries' abilities to adequately 
compensate victims of malpractice. We place our trust in juries every 
day to judge the facts and to decide what constitutes justice. If we 
can trust juries to make life and death decisions on death-penalty 
cases, we can surely trust them to decide the appropriate level of 
compensation for those injured by medical malpractice.
  Our current tort system is the great equalizer in the civil justice 
system--it allows ordinary citizens to take on billion-dollar companies 
and millionaire doctors defended by $500-an-hour lawyers so they can 
get the compensation they deserve. The contingency fee system also 
deters frivolous lawsuits--no lawyer would agree to take on a case he 
believed would result in no award for his client and no payment for 
himself.
  Tort reformers often ridicule million-dollar jury awards, saying that 
the plaintiffs must feel like they have won the lottery. Tell that to 
the parents of the 17-year-old transplant patient who died after being 
given organs with the wrong blood type, or the Wisconsin woman who had 
a double mastectomy, only to discover after the operation that the lab 
had made a mistake and she did not have breast cancer after all. It is 
doubtful that any family that loses a loved one or suffers years of 
pain and suffering because of a medical error feels like celebrating 
after fighting their way through the court system and finally receiving 
compensation.
  The Institute of Medicine estimated in 1999 that as many as 98,000 
people are killed by medical errors every year--that is as many people 
as live in the president's old hometown of Midland, Texas. Instead of 
penalizing innocent victims of medical malpractice, Congress should be 
focusing on reducing the number of mistakes made. According to data 
from the National practitioner Database, 5 percent of all doctors are 
responsible for 54 percent of malpractice claims paid. The medical 
profession needs to crack down on these repeat offenders. It is 
disgraceful that the House leadership is using this bill as filler 
round out its ``health care'' theme for next week's floor schedule. 
Medical malpractice insurance rates and medical errors are important 
issues that reserve the full attention of Congress. These issues need 
to be studied by Congress in a bipartisan manner to address both 
problems and should not be used as political fundraising tools.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to House Resolution 385, 
the bill is considered read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CONYERS. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce with instructions to report the same back to the 
     House forthwith with the following amendment:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medical 
     Malpractice and Insurance Reform Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

        TITLE I--LIMITING FRIVOLOUS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS

Sec. 101. Statute of limitations.
Sec. 102. Health care specialist affidavit.
Sec. 103. Sanctions for frivolous actions and pleadings.
Sec. 104. Mandatory mediation.
Sec. 105. Limitation on punitive damages.
Sec. 106. Reduction in premiums paid by physicians for medical 
              malpractice insurance coverage.
Sec. 107. Definitions.
Sec. 108. Applicability.

   TITLE II--INDEPENDENT ADVISORY COMMISSION ON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 
                               INSURANCE

Sec. 201. Establishment.
Sec. 202. Duties.
Sec. 203. Report.
Sec. 204. Membership.
Sec. 205. Director and staff; experts and consultants.
Sec. 206. Powers.
Sec. 207. Authorization of appropriations.

        TITLE I--LIMITING FRIVOLOUS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS

     SEC. 101. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--A medical malpractice action shall be 
     barred unless the complaint is filed within 3 years after the 
     right of action accrues.
       (b) Accrual.--A right of action referred to in subsection 
     (a) accrues upon the last to occur of the following dates:
       (1) The date of the injury.
       (2) The date on which the claimant discovers, or through 
     the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the 
     injury.
       (3) The date on which the claimant becomes 18 years of age.
       (c) Applicability.--This section shall apply to any injury 
     occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. HEALTH CARE SPECIALIST AFFIDAVIT.

       (a) Requiring Submission With Complaint.--No medical 
     malpractice action may be brought by any individual unless, 
     at the time the individual brings the action (except as 
     provided in subsection (b)(1)), it is accompanied by the 
     affidavit of a qualified specialist that includes the 
     specialist's statement of belief that, based on a review of 
     the available medical record and other relevant material, 
     there is a reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of 
     the action against the defendant.
       (b) Extension in Certain Instances.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsection (a) 
     shall not apply with respect to an individual who brings a 
     medical malpractice action without submitting an affidavit 
     described in such subsection if, as of the time the 
     individual brings the action, the individual has been unable 
     to obtain adequate medical records or other information 
     necessary to prepare the affidavit.
       (2) Deadline for submission where extension applies.--In 
     the case of an individual who brings an action for which 
     paragraph (1) applies, the action shall be dismissed unless 
     the individual (or the individual's attorney) submits the 
     affidavit described in subsection (a) not later than 90 days 
     after obtaining the information described in such paragraph.
       (c) Qualified Specialist Defined.--In subsection (a), a 
     ``qualified specialist'' means, with respect to a medical 
     malpractice action, a health care professional who is 
     reasonably believed by the individual bringing the action (or 
     the individual's attorney)--
       (1) to be knowledgeable in the relevant issues involved in 
     the action;
       (2) to practice (or to have practiced) or to teach (or to 
     have taught) in the same area of health care or medicine that 
     is at issue in the action; and
       (3) in the case of an action against a physician, to be 
     board certified in a specialty relating to that area of 
     medicine.
       (d) Confidentiality of Specialist.--Upon a showing of good 
     cause by a defendant, the court may ascertain the identity of 
     a specialist referred to in subsection (a) while preserving 
     confidentiality.

     SEC. 103. SANCTIONS FOR FRIVOLOUS ACTIONS AND PLEADINGS.

       (a) Signature Required.--Every pleading, written motion, 
     and other paper in any medical malpractice action shall be 
     signed by at least 1 attorney of record in the attorney's 
     individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an 
     attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall 
     state the signer's address and telephone number, if any. An 
     unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the 
     signature is corrected promptly after being called to the 
     attention of the attorney or party.
       (b) Certificate of Merit.--(1) A medical malpractice action 
     shall be dismissed unless the attorney or unrepresented party 
     presenting the complaint certifies that, to the best of the 
     person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an 
     inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
       (A) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, 
     such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless 
     increase in the cost of litigation;
       (B) the claims and other legal contentions therein are 
     warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for 
     the extension,

[[Page 18330]]

     modification, or reversal of existing law or the 
     establishment of new law; and
       (C) the allegations and other factual contentions have 
     evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are 
     likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 
     opportunity for further investigation and discovery.
       (2) By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, 
     submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, 
     or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is 
     certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, 
     information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable 
     under the circumstances--
       (A) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, 
     such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless 
     increase in the cost of litigation;
       (B) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions 
     therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous 
     argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of 
     existing law or the establishment of new law; and
       (C) the allegations and other factual contentions have 
     evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are 
     reasonable based on a lack of information or belief.
       (c) Mandatory Sanctions.--
       (1) First violation.--If, after notice and a reasonable 
     opportunity to respond, a court, upon motion or upon its own 
     initiative, determines that subsection (b) has been violated, 
     the court shall find each attorney or party in violation in 
     contempt of court and shall require the payment of costs and 
     attorneys fees. The court may also impose additional 
     appropriate sanctions, such as striking the pleadings, 
     dismissing the suit, and sanctions plus interest, upon the 
     person in violation, or upon both such person and such 
     person's attorney or client (as the case may be).
       (2) Second violation.--If, after notice and a reasonable 
     opportunity to respond, a court, upon motion or upon its own 
     initiative, determines that subsection (b) has been violated 
     and that the attorney or party with respect to which the 
     determination was made has committed one previous violation 
     of subsection (b) before this or any other court, the court 
     shall find each such attorney or party in contempt of court 
     and shall require the payment of costs and attorneys fees, 
     and require such person in violation (or both such person and 
     such person's attorney or client (as the case may be)) to pay 
     a monetary fine. The court may also impose additional 
     appropriate sanctions, such as striking the pleadings, 
     dismissing the suit and sanctions plus interest, upon such 
     person in violation, or upon both such person and such 
     person's attorney or client (as the case may be).
       (3) Third violation.--If, after notice and a reasonable 
     opportunity to respond, a court, upon motion or upon its own 
     initiative, determines that subsection (b) has been violated 
     and that the attorney or party with respect to which the 
     determination was made has committed more than one previous 
     violation of subsection (b) before this or any other court, 
     the court shall find each such attorney or party in contempt 
     of court, refer each such attorney to one or more appropriate 
     State bar associations for disciplinary proceedings, require 
     the payment of costs and attorneys fees, and require such 
     person in violation (or both such person and such person's 
     attorney or client (as the case may be)) to pay a monetary 
     fine. The court may also impose additional appropriate 
     sanctions, such as striking the pleadings, dismissing the 
     suit, and sanctions plus interest, upon such person in 
     violation, or upon both such person and such person's 
     attorney or client (as the case may be).

     SEC. 104. MANDATORY MEDIATION.

       (a) In General.--In any medical malpractice action, before 
     such action comes to trial, mediation shall be required. Such 
     mediation shall be conducted by one or more mediators who are 
     selected by agreement of the parties or, if the parties do 
     not agree, who are qualified under applicable State law and 
     selected by the court.
       (b) Requirements.--Mediation under subsection (a) shall be 
     made available by a State subject to the following 
     requirements:
       (1) Participation in such mediation shall be in lieu of any 
     alternative dispute resolution method required by any other 
     law or by any contractual arrangement made by or on behalf of 
     the parties before the commencement of the action.
       (2) Each State shall disclose to residents of the State the 
     availability and procedures for resolution of consumer 
     grievances regarding the provision of (or failure to provide) 
     health care services, including such mediation.
       (3) Each State shall provide that such mediation may begin 
     before or after, at the option of the claimant, the 
     commencement of a medical malpractice action.
       (4) The Attorney General, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, by regulation, 
     develop requirements with respect to such mediation to ensure 
     that it is carried out in a manner that--
       (A) is affordable for the parties involved;
       (B) encourages timely resolution of claims;
       (C) encourages the consistent and fair resolution of 
     claims; and
       (D) provides for reasonably convenient access to dispute 
     resolution.
       (c) Further Redress and Admissibility.--Any party 
     dissatisfied with a determination reached with respect to a 
     medical malpractice claim as a result of an alternative 
     dispute resolution method applied under this section shall 
     not be bound by such determination. The results of any 
     alternative dispute resolution method applied under this 
     section, and all statements, offers, and communications made 
     during the application of such method, shall be inadmissible 
     for purposes of adjudicating the claim.

     SEC. 105. LIMITATION ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

       (a) In general.--Punitive damages may not be awarded in a 
     medical malpractice action, except upon proof of--
       (1) gross negligence;
       (2) reckless indifference to life; or
       (3) an intentional act, such as voluntary intoxication or 
     impairment by a physician, sexual abuse or misconduct, 
     assault and battery, or falsification of records.
       (b) Allocation.--In such a case, the award of punitive 
     damages shall be allocated 50 percent to the claimant and 50 
     percent to a trustee appointed by the court, to be used by 
     such trustee in the manner specified in subsection (d). The 
     court shall appoint the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services as such trustee.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply with respect 
     to an action if the applicable State law provides (or has 
     been construed to provide) for damages in such an action that 
     are only punitive or exemplary in nature.
       (d) Trust Fund.--
       (1) In general.--This subsection applies to amounts 
     allocated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services as 
     trustee under subsection (b).
       (2) Availability.--Such amounts shall be available for use 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under paragraph 
     (3) and shall remain so available until expended.
       (3) Use.--
       (A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Agency 
     for Healthcare Research and Quality, shall use the amounts to 
     which this subsection applies for activities to reduce 
     medical errors and improve patient safety.
       (B) The Secretary of Health and Human Services may not use 
     any part of such amounts to establish or maintain any system 
     that requires mandatory reporting of medical errors.
       (C) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     promulgate regulations to establish programs and procedures 
     for carrying out this paragraph.
       (4) Investment.--
       (A) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall invest 
     the amounts to which this subsection applies in such amounts 
     as such Secretary determines are not required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Such investments may be made only in interest-
     bearing obligations of the United States. For such purpose, 
     such obligations may be acquired on original issue at the 
     issue price, or by purchase of outstanding obligations at the 
     market price.
       (B) Any obligation acquired by the Secretary in such 
     Secretary's capacity as trustee of such amounts may be sold 
     by the Secretary at the market price.

     SEC. 106. REDUCTION IN PREMIUMS PAID BY PHYSICIANS FOR 
                   MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, each medical malpractice liability 
     insurance company shall--
       (1) develop a reasonable estimate of the annual amount of 
     financial savings that will be achieved by the company as a 
     result of this title;
       (2) develop and implement a plan to annually dedicate at 
     least 50 percent of such annual savings to reduce the amount 
     of premiums that the company charges physicians for medical 
     malpractice liability coverage; and
       (3) submit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (hereinafter referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary'') a written certification that the company has 
     complied with paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (b) Reports.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, each medical 
     malpractice liability insurance company shall submit to the 
     Secretary a report that identifies the percentage by which 
     the company has reduced medical malpractice coverage premiums 
     relative to the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Enforcement.--A medical malpractice liability insurance 
     company that violates a provision of this section is liable 
     to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount 
     assessed by the Secretary, not to exceed $11,000 for each 
     such violation. The provisions of paragraphs (3) through (5) 
     of section 303(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     apply to such a civil penalty to the same extent and in the 
     same manner as such paragraphs apply to a civil penalty under 
     such section.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``medical malpractice liability insurance company'' means an 
     entity in the business of providing an insurance policy

[[Page 18331]]

     under which the entity makes payment in settlement (or 
     partial settlement) of, or in satisfaction of a judgment in, 
     a medical malpractice action or claim.

     SEC. 107. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Alternative dispute resolution method.--The term 
     ``alternative dispute resolution method'' means a method that 
     provides for the resolution of medical malpractice claims in 
     a manner other than through medical malpractice actions.
       (2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who 
     alleges a medical malpractice claim, and any person on whose 
     behalf such a claim is alleged, including the decedent in the 
     case of an action brought through or on behalf of an estate.
       (3) Health care professional.--The term ``health care 
     professional'' means any individual who provides health care 
     services in a State and who is required by the laws or 
     regulations of the State to be licensed or certified by the 
     State to provide such services in the State.
       (4) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means any organization or institution that is 
     engaged in the delivery of health care services in a State 
     and that is required by the laws or regulations of the State 
     to be licensed or certified by the State to engage in the 
     delivery of such services in the State.
       (5) Injury.--The term ``injury'' means any illness, 
     disease, or other harm that is the subject of a medical 
     malpractice action or a medical malpractice claim.
       (6) Mandatory.--The term ``mandatory'' means required to be 
     used by the parties to attempt to resolve a medical 
     malpractice claim notwithstanding any other provision of an 
     agreement, State law, or Federal law.
       (7) Mediation.--The term ``mediation'' means a settlement 
     process coordinated by a neutral third party and without the 
     ultimate rendering of a formal opinion as to factual or legal 
     findings.
       (8) Medical malpractice action.--The term ``medical 
     malpractice action'' means an action in any State or Federal 
     court against a physician, or other health professional, who 
     is licensed in accordance with the requirements of the State 
     involved that--
       (A) arises under the law of the State involved;
       (B) alleges the failure of such physician or other health 
     professional to adhere to the relevant professional standard 
     of care for the service and specialty involved;
       (C) alleges death or injury proximately caused by such 
     failure; and
       (D) seeks monetary damages, whether compensatory or 
     punitive, as relief for such death or injury.
       (9) Medical malpractice claim.--The term ``medical 
     malpractice claim'' means a claim forming the basis of a 
     medical malpractice action.
       (10) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and any other territory 
     or possession of the United States.

     SEC. 108. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in section 104, this 
     title shall apply with respect to any medical malpractice 
     action brought on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Federal Court Jurisdiction Not Established on Federal 
     Question Grounds.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     to establish any jurisdiction in the district courts of the 
     United States over medical malpractice actions on the basis 
     of section 1331 or 1337 of title 28, United States Code.

   TITLE II--INDEPENDENT ADVISORY COMMISSION ON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 
                               INSURANCE

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The sudden rise in medical malpractice premiums in 
     regions of the United States can threaten patient access to 
     doctors and other health providers.
       (2) Improving patient access to doctors and other health 
     providers is a national priority.
       (b) Establishment.--There is established a national 
     commission to be known as the ``Independent Advisory 
     Commission on Medical Malpractice Insurance'' (in this title 
     referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 202. DUTIES.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall evaluate the causes 
     and scope of the recent and dramatic increases in medical 
     malpractice insurance premiums and formulate additional 
     proposals to reduce such medical malpractice premiums and 
     make recommendations to avoid any dramatic increases in 
     medical malpractice premiums in the future, in light of 
     proposals for tort reform regarding medical malpractice.
       (b) Considerations.--In formulating proposals under this 
     section, the Commission shall, at a minimum, consider the 
     following:
       (1) Alternatives to the current medical malpractice tort 
     system that would ensure adequate compensation for patients, 
     preserve access to providers, and improve health care safety 
     and quality.
       (2) Modifications of, and alternatives to, the existing 
     State and Federal regulations and oversight that affect, or 
     could affect, medical malpractice lines of insurance.
       (3) State and Federal reforms that would distribute the 
     risk of medical malpractice more equitably among health care 
     providers.
       (4) State and Federal reforms that would more evenly 
     distribute the risk of medical malpractice across various 
     categories of providers.
       (5) The effect of a Federal medical malpractice reinsurance 
     program administered by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services.
       (6) The effect of a Federal medical malpractice insurance 
     program, administered by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, to provide medical malpractice insurance based on 
     customary coverage terms and liability amounts in States 
     where such insurance is unavailable or is unavailable at 
     reasonable and customary terms.
       (7) Programs that would reduce medical errors and increase 
     patient safety, including new innovations in technology and 
     management.
       (8) The effect of State policies under which--
       (A) any health care professional licensed by the State has 
     standing in any State administrative proceeding to challenge 
     a proposed rate increase in medical malpractice insurance; 
     and
       (B) a provider of medical malpractice insurance in the 
     State may not implement a rate increase in such insurance 
     unless the provider, at minimum, first submits to the 
     appropriate State agency a description of the rate increase 
     and a substantial justification for the rate increase.
       (9) The effect of reforming antitrust law to prohibit 
     anticompetitive activities by medical malpractice insurers.
       (10) Programs to facilitate price comparison of medical 
     malpractice insurance by enabling any health care provider to 
     obtain a quote from each medical malpractice insurer to write 
     the type of coverage sought by the provider.
       (11) The effect of providing Federal grants for geographic 
     areas that have a shortage of one or more types of health 
     providers as a result of the providers making the decision to 
     cease or curtail providing health services in the geographic 
     areas because of the costs of maintaining malpractice 
     insurance.

     SEC. 203. REPORT.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall transmit to 
     Congress--
       (1) an initial report not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the initial meeting of the Commission; and
       (2) a report not less than each year thereafter until the 
     Commission terminates.
       (b) Contents.--Each report transmitted under this section 
     shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and 
     conclusions of the Commission, including proposals for 
     addressing the current dramatic increases in medical 
     malpractice insurance rates and recommendations for avoiding 
     any such dramatic increases in the future.
       (c) Voting and Reporting Requirements.--With respect to 
     each proposal or recommendation contained in the report 
     submitted under subsection (a), each member of the Commission 
     shall vote on the proposal or recommendation, and the 
     Commission shall include, by member, the results of that vote 
     in the report.

     SEC. 204. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 15 members appointed by the Comptroller General 
     of the United States.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The membership of the Commission shall 
     include individuals with national recognition for their 
     expertise in health finance and economics, actuarial science, 
     medical malpractice insurance, insurance regulation, health 
     care law, health care policy, health care access, allopathic 
     and osteopathic physicians, other providers of health care 
     services, patient advocacy, and other related fields, who 
     provide a mix of different professionals, broad geographic 
     representations, and a balance between urban and rural 
     representatives.
       (2) Inclusion.--The membership of the Commission shall 
     include the following:
       (A) Two individuals with expertise in health finance and 
     economics, including one with expertise in consumer 
     protections in the area of health finance and economics.
       (B) Two individuals with expertise in medical malpractice 
     insurance, representing both commercial insurance carriers 
     and physician-sponsored insurance carriers.
       (C) An individual with expertise in State insurance 
     regulation and State insurance markets.
       (D) An individual representing physicians.
       (E) An individual with expertise in issues affecting 
     hospitals, nursing homes, nurses, and other providers.
       (F) Two individuals representing patient interests.
       (G) Two individuals with expertise in health care law or 
     health care policy.
       (H) An individual with expertise in representing patients 
     in malpractice lawsuits.
       (3) Majority.--The total number of individuals who are 
     directly involved with the provision or management of 
     malpractice insurance, representing physicians or other 
     providers, or representing physicians or

[[Page 18332]]

     other providers in malpractice lawsuits, shall not constitute 
     a majority of the membership of the Commission.
       (4) Ethical disclosure.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall establish a system for public disclosure 
     by members of the Commission of financial or other potential 
     conflicts of interest relating to such members.
       (c) Terms.--
       (1) In general.--The terms of the members of the Commission 
     shall be for 3 years except that the Comptroller General of 
     the United States shall designate staggered terms for the 
     members first appointed.
       (2) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy 
     occurring before the expiration of the term for which the 
     member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only 
     for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken 
     office. A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (3) Compensation.--Members of the Commission shall be 
     compensated in accordance with section 1805(c)(4) of the 
     Social Security Act.
       (4) Chairman; vice chairman.--The Comptroller General of 
     the United States shall designate at the time of appointment 
     a member of the Commission as Chairman and a member as Vice 
     Chairman. In the case of vacancy of the Chairmanship or Vice 
     Chairmanship, the Comptroller General may designate another 
     member for the remainder of that member's term.
       (5) Meetings.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall meet at the call of 
     the Chairman.
       (B) Initial meeting.--The Commission shall hold an initial 
     meeting not later than the date that is 1 year after the date 
     of the enactment of this title, or the date that is 3 months 
     after the appointment of all the members of the Commission, 
     whichever occurs earlier.

     SEC. 205. DIRECTOR AND STAFF; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.

       Subject to such review as the Comptroller General of the 
     United States deems necessary to assure the efficient 
     administration of the Commission, the Commission may--
       (1) employ and fix the compensation of an Executive 
     Director (subject to the approval of the Comptroller General) 
     and such other personnel as may be necessary to carry out its 
     duties (without regard to the provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service);
       (2) seek such assistance and support as may be required in 
     the performance of its duties from appropriate Federal 
     departments and agencies;
       (3) enter into contracts or make other arrangements, as may 
     be necessary for the conduct of the work of the Commission 
     (without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 
     U.S.C. 5));
       (4) make advance, progress, and other payments which relate 
     to the work of the Commission;
       (5) provide transportation and subsistence for persons 
     serving without compensation; and
       (6) prescribe such rules and regulations as it deems 
     necessary with respect to the internal organization and 
     operation of the Commission.

     SEC. 206. POWERS.

       (a) Obtaining Official Data.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this section. 
     Upon request of the Chairman, the head of that department or 
     agency shall furnish that information to the Commission on an 
     agreed upon schedule.
       (b) Data Collection.--In order to carry out its functions, 
     the Commission shall--
       (1) utilize existing information, both published and 
     unpublished, where possible, collected and assessed either by 
     its own staff or under other arrangements made in accordance 
     with this section;
       (2) carry out, or award grants or contracts for, original 
     research and experimentation, where existing information is 
     inadequate; and
       (3) adopt procedures allowing any interested party to 
     submit information for the Commission's use in making reports 
     and recommendations.
       (c) Access of General Accounting Office to Information.--
     The Comptroller General of the United States shall have 
     unrestricted access to all deliberations, records, and 
     nonproprietary data of the Commission, immediately upon 
     request.
       (d) Periodic Audit.--The Commission shall be subject to 
     periodic audit by the Comptroller General of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title for 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (b) Requests for Appropriations.--The Commission shall 
     submit requests for appropriations in the same manner as the 
     Comptroller General of the United States submits requests for 
     appropriations, but amounts appropriated for the Commission 
     shall be separate from amounts appropriated for the 
     Comptroller General.

       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to limit frivolous 
     medical malpractice lawsuits, to reform the medical 
     malpractice insurance business in order to reduce the cost of 
     medical malpractice insurance, to enhance patient access to 
     medical care, and for other purposes.''.

  Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring a motion to recommit 
that goes to the heart of the medical malpractice crisis. Rather than 
limiting the rights of legitimate malpractice victims, as the 
underlying bill actually does, our motion would directly address the 
problem of frivolous lawsuits and insurance industry abuses.
  Title I of the substitute addresses the problem of frivolous 
lawsuits. Among other things, it would require that both an attorney 
and health care specialist submit an affidavit that the claim is 
warranted before a malpractice action can be brought, and imposes 
strict sanctions for attorneys who make any frivolous pleadings.
  Unlike the majority's bill, our amendment is limited to licensed 
physicians and health care professionals for malpractice cases only. It 
does not include lawsuits against HMOs, insurance companies, nursing 
homes, and drug and device manufacturers. And it sure does not insulate 
the manufacturer of Vioxx from liability.
  Title II establishes a national commission to evaluate the rising 
insurance premiums and to review whether the McCarran-Ferguson 
antitrust exemption for medical malpractice insurers should be 
repealed.
  This is a good motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, the last 2\1/2\ minutes, 
to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, Congress is faced with an irony today. We 
have identified a problem, and the problem is that doctors are going 
out of business because of their high medical malpractice insurance 
premiums. So what are we going to do? We are going to pass a bill that 
caps damages for victims injured by medical malpractice, but we are 
going to do nothing to reduce the premiums for these doctors.

                              {time}  1600

  So doctors get no relief, and victims of malpractice get less. But 
wait, there is more. There is so much more to this bill. We have not 
heard one word today about the pressing problems the pharmaceutical 
industry has and how we need to give them immunity so they will keep 
making drugs. But yet that is what this bill does.
  We have not heard one word today about how all of the nursing homes 
are going out of business because of the lawsuits against them, but we 
are giving them immunity today.
  We have not heard a thing about the medical device manufacturers and 
how they will not make the titanium hip replacements or the insulin 
pumps, but yet we are giving them immunity today.
  This bill goes further than any State law. It goes further than any 
law anybody would contemplate, and it is just a giveaway to the 
insurance industry, to the pharmaceutical industry, to the nursing home 
industry, and to the medical device manufacturers.
  If we pass the Conyers-Dingell motion to recommit, we will send this 
bill back and we will do something that will really give relief to the 
doctors who face these high malpractice insurance premiums.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit. If that fails, I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This motion to recommit sets up a limitation on malpractice cases 
being brought. It requires that there be an attorney and health care 
specialist to submit an affidavit that the claim is warranted; and then 
in the second part, we establish a national commission to

[[Page 18333]]

evaluate the causes of rising health insurance premiums.
  This motion to recommit protects legitimate victims, limits frivolous 
lawsuits, and gives us a much-needed opportunity to examine the real 
causes of the medical malpractice insurance crisis that has this Nation 
in its grip.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can 
deal with medical malpractice insurance as a crisis and not as a 
giveaway to the companies that have been named throughout this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Is the gentleman opposed to the 
motion?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit must be 
defeated because it contains zero legal protections for doctors beyond 
current law, and in some cases it actually makes the current crisis 
even worse.
  The Democratic alternative would require that before a health care 
lawsuit is filed, the claimant file an affidavit declaring that a 
qualified specialist has been consulted and has issued a written report 
that says the filing is meritorious.
  Mr. Speaker, the definition is so broad it is meaningless. The 
Democratic alternative also imposes another wasteful layer of 
bureaucracy on the health care system, mandatory mediation, which 
simply has no binding effect.
  The motion to recommit even makes the situation of OB/GYNs worse than 
it is today by allowing someone as old as 21 to file a lawsuit claiming 
the doctor who delivered them caused their injury 21 years before. The 
motion to recommit would subject OB/GYNs to even more nuisance suits 
and drive even more of them out of business.
  So the Conyers-Dingell substitute contains zero legal reforms and 
would make the current litigation crisis even worse; yet legal reforms 
are needed to solve the current crisis in medical liability insurance 
and increase access to health care.
  H.R. 5 is the only proven legislative solution. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office under the HEALTH Act, ``premiums for 
medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 to 
30 percent below what they would be under current law.''
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of health care providers and the people who 
need them, let us keep doctors practicing their profession and defeat 
this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green), who is an expert on this subject.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it all boils down to this: we 
cannot get a handle on health care costs unless we first get a handle 
on the least productive part of heath care costs. Excessive liability 
costs are unproductive. They do not increase the quality of care. They 
do not increase accessibility to care, and they certainly do not 
increase affordability of care.
  Here is what excessive liability costs do. They drive up insurance 
costs for doctors. They drive physicians out of high-risk specialties 
and fields, and they drive them out of high-cost areas. In some cases, 
they drive them out of practice altogether; and in those cases we all 
lose.
  The great thing about the bill before us is we know it will work. It 
is not speculative. We know it works. We know that reforms which permit 
injured parties to recover every last dollar of economic damages, but 
place a modest cap on noneconomic damages, loss of society, loss of 
companionship, we know these reforms can help solve the medical 
liability crisis. It worked in California. It once worked in Wisconsin. 
And it can work all across America if we pass the HEALTH Act. If we 
defeat this motion to recommit, we can solve the medical liability 
crisis. This is what we must do.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the HEALTH Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 234, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 448]

                               YEAS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--234

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal

[[Page 18334]]


     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sensenbrenner
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Andrews
     Carson
     Kelly
     Paul
     Schakowsky

                              {time}  1631

  Mr. McHUGH, Mr. ISSA, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. GORDON, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mr. 
HOBSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HINCHEY, FARR, SMITH of Washington, and SPRATT changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 194, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 449]

                               AYES--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Burton (IN)
     Sensenbrenner
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Andrews
     Burgess
     Carson
     Johnson, Sam
     Paul
     Schakowsky
     Wu


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1640

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




                    FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A further message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate has passed without amendment a bill of the 
House of the following title:

       H.R. 3423. An act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act with respect to medical device user fees.

                          ____________________




                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks and that I may include

[[Page 18335]]

tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2361.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2361, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
       ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 392, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2361) 
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 
for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 26, 2005 at page 17661.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we bring before the House the conference agreement 
on H.R. 2361, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. I would like to thank all of 
the members of the Subcommittee for their support and guidance this 
year. I want to extend special thanks to the subcommittee vice 
chairman, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member and my good friend, for 
their assistance in shaping the bill. We are under last year, and we 
are under the allocation.
  The conference report balances many competitive and diverse needs. It 
provides funding for programs in the Department of the Interior, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Indian Health 
Agency, the Smithsonian Institution, and several other environmental 
and cultural agencies and commissions.
  With the ongoing war on terrorism and a sizable Federal debt, the 
American taxpayer demands fiscal prudence, yet entrusts us to continue 
the conservation and care of our Nation's natural resources, the 
protection of the environment, and critical programs for native 
Americans and other programs. The needs far outweigh the funds 
available, but I believe this bill addresses the most critical needs.
  The conference report is the product of a balanced, bipartisan, 
bicameral effort that resolves over 2,000 differences between the House 
and the Senate bills. Moreover, it addresses many of the key issues 
raised on the House floor in May and stays true to the fundamental 
issues that helped the bill pass overwhelmingly in the House. Here are 
a few of the highlights:
  Payments in Lieu of Taxes are $9 million over the enacted level. The 
arts and humanities are $5 million each over the enacted level. Funding 
for operations of the national parks has increased by $61 million. 
Restrictions remain in the bill for pesticide testing on human 
subjects. Funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Act is $900 
million, which is $50 million above the House level and $170 million 
above the budget request.
  The Forest Health Program, which is critical to reducing this 
Nation's risk of catastrophic wildfires, is restored to the enacted 
level.
  Finally, I am proud to say that this conference agreement contains 
$1.5 billion in critically needed funds for veterans medical care.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the priorities of the American people are 
reflected in the conference agreement, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to support it.
  I would like to thank staff on both sides of the aisle because, 
without their hard work, we would not be able to bring this bill 
forward at this time.
  At this time, I will include a table detailing the various accounts 
in the bill for insertion in the Record.

[[Page 18336]]

TH28JY05.001



[[Page 18337]]

TH28JY05.002



[[Page 18338]]

TH28JY05.003



[[Page 18339]]

TH28JY05.004



[[Page 18340]]

TH28JY05.005



[[Page 18341]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I support this conference report on the fiscal year 2006 Interior and 
Environment Appropriations bill, and I will vote for it, in just a few 
minutes, I hope. With the addition of $1.5 billion in spending for 
veterans health care attached to this bill, I believe that this 
conference report will get widespread support in both the House and the 
Senate.
  After we made a decision to add this $1.5 billion, I contacted back 
in the State of Washington the veterans hospital in Seattle and the one 
at American Lake to find out what the backlog was, and I was shocked to 
find out that there is a backlog of some 2,000 veterans who are waiting 
to get an initial appointment at those hospitals. So this money clearly 
is needed, and I am pleased that the other body selected the Interior 
appropriations to add this $1.5 billion to and that we were able to 
present it here today to the House.
  There are several areas of this bill that I believe are underfunded; 
however, I believe these funding decisions were the result of an 
inadequate allocation. Although the majority cannot escape 
responsibility for this allocation, I believe that we here in the 
minority have been treated fairly during the process of developing the 
2006 Interior appropriations.
  First of all, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for the decision to provide the Park Service 
operating budget another year of healthy increases. Over the last 2 
years, we have provided more than $100 million in increases for the 
parks operating budget, and I am very proud of that accomplishment. We 
really were seeing a decline in some of the parks because they were not 
able to cover their fixed costs on an annual basis and had to lay off 
people and were unable to provide the American people with the services 
that they needed.
  However, I am disappointed with the overall amount for the Clean 
Water Act State Revolving Fund. I had hoped that the conference report 
would end up closer to the Senate mark of $1.1 billion, rather than at 
$900 million, which is only $50 million above the House mark. Over the 
last 2 years, this funding has been cut by 33 percent.
  I am also disappointed that we could not retain the full $10 million 
increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, which was approved on 
the House floor in an overwhelming vote, but I am gratified that we 
could agree to some increase for both the NEA and the NEH.
  I am glad to see this conference report contains increases over the 
House mark for both land acquisition and the State grant program. 
Although these programs are cut from last year, I agree with the 
decision to restore some of the funding; and I am sympathetic to the 
argument that, during a year with such a low allocation, it is most 
important to protect core programs and make land acquisition a more 
secondary goal.
  I am deeply appreciative of everyone's efforts to resolve the issue 
concerning the use of humans during pesticide testing. I think the 
conference report reflects the will of both the House and Senate to 
stop such tests until the EPA develops regulations reflecting the 
recommendation of the National Academy of Science and follows the 
Nuremburg protocols. In addition, these regulations will prohibit such 
testing on pregnant women, infants, and children.
  I also want to praise the compromise contained in this conference 
report on the Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial to be built on the 
National Mall. The conference report contains $10 million that must be 
matched by private donations. This matching requirement will spur 
increased private donations and reflects the thinking of the chairman, 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), who felt very strongly 
that we should try to raise as much money for the memorial from the 
private sector.
  Again, I want to say that the chairman has been very fair and his 
staff, led by Debbie Weatherly, has done an outstanding job in putting 
together this bill. I want to congratulate Mike Stevens and Pete Modoff 
of my staff for the exceptional work they did on this bill. I think 
this is, in a very difficult year, I think this is a bill that deserves 
our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat of the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I would simply like to say that this is a close call on this bill 
as far as I am concerned; but weighing all of the conflicting 
pressures, I come down on the side of recommending a vote for the bill, 
primarily because of what it does to finally provide sufficient funding 
for veterans health care.
  With respect to that item, I would simply say to our friends on the 
majority side of the aisle, welcome aboard. We tried for the last year 
and a half to convince this administration and to convince the majority 
that the veterans health accounts were underfunded. Finally, the 
administration admitted that that was true; and, in fact, the amount 
being added to this bill today for veterans health care is exactly the 
amount that we had been asking be added to that program for that 
purpose for a long period of time.
  I want to make clear, the shortfall for veterans' health care is not 
the responsibility of the chairman of this subcommittee. This problem 
is supposed to be taken care of by another subcommittee; but, in fact, 
after running away from the problem for months and months, the majority 
party has finally decided that they did not want to go home in August 
and have to face the folks at the Legion hall or the VFW hall without 
finally doing something to fix the problem. So I am glad that they did.
  But even though I am going to vote for this bill because of what it 
does for veterans, I think we need to understand that in a number of 
other areas, this bill is far from where it ought to be if we are to 
meet the responsibilities that we have to this country's future. 
Overall, funding for the EPA declines by $291 million in this bill. The 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund has now been cut by 33 percent over 2 
years. Grants to States for conservation and recreation are reduced by 
two-thirds from fiscal year 2005. Every State suffers a 66 percent cut.
  In the year 2001, land acquisition funds in this bill were $442 
million. Today, they are $124 million. That is the lowest appropriation 
for this item in the past 20 years. Construction funding for national 
parks and refuges and forests has been reduced by about 10 percent from 
last year. The funding for Forest Service buildings, roads, and trails 
has been cut from $514 million to $441 million, a reduction of 14 
percent.
  BIA school construction is funded at a level $53 million below last 
year. Health facilities construction for Indian health services is 
funded at $38 million, a reduction of $50 million. I do not believe 
those numbers are numbers that we would be proud to take home.
  So we are stuck with a choice. We can cast a protest vote against the 
cuts in this bill, which many of us have already done; or we can 
recognize the fact that in a time of war we have an obligation to meet 
the health care needs of those who have risked everything for this 
country; and I think we, in the end, have no real choice but to come 
down in favor of voting for that increased veterans funding.
  But I hope that the general public will understand that the cuts in 
this bill do the Nation no favors. We are shortchanging our country's 
future. We are not meeting our stewardship responsibilities, and we 
will pay a long-term price for that, I regret to say.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say one other thing. I do want to express my 
appreciation to the subcommittee chairman for the fairness with which 
he has dealt with this bill. I may not agree with the priorities that 
the majority party budget resolution imposed on the subcommittee, but I 
do want to say that I think the chairman has been most fair in his 
dealing with the minority; and we appreciate that.

[[Page 18342]]


  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is one of the leaders 
in this House on budget matters.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the $1.5 billion in veterans 
health care funding for 2005, which was added on to this conference 
report. I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side have finally 
come around to our position on veterans funding and now acknowledge 
that their budgets have not funded this priority accurately or 
adequately.
  This shortfall has not occurred for lack of notice or foresight. Over 
warnings from veterans groups and our own strenuous objections, the 
budgets passed by this House have consistently, consistently, 
understated the cost of veterans health care.

                              {time}  1700

  This is the Veterans Administration borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, 
denying or delaying service until a supplement finally comes through. 
And then when the supplement comes through, it busts the spending caps 
imposed in the budget and adds to the deficit.
  This is no way to budget for veterans health care, and it is no way 
to budget generally. The White House just 2 weeks ago issued a 
midsession review of the budget, which we received with some 
skepticism. We observed that their projections of the deficit seemed 
better, partly because they omit the full cost of various policies like 
veterans health care, the ongoing cost of operations in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, and fixing the alternative minimum tax, extending other tax 
credits.
  In the short run, these omissions make the deficit look better, sure, 
but in the long run the true costs emerge, and the actual deficits turn 
out to be worse than projected.
  Here, for example, is what happened to veterans health care in the 
fiscal 2005 budget cycle. When we brought forth our budget resolutions 
on the Democratic side for 2005, we argued that the discretionary 
spending levels in the Republican resolution were too tight, not 
realistic, and would shortchange essential priorities like veterans 
health care.
  We were not alone. The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
argued that more funding for veterans health care was badly needed, but 
our concerns went unheeded. Now we have to face the truth. The funding 
provided for veterans health care in the 2005 budget was, in fact, not 
sufficient.
  And since an accurate funding level was not built into the budget, 
today's bill will move discretionary spending for 2005 over the 
allocation included in the Republican budget. This misesti-
mate, like others, was left out of the deficit projections that OMB 
announced just a couple of weeks ago.
  For the record, let me point out that the Democrats put forth a 
responsible budget for 2005. Our budget brought us to balance by the 
year 2012, yet we funded veterans health care priorities and other 
priorities adequately.
  Our budget provided $1.3 billion more for veterans health care in 
2005, and $1.5 billion more over a 5-year period of time. Unfortunately 
the same story is playing out, unfolding again in 2006. Once again, 
once again, this year we warned that the budget provided too little for 
veterans health care, and once again it was to no avail.
  Our resolution provided $1.5 billion more for veterans health care in 
2006, $16.4 billion more over 5 years, and a budget, mind you, that 
balanced by 2012. Just 3 months later, 3 months later, we are told that 
the VA appropriations bill for 2006 will have to exceed its budget 
allocation to accommodate the administration's amended request for 
veterans health care. And, of course, the deficit estimates for 2006 
will have to be revised upward accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I would gladly vote to raise veterans health care to the 
level it should have been to start with, but I urge that we learn a 
lesson from this experience and be forthright in the future about the 
cost of veterans health care. And in that connection, I would note that 
in the outyears, 2007, 2008 and onward, the official estimates of the 
Republican budget still grossly underfund veterans health care, they 
understate the deficit, and they definitely will have to do this all 
over again until the numbers are finally done right.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis), who has been a real leader on the issue of 
dealing with pesticides and their effect on humans.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Interior-Environment 
appropriations bill. I want to especially thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking, for their work on this 
legislation.
  I am particularly proud of the steps that Congress has taken today to 
require the application of stringent ethical and scientific safeguards 
of intentional human dosing studies, and to stop the testing of 
pesticides on pregnant women and children. And I would like to thank 
all of your staff for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SOLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman on her 
hard work on this. I can remember when we had the amendment on the 
floor. It was adopted here in the House unanimously. And I think your 
work and the work of your colleague from California in the other body 
on this matter, where they also won a vote there, too, was very 
impressive.
  And, you know, this is the first year our committee has had 
jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency, so we are all 
learning about these issues. I want to congratulate you on your real 
leadership. And I think what you did will be something that will 
protect children and pregnant mothers and will bring better standards 
at EPA on this issue. I congratulate you on this effort.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to also 
submit that our staffs have worked very hard, and the outside 
organizations that worked in tandem with us, religious organizations, 
the scientific, environmental community, as well as activists. In fact, 
the United Farm Workers also submitted a letter of support.
  This should never have happened. It should never have taken place, 
the testing of pesticides on humans, and particularly children.
  So I know that I stand here before you in the Congress to say that 
this is a good moment for us in this particular time. Thank you very 
much.
  Mr. Speaker, as co-sponsor of this amendment, I rise today to support 
the application of stringent ethical and scientific safeguards to 
intentional human dosing studies of toxic chemicals and applaud the 
inclusion of this language in the Interior-Appropriation bill.
  This amendment forbids the EPA from considering any intentional human 
dosing study unless it meets the minimum ethical and scientific 
safeguards outlined in the February 2004 National Academy of Sciences 
report and the 1947 Nuremberg Code adopted after World War II. I am 
submitting copies of the NAS report and the Nuremberg Code into the 
Record.
  In particular, this amendment prohibits intentional human dosing on 
pregnant women, infants, or children, and requires the creation of a 
review board to evaluate the ethical and scientific propriety of 
intentional human dosing studies before they can be conducted, 
considered, or relied on. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences 
convened a panel to examine the issue of intentionally dosing human 
subjects with pesticides and other toxic substances.
  The report of the NAS, published in February 2004, recognized that 
these experiments can be ``troubling'' and in some cases ``repugnant.'' 
For this reason, the NAS concluded that to be ``ethically justified,'' 
a human pesticide experiment must pass ``rigorous scrutiny on both 
scientific and ethical grounds.''

[[Page 18343]]

  All of the studies currently pending before EPA are scientifically 
and ethically suspect and appear to fall far short of the stringent 
criteria for EPA consideration outlined by the NAS and the Nuremberg 
Code, and required in this amendment. EPA provided Congress with a list 
of all human intentional dosing tests under consideration by the 
agency. An extensive evaluation of these tests shows that they are rife 
with ethical and scientific flaws and do not approach the standard for 
acceptability.
  Representative Waxman and Senator Boxer evaluated the serious flaws 
in these studies in a report released last month entitled Human 
Pesticide Experiments, which I am submitting into the Record.
  It is also clear that EPA's draft regulation regarding human testing 
similarly fails to meet the minimum criteria required in this 
amendment. EPA circulated internally a draft rule among the agency's 
various offices on June 20, 2005. EPA's draft rule, slated for proposal 
next month, would have allowed the systematic testing of pesticides on 
humans. The draft rule does not comply with the recommendations of the 
NAS and the Nuremberg Code, and it contains multiple loopholes that 
invite abuse.
  The EPA draft is inconsistent with the standards we require in this 
amendment. EPA originally commenced its rulemaking in response to a 
wave of industry pressure to permit intentional dosing of human test 
subjects with toxic chemicals.
  The pesticide industry has mounted a campaign to expand testing of 
pesticides on humans in order to weaken health standards. Because of 
the stricter requirements imposed by the Food Quality Protection Act of 
1996, the pesticide industry has been under growing pressure to reduce 
the risks that pesticides pose to infants and children. The industry 
has adopted a strategy to evade these requirements by testing 
pesticides on a small number of adult human subjects, and then cite 
these tests to argue that the chemicals are safe.
  EPA's proposed rule encourages this strategy and is contrary to the 
recommendations of the NAS and the ethical guidelines of the Nuremberg 
Code that we require in this amendment. I am submitting for the record 
a June 2005 report titled Flash Report: New EPA Proposal Encourages 
Human Pesticide Experiments.
  As outlined in more detail in this report, EPA's proposed rule 
violates the ethical and scientific safeguards now required by this 
amendment, by failing to establish a national review panel to prevent 
abusive experiments, and by failing to provide full protections for 
children and other vulnerable populations.
  Furthermore, the EPA draft rule does not clearly require that 
pesticide experiments comply with even its sub par standards. To the 
contrary, EPA proposed to accept all experiments as long as they 
``substantially'' comply. This provision overtly undercuts the 
protections in the rule. The vague standard of substantial compliance 
wrongly sends the signal that EPA will not demand strict adherence to 
ethical standards in human pesticide experiments.
  Intentional human toxicity testing has a troubling history that 
includes manipulation and abuse of the most vulnerable members of 
society. The amendment that I am supporting today will ensure that EPA 
may not consider or rely on any intentional human-dosing study that 
does not meet the minimum ethical and scientific criteria recommended 
by the NAS and expressed in the Nuremberg Code.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will not consume very much 
time. I rise to express my deep appreciation one more time to my 
colleague and friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for his 
cooperating with me as we have gone through this initial conference 
process, but most importantly to congratulate both my colleague, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and my colleague, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for the fabulous job on this first of 
a series of conference reports that we expect to send to the 
President's desk.
  It is very early in the process, but the Interior bill will be on the 
President's desk, and I am very certain he will find it to be to his 
liking. So congratulations to each of you for your work.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important moment today 
that we are passing this conference report before the August recess. 
And I want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member, who has 
really worked tirelessly to work with the chairman to get these bills 
enacted.
  But I think there is absolutely no excuse not to try to do this and 
try to pass the rest of the bills in September and show the American 
people that we can get the job done before the start of the fiscal 
year.
  And I think every time we have a new chairman, we do better in this 
regard. The previous chairman, of course, had to deal with other 
problems. But I think the chairman has made this a big priority. I 
think it is important that we do this, and I want to congratulate him 
for his leadership as the new chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me 
further say that none of this would have been done as effectively and 
with the high quality reflected in the conference report without the 
great help of our staff. They have done a tremendous job. They are 
breaking records here. It is because of the cooperation of the entire 
committee, the Members and the staff working together.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I rise in 
opposition to this conference report. Let me explain. Mr. Speaker, this 
is a bad bill. It guts some of our most important environmental 
programs. It seems that the Republican majority realized what a bad 
bill it was and in order to win support for it, they put $1.5 billion 
in much needed funds for veterans' healthcare.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a pragmatist. I realize that there is no 
perfect bill. Sometimes we have to settle for some good and some bad. 
The bill before us, however, is a close call.
  The problem is a simple one. You see, for years my Republican 
colleagues have been shortchanging our veterans. The number of veterans 
treated at VA facilities increased from 2.7 million to 4.7 million from 
1995 to 2004. The Department expects to treat 5.2 million veterans in 
2006. Currently, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting in line for at 
least 6 months for health services from the VA. Medical costs are 
increasing at nearly double the rate of inflation. Yet, over five 
years, the Republican budget for primarily veterans' health programs is 
funded $13.5 billion below the amount needed to maintain services at 
current levels.
  I am pleased that my Republican colleagues have finally seen the 
light and realized that we cannot ask our men and women in uniform to 
make the ultimate sacrifice only to come home and have the promise of 
quality and timely healthcare broken. However, I am angry as hell that 
they attached this much needed funding to a particularly appalling 
bill.
  You are probably saying, ``Dingell, how appalling could it be when we 
are finally getting this funding for our veterans?''
  Well, let me tell you.
  EPA has estimated that there is a $388 billion shortfall between 
needed clean water and drinking water investments and the current level 
of spending. What do my Republican colleagues do to address that 
shortfall, Mr. Speaker? They cut the Clean Water State Revolving Loan 
Fund by $200 million from the FY 05 enacted level! That is a 33 percent 
cut over the past two years. Moreover, the bill cuts water and sewer 
construction grants by more than 30 percent--a reduction of $107 
million from last year. This hardly seems like a reasonable response.
  Conservation and land acquisition got a $41 million reduction. This 
is 25 percent below last year's enacted level. Mr. Speaker, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the dubious honor of 
providing the lowest appropriation for land and conservation programs 
in 20 years.
  Funding for construction at our National Parks, Refuges and Forests 
was cut by ten percent and funding for Forest Service buildings, roads 
and trails by 14 percent. Stateside grants for conservation and 
recreation got an amazing two-thirds cut, from $90 million last year to 
$30 million.
  So, you see the conundrum before us.
  It is with a heavy heart that I feel that I must stand against not 
only a bad bill, but also against the process. It is unconscionable 
that my friends on the other side of the aisle would link this 
critically important and much needed funding for our Nation's heroes to 
a bad bill.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this 
conference report.
  I am very reluctant to support this bill because it contains 
provisions I strongly oppose. Specifically, this bill contains harmful 
cuts to important interior and environmental priorities.

[[Page 18344]]

It cuts $800 million from last year's funding level for natural 
resources and the Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental and 
management and science and technology accounts are severely cut in this 
bill. The bill cuts $107 million for water and sewer construction STAG 
grants, cuts $200 million from SRF clean water funds, and cuts $30 
million from stateside grants to states for conservation and 
recreation.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a solemn obligation to protect our 
Nation's water, air and land resources for public health and safety. We 
must practice responsible stewardship of our natural resources and pass 
on to future generations a physical environment as bountiful as the one 
we have enjoyed. This bill fails this test miserably.
  I will vote for this bill because it contains desperately needed 
funding for veterans health care. Specifically, the conference report 
on H.R. 2631 contains $1.5 billion in veterans health care funds to 
make up for the Administration's bogus budget proposals. Democrats in 
this House have been arguing for months that the Administration is 
shortchanging VA health care, and we should restore that funding in the 
proper legislation under regular order. A nation at war must take care 
of its veterans, and I will vote for this bill to provide this critical 
funding for veterans health care.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment with the 
Interior Appropriations bill that we are considering today. Although I 
will reluctantly vote for this legislation, I am concerned with the 
reduction in funding for many important domestic programs.
  While I am pleased that this conference bill does not completely 
eliminate the Land and Water Conservation Fun, (LWCF), as in the House-
passed version, I am still disappointed that this program only received 
$30 million, which is one-third of what it received last year.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been instrumental in 
assisting local and State governments preserve vital open spaces. This 
program was established in 1965 to address rapid overdevelopment by 
increasing the number of high quality recreation areas and facilities 
and by increasing the local involvement in land preservation. To 
achieve this goal, the fund was separated into two components, one 
portion of the fund serves as an account from which the Federal 
government draws from to acquire land and the other portion is 
distributed to states in a matching grant program.
  New Jersey has been active in seeking grants from this program and 
has received funds from the LWCF that were used to preserve treasures 
such as the Pinelands National Reserve and the Delaware National Scenic 
River. In addition, LWCF has provided more that $111 million in state 
and local grants to build softball fields, rehabilitate playgrounds and 
to expand state parks.
  Urban and highly developed regions, such as the region that I 
represent, will suffer the most from the elimination of the LWCF state 
grant program. The LWCF matching-grant program has proven to be a 
successful way to overcome the high cost of living that makes land 
acquisition and renewal projects costly in these regions. The steep 
reduction in funding for this program will leave local leaders without 
the capital necessary to enhance the quality of life in their 
communities.
  This bill also cuts other domestic programs that benefit all 
Americans and future generations. This legislation only provides $900 
million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund--a reduction of $200 
million from last year. This is vitally important to keeping drinking 
water clean and safe by supporting wastewater treatment, nonpoint 
source pollution and watershed and estuary management. Additionally, 
this bill cuts Federal land acquisition funding by 25 percent and 
reduces funding for construction projects in our national parks, 
refuges and forests by 10 percent.
  Despite my reservations with cuts to important Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA, and the Department of Interior, DOI, programs, 
I am pleased that this bill does the right thing and finally provides 
the VA the funds it needs to continue the delivery of care to our 
veterans through the end of the current fiscal year. This month, our 
Nation marked the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Veterans' 
Administration, the forerunner of today's Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Even as we celebrate the VA's many achievements, particularly 
in the field of medical research, we should use this opportunity to ask 
if we, as a country, are truly putting our money where our mouth is 
regarding VA funding. Every day, VA doctors, nurses, technicians and 
other staff across our country work to try to deliver the best possible 
health care to our veterans. They face one critical and continuing 
obstacle--a VA medical system that is chronically, and needlessly, 
underfunded.
  I hope that the Congress will learn from this experience and pass 
mandatory funding legislation for the VA health care system. It's long 
past time for Congress to cease its band-aid approach to funding for 
veteran's health care, and I urge my colleagues to honor the request of 
the leaders of our Nation's veterans organizations to deal once and for 
all with this shameful and avoidable situation.
  Another positive provision in this bill is the modest increase in 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities. Although the final funding levels fall 
slightly short of the amount approved by the House in May, the 
additional money will allow the NEA and NEH to build programs that use 
the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance 
communities in every State and every county around America.
  It is clear that increasing funding for the arts and humanities are 
among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our 
children learn. They give the elderly intellectual sustenance. They 
power economic development in regions that are down and out. They tie 
our diverse society and country together. I thank the conferees for 
recognizing the importance of this investment and giving the NEA and 
NEH the funds they need to advance our Nation's artistic and cultural 
life.
  Even though I strongly oppose cuts to certain programs in this 
appropriations bill, I will vote in favor of this legislation. I hope 
in the future we can provide sufficient funding to these programs that 
enhance our communities, provide the Nation with clean water, and 
protect our precious natural wonders.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
conference report to provide funding for the Department of the Interior 
and the Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 2006. Despite a 
tight allocation, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Interior 
subcommittee performed an admirable task in providing the necessary 
funding for the continued management of federal lands and the operation 
of our country's environmental programs. I was disappointed to learn, 
however, that the bill does not provide much needed funding for a 
project I requested for the City of Houston and the University of 
Texas, Houston to conduct a risk assessment of air toxics in the 
Greater Houston area.
  The Houston Chronicle recently completed a five-part series titled 
``In Harm's Way'' that investigated air toxics in the ``fence-line'' 
communities near industrial facilities in Houston's East End. In 
particular, the series noted that the Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality found that folks residing in some of these neighborhoods 
experience higher levels of potentially carcinogenic compounds than 
other areas.
  For many years, residents have had concerns and questions about the 
quality of the air in Houston's East End, the potential relationship to 
local industry, and the potential health effects on their families. The 
City of Houston, partnering with the University of Texas School of 
Public Health, is already working to characterize the science and weigh 
the evidence on health effects. Federal funding would allow us to 
broaden the scope of these efforts to ensure that we include the full 
range of risk assessment activities in our effort to improve the air in 
Houston.
  While I remain disappointed that the Appropriations Committee did not 
include a line-item appropriation for this project, I am pleased that 
my colleague from Washington, the Interior Subcommittee Ranking Member, 
recognized the need for this air toxics assessment and has agreed to 
work with me to encourage the EPA to include this assessment as part of 
its fiscal year 2006 operations.
  I thank my friend, Mr. Dicks, for his willingness to work with me on 
this effort. The folks in these fence-line communities--my 
constituents--are often the workers who produce many of the essential 
energy and petrochemical products we all use everyday, and they deserve 
accurate information about their environment.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that, ``You can put 
a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig.'' While I am happy that the 
FY06 Interior Appropriations Conference Report includes $1.5 billion to 
make up for the funding shortfall for the Veterans' Administration, VA, 
it does not mask the horrible choices that were made in the rest of 
this bill. It's still a pig. This legislation includes cuts to the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, decreases in the number of STAG 
grants, and completely eliminates many conservation grants.
  Ensuring that the VA has the funding it needs is one of my highest 
priorities, which is why I am so disappointed that this money was 
included in a bill that undermines our environment. It is sad that 
veterans' have been shortchanged by President Bush who was all to

[[Page 18345]]

eager to send troops off to war, but failed to account for the cost of 
their care after they had dutifully served their country. The 
underestimation by the White House of $1.5 billion for this year is 
only the tip of the iceberg with the shortfall for next year already 
projected to be $2.6 billion. Unfortunately, the shortsightedness of 
the Republican majority failed to include this spending where it should 
be, in the Military Quality of Life Appropriations bill.
  However, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the shortcomings for the 
environment, I will vote for this bill to support our troops. 
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the conference report on H.R. 2361, the Interior Appropriations 
bill. This important piece of legislation provides $1.5 billion to 
remedy the shortfall in veterans' health care for this year. Earlier 
this month, I stood here urging this body to step up to the plate when 
it comes to veterans. Our veterans must be our number one priority. By 
passing this measure, we take the first step in fulfilling our 
obligation to the men and women who have served our country with honor 
and dignity.
  Passage of this bill is a necessity--I will never turn my back to our 
Nation's veterans. However, I do want to take this opportunity to 
discuss my concerns with the larger measure and its failure to address 
the land and water conservation and management needs of our nation. The 
Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a valuable program for my 
district. This has been a fund to assist communities in helping 
preserve open space to protect and conserve unique landscapes. The cut 
in funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a cut in land 
conservation for Colorado.
  For those who know, the 3rd Congressional District is comprised of 
rural communities containing millions of acres of public lands. These 
public lands are managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land 
Management, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
These agencies and public lands provide many benefits for the local 
communities in my district. I am disappointed with the decrease in 
funding to these agencies in this year's Interior Appropriations 
Conference Report. These agencies have to maintain a difficult balance 
of managing our nation's public lands with budget constraints. By 
cutting funding to these agencies it makes it very difficult for them 
to maintain their current management practices and leaves our nation's 
public lands in jeopardy.
  With that being said, this report does have some positive aspects. 
The funding of $5.6 billion for Indian programs is beneficial for 
school and hospital construction, education grants, human services 
programs, and law enforcement needs. These programs are essential for 
the Native American reservations within my district.
  More often than not, in the West, the Federal Government is not just 
your neighbor, it is the entire neighborhood. Since most of my district 
cannot raise taxes, Payment in Lieu of Funding is vital. These counties 
with public lands within their boundaries need this funding for 
schools, roads, and other infrastructure needs. This program has never 
been fully funded, yet my counties are dependent upon this program. I 
hope to see this program fully funded next year.
  I also want to see continued funding for the National Fire Plan and 
the forest health initiatives. These programs need to see increased 
funding due to the continued drought periods in the West and the 
current pine beetle epidemic. If the beetle infestations are not 
addressed, we will continue to see our forests decimated. These insects 
will continue to cause fire hazards in our nation's forests if we do 
not get them under control.
  I urge Congress next year to fully fund these agency budgets. This is 
critical to the Western States and our existence.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representatives Obey and 
Dicks for their assistance in securing $100,000 for Montrose's City 
Hall Renovation Project. The City Hall building of Montrose was built 
in 1926 and has been well preserved throughout the years. However, as 
the City and County continues to grow, so too must the building in 
order to accommodate the needs of the people. Preserving and expanding 
the City Hall building in Montrose will allow us to keep a part of 
history alive for future generations of Colorado. Mr. Speaker once 
again I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. We 
need to sure up our VA budget so we can continue to provide critical 
health care services to our nation's veterans. In the future we need to 
restore the Land and Water Conservation funding and fully fund our 
agencies budgets.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference 
report--but only because it includes an essential immediate increase in 
funding for veterans health care.
  This has been a long time coming. Last September, many of us sought 
to provide a $2.5 billion increase over the Bush Administration's 
budget for veterans' health care. Earlier this year, Members on our 
side of the aisle made an unsuccessful effort to add $1.2 billion for 
veterans' health care to the emergency supplemental appropriations for 
military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. And over the last month, 
the Republican leadership led successful efforts to block consideration 
of amendments to add the needed funds for VA health care.
  Things finally changed when the Bush Administration finally 
acknowledged a $1 billion shortfall in veterans' health care for FY 
2005, which had been well known since spring. When that happened, the 
Senate added $1.5 billion in supplemental funding to this bill because 
it was the most convenient legislative vehicle--and the conferees 
wisely agreed to retain it in the conference report.
  This additional $1.5 billion is essential if we are to make any claim 
to meeting our moral obligation to America's veterans and returning 
soldiers. Because of its inclusion, I will vote for the conference 
report, even though the rest of the conference report does not deserve 
to pass.
  Except for the veterans' health funding, this conference report falls 
short across the board.
  It once again fails to provide the authorized funding for the 
payments-in-lieu-of-taxes program, shortchanging the counties and other 
local governments in Colorado and across the country for whom these 
``PILT'' payments are so important.
  It does not provide enough funds to enable the Bureau of Land 
Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park 
Service, or the Forest Service to properly manage the federal lands for 
which they are responsible.
  And it inadequately funds many other agencies as well, particularly 
the Environmental Protection Agency, which will be cut by about 3 
percent from this fiscal year. I am particularly concerned about deep 
cuts to EPA's state grants (down nearly $400 million from fiscal 2005), 
which support environmental protection programs through grants to 
State, local and tribal governments, and a $24 million shortfall for 
EPA science and technology research.
  Of course, Colorado will benefit from funding earmarked for projects 
in several parts of the state. But the needs of many communities will 
go unmet, and opportunities to acquire high-priority lands such as 
those in the Beaver Brook watershed in Clear Creek County will be 
missed.
  Finally, the bill includes extensive legislative provisions 
authorizing the Forest Service to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise 
convey lands that the Forest Service identifies as ``administrative 
sites''--including forest headquarters, ranger stations, research 
stations, or laboratories, among many other kinds of sites.
  Mr. Speaker, this part of the conference report originated in the 
Senate. Inclusion of such legislative provisions in a general 
appropriation bill is contrary to the House rules, because it properly 
should be handled by the authorizing committee--the Committee on 
Resources--in an orderly fashion that allows for hearings and the 
consideration of amendments.
  It would have been far better for the House conferees to have 
rejected it and enabled our committee to consider it in that fashion. 
However, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the 
conferees did make very important changes in the Senate-passed 
language.
  In particular, I am glad that they included an explicit requirement 
for the Forest Service to consult with affected local governments and 
to provide public notice regarding their plans for disposing of 
properties covered by this part of the conference report. And I think 
that excluding visitor centers and potential inholdings as well as 
lands providing access to other lands or waters were valuable changes, 
as was the requirement that the Forest Service provide advance notice 
to Congress of planned disposals and the reaffirmation that 
environmental analysis of proposed disposals include consideration of 
the ``no action'' alternative as required by NEPA.
  While this legislation will remain in effect only through fiscal 
2008, the statement of managers clearly signals an expectation that 
Congress will be asked to renew it or perhaps even make it permanent. 
If that should occur, I will do all I can to make sure that the 
Resources Committee is responsible for considering such legislation and 
that it is not accomplished by inclusion of legislation in an 
appropriations measure.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
support for the Senate passed amendment to the Interior Appropriations 
bill to include $1.5 billion in

[[Page 18346]]

emergency supplemental funding to the veterans budget.
  However, this funding comes more than a month late. We had a chance 
to get this emergency spending to the people who need the funding 
before we left for the July Fourth recess.
  After the budget shortfall was announced, both sides of the aisle in 
the Senate came together to take immediate action to address this 
issue. They passed a $1.5 billion emergency funding amendment to 
immediately get the funds to the people who need it, our veterans, 
those who have defended this Nation against its enemies.
  As we have seen by the slow movement of these badly needed funds, all 
Republicans do is talk, when it comes to a veteran in need.
  The Republican Leadership in the House decided to sit on their hands 
and wait for President Bush to pull a number out of the air. That 
number was $975 million.
  However, it turns out that the Bush level was $300 million short to 
fund veterans health.
  This would be a good start to resolving the funding crisis in 
veterans healthcare, but I know this administration will continue to 
try to balance the budget on the backs of the men and women who have 
sacrificed to defend this great Nation of ours.
  The Fiscal Year 2006 budget is short, and the FY 2007 budget is being 
calculated as we stand here.
  Let this be the beginning of full funding for veterans healthcare, 
now and in the future.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss funding for 
veterans' healthcare. As the son, grandson, and brother of veterans, I 
understand just how important this funding is to our brave men and 
women who have answered the call of duty to serve their country. Since 
coming to Congress, it has been one of my greatest pleasures to be able 
to provide our veterans with the care and the treatment they deserve.
  Since 1995, Congress has increased spending on veterans by more than 
59 percent--an average increase of 6.9 percent per year. During this 
Congress alone we have increased the death benefits and life insurance 
coverage of our Armed Services personnel. We have also provided funding 
for specialty mental health care for the first time ever, increased 
funding for the treatment of conditions like Post Traumatic Stress 
Syndrome, and doubled funding for mental health care issues. This is 
indeed a record to which we can all be proud.
  I was also proud to cosponsor H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration 
Act, in the 108th Congress. With the agreement of the House and Senate, 
another version of this bill was passed and signed by President Bush in 
order to allow certain military retirees to receive both their 
longevity retired pay and veterans disability compensation. As Speaker 
of the House J. Dennis Hastert noted, ``Congressman Hensarling's strong 
support for our nation's veterans and concurrent receipt legislation 
was critical to ensuring that we achieved the most significant, 
positive step forward for veterans in our nation's history.''
  Unfortunately, sometimes Congress can fall short. For instance, the 
Fiscal Year 2004 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations bill, fell $1.8 billion short of what was agreed to in 
that year's budget resolution. This inadequate level for funding for 
veterans healthcare greatly concerned me, and that is why I voted 
against the bill. When thousands of veterans were waiting 6 months or 
longer for healthcare, I did not believe that it was the time to skimp 
on needed resources.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on the 
Fiscal Year 2006 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations bill. Included as part of this legislation was 
$1.5 billion in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover 
an anticipated budgetary shortfall for the current fiscal year. I am 
very pleased that the House of Representatives has approved the funding 
necessary to ensure that they receive the medical care they deserve. 
However, because the underlying legislation to which we attached this 
important provision violated the budget we agree to abide by earlier 
this year, I found myself in the difficult position of having to vote 
against this legislation.
  There were a number of alternative methods that could have been used 
to alleviate this problem--methods that would not have violated the 
budget. Most notably, we could have amended H.R. 3130, which was 
approved unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 30, 2005, 
to provide the necessary funding levels. This broadly supported measure 
would have demonstrated our firm commitment to our veterans, and it is 
unfortunate this alternative was not utilized.
  Mr. Speaker, in the end the greatest threat to adequately funding the 
needs of our veterans is Congress' seemingly inherent inability to 
control runaway wasteful spending in our budget. Each and every time we 
spend another dollar on wasteful measures like bulletproof vests for K-
9s, bridges to nowhere, or an underground cafeteria in the Carlsbad 
Caverns, is a dollar that is not available for our veterans.
  One of Congress's most solemn obligations is to care for our 
veterans. I remain committed to funding 100 percent of the benefits 
veterans have earned through their service and sacrifice to our 
country. I will continue to work with Members of Congress to explore 
ways to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs gets the money 
they need within the rules of our budget agreement. I will not however, 
support legislation to grow the budget of another department, such as 
this bill would have done with the Department of the Interior, at the 
expense of our veteran's and our children's future.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of our 
Nation's veterans, I support the additional $1.5 billion provided in 
the FY 2006 Interior Appropriations bill that addresses the current 
shortfall in funding for veterans' health care. These funds are 
urgently needed to care for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, 
as well as the heroes from former conflicts who rely upon the VA for 
their health care. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, 
currently, there are 24.8 million veterans of the U.S. armed services. 
They served their country in one of the military branches--Army, Navy, 
Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard--or in one of many smaller 
groups that supported the military services, primarily during World War 
II.
  Approximately 769,000 veterans live in Georgia serving in every major 
conflict and during peacetime. About a quarter of the nation's 
population, approximately 70 million people, are potentially eligible 
for VA benefits and services because they are veterans, family members 
or survivors of veterans. The benefits include: medical care, payments 
to compensate for disabilities suffered during military service, 
rehabilitation and employment assistance, pensions to low-income 
disabled veterans, guarantees on loans to help veterans buy homes, 
financial aid to help them attend school, burial in a national cemetery 
and special headstones or markers for their gravesites.
  Slightly less than half of all Americans who ever served during 
wartime in our country's history are alive today, and nearly 80 percent 
of today's veterans served during a war or an official period of 
conflict. There are widows and children of veterans of the Civil War 
and the Indian War of the last century who still receive VA benefits. 
The largest group of veterans fought in World War II. Approximately 
550,000 Georgia veterans served during wartime during either World War 
II, the Korean conflict, during the Vietnam era or during the Gulf War. 
These veterans deserve our support especially due to the extraordinary 
sacrifices and contributions that they have made so that peace and 
freedom could exist around the world.
  I also encourage Congress to provide much needed additional funding 
for veterans' health care in FY 2006 so that the VA's resources are 
sufficient to meet the increased demand for its services from our 
Nation's veterans and their families. It is critical that at all times, 
but particularly during a time of war, the quality of care for veterans 
must be a clear and unmistakable priority. We must fulfill our 
commitment to those who helped build America's strength and security. 
Our veterans should not have to wait any longer for the benefits they 
deserve.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference agreement on the Department of Interior Appropriations, H.R. 
2361, because it addresses urgent needs within our veterans' health 
care system. Last month, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
announced a $1.3 billion shortfall in funding for veterans' medical 
care, and it is estimated that in FY 2006 this shortfall could grow. 
This is unacceptable. With thousands of new veterans entering our 
health care system every year--including those that have fought in 
Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism--we must provide the 
resources they need and deserve, as well as continuing to provide for 
those who came before them. This bill provides $1.5 billion in 
emergency funding in FY 2005 for veterans health care and keeps our 
promise to those who have so honorably served our nation.
  This bill also provides a $5 million increase for the National 
Endowment for the Arts. I support this investment in our artistic 
resources. It enhances the richness of Minnesota and our nation's 
cultural legacy and allows participation in the arts by many who would 
not otherwise have the opportunity.
  Regrettably, this bill falls short on supporting the federal programs 
that conserve our environment and protect the public's health. This

[[Page 18347]]

bill cuts funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund by 17 
percent. This fund allows states to allocate funds for local water and 
sewage treatment projects. St. Paul Regional Water Services recently 
applied for Clean Water funds for a water filtration project and were 
denied because there wasn't enough funding.
  Funding for the National Park Service is also cut by three percent. 
These dollars are used to protect our national treasures like 
Voyageurs, Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks. The maintenance 
backlog at our National Parks has increased from $4.9 billion in 2000, 
when President Bush pledged to eliminate the backlog, to $7.1 billion 
today. We should give the Park Service the resources to maintain these 
national treasures instead of slipping farther and farther behind in 
unmet maintenance needs.
  I am pleased to support our nation's honored veterans. Unfortunately, 
while this bill could have done so much more to keep our families and 
communities strong and healthy and protect our nation's cherished 
natural resources for generations to come, this Congress failed to make 
the environment and public health a priority.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Without objection the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________




                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks and that I may include tabular and extraneous 
material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2985.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2985, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2006

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report 
on the bill (H.R. 2985), making appropriations for the Legislative 
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 396, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of 
July 26, 2005 at Page 17728.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume. I do not expect that we will use very much of our time, 
Mr. Speaker.
  The conference report I bring forth today to fund the legislative 
branch involves those activities providing some $3 billion, 800 
million, an increase of 4.5 percent over the year 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, the adjustments upward almost entirely represent 
increased expenditures for our police services and security around the 
Capitol campus, and, beyond that, expenses that are directly related to 
the development of the Congressional Visitors Center.
  Otherwise the bill is absolutely flat in terms of spending over 2005-
2006. It is a very, very lean bill. I urge the Members to support the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

[[Page 18348]]

TH28JY05.006



[[Page 18349]]

TH28JY05.007



[[Page 18350]]

TH28JY05.008



[[Page 18351]]

TH28JY05.009



[[Page 18352]]

TH28JY05.010



[[Page 18353]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I would once again 
like to express my profound misgivings about supporting this bill this 
afternoon.
  Obviously this Chamber has basic expenses, and they have to be paid 
for, but I want to suggest that I think that the visitors center, which 
is now being constructed on the east side of the Capitol, is a project 
which, while it might be desirable, has been managed in such an 
outlandish fashion that I think before it is done, it is going to bring 
great embarrassment to this institution.
  The fact is that that center started out costing around $90 million. 
Before it is finished, it is now going to cost a good $600 million. It 
was supposed to be open by 2005. We are going to be lucky if it will be 
open and fully operational, if we ignore the nice word games that we 
have been presented by the Architect's office; in fact, we will be 
lucky if this is fully operational by the year 2007.
  In my view, this project has been mismanaged as badly as the entire 
Federal budget has been mismanaged. That hole that we used to have out 
here, I think, was symbolic of the hole in logic that has dominated the 
administration of this entire project.
  I have two principal objections to that visitors center. Number one, 
I think it is far too expensive. And, secondly, I object to the 
misallocation of space in that project.
  Now, I have seen three different stories that have purportedly 
reported on my objections to the center. And each of those stories 
leaves the impression that my major concern is simply that Congress did 
not have enough room. That is not my point at all.
  My point is that when you have such a huge addition of space to the 
Capitol, that space should be allocated in an intelligent way, in a way 
which makes Congress more efficient, in a way which gives Congress more 
working space as opposed to propaganda space.
  We are going to have a lot of money lavished on a media center. We 
are going to have all of the creature comforts that you can imagine for 
any of the reporters who cover Members of Congress in that media 
center. But there will be very little done to make this Congress more 
able to sit down in a timely fashion in conference and work out our 
differences.
  So I think a tremendous amount of space has been wasted. And I think 
a tremendous amount of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted. And the 
reason I am voting against this is because I think this is the last 
chance that any of us will have to ask the leadership of this House and 
the Architect's office to at least review the way space is being 
allocated, at least review the way taxpayer dollars are being expended.
  We are going to have, when this project is over, we will have a 
project which is cosmetically beautiful, no question about that. There 
will be lots of Taj Mahal marble show space, but there will be very 
little working space that will be added.

                              {time}  1715

  I think that if we are not getting the biggest bang from the buck we 
ought to be getting out of a project like this. I do believe that not 
only is the cost of this project out of control, I think the heating 
center project which is also ongoing is also going to wind up 
embarrassing this institution significantly.
  So I intend to vote ``no.'' I am not going to particularly try to ask 
anyone to vote any which way, but I intend to vote ``no'' because I 
think this visitor center represents a missed opportunity and a 
spectacular case of mismanagement and wasting of taxpayer funds.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is by way of suggesting to my colleagues in the body 
that my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), is raising 
serious questions regarding the visitor center, and because of that 
focus he has not spent a lot of time today talking about the 
fundamentals of this bill that relate to supporting the institution, 
the work of the legislative branch, an effort which is fundamental to 
our being successful as a legislative branch.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I share together great 
concern about making sure that work goes forward and goes forward 
successfully. We are partners. In connection with this, I, frankly, 
today would like to predict at least that somewhere out there before we 
leave the Congress, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I 
together will walk with our brides through this visitors centers and 
have different kinds of observations. We will enjoy much of the Taj, 
but in the meantime it will be a fabulous addition to the Congress, the 
largest addition that has been made in our lifetime at any rate, my 
public affairs lifetime.
  I am very proud of the work of this subcommittee, the work they have 
done to carry forward the effort of the legislative branch.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would not mind, I would like to take 
just a moment to ask my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), to kind of introduce your piece of that because the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and he share similar interests regarding the 
real work of the legislative branch.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this is a good bill. It 
is a bill that every Member should support. It is a bill that takes 
care of all the things that get done around here. Every day there is a 
Record printed of every word that is spoken in the House. Every day 
there are Clerks that show up here that help the Members. Every day 
there are people here that take care of the security of the Capitol. 
Every day there are people here to make sure that we can come and do 
our work and this bill takes care of all of that.
  That is why it is a bill that is absolutely critical to every Member 
of this institution. It is a bill that I think highlights some of the 
important things that have gone on and will go on around here in terms 
of opportunities to enhance the facilities, one of the most beautiful, 
magnificent buildings in the world, and the one across the street, the 
Library of Congress, is also accounted for, and the staff that work 
there and provide the kind of resources, the people that do the 
research that help us write the bills around here and all of that 
staff.
  There is also in this bill the opportunity not only to enhance a 
visitors center, which may not be perfect but one that is sorely 
needed, but there are also provisions in this bill to account for what 
happens if some sort of national calamity would fall upon the United 
States Capitol, the idea of continuity and how we should succeed 
ourselves around here. I think that is an important part of it.
  I hope during our deliberations next year we can consider some sort 
of governance board for the visitors center to account for maybe a 
little bit more opportunity to look at how it should be run and how it 
should be operated. But this is a good bill.
  This is the bill that says to all of the people that make this 
institution work, we are grateful to you. This is the bill that says to 
all the people who help us get our jobs done, we thank you for what you 
do. And this is a bill that deserves the support of every Member of the 
Chamber.
  I encourage all Members to vote ``aye'' on the legislative branch 
bill so that we can continue to keep the operations of the United 
States Capitol, the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, 
and all the workings of this great institution going.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) 
for reminding me that I forgot to mention the continuity issue as well. 
Again, I find myself in the minority.
  This is a very important question. What we are talking about here is 
very simply, what would happen if a large number of Members of Congress 
were obliterated in some kind of terrorist

[[Page 18354]]

attack and we were left in a crisis situation? And we have very simply 
a choice that needs to be made. We have a choice between an operation 
which would allow the executive branch to essentially operate almost 
any way it sees fits with perhaps only a handful of surviving Members 
for a 45-day period until we can have special elections to replace 
Members of Congress who might have been killed in such an attack; or we 
could follow a different model under which we would have this Congress 
populated for a temporary period by persons who are appointed under a 
previously prescribed procedure until we could have a special election 
so that we would again have elected representatives for each of the 435 
districts in this House.
  I much prefer the latter. I do not think it is a good idea, as this 
bill does, to, in effect, create a situation in which we would have 
one-man rule for 45 days. We could have literally only a handful of 
Members of Congress who had survived an attack, and I do not think 
under those circumstances that we want to be ruled by a President 
without any kind of checks and balances whatsoever.
  So there is an honest, intellectual difference of opinion on this 
question. And I think we are going down the wrong road. I think that by 
choosing the model that was chosen, what is happening is that we are in 
fact choosing form over substance. It is indeed important to have 
persons who represent each of our districts be elected representatives. 
But if the Member from an individual district is blown away in a 
terrorist attack, it is in my judgment, better that that district be 
represented on a temporary basis by an appointed person rather than 
having them represented by no one at all for that period.
  So that is why I think that this House in its haste to find a 
solution is going down the wrong road.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I wonder if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
would, since I gave him a friendly reminder, would be willing to vote 
for the bill now as a result from the fact now that you could now 
expound on this for another 5 minutes?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I do not think so. I think there is always room in this 
place for protest votes, and this is one occasion when I intend to 
exercise it; but I thank the gentleman for his efforts.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. We did have a very 
spirited debate on this issue of continuity. We really did. I do not 
know if there were 5 or 6 or 7 hours, but the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Baird) had his chance to present his bill and have a vote on it. 
And, frankly, not very many Members voted for it. And we did have a 
good debate about it, but I think ultimately the Speaker decided that 
we have to get on with this issue and this was the place to put it.
  It may not be the best place, but it is in this bill because I think 
the Speaker felt an obligation that we have to deal with this issue at 
some point. It may not be perfect, but we did have a very good debate 
about it, and I think that is why it is included in the bill.
  I thank the chairman for allowing me to explain that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objecton.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of 
agreeing to the conference report on the bill, H.R. 2361, on which the 
yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for the electronic vote on the question of adoption of 
the conference report on H.R. 2985.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 410, 
nays 10, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 450]

                               YEAS--410

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar

[[Page 18355]]


     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--10

     Dingell
     Duncan
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Jones (NC)
     Pence
     Petri

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Andrews
     Carson
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cuellar
     Davis (FL)
     Gillmor
     Lynch
     Olver
     Paul
     Renzi
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Waxman

                              {time}  1747

  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BUTTERFIELD, MACK, BLUMENAUER, and STARK changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 28, 2005 I was unavoidably 
detained and missed the House of Representative's vote on the adoption 
of the Conference Report on H.R. 2361, Department of the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2361.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 450, Interior 
Appropriations bill, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on vote No. 450 regarding 
adoption of the Conference Report on H.R. 2361--the Department of the 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006--my vote was recorded in a manner inconsistent with my 
intent. Let the Record show that my vote should have been recorded as 
``yea'' not ``nay.''

                          ____________________




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2985, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The pending business is the 
question of agreeing to the conference report on the bill, H.R. 2985, 
on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 305, 
nays 122, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 451]

                               YEAS--305

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--122

     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cardoza
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Etheridge
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Westmoreland
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Andrews
     Carson
     Clay
     Lynch
     Paul
     Renzi
     Schakowsky

                              {time}  1755

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 28, 2005, I was unavoidably 
detained and missed the House of Representatives' vote on the adoption 
of the Conference Report on H.R. 2985, Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Had I been present I would 
have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 2985.

[[Page 18356]]



                          ____________________




        PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE TWO HOUSES

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution 
(H. Con. Res. 225) and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 225

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the House 
     adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, July 28, 2005, 
     Friday, July 29, 2005, or Saturday, July 30, 2005, on a 
     motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 
     Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 
     p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2005, or until the time of any 
     reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
     resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate 
     recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, July 29, 2005, 
     through Friday, August 5, 2005, on a motion offered pursuant 
     to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
     designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on 
     Tuesday, September 6, 2005, or at such other time on that day 
     as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in 
     the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any 
     reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
     resolution, whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of 
     the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly 
     after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and 
     the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members 
     of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at 
     such place and time as they may designate whenever, in their 
     opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 132(a) of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 404, 
nays 16, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 452]

                               YEAS--404

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--16

     Boswell
     Chandler
     Cooper
     Doggett
     Ford
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Olver
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sherman
     Taylor (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Andrews
     Barrett (SC)
     Butterfield
     Carson
     Eshoo
     Larson (CT)
     Lynch
     Moore (KS)
     Paul
     Renzi
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1813

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado and Mr. OLVER changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 28, 2005, I was unavoidably 
detained and missed the House of Representatives vote on an Adjournment 
Resolution. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the 
resolution.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed five votes on July 
28, 2005. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 
Nos. 448, 450 and 452. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 449 
and 451.

                          ____________________




          REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1946

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my 
name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1946.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




   CONGRATULATING SUSAN HANBACK ON HER RETIREMENT FROM THE HOUSE OF 
                            REPRESENTATIVES

  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we approach completion of our work here 
before the summer break, I think it is important for us to note that 
when we return, a very familiar face will no longer be greeting us here 
when we regularly come onto the House floor. I am

[[Page 18357]]

referring, of course, to Susan Hanback, who has worked on Capitol Hill 
since 1967.

                              {time}  1815

  That is a long, long period of time. And after that long tenure, she 
has chosen to retire. And I would like to take just a minute because I 
learned some things about her, in the fact that she is headed to 
retirement, that I did not know, Mr. Speaker.
  Earlier in her career, during a very challenging time in our Nation's 
history, she worked hard and reported on the hearings for the 
confirmation of Nelson Rockefeller to become Vice President of the 
United States and Gerald Ford to become President of the United States.
  In 1976 she joined the House as a House official committee reporter. 
And in 1979 she became a floor reporter of debates, one of the first 
two stenotype reporters to come to the floor. Since 1995 Susan has been 
Chief of the combined committee/floor reporter offices.
  And I would like to say that she has got a number of outside 
interests as well. Not everyone knows that she and former Senator John 
Breaux actually won a mixed doubles tournament at the Capitol Hill 
Tennis Club.
  She is a very, very familiar face to us, and one that we will miss 
greatly. And I would like all of us, Mr. Speaker, to join in expressing 
our appreciation to the fine service of Susan Hanback.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California, the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been here for some period of time 
quickly learn that those who serve this House, this institution, who 
may not speak in the well, who may not introduce legislation, who may 
not participate in debates, nevertheless are absolutely critical to the 
legislative process. As a group they bring a degree of love of country, 
love of the House of Representatives, and commitment to their work that 
surely if paralleled somewhere, it is only in a few places.
  I have had the privilege of working with the desk officers, the 
reporters, the parliamentarians for now over a quarter of a century, 
less time than Susan Hanback has served this House. She was here when I 
came here in 1981.
  Her decision to retire as Chief of the Office of Official Reporters 
is, of course, wonderful news for her and her family. We had an 
opportunity to discuss it on the floor just the other evening about how 
she is going to enjoy her Virginia residence, perhaps much more 
peaceful, less hassled, but from time to time perhaps a little less 
interesting as well, but certainly more restful. And she deserves the 
rest because her service has been extraordinary.
  As has been said by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), she 
has worked in the House since the late 1960s. She witnessed during that 
time some of the most important events that have occurred on the House 
floor, including debates on legislation affecting every aspect of 
Americans' lives as she transcribed innumerable speeches and statements 
of hundreds of Members of Congress.
  Those who transcribe history are critically important because future 
generations will learn from the historic record that they have set 
down, and the accuracy of that reporting is critically important not 
only to the deliberations of this body today, but it will be critically 
important to the precedents of tomorrow.
  Mrs. Hanback has dedicated her career to serving the American people 
just as surely as every one of us who serves here in elected office. 
Those who serve as reporters and at the desk and as the 
parliamentarians and in every other aspect of making sure this House 
runs correctly serve America, serve America's citizens, serve America's 
freedom. By accurately reporting for and helping oversee the production 
of the Congressional Record, Susan has helped ensure that there is a 
government accessible to the people and is, therefore, a government for 
the people, of the people, and by the people.
  Susan was critical, as so many of you are whose names are not known 
to the public and, indeed, whose names may not be known to many who 
serve here by your sides every day. But because your names are not 
known, it does not mean that the service you perform is not absolutely 
essential to our democracy.
  Susan Hanback was offered a job, Mr. Speaker, as a Senate official 
reporter in 1987. As testimony to the love of this House, she turned 
that offer down and chose to stay in the House because she thought it 
was more interesting, and the people said, Amen.
  We are all, of course, very grateful, Susan, that you made that 
decision. We have been advantaged not only by the skill with which you 
have performed your job, but by the warmth of your personality and the 
grace that you have served this body.
  I would like to wish you all the very best. The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), minority leader, and the leadership on this 
side joins with the Speaker, the majority leader, the majority whip, 
and all the officers, including the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), on that side of the aisle to say in a nonpartisan, bipartisan, 
unanimous way, Susan, you have served us well. You have served your 
country well. We wish you the very greatest of happiness as you now 
retire from this body to serving so well your family as you have done 
for so long, but now will do so much more present with them, and we 
wish you the very best.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for 
his very thoughtful comments.
  And as he was talking about Susan's history here, and as I look at 
the gathered employees here of the House of Representatives, I was 
thinking during the remarks that the gentleman from Maryland, the 
distinguished minority whip offered, of the new assignment that we have 
taken on here in this institution when we established under the 
direction of the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), minority leader, this new 
commission, the House Democracy Assistance Commission. And we have over 
the past several months, and are continuing at this time, to proceed 
with assessments of different countries around the world, and we are 
working with those Parliaments that are looking to model their work 
after much of what we do here. Obviously, there are some things that we 
might do a little differently.
  But, clearly, the example that Susan has set is one that is a model 
not just for the future here in the United States of America, but, Mr. 
Speaker, it should be known that her example is one that can be set for 
these emerging Parliaments, and there are so many of them around the 
world, because of the great reverence that is held for this 
institution. And as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said very 
well, the appreciation that exists for all who work at this institution 
is something that is held by all of us who are privileged to serve as 
elected representatives of this House.
  And we do wish you well in your retirement. And we want you to know, 
of course, from the Speaker and all of the leadership team, as the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, on both sides of the aisle, 
that you are welcome back to visit us at any time at all.

                          ____________________




                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule 
I, the Chair declares the House in recess until approximately 6:35 p.m.
  Accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess until approximately 6:35 p.m.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1840
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bass) at 6 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.

[[Page 18358]]



                          ____________________




                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  Accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 41 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1859
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bass) at 6 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.

                          ____________________




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3, SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT 
             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska submitted the following conference report and 
statement on the bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other 
purposes:

                  Conference Report (H. Rept. 109-203)

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3), to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway 
     safety programs, and transit programs, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses as follows:
       That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an 
     amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
     amendment, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users'' or ``SAFETEA-LU''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. General definitions.

                     TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                 Subtitle A--Authorization of Programs

Sec. 1101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 1102. Obligation ceiling.
Sec. 1103. Apportionments.
Sec. 1104. Equity bonus program.
Sec. 1105. Revenue aligned budget authority.
Sec. 1106. Future Interstate System routes.
Sec. 1107. Metropolitan planning.
Sec. 1108.  Transfer of highway and transit funds.
Sec. 1109.  Recreational trails.
Sec. 1110. Temporary traffic control devices.
Sec. 1111.  Set-asides for Interstate discretionary projects.
Sec. 1112.  Emergency relief.
Sec. 1113.  Surface transportation program.
Sec. 1114. Highway bridge program.
Sec. 1115. Highway use tax evasion projects.
Sec. 1116.  Appalachian development highway system.
Sec. 1117. Transportation, community, and system preservation program.
Sec. 1118. Territorial highway program.
Sec. 1119. Federal lands highways.
Sec. 1120. Puerto Rico highway program.
Sec. 1121. HOV facilities.
Sec. 1122. Definitions.

                     Subtitle B--Congestion Relief

Sec. 1201.  Real-time system management information program.

                  Subtitle C--Mobility and Efficiency

Sec. 1301.  Projects of national and regional significance.
Sec. 1302.  National corridor infrastructure improvement program.
Sec. 1303. Coordinated border infrastructure program.
Sec. 1304.  High priority corridors on the National Highway System.
Sec. 1305.  Truck parking facilities.
Sec. 1306.  Freight intermodal distribution pilot grant program.
Sec. 1307. Deployment of magnetic levitation transportation projects.
Sec. 1308. Delta region transportation development program.
Sec. 1309. Extension of public transit vehicle exemption from axle 
              weight restrictions.
Sec. 1310. Interstate oasis program.

                       Subtitle D--Highway Safety

Sec. 1401. Highway safety improvement program.
Sec. 1402. Worker injury prevention and free flow of vehicular traffic.
Sec. 1403. Toll facilities workplace safety study.
Sec. 1404.  Safe routes to school program.
Sec. 1405.  Roadway safety improvements for older drivers and 
              pedestrians.
Sec. 1406.  Safety incentive grants for use of seat belts.
Sec. 1407.  Safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by 
              intoxicated persons.
Sec. 1408.  Improvement or replacement of highway features on National 
              Highway System.
Sec. 1409.  Work zone safety grants.
Sec. 1410.  National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse.
Sec. 1411. Roadway safety.
Sec. 1412. Idling reduction facilities in Interstate rights-of-way.

            Subtitle E--Construction and Contract Efficiency

Sec. 1501.  Program efficiencies.
Sec. 1502.  Highways for LIFE pilot program.
Sec. 1503. Design build.

                          Subtitle F--Finance

Sec. 1601.  Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
              amendments.
Sec. 1602.  State infrastructure banks.
Sec. 1603. Use of excess funds and funds for inactive projects.
Sec. 1604. Tolling.

                   Subtitle G--High Priority Projects

Sec. 1701. High Priority Projects program.
Sec. 1702. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1703.  Technical amendments to transportation projects.

                        Subtitle H--Environment

Sec. 1801.  Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.
Sec. 1802.  National Scenic Byways Program.
Sec. 1803. America's Byways Resource Center.
Sec. 1804. National historic covered bridge preservation.
Sec. 1805. Use of debris from demolished bridges and overpasses.
Sec. 1806. Additional authorization of contract authority for States 
              with Indian reservations.
Sec. 1807.  Nonmotorized transportation pilot program.
Sec. 1808.  Addition to CMAQ-eligible projects.

                       Subtitle I--Miscellaneous

Sec. 1901.  Inclusion of requirements for signs identifying funding 
              sources in title 23.
Sec. 1902.  Donations and credits.
Sec. 1903. Inclusion of Buy America requirements in title 23.
Sec. 1904. Stewardship and oversight.
Sec. 1905. Transportation development credits.
Sec. 1906.  Grant program to prohibit racial profiling.
Sec. 1907.  Pavement marking systems demonstration projects.
Sec. 1908.  Inclusion of certain route segments on Interstate System 
              and NHS.
Sec. 1909. Future of surface transportation system.
Sec. 1910.  Motorist information concerning full service restaurants.
Sec. 1911. Approval and funding for certain construction projects.
Sec. 1912. Lead agency designation.
Sec. 1913. Bridge construction, North Dakota.
Sec. 1914. Motorcyclist Advisory Council.
Sec. 1915. Loan forgiveness.
Sec. 1916. Treatment of off ramp.
Sec. 1917.  Opening of Interstate ramps.
Sec. 1918. Credit to State of Louisiana for State matching funds.
Sec. 1919. Road user fees.
Sec. 1920.  Transportation and local workforce investment.
Sec. 1921.  Update of obsolete text.
Sec. 1922.  Technical amendments to nondiscrimination section.
Sec. 1923.  Transportation assets and needs of Delta region.
Sec. 1924.  Alaska Way Viaduct study.
Sec. 1925. Community enhancement study.
Sec. 1926.  Budget justification.
Sec. 1927.  14th Amendment Highway and 3rd Infantry Division Highway.
Sec. 1928. Sense of Congress regarding Buy America.
Sec. 1929.  Designation of Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway.
Sec. 1930.  Designation of Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill, Jr. Tunnel.
Sec. 1931. Richard Nixon Parkway, California.
Sec. 1932. Amo Houghton Bypass.
Sec. 1933. Billy Tauzin Energy Corridor.
Sec. 1934. Transportation improvements.
Sec. 1935. Project flexibility.
Sec. 1936. Advances.
Sec. 1937. Roads in closed basins.
Sec. 1938. Technology.
Sec. 1939. BIA Indian Road Program.
Sec. 1940. Going-to-the-Sun Road, Glacier National Park, Montana.
Sec. 1941. Beartooth Highway, Montana.
Sec. 1942. Opening of airfield at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana.
Sec. 1943. Great Lakes ITS implementation.
Sec. 1944. Transportation construction and remediation, Ottawa County, 
              Oklahoma.
Sec. 1945. Infrastructure awareness program.
Sec. 1946. Gateway rural improvement pilot program.
Sec. 1947. Eligible safety improvements.
Sec. 1948. Emergency service route.
Sec. 1949. Knik Arm Bridge funding clarification.
Sec. 1950. Lincoln Parish, LA/I-20 Transportation Corridor Program.
Sec. 1951. Bonding assistance program.
Sec. 1952. Congestion relief.
Sec. 1953. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 1954. Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways.
Sec. 1955. Conveyance to the City of Ely, Nevada.
Sec. 1956. Brownfields grants.
Sec. 1957. Traffic circle construction, Clarendon, Vermont.

[[Page 18359]]

Sec. 1958. Limitation on project approval.
Sec. 1959. Cross harbor freight movement project.
Sec. 1960. Denali access system program.
Sec. 1961. I-95/Contee Road interchange study.
Sec. 1962. Multimodal facility improvements.
Sec. 1963. Apollo Theater leases.
Sec. 1964. Project Federal share.

                        TITLE II--HIGHWAY SAFETY

Sec. 2001. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 2002. Highway safety programs.
Sec. 2003.  Highway safety research and outreach programs.
Sec. 2004. Occupant protection incentive grants.
Sec. 2005. Grants for primary safety belt use laws.
Sec. 2006. State traffic safety information system improvements.
Sec. 2007. Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.
Sec. 2008. NHTSA accountability.
Sec. 2009. High visibility enforcement program.
Sec. 2010. Motorcyclist safety.
Sec. 2011. Child safety and child booster seat incentive grants.
Sec. 2012.  Safety data.
Sec. 2013.  Drug-impaired driving enforcement.
Sec. 2014.  First responder vehicle safety program.
Sec. 2015. Driver performance study.
Sec. 2016. Rural State emergency medical services optimization pilot 
              program.
Sec. 2017. Older driver safety; law enforcement training.
Sec. 2018. Safe intersections.
Sec. 2019. National Highway Safety Advisory Committee technical 
              correction.
Sec. 2020.  Presidential Commission on Alcohol-Impaired Driving.
Sec. 2021. Sense of the Congress in support of increased public 
              awareness of blood alcohol concentration levels and 
              dangers of alcohol-impaired driving.
Sec. 2022. Effective date.

                    TITLE III--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Sec. 3001. Short title.
Sec. 3002. Amendments to title 49, United States Code; updated 
              terminology.
Sec. 3003. Policies, findings, and purposes.
Sec. 3004. Definitions.
Sec. 3005. Metropolitan transportation planning.
Sec. 3006. Statewide transportation planning.
Sec. 3007. Planning programs.
Sec. 3008. Private enterprise participation.
Sec. 3009. Urbanized area formula grants.
Sec. 3010. Clean fuels grant program.
Sec. 3011. Capital investment grants.
Sec. 3012. Formula grants for special needs of elderly individuals and 
              individuals with disabilities.
Sec. 3013. Formula grants for other than urbanized areas.
Sec. 3014. Research, development, demonstration, and deployment 
              projects.
Sec. 3015. Transit cooperative research program.
Sec. 3016. National research and technology programs.
Sec. 3017. National Transit Institute.
Sec. 3018. Job access and reverse commute formula grants.
Sec. 3019. New Freedom Program.
Sec. 3020. Bus testing facility.
Sec. 3021. Alternative transportation in parks and public lands.
Sec. 3022. Human resources programs.
Sec. 3023. General provisions on assistance.
Sec. 3024. Special provisions for capital projects.
Sec. 3025. Contract requirements.
Sec. 3026. Project management oversight and review.
Sec. 3027. Project review.
Sec. 3028. Investigations of safety hazards and security risks.
Sec. 3029. State safety oversight.
Sec. 3030. Controlled substances and alcohol misuse testing.
Sec. 3031. Employee protective arrangements.
Sec. 3032. Administrative procedures.
Sec. 3033. National transit database.
Sec. 3034. Apportionments of formula grants.
Sec. 3035. Apportionments based on fixed guideway factors.
Sec. 3036. Authorizations.
Sec. 3037. Alternatives analysis program.
Sec. 3038. Apportionments based on growing States formula factors.
Sec. 3039. Over-the-road bus accessibility program.
Sec. 3040. Obligation ceiling.
Sec. 3041. Adjustments for fiscal year 2005.
Sec. 3042. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against public 
              transportation systems.
Sec. 3043. Project authorizations for new fixed guideway capital 
              projects.
Sec. 3044. Projects for bus and bus-related facilities and clean fuels 
              grant program.
Sec. 3045. National fuel cell bus technology development program.
Sec. 3046. Allocations for national research and technology programs.
Sec. 3047. Forgiveness of grant agreement.
Sec. 3048. Cooperative procurement.
Sec. 3049. Transportation fringe benefits.
Sec. 3050. Commuter rail.
Sec. 3051. Paratransit service in Illinois.

                     TITLE IV--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

Sec. 4001. Short title.

              Subtitle A--Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety

Sec. 4101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 4102. Increased penalties for out-of-service violations and false 
              records.
Sec. 4103. Penalty for denial of access to records.
Sec. 4104. Revocation of operating authority.
Sec. 4105. State laws relating to vehicle towing.
Sec. 4106. Motor carrier safety grants.
Sec. 4107. High priority activities and new entrants audits.
Sec. 4108. Data quality improvement.
Sec. 4109. Performance and registration information system management.
Sec. 4110. Border enforcement grants.
Sec. 4111. Motor carrier research and technology program.
Sec. 4112. Nebraska custom harvesters length exemption.
Sec. 4113. Pattern of safety violations by motor carrier management.
Sec. 4114.  Intrastate operations of interstate motor carriers.
Sec. 4115. Transfer provision.
Sec. 4116. Medical program.
Sec. 4117.  Safety performance history screening.
Sec. 4118. Roadability.
Sec. 4119. International cooperation.
Sec. 4120. Financial responsibility for private motor carriers.
Sec. 4121. Deposit of certain civil penalties into Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 4122. CDL learner's permit program.
Sec. 4123. Commercial driver's license information system 
              modernization.
Sec. 4124. Commercial driver's license improvements.
Sec. 4125. Hobbs Act.
Sec. 4126. Commercial vehicle information systems and networks 
              deployment.
Sec. 4127. Outreach and education.
Sec. 4128. Safety data improvement program.
Sec. 4129. Operation of commercial motor vehicles by individuals who 
              use insulin to treat diabetes mellitus.
Sec. 4130. Operators of vehicles transporting agricultural commodities 
              and farm supplies.
Sec. 4131. Maximum hours of service for operators of ground water well 
              drilling rigs.
Sec. 4132. Hours of service for operators of utility service vehicles.
Sec. 4133. Hours of service rules for operators providing 
              transportation to movie production sites.
Sec. 4134. Grant program for commercial motor vehicle operators.
Sec. 4135. CDL task force.
Sec. 4136. Interstate van operations.
Sec. 4137. Decals.
Sec. 4138. High risk carrier compliance reviews.
Sec. 4139. Foreign commercial motor vehicles.
Sec. 4140. School bus driver qualifications and endorsement knowledge 
              test.
Sec. 4141. Driveaway saddlemount vehicles.
Sec. 4142. Registration of motor carriers and freight forwarders.
Sec. 4143. Authority to stop commercial motor vehicles.
Sec. 4144. Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.
Sec. 4145. Technical corrections.
Sec. 4146. Exemption during harvest periods.
Sec. 4147. Emergency condition requiring immediate response.
Sec. 4148. Substance abuse professionals.
Sec. 4149. Office of intermodalism.

               Subtitle B--Household Goods Transportation

Sec. 4201. Short title.
Sec. 4202. Definitions; application of provisions.
Sec. 4203. Payment of rates.
Sec. 4204. Additional registration requirements for motor carriers of 
              household goods.
Sec. 4205. Household goods carrier operations.
Sec. 4206. Enforcement of regulations related to transportation of 
              household goods.
Sec. 4207. Liability of carriers under receipts and bills of lading.
Sec. 4208. Arbitration requirements.
Sec. 4209. Civil penalties relating to household goods brokers and 
              unauthorized transportation.
Sec. 4210. Penalties for holding household goods hostage.
Sec. 4211. Consumer handbook on DOT web site.
Sec. 4212. Release of household goods broker information.
Sec. 4213. Working group for development of practices and procedures to 
              enhance Federal-State relations.
Sec. 4214. Consumer complaint information.
Sec. 4215. Review of liability of carriers.
Sec. 4216. Application of State consumer protection laws to certain 
              household goods carriers.

          Subtitle C--Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005

Sec. 4301. Short title.
Sec. 4302. Relationship to other laws.
Sec. 4303. Inclusion of motor private and exempt carriers.
Sec. 4304. Unified Carrier Registration System.
Sec. 4305. Registration of motor carriers by States.
Sec. 4306. Identification of vehicles.
Sec. 4307. Use of UCR Agreement revenues as matching funds.
Sec. 4308. Regulations.

                  Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 4401. Technical adjustment.
Sec. 4402. Transfer.
Sec. 4403. Extension of assistance.
Sec. 4404. Designations.
Sec. 4405. Limited exception.

[[Page 18360]]

Sec. 4406. Airport land amendment.
Sec. 4407. Rights-of-way.
Sec. 4408. Rialto Municipal Airport.
Sec. 4409. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 4410. Ralph M. Bartholomew Veterans' Memorial Bridge.
Sec. 4411. Don Young's Way.
Sec. 4412.  Quality bank adjustments.
Sec. 4413. Technical amendment.

                           TITLE V--RESEARCH

                          Subtitle A--Funding

Sec. 5101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 5102. Obligation ceiling.
Sec. 5103. Findings.

            Subtitle B--Research, Technology, and Education

Sec. 5201. Research, technology, and education.
Sec. 5202. Long-term bridge performance program; innovative bridge 
              research and deployment program.
Sec. 5203. Technology deployment.
Sec. 5204. Training and education.
Sec. 5205. State planning and research.
Sec. 5206. International highway transportation outreach program.
Sec. 5207. Surface transportation environment and planning cooperative 
              research program.
Sec. 5208. Transportation research and development strategic planning.
Sec. 5209. National cooperative freight transportation research 
              program.
Sec. 5210. Future strategic highway research program.
Sec. 5211. Multistate corridor operations and management.

         Subtitle C--Intelligent Transportation System Research

Sec. 5301. National ITS program plan.
Sec. 5302. Use of funds.
Sec. 5303. Goals and purposes.
Sec. 5304. Infrastructure development.
Sec. 5305. General authorities and requirements.
Sec. 5306. Research and development.
Sec. 5307. National architecture and standards.
Sec. 5308. Road weather research and development program.
Sec. 5309. Centers for surface transportation excellence.
Sec. 5310. Definitions.

      Subtitle D--University Transportation Research; Scholarship 
                             Opportunities

Sec. 5401. National university transportation centers.
Sec. 5402. University transportation research.

                       Subtitle E--Other Programs

Sec. 5501. Transportation safety information management system project.
Sec. 5502. Surface transportation congestion relief solutions research 
              initiative.
Sec. 5503. Motor carrier efficiency study.
Sec. 5504. Center for Transportation Advancement and Regional 
              Development.
Sec. 5505. Transportation scholarship opportunities program.
Sec. 5506. Commercial remote sensing products and spatial information 
              technologies.
Sec. 5507. Rural interstate corridor communications study.
Sec. 5508. Transportation technology innovation and demonstration 
              program.
Sec. 5509. Repeal.
Sec. 5510. Notice.
Sec. 5511. Motorcycle crash causation study grants.
Sec. 5512. Advanced travel forecasting procedures program.
Sec. 5513. Research grants.
Sec. 5514. Competition for specification of alternative types of 
              culvert pipes.

            Subtitle F--Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Sec. 5601. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

         TITLE VI--TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROJECT DELIVERY

Sec. 6001. Transportation planning.
Sec. 6002. Efficient environmental reviews for project decisionmaking.
Sec. 6003. State assumption of responsibilities for certain programs 
              and projects.
Sec. 6004. State assumption of responsibility for categorical 
              exclusions.
Sec. 6005. Surface transportation project delivery pilot program.
Sec. 6006. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement; control 
              of noxious weeds and aquatic noxious weeds and 
              establishment of native species.
Sec. 6007. Exemption of Interstate System.
Sec. 6008. Integration of natural resource concerns into transportation 
              project planning.
Sec. 6009. Parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and 
              historic sites.
Sec. 6010. Environmental review of activities that support deployment 
              of intelligent transportation systems.
Sec. 6011. Transportation conformity.
Sec. 6012. Federal Reference Method.
Sec. 6013. Air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional 
              events.
Sec. 6014. Federal procurement of recycled coolant.
Sec. 6015.  Clean school bus program.
Sec. 6016. Special designation.
Sec. 6017.  Increased use of recovered mineral component in federally 
              funded projects involving procurement of cement or 
              concrete.
Sec. 6018.  Use of granular mine tailings.

             TITLE VII--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION

Sec. 7001. Short title.
Sec. 7002. Amendment of title 49, United States Code.

    Subtitle A--General Authorities on Transportation of Hazardous 
                               Materials

Sec. 7101. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 7102. Definitions.
Sec. 7103. General regulatory authority.
Sec. 7104. Limitation on issuance of hazmat licenses.
Sec. 7105. Background checks for drivers hauling hazardous materials.
Sec. 7106. Representation and tampering.
Sec. 7107. Technical amendments.
Sec. 7108. Training of certain employees.
Sec. 7109. Registration.
Sec. 7110. Shipping papers and disclosure.
Sec. 7111. Rail tank cars.
Sec. 7112. Unsatisfactory safety ratings.
Sec. 7113. Training curriculum for the public sector.
Sec. 7114. Planning and training grants; Hazardous Materials Emergency 
              Preparedness Fund.
Sec. 7115. Special permits and exclusions.
Sec. 7116. Uniform forms and procedures.
Sec. 7117. International uniformity of standards and requirements.
Sec. 7118. Administrative authority.
Sec. 7119. Enforcement.
Sec. 7120. Civil penalty.
Sec. 7121. Criminal penalty.
Sec. 7122. Preemption.
Sec. 7123. Judicial review.
Sec. 7124. Relationship to other laws.
Sec. 7125. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 7126. References to the Secretary of Transportation.
Sec. 7127. Criminal matters.
Sec. 7128. Additional civil and criminal penalties.
Sec. 7129. Hazardous material transportation plan requirement.
Sec. 7130. Determining amount of undeclared shipments of hazardous 
              materials entering the United States.
Sec. 7131. Hazardous materials research projects.
Sec. 7132. National first responder transportation incident response 
              system.
Sec. 7133. Common carrier pipeline system.

                Subtitle B--Sanitary Food Transportation

Sec. 7201. Short title.
Sec. 7202. Responsibilities of Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Sec. 7203. Department of Transportation requirements.
Sec. 7204. Effective date.

     Subtitle C--Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Sec. 7301. Administrative authority.

      TITLE VIII--TRANSPORTATION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING GUARANTEE

Sec. 8001. Discretionary spending limits for the highway and mass 
              transit categories.
Sec. 8002. Adjustments to align highway spending with revenues.
Sec. 8003. Level of obligation limitations.
Sec. 8004. Enforcement of guarantee.
Sec. 8005. Transfer of Federal transit administrative expenses.

                     TITLE IX--RAIL TRANSPORTATION

Sec. 9001. High-speed rail corridor development.
Sec. 9002. Capital grants for rail line relocation projects.
Sec. 9003. Rehabilitation and improvement financing.
Sec. 9004. Report regarding impact on public safety of train travel in 
              communities without grade separation.
Sec. 9005. Welded rail and tank car safety improvements.
Sec. 9006. Alaska Railroad.
Sec. 9007. Study of rail transportation and regulation.
Sec. 9008. Hawaii port infrastructure expansion program.

                   TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

        Subtitle A--Sportfishing and recreational boating safety

Sec. 10101. Short title.

    Chapter 1--Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act amendments

Sec. 10111. Amendment of Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.
Sec. 10112. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 10113. Division of annual appropriations.
Sec. 10114. Maintenance of projects.
Sec. 10115. Boating infrastructure.
Sec. 10116. Requirements and restrictions concerning use of amounts for 
              expenses for Administration.
Sec. 10117. Payments of funds to and cooperation with Puerto Rico, the 
              District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the 
              Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 
              Virgin Islands.
Sec. 10118. Multistate conservation grant program.
Sec. 10119. Expenditure of remaining balance in Boat Safety Account.

             Chapter 2--Clean Vessel Act of 1992 amendments

Sec. 10131. Grant program.

       Chapter 3--Recreational boating safety program amendments

Sec. 10141. Technical correction.
Sec. 10142. Availability of allocations.
Sec. 10143. Authorization of appropriations for State recreational 
              boating safety programs.

[[Page 18361]]

               Subtitle B--Other Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 10201.  Notice regarding participation of small business concerns.
Sec. 10202.  Emergency medical services.
Sec. 10203.  Hubzone program.
Sec. 10204. Catastrophic hurricane evacuation plans.
Sec. 10205.  Intermodal transportation facility expansion.
Sec. 10206.  Eligibility to participate in western Alaska community 
              development quota program.
Sec. 10207. Rail rehabilitation and bridge repair.
Sec. 10208. Rented or leased motor vehicles.
Sec. 10209. Midway Island.
Sec. 10210. Demonstration of digital project simulation.
Sec. 10211. Environmental programs.
Sec. 10212. Rescission of unobligated balances.
Sec. 10213. Tribal land.

          Subtitle C--Specific vehicle safety-related rulings

Sec. 10301. Vehicle rollover prevention and crash mitigation.
Sec. 10302. Side-impact crash protection rulemaking.
Sec. 10303. Tire research.
Sec. 10304. Vehicle backover avoidance technology study.
Sec. 10305. Nontraffic incident data collection.
Sec. 10306. Study of safety belt use technologies.
Sec. 10307. Amendment of Automobile Information Disclosure Act.
Sec. 10308. Power window switches.
Sec. 10309. 15-Passenger van safety.
Sec. 10310. Authorization of appropriations.

    TITLE XI--HIGHWAY REAUTHORIZATION AND EXCISE TAX SIMPLIFICATION

Sec. 1100. Amendment of 1986 Code.

                 Subtitle A--Trust fund reauthorization

Sec. 1101. Extension of highway-related taxes and trust funds.
Sec. 1102. Modification of adjustments of apportionments.

            Subtitle B--Excise tax reform and simplification

                      Part 1--Highway excise taxes

Sec. 1111. Modification of gas guzzler tax.
Sec. 1112. Exclusion for tractors weighing 19,500 pounds or less from 
              Federal excise tax on heavy trucks and trailers.
Sec. 1113. Volumetric excise tax credit for alternative fuels.

                      Part 2--Aquatic excise taxes

Sec. 1115. Elimination of Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and 
              transformation of Sport Fish Restoration Account.
Sec. 1116. Repeal of harbor maintenance tax on exports.
Sec. 1117. Cap on excise tax on certain fishing equipment.

                      Part 3--Aerial excise taxes

Sec. 1121. Clarification of excise tax exemptions for agricultural 
              aerial applicators and exemption for Fixed-Wing aircraft 
              engaged in forestry operations.
Sec. 1122. Modification of rural airport definition.
Sec. 1123. Exemption from taxes on transportation provided by 
              seaplanes.
Sec. 1124. Certain sightseeing flights exempt from taxes on air 
              transportation.

                   Part 4--Taxes relating to alcohol

Sec. 1125. Repeal of special occupational taxes on producers and 
              marketers of alcoholic beverages.
Sec. 1126. Income tax credit for distilled spirits wholesalers and for 
              distilled spirits in control State bailment warehouses 
              for costs of carrying Federal excise taxes on bottled 
              distilled spirits.
Sec. 1127. Quarterly excise tax filing for small alcohol excise 
              taxpayers.

                       Part 5--Sport excise taxes

Sec. 1131. Custom gunsmiths.

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous provisions

Sec. 1141. Motor Fuel Tax Enforcement Advisory Commission.
Sec. 1142. National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing 
              Commission.
Sec. 1143. Tax-exempt financing of highway projects and rail-truck 
              transfer facilities.
Sec. 1144. Treasury study of highway fuels used by trucks for non-
              transportation purposes.
Sec. 1145. Diesel fuel tax evasion report.
Sec. 1146. Tax treatment of State ownership of railroad real estate 
              investment trust.
Sec. 1147. Limitation on transfers to the Leaking Underground Storage 
              Tank Trust Fund.

           Subtitle D--Highway-Related technical corrections

Sec. 1151. Highway-related technical corrections.

                   Subtitle E--Preventing fuel fraud

Sec. 1161. Treatment of kerosene for use in aviation.
Sec. 1162. Repeal of ultimate vendor refund claims with respect to 
              farming.
Sec. 1163. Refunds of excise taxes on exempt sales of fuel by credit 
              card.
Sec. 1164. Reregistration in event of change in ownership.
Sec. 1165. Reconciliation of on-loaded cargo to entered cargo.
Sec. 1166. Treatment of deep-draft vessels.
Sec. 1167. Penalty with respect to certain adulterated fuels.

     SEC. 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Transportation.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
                     TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
                 Subtitle A--Authorization of Programs

     SEC. 1101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following sums are authorized to be 
     appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account):
       (1) Interstate maintenance program.--For the Interstate 
     maintenance program under section 119 of title 23, United 
     States Code--
       (A) $4,883,759,623 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $4,960,788,917 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $5,039,058,556 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $5,118,588,513 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $5,199,399,081 for fiscal year 2009.
       (2) National highway system.--For the National Highway 
     System under section 103 of such title--
       (A) $5,911,200,104 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $6,005,256,569 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $6,110,827,556 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $6,207,937,450 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $6,306,611,031 for fiscal year 2009.
       (3) Bridge program.--For the bridge program under section 
     144 of such title--
       (A) $4,187,708,821 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $4,253,530,131 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $4,320,411,313 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $4,388,369,431 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $4,457,421,829 for fiscal year 2009.
       (4) Surface transportation program.--For the surface 
     transportation program under section 133 of such title--
       (A) $6,860,096,662 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $6,269,833,394 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $6,370,469,775 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $6,472,726,628 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $6,576,630,046 for fiscal year 2009.
       (5) Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program.--For the congestion mitigation and air quality 
     improvement program under section 149 of such title--
       (A) $1,667,255,304 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $1,694,101,866 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $1,721,380,718 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $1,749,098,821 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $1,777,263,247 for fiscal year 2009.
       (6) Highway safety improvement program.--For the highway 
     safety improvement program under section 148 of such title--
       (A) $1,235,810,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (B) $1,255,709,322 for fiscal year 2007;
       (C) $1,275,929,067 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (D) $1,296,474,396 for fiscal year 2009.
       (7) Appalachian development highway system program.--For 
     the Appalachian development highway system program under 
     subtitle IV of title 40, United States Code, $470,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (8) Recreational trails program.--For the recreational 
     trails program under section 206 of title 23, United States 
     Code--
       (A) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (9) Federal lands highways program.--
       (A) Indian reservation roads.--For Indian reservation roads 
     under section 204 of such title--
       (i) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (ii) $330,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (iii) $370,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (iv) 410,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (v) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (B) Park roads and parkways.--
       (i) In general.--For park roads and parkways under section 
     204 of such title--

       (I) $180,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (II) $195,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (III) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (IV) $225,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (V) $240,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.

       (ii) Minimum allocation to certain states.--A State 
     containing more than 50 percent of the total acreage of the 
     National Park System shall receive not less than 3 percent of 
     any funds appropriated under this subparagraph.
       (C) Refuge roads.--For refuge roads under section 204 of 
     such title, $29,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009.
       (D) Public lands highways.--For Federal lands highways 
     under section 204 of such title--
       (i) $260,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (ii) $280,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (iii) $280,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (iv) $290,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (v) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (10) National corridor infrastructure improvement 
     program.--For the national corridor infrastructure 
     improvement program under section 1302 of this Act--
       (A) $194,800,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $389,600,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $487,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $487,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $389,600,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (11) Coordinated border infrastructure program.--For the 
     coordinated border infrastructure program under section 1303 
     of this Act--
       (A) $123,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $145,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $165,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $190,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.

[[Page 18362]]

       (12) National scenic byways program.--For the national 
     scenic byways program under section 162 of such title--
       (A) $26,500,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $43,500,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (13) Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal 
     facilities.--For construction of ferry boats and ferry 
     terminal facilities under section 147 of such title--
       (A) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $67,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (14) Puerto rico highway program.--For the Puerto Rico 
     highway program under section 165 of such title--
       (A) $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $135,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $145,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (15) Projects of national and regional significance 
     program.--For the projects of national and regional 
     significance program under section 1301 of this Act--
       (A) $177,900,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $355,800,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $444,750,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $444,750,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $355,800,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (16) High priority projects program.--For the high priority 
     projects program under section 117 of title 23, United States 
     Code, $2,966,400,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009.
       (17) Safe routes to school program.--For the safe routes to 
     school program under section 1404 of this Act--
       (A) $54,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (D) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) $183,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (18) Deployment of magnetic levitation transportation 
     projects.--For the deployment of magnetic levitation projects 
     under section 1307 of this Act--
       (A) $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and
       (B) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
       (19) National corridor planning and development and 
     coordinated border infrastructure programs.--For the national 
     corridor planning and development and coordinated border 
     infrastructure programs under sections 1118 and 1119 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 
     161, 163) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       (20) Highways for life.--For the Highways for LIFE Program 
     under section 1502 of this Act--
       (A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (B) $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
       (21) Highway use tax evasion projects.--For highway use tax 
     evasion projects under section 1115 of this Act--
       (A) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) $44,800,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (C) $53,300,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (D) $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
       (b) Disadvantaged Business Enterprises.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Small business concern.--The term ``small business 
     concern'' has the meaning that term has under section 3 of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632), except that the term 
     shall not include any concern or group of concerns controlled 
     by the same socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individual or individuals which has average annual gross 
     receipts over the preceding 3 fiscal years in excess of 
     $19,570,000, as adjusted annually by the Secretary for 
     inflation.
       (B) Socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.--
     The term ``socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals'' has the meaning that term has under section 
     8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) and 
     relevant subcontracting regulations issued pursuant to that 
     Act, except that women shall be presumed to be socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals for purposes of this 
     subsection.
       (2) General rule.--Except to the extent that the Secretary 
     determines otherwise, not less than 10 percent of the amounts 
     made available for any program under titles I, III, and V of 
     this Act and section 403 of title 23, United States Code, 
     shall be expended through small business concerns owned and 
     controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals.
       (3) Annual listing of disadvantaged business enterprises.--
     Each State shall annually--
       (A) survey and compile a list of the small business 
     concerns referred to in paragraph (1) and the location of the 
     concerns in the State; and
       (B) notify the Secretary, in writing, of the percentage of 
     the concerns that are controlled by women, by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals (other than women), 
     and by individuals who are women and are otherwise socially 
     and economically disadvantaged individuals.
       (4) Uniform certification.--The Secretary shall establish 
     minimum uniform criteria for State governments to use in 
     certifying whether a concern qualifies for purposes of this 
     subsection. The minimum uniform criteria shall include, but 
     not be limited to, on-site visits, personal interviews, 
     licenses, analysis of stock ownership, listing of equipment, 
     analysis of bonding capacity, listing of work completed, 
     resume of principal owners, financial capacity, and type of 
     work preferred.
       (5) Compliance with court orders.--Nothing in this 
     subsection limits the eligibility of an entity or person to 
     receive funds made available under titles I, III, and V of 
     this Act and section 403 of title 23, United States Code, if 
     the entity or person is prevented, in whole or in part, from 
     complying with paragraph (1) because a Federal court issues a 
     final order in which the court finds that the requirement of 
     paragraph (1), or the program established under paragraph 
     (1), is unconstitutional.

     SEC. 1102. OBLIGATION CEILING.

       (a) General Limitation.--Subject to subsections (g) and 
     (h), and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
     construction programs shall not exceed--
       (1) $34,422,400,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (2) $36,032,343,903 for fiscal year 2006;
       (3) $38,244,210,516 for fiscal year 2007;
       (4) $39,585,075,404 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (5) $41,199,970,178 for fiscal year 2009.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitations under subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to obligations under or for--
       (1) section 125 of title 23, United States Code;
       (2) section 147 of the Surface Transportation Assistance 
     Act of 1978 (23 U.S.C. 144 note; 92 Stat. 2714);
       (3) section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 
     (Public Law 97-134; 95 Stat. 1701);
       (4) subsections (b) and (j) of section 131 of the Surface 
     Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-424; 96 
     Stat. 2119);
       (5) subsections (b) and (c) of section 149 of the Surface 
     Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 
     (Public Law 100-17; 101 Stat. 198);
       (6) sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 
     105 Stat. 2027);
       (7) section 157 of title 23, United States Code (as in 
     effect on June 8, 1998);
       (8) section 105 of title 23, United States Code (as in 
     effect for fiscal years 1998 through 2004, but only in an 
     amount equal to $639,000,000 for each of those fiscal years);
       (9) Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation 
     authority was made available under the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178; 112 Stat. 107) 
     or subsequent public laws for multiple years or to remain 
     available until used, but only to the extent that the 
     obligation authority has not lapsed or been used;
       (10) section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, only in an amount 
     equal to $639,000,000 per fiscal year); and
       (11) section 1603 of this Act, to the extent that funds 
     obligated in accordance with that section were not subject to 
     a limitation on obligations at the time at which the funds 
     were initially made available for obligation.
       (c) Distribution of Obligation Authority.--For each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the Secretary--
       (1) shall not distribute obligation authority provided by 
     subsection (a) for the fiscal year for--
       (A) amounts authorized for administrative expenses and 
     programs by section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code;
       (B) programs funded from the administrative takedown 
     authorized by section 104(a)(1) of title 23, United States 
     Code (as in effect on the date before the date of enactment 
     of this Act); and
       (C) amounts authorized for the highway use tax evasion 
     program and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
       (2) shall not distribute an amount of obligation authority 
     provided by subsection (a) that is equal to the unobligated 
     balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid highway 
     and highway safety programs for previous fiscal years the 
     funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
       (3) shall determine the ratio that--
       (A) the obligation authority provided by subsection (a) for 
     the fiscal year, less the aggregate of amounts not 
     distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2); bears to
       (B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction 
     programs (other than sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     provisions of law described in paragraphs (1) through (9) of 
     subsection (b) and sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     section 105 of title 23, United States Code, equal to the 
     amount referred to in subsection (b)(10) for the fiscal 
     year), less the aggregate of the amounts not distributed 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2);
       (4)(A) shall distribute the obligation authority provided 
     by subsection (a) less the aggregate amounts not distributed 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2), for sections 1301, 1302, and 
     1934 of this Act, sections 117 but individual for each of 
     project numbered 1 through 3676 listed in the table contained 
     in section 1702 of this Act and 144(g) of title 23, United 
     States Code, and section 14501 of title 40, United States 
     Code, and, during fiscal year 2005, amounts for programs, 
     projects, and activities authorized by section 117 of title I 
     of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 
     (Public Law 108-447; 118 Stat. 3212), so that the amount of 
     obligation authority available for each of such sections is 
     equal to the amount determined by multiplying--
       (i) the ratio determined under paragraph (3); by

[[Page 18363]]

       (ii) the sums authorized to be appropriated for that 
     section for the fiscal year; and
       (B) shall distribute $2,000,000,000 for section 105 of 
     title 23, United States Code;
       (5) shall distribute among the States the obligation 
     authority provided by subsection (a), less the aggregate 
     amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2), for 
     each of the programs that are allocated by the Secretary 
     under this Act and title 23, United States Code (other than 
     to programs to which paragraph (1) applies), by multiplying--
       (A) the ratio determined under paragraph (3); by
       (B) the amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such 
     program for the fiscal year; and
       (6) shall distribute the obligation authority provided by 
     subsection (a), less the aggregate amounts not distributed 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2) and the amounts distributed 
     under paragraphs (4) and (5), for Federal-aid highway and 
     highway safety construction programs (other than the amounts 
     apportioned for the equity bonus program, but only to the 
     extent that the amounts apportioned for the equity bonus 
     program for the fiscal year are greater than $2,639,000,000, 
     and the Appalachian development highway system program) that 
     are apportioned by the Secretary under this Act and title 23, 
     United States Code, in the ratio that--
       (A) amounts authorized to be appropriated for the programs 
     that are apportioned to each State for the fiscal year; bear 
     to
       (B) the total of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     for the programs that are apportioned to all States for the 
     fiscal year.
       (d) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (c), the Secretary shall, after 
     August 1 of each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009--
       (1) revise a distribution of the obligation authority made 
     available under subsection (c) if an amount distributed 
     cannot be obligated during that fiscal year; and
       (2) redistribute sufficient amounts to those States able to 
     obligate amounts in addition to those previously distributed 
     during that fiscal year, giving priority to those States 
     having large unobligated balances of funds apportioned under 
     sections 104 and 144 of title 23, United States Code.
       (e) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to 
     Transportation Research Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     obligation limitations imposed by subsection (a) shall apply 
     to contract authority for transportation research programs 
     carried out under--
       (A) chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code; and
       (B) title V (research title) of this Act.
       (2) Exception.--Obligation authority made available under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) remain available for a period of 3 fiscal years; and
       (B) be in addition to the amount of any limitation imposed 
     on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
     construction programs for future fiscal years.
       (f) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     distribution of obligation authority under subsection (c) for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the Secretary shall 
     distribute to the States any funds that--
       (A) are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year 
     for Federal-aid highway programs; and
       (B) the Secretary determines will not be allocated to the 
     States, and will not be available for obligation, in the 
     fiscal year due to the imposition of any obligation 
     limitation for the fiscal year.
       (2) Ratio.--Funds shall be distributed under paragraph (1) 
     in the same ratio as the distribution of obligation authority 
     under subsection (c)(6).
       (3) Availability.--Funds distributed under paragraph (1) 
     shall be available for any purpose described in section 
     133(b) of title 23, United States Code.
       (g) Special Limitation Characteristics.--Obligation 
     authority distributed for a fiscal year under subsection 
     (c)(4) for the provision specified in subsection (c)(4) 
     shall--
       (1) remain available until used for obligation of funds for 
     that provision; and
       (2) be in addition to the amount of any limitation imposed 
     on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety 
     construction programs for future fiscal years.
       (h) Adjustment in Obligation Limit.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the last sentence of section 
     110(a)(2) of title 23, United States Code, a limitation on 
     obligations imposed by subsection (a) for a fiscal year shall 
     be adjusted by an amount equal to the amount determined in 
     accordance with section 251(b)(1)(B) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(1)(B)) for the fiscal year.
       (2) Distribution.--An adjustment under paragraph (1) shall 
     be distributed in accordance with this section.
       (i) Special Rule for Fiscal Year 2005.--
       (1) In general.--Obligation authority distributed under 
     subsection (c)(4) for fiscal year 2005 for sections 1301, 
     1302, and 1934 of this Act and sections 117 and 144(g) of 
     title 23, United States Code, may be used in fiscal year 2005 
     for purposes of obligation authority distributed under 
     subsection (c)(6).
       (2) Restoration.--Obligation authority used as described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be restored to the original purpose on 
     the date on which obligation authority is distributed under 
     this section for fiscal year 2006.
       (j) High Priority Project Flexibility.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), obligation 
     authority distributed for a fiscal year under subsection 
     (c)(4) for each project numbered 1 through 3676 listed in the 
     table contained in section 1702 of this Act may be obligated 
     for any other project in such section in the same State.
       (2) Restoration.--Obligation authority used as described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be restored to the original purpose on 
     the date on which obligation authority is distributed under 
     this section for the next fiscal year following obligation 
     under paragraph (1).
       (k) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to limit the distribution of 
     obligation authority under subsection (c)(4)(A) for each of 
     the individual projects numbered greater than 3676 listed in 
     the table contained in section 1702 of this Act.

     SEC. 1103. APPORTIONMENTS.

       (a) Administrative Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--Section 104(a) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Administrative Expenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to be made available to the Secretary for 
     administrative expenses of the Federal Highway 
     Administration--
       ``(A) $353,024,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(B) $370,613,540 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(C) $389,079,500 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(D) $408,465,500 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(E) $423,717,460 for fiscal year 2009.
       ``(2) Purposes.--The funds authorized by this subsection 
     shall be used--
       ``(A) to administer the provisions of law to be financed 
     from appropriations for the Federal-aid highway program and 
     programs authorized under chapter 2; and
       ``(B) to make transfers of such sums as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate to the Appalachian Regional 
     Commission for administrative activities associated with the 
     Appalachian development highway system.
       ``(3) Availability.--The funds made available under 
     paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 104 of such title is 
     amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of subsection (b) 
     by striking ``the deduction authorized by subsection (a) and 
     the set-aside authorized by subsection (f)'' and inserting 
     ``the set-asides authorized by subsections (d) and (f) and 
     section 130(e)'';
       (B) in the first sentence of subsection (e)(1) by striking 
     ``, and also'' and all that follows through ``this section''; 
     and
       (C) in subsection (i) by striking ``deducted'' and 
     inserting ``made available''.
       (b) Alaska Highway.--Section 104(b)(1)(A) of such title is 
     amended by striking ``$18,800,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1998 through 2002'' and inserting ``$30,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009''.
       (c) National Highway System Component.--Section 
     104(b)(1)(A) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``$36,400,000 for each fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``$40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006 and 
     $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009''.
       (d)  CMAQ Apportionment.--Section 104(b)(2) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) 1.0 if, at the time of apportionment, the area is a 
     maintenance area;'';
       (B) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vi);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(viii) 1.0 if, at the time of apportionment, an area is 
     designated as nonattainment for ozone under subpart 1 of part 
     D of title I of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 et seq.).''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) Additional adjustment for carbon monoxide areas.--If, 
     in addition to being designated as a nonattainment or 
     maintenance area for ozone as described in section 149(b), 
     any county within the area was also classified under subpart 
     3 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 
     et seq.) as a nonattainment or maintenance area described in 
     section 149(b) for carbon monoxide, the weighted 
     nonattainment or maintenance area population of the county, 
     as determined under clauses (i) through (vi) or clause (viii) 
     of subparagraph (B), shall be further multiplied by a factor 
     of 1.2.''.
       (e) Report.--Section 104(j) of such title is amended by 
     striking ``submit to Congress a report'' and inserting 
     ``submit to Congress a report, and also make such report 
     available to the public in a user-friendly format via the 
     Internet,''.
       (f) Operation Lifesaver.--Section 104(d) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and all that follows through 
     the period at the end of paragraph (2)(A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Operation lifesaver.--To carry out a public 
     information and education program to help prevent and reduce 
     motor vehicle accidents, injuries, and fatalities and to 
     improve driver performance at railway-highway crossings--
       ``(A) before making an apportionment under subsection 
     (b)(3) for fiscal year 2005, the Secretary shall set aside 
     $560,000 for such fiscal year; and

[[Page 18364]]

       ``(B) there is authorized to be appropriated from the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     $560,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       ``(2) Railway-highway crossing hazard elimination in high 
     speed rail corridors.--
       ``(A) Funding.--To carry out the elimination of hazards at 
     railway-highway crossings--
       ``(i) before making an apportionment under subsection 
     (b)(3) for fiscal year 2005, the Secretary shall set aside 
     $5,250,000 for such fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) there is authorized to be appropriated from the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     $7,250,000 for fiscal year 2006, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2007, $12,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $15,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(E)--
       (A) by striking ``Not less than $250,000 of such set-
     aside'' and inserting ``Of such set-aside, not less than 
     $250,000 for fiscal year 2005, $1,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006, $1,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $2,250,000 for fiscal 
     year 2008, and $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2009''; and
       (B) by striking ``per fiscal year''.

     SEC. 1104. EQUITY BONUS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 105 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 105. Equity bonus program

       ``(a) Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsections (c) and (d), for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the Secretary shall 
     allocate among the States amounts sufficient to ensure that 
     no State receives a percentage of the total apportionments 
     for the fiscal year for the programs specified in paragraph 
     (2) that is less than the percentage calculated under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(2) Specific programs.--The programs referred to in 
     subsection (a) are--
       ``(A) the Interstate maintenance program under section 119;
       ``(B) the national highway system program under section 
     103;
       ``(C) the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation 
     program under section 144;
       ``(D) the surface transportation program under section 133;
       ``(E) the highway safety improvement program under section 
     148;
       ``(F) the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program under section 149;
       ``(G) metropolitan planning programs under section 104(f);
       ``(H) the high priority projects program under section 117;
       ``(I) the equity bonus program under this section;
       ``(J) the Appalachian development highway system program 
     under subtitle IV of title 40;
       ``(K) the recreational trails program under section 206;
       ``(L) the safe routes to school program under section 1404 
     of the SAFETEA-LU;
       ``(M) the rail-highway grade crossing program under section 
     130; and
       ``(N) the coordinated border infrastructure program under 
     section 1303 of the SAFETEA-LU.
       ``(b) State Percentage.--
       ``(1) In general.--The percentage referred to in subsection 
     (a) for each State shall be--
       ``(A) for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 90.5 percent, 
     for fiscal year 2007, 91.5 percent, and for each of fiscal 
     years 2008 and 2009, 92 percent, of the quotient obtained by 
     dividing--
       ``(i) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway 
     users in the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent fiscal year 
     for which data are available; by
       ``(ii) the estimated tax payments attributable to highway 
     users in all States paid into the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) for the fiscal year; or
       ``(B) for a State with a total population density of less 
     than 40 persons per square mile (as reported in the decennial 
     census conducted by the Federal Government in 2000) and of 
     which at least 1.25 percent of the total acreage is under 
     Federal jurisdiction, based on the report of the General 
     Services Administration entitled `Federal Real Property 
     Profile' and dated September 30, 2004, a State with a total 
     population of less than 1,000,000 (as reported in that 
     decennial census), a State with a median household income of 
     less than $35,000 (as reported in that decennial census), a 
     State with a fatality rate during 2002 on Interstate highways 
     that is greater than 1 fatality for each 100,000,000 vehicle 
     miles traveled on Interstate highways, or a State with an 
     indexed, State motor fuels excise tax rate higher than 150 
     percent of the Federal motor fuels excise tax rate as of the 
     date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the greater of--
       ``(i) the applicable percentage under subparagraph (A); or
       ``(ii) the average percentage of the State's share of total 
     apportionments for the period of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003 for the programs specified in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Specific programs.--The programs referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(B)(ii) are (as in effect on the day before the 
     date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU)--
       ``(A) the Interstate maintenance program under section 119;
       ``(B) the national highway system program under section 
     103;
       ``(C) the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation 
     program under section 144;
       ``(D) the surface transportation program under section 133;
       ``(E) the recreational trails program under section 206;
       ``(F) the high priority projects program under section 117;
       ``(G) the minimum guarantee provided under this section;
       ``(H) revenue aligned budget authority amounts provided 
     under section 110;
       ``(I) the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program under section 149;
       ``(J) the Appalachian development highway system program 
     under subtitle IV of title 40; and
       ``(K) metropolitan planning programs under section 104(f).
       ``(c) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Minimum combined allocation.--For each fiscal year, 
     before making the allocations under subsection (a)(1), the 
     Secretary shall allocate among the States amounts sufficient 
     to ensure that no State receives a combined total of amounts 
     allocated under subsection (a)(1), apportionments for the 
     programs specified in subsection (a)(2), and amounts 
     allocated under this subsection, that is less than the 
     following percentages of the average for fiscal years 1998 
     through 2003 of the annual apportionments for the State for 
     all programs specified in subsection (b)(2):
       ``(A) For fiscal year 2005, 117 percent.
       ``(B) For fiscal year 2006, 118 percent.
       ``(C) For fiscal year 2007, 119 percent.
       ``(D) For fiscal year 2008, 120 percent.
       ``(E) For fiscal year 2009, 121 percent.
       ``(2) No negative adjustment.--No negative adjustment shall 
     be made under subsection (a)(1) to the apportionment of any 
     State.
       ``(d) Treatment of Funds.--
       ``(1) Programmatic distribution.--The Secretary shall 
     apportion the amounts made available under this section that 
     exceed $2,639,000,000 so that the amount apportioned to each 
     State under this paragraph for each program referred to in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (F) of subsection (a)(2) is equal 
     to the amount determined by multiplying the amount to be 
     apportioned under this paragraph by the ratio that--
       ``(A) the amount of funds apportioned to each State for 
     each program referred to in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of 
     subsection (a)(2) for a fiscal year; bears to
       ``(B) the total amount of funds apportioned to such State 
     for all such programs for such fiscal year.
       ``(2) Remaining distribution.--The Secretary shall 
     administer the remainder of funds made available under this 
     section to the States in accordance with section 104(b)(3), 
     except that paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 133(d) 
     shall not apply to amounts administered pursuant to this 
     paragraph.
       ``(e) Metro Planning Set Aside.--Notwithstanding section 
     104(f), no set aside provided for under that section shall 
     apply to funds allocated under this section.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 1 of such title is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 105 and inserting the following:

``105. Equity bonus program.''.

     SEC. 1105. REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY.

       (a) Allocation.--Section 110(a)(1) of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2007'';
       (2) by inserting after ``such fiscal year'' the first place 
     it appears: ``and the succeeding fiscal year''.
       (b) Reduction.--Section 110(a)(2) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2007'';
       (2) by striking ``October 1 of the succeeding'' and 
     inserting ``October 15 of such'';
       (3) by inserting after ``Account)'' the following: ``for 
     such fiscal year and the succeeding fiscal year''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following: ``No reduction 
     under this paragraph and no reduction under section 1102(h), 
     and no reduction under title VIII or any amendment made by 
     title VIII, of the SAFETEA-LU shall be made for a fiscal year 
     if, as of October 1 of such fiscal year the balance in the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     exceeds $6,000,000,000.''.
       (c) General Distribution.--Section 110(b)(1)(A) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``minimum guarantee'' and inserting 
     ``equity bonus''; and
       (2) by striking ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century'' and inserting ``SAFETEA-LU''.
       (d) Addition of Highway Safety Improvement Program.--
     Section 110(c) of such title is amended by inserting ``the 
     highway safety improvement program,'' after ``the surface 
     transportation program,''.
       (e) Technical Amendment.--Section 110(b)(1)(A) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``for'' the second place it 
     appears.
       (f) Special Rule.--If the amount available pursuant to 
     section 110 of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year 
     2007 is greater than zero, the Secretary shall--
       (1) determine the total amount necessary to increase each 
     State's rate of return (as determined under section 
     105(b)(1)(A) of title 23, United States Code) to 92 percent, 
     excluding amounts provided under this paragraph;
       (2) allocate to each State the lesser of--
       (A) the amount computed for that State under paragraph (1); 
     or
       (B) an amount determined by multiplying the total amount 
     calculated under section 110 of

[[Page 18365]]

     title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year 2007 by the 
     ratio that--
       (i) the amount determined for such State under paragraph 
     (1); bears to
       (ii) the total amount computed for all States in paragraph 
     (1); and
       (3) allocate amounts remaining in excess of the amounts 
     allocated in paragraph (2) to all States in accordance with 
     section 110 of title 23, United States Code.

     SEC. 1106. FUTURE INTERSTATE SYSTEM ROUTES.

       (a) Extension of Date.--Section 103(c)(4)(B)(ii) of title 
     23, United States Code, is amended by striking ``12'' and 
     inserting ``25''.
       (b) Removal of Designation.--Section 103(c)(4)(B)(iii) of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I) by striking ``in the agreement between 
     the Secretary and the State or States''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(III) Existing agreements.--An agreement described in 
     clause (ii) that is entered into before the date of enactment 
     of this subclause shall be deemed to include the 25-year time 
     limitation described in that clause, regardless of any 
     earlier construction completion date in the agreement.''.

     SEC. 1107. METROPOLITAN PLANNING.

       Section 104(f) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Set-aside.--On October 1 of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall set aside 1.25 percent of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Interstate maintenance, 
     national highway system, surface transportation, congestion 
     mitigation and air quality improvement, and highway bridge 
     replacement and rehabilitation programs authorized under this 
     title to carry out the requirements of section 134.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``per centum'' and 
     inserting ``percent'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``The funds'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--The funds''; and
       (B) by striking ``These funds'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Unused funds.--Any funds that are not used to carry 
     out section 134 may be made available by a metropolitan 
     planning organization to the State to fund activities under 
     section 135.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``The distribution'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--The distribution''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Reimbursement.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of receipt by a State of a request for reimbursement of 
     expenditures made by a metropolitan planning organization for 
     carrying out section 134, the State shall reimburse, from 
     funds distributed under this paragraph to the metropolitan 
     planning organization by the State, the metropolitan planning 
     organization for those expenditures.''.

     SEC. 1108. TRANSFER OF HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT FUNDS.

       Section 104(k) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(k) Transfer of Highway and Transit Funds.--
       ``(1) Transfer of highway funds for transit projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), funds made 
     available for transit projects or transportation planning 
     under this title may be transferred to and administered by 
     the Secretary in accordance with chapter 53 of title 49.
       ``(B) Non-federal share.--The provisions of this title 
     relating to the non-Federal share shall apply to the funds 
     transferred under subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Transfer of transit funds for highway projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), funds made 
     available for highway projects or transportation planning 
     under chapter 53 of title 49 may be transferred to and 
     administered by the Secretary in accordance with this title.
       ``(B) Non-federal share.--The provisions of chapter 53 of 
     title 49 relating to the non-Federal share shall apply to 
     funds transferred under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Transfer of funds among states or to federal highway 
     administration.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     the Secretary may, at the request of a State, transfer funds 
     apportioned or allocated under this title to the State to 
     another State, or to the Federal Highway Administration, for 
     the purpose of funding 1 or more projects that are eligible 
     for assistance with funds so apportioned or allocated.
       ``(B) Apportionment.--The transfer shall have no effect on 
     any apportionment of funds to a State under this section or 
     section 105 or 144.
       ``(C) Surface transportation program.--Funds that are 
     apportioned or allocated to a State under subsection (b)(3) 
     and attributed to an urbanized area of a State with a 
     population of over 200,000 individuals under section 
     133(d)(3) may be transferred under this paragraph only if the 
     metropolitan planning organization designated for the area 
     concurs, in writing, with the transfer request.
       ``(4) Transfer of obligation authority.--Obligation 
     authority for funds transferred under this subsection shall 
     be transferred in the same manner and amount as the funds for 
     the projects that are transferred under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 1109. RECREATIONAL TRAILS.

       (a) Recreational Trails Program Formula.--Section 104(h) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``Before apportioning sums 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out the recreational 
     trails program under section 206, the Secretary shall deduct 
     for administrative, research, technical assistance, and 
     training expenses for such program $840,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``After'' and all that 
     follows through ``remainder of the sums'' and inserting ``The 
     Secretary shall apportion the sums''.
       (b) Permissible Uses.--Section 206(d)(2) of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Permissible uses.--Permissible uses of funds 
     apportioned to a State for a fiscal year to carry out this 
     section include--
       ``(A) maintenance and restoration of existing recreational 
     trails;
       ``(B) development and rehabilitation of trailside and 
     trailhead facilities and trail linkages for recreational 
     trails;
       ``(C) purchase and lease of recreational trail construction 
     and maintenance equipment;
       ``(D) construction of new recreational trails, except that, 
     in the case of new recreational trails crossing Federal 
     lands, construction of the trails shall be--
       ``(i) permissible under other law;
       ``(ii) necessary and recommended by a statewide 
     comprehensive outdoor recreation plan that is required by the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     4 et seq.) and that is in effect;
       ``(iii) approved by the administering agency of the State 
     designated under subsection (c)(1); and
       ``(iv) approved by each Federal agency having jurisdiction 
     over the affected lands under such terms and conditions as 
     the head of the Federal agency determines to be appropriate, 
     except that the approval shall be contingent on compliance by 
     the Federal agency with all applicable laws, including the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 
     Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);
       ``(E) acquisition of easements and fee simple title to 
     property for recreational trails or recreational trail 
     corridors;
       ``(F) assessment of trail conditions for accessibility and 
     maintenance;
       ``(G) development and dissemination of publications and 
     operation of educational programs to promote safety and 
     environmental protection, (as those objectives relate to 1 or 
     more of the use of recreational trails, supporting non-law 
     enforcement trail safety and trail use monitoring patrol 
     programs, and providing trail-related training), but in an 
     amount not to exceed 5 percent of the apportionment made to 
     the State for the fiscal year; and
       ``(H) payment of costs to the State incurred in 
     administering the program, but in an amount not to exceed 7 
     percent of the apportionment made to the State for the fiscal 
     year.''.
       (c) Use of Apportionments.--Section 206(d)(3) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (3) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     ``(2)(F)'' and inserting ``(2)(H)''.
       (d) Federal Share.--Section 206(f) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``and the Federal share of the 
     administrative costs of a State'' after ``project''; and
       (B) by striking ``not exceed 80 percent'' and inserting 
     ``be determined in accordance with section 120(b)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``80 percent of'' and 
     inserting ``the amount determined in accordance with section 
     120(b) for'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)(B) by inserting ``sponsoring the 
     project'' after ``Federal agency'';
       (4) by striking paragraph (5);
       (5) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5);
       (6) in paragraph (5) (as so redesignated) by striking ``80 
     percent'' and inserting ``the Federal share as determined in 
     accordance with section 120(b)''; and
       (7) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Use of recreational trails program funds to match 
     other federal program funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds made available under this section may 
     be used toward the non-Federal matching share for other 
     Federal program funds that are--
       ``(A) expended in accordance with the requirements of the 
     Federal program relating to activities funded and populations 
     served; and
       ``(B) expended on a project that is eligible for assistance 
     under this section.''.
       (e) Planning and Environmental Assessment Costs Incurred 
     Prior to Project Approval.--Section 206(h)(1) of such title 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Planning and environmental assessment costs incurred 
     prior to project approval.--The Secretary may allow 
     preapproval planning and environmental compliance costs to be 
     credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     project described in subsection (d)(2) (other than 
     subparagraph (H)) in accordance with subsection (f), limited 
     to costs incurred less than 18 months prior to project 
     approval.''.
       (f) Encouragement of Use of Youth Conservation or Service 
     Corps.--The Secretary

[[Page 18366]]

     shall encourage the States to enter into contracts and 
     cooperative agreements with qualified youth conservation or 
     service corps to perform construction and maintenance of 
     recreational trails under section 206 of title 23, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 1110. TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES.

       (a) Standards.--Section 109(e) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(e) No funds'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(e) Installation of Safety Devices.--
       ``(1) Highway and railroad grade crossings and 
     drawbridges.--No funds''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Temporary traffic control devices.--No funds shall be 
     approved for expenditure on any Federal-aid highway, or 
     highway affected under chapter 2, unless proper temporary 
     traffic control devices to improve safety in work zones will 
     be installed and maintained during construction, utility, and 
     maintenance operations on that portion of the highway with 
     respect to which such expenditures are to be made. 
     Installation and maintenance of the devices shall be in 
     accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 
     Devices.''.
       (b) Letting of Contracts.--Section 112 of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (f);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Temporary Traffic Control Devices.--
       ``(1) Issuance of regulations.--The Secretary, after 
     consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, 
     shall issue regulations establishing the conditions for the 
     appropriate use of, and expenditure of funds for, uniformed 
     law enforcement officers, positive protective measures 
     between workers and motorized traffic, and installation and 
     maintenance of temporary traffic control devices during 
     construction, utility, and maintenance operations.
       ``(2) Effects of regulations.--Based on regulations issued 
     under paragraph (1), a State shall--
       ``(A) develop separate pay items for the use of uniformed 
     law enforcement officers, positive protective measures 
     between workers and motorized traffic, and installation and 
     maintenance of temporary traffic control devices during 
     construction, utility, and maintenance operations; and
       ``(B) incorporate such pay items into contract provisions 
     to be included in each contract entered into by the State 
     with respect to a highway project to ensure compliance with 
     section 109(e)(2).
       ``(3) Limitation.--Nothing in the regulations shall 
     prohibit a State from implementing standards that are more 
     stringent than those required under the regulations.
       ``(4) Positive protective measures defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term `positive protective measures' means 
     temporary traffic barriers, crash cushions, and other 
     strategies to avoid traffic accidents in work zones, 
     including full road closures.''.
       (c) Clarification of Date.--Section 109(g) of such title is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and all that follows through ``of 1970'' and inserting ``Not 
     later than January 30, 1971, the Secretary shall issue''.

     SEC. 1111. SET-ASIDES FOR INTERSTATE DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 118(c)(1) of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and all 
     that follows through ``2003'' and inserting ``$100,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 116.--Section 116(b) of such title is amended 
     by striking ``highway department'' and inserting 
     ``transportation department''.
       (2) Section 120.--Section 120(e) of such title is amended 
     in the first sentence by striking ``such system'' and 
     inserting ``such highway''.
       (3) Section 127.--Section 127(a) of such title is amended 
     by striking ``118(b)(1)'' and inserting ``118(b)(2)''.
       (4) Bicycle and pedestrian safety grants.--Section 1212(i) 
     of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 
     Stat. 196-197) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (D) 
     and (E) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively, and moving 
     such paragraphs 2 ems to the left.

     SEC. 1112. EMERGENCY RELIEF.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal 
     year such sums as may be necessary for allocations by the 
     Secretary described in subsections (a) and (b) of section 125 
     of title 23, United States Code, if the total of those 
     allocations in such fiscal year are in excess of 
     $100,000,000.

     SEC. 1113. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Eligibility.--Section 133(b) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6) by inserting ``, including advanced 
     truck stop electrification systems'' before the period at the 
     end; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) Projects relating to intersections that--
       ``(A) have disproportionately high accident rates;
       ``(B) have high levels of congestion, as evidenced by--
       ``(i) interrupted traffic flow at the intersection; and
       ``(ii) a level of service rating that is not better than 
     `F' during peak travel hours, calculated in accordance with 
     the Highway Capacity Manual issued by the Transportation 
     Research Board; and
       ``(C) are located on a Federal-aid highway.''.
       (b) Repeal of Safety Programs Set-aside.--
       (1) Repeal.--Section 133(d)(1) of such title is repealed.
       (2) Technical amendments.--Section 133(d) of such title is 
     amended--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (3)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``subparagraphs (C) and (D)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (C)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``80 percent'' and inserting ``90 
     percent'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)(B) by striking ``tobe'' and inserting 
     ``to be''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by clause (ii)) 
     by adding a period at the end.
       (3) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)(A)(ii) 
     of this subsection shall take effect October 1, 2005.
       (c) Transportation Enhancement Activities.--Effective 
     October 1, 2005, section 133(d)(2) of such title is amended 
     by striking ``10 percent'' and all that follows through 
     ``section 104(b)(3) for a fiscal year'' and inserting the 
     following: ``In a fiscal year, the greater of 10 percent of 
     the funds apportioned to a State under section 104(b)(3) for 
     such fiscal year, or the amount set aside under this 
     paragraph with respect to the State for fiscal year 2005,''.
       (d) Obligation Authority.--Section 133(f)(1) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1998 through 2000'' and inserting ``2004 
     through 2006''; and
       (2) by striking ``2001 through 2003'' and inserting ``2007 
     through 2009''.
       (e) Technical Correction.--Effective June 9, 1998, section 
     1108(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
     (112 Stat. 140) is amended by striking ``Section 133'' and 
     inserting ``Section 133(f)''.

     SEC. 1114. HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM.

       (a) Finding and Declaration.--Section 144(a) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Finding and Declaration.--Congress finds and declares 
     that it is in the vital interest of the United States that a 
     highway bridge program be carried out to enable States to 
     improve the condition of their highway bridges over 
     waterways, other topographical barriers, other highways, and 
     railroads through replacement and rehabilitation of bridges 
     that the States and the Secretary determine are structurally 
     deficient or functionally obsolete and through systematic 
     preventive maintenance of bridges.''.
       (b) Participation.--Section 144(d) of such title is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(d) Participation.--
       ``(1) Bridge replacement and rehabilitation.--On 
     application by a State or States to the Secretary for 
     assistance for a highway bridge that has been determined to 
     be eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under 
     subsection (b) or (c), the Secretary may approve Federal 
     participation in--
       ``(A) replacing the bridge with a comparable facility; or
       ``(B) rehabilitating the bridge.
       ``(2) Types of assistance.--On application by a State or 
     States to the Secretary, the Secretary may approve Federal 
     assistance for any of the following activities for a highway 
     bridge that has been determined to be eligible for 
     replacement or rehabilitation under subsection (b) or (c):
       ``(A) Painting.
       ``(B) Seismic retrofit.
       ``(C) Systematic preventive maintenance.
       ``(D) Installation of scour countermeasures.
       ``(E) Application of calcium magnesium acetate, sodium 
     acetate/formate, or other environmentally acceptable, 
     minimally corrosive anti-icing and de-icing compositions.
       ``(3) Basis for determination.--The Secretary shall 
     determine the eligibility of highway bridges for replacement 
     or rehabilitation for each State based on structurally 
     deficient and functionally obsolete highway bridges in the 
     State.
       ``(4) Special rule for preventive maintenance.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, a 
     State may carry out a project under paragraph (2)(B), (2)(C), 
     or (2)(D) for a highway bridge without regard to whether the 
     bridge is eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under 
     this section.''.
       (c) Apportionment of Funds.--Section 144(e) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in the third sentence by striking ``square footage'' 
     and inserting ``deck area'';
       (2) in the fourth sentence by striking ``the total cost of 
     deficient bridges in a State and in all States shall be 
     reduced by the total cost of any highway bridges constructed 
     under subsection (m) in such State, relating to replacement 
     of destroyed bridges and ferryboat services, and,''; and
       (3) in the seventh sentence by striking ``for the same 
     period as funds apportioned for projects on the Federal-aid 
     primary system under this title'' and inserting ``for the 
     period specified in section 118(b)(2)''.
       (d) Off-System Bridges.--Section 144(g)(3) of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Off-system bridges.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not less than 15 percent of the amount 
     apportioned to each State in each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 shall be expended

[[Page 18367]]

     for projects to replace, rehabilitate, paint, perform 
     systematic preventive maintenance or seismic retrofit of, or 
     apply calcium magnesium acetate, sodium acetate/formate, or 
     other environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-
     icing and de-icing compositions to, or install scour 
     countermeasures to, highway bridges located on public roads, 
     other than those on a Federal-aid highway, or to complete the 
     Warwick Intermodal Station (including the construction of a 
     people mover between the Station and the T.F. Green Airport).
       ``(B) Reduction of expenditures.--The Secretary, after 
     consultation with State and local officials, may reduce the 
     requirement for expenditure for bridges not on a Federal-aid 
     highway under subparagraph (A) with respect to the State if 
     the Secretary determines that the State has inadequate needs 
     to justify the expenditure.''.
       (e) Bridge Set-aside.--
       (1) Fiscal year 2005.--Section 144(g)(1)(C) of such title 
     is amended--
       (A) in the subsection heading by striking ``2003''and 
     inserting ``2005''; and
       (B) in the first sentence by striking ``2003'' and 
     inserting ``2005''.
       (2) Fiscal years 2006 through 2009.--Effective October 1, 
     2005, section 144(g) of such title (as amended by subsection 
     (d) of this section) is amended--
       (A) by striking the subsection designation and all that 
     follows through the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(g) Bridge Set-asides.--
       ``(1) Designated projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out the bridge program under this 
     section for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009, all 
     but $100,000,000 shall be apportioned as provided in 
     subsection (e). Such $100,000,000 shall be available as 
     follows:
       ``(i) $12,500,000 per fiscal year for the Golden Gate 
     Bridge.
       ``(ii) $18,750,000 per fiscal year for the construction of 
     a bridge joining the Island of Gravina to the community of 
     Ketchikan in Alaska.
       ``(iii) $12,500,000 per fiscal year to the State of Nevada 
     for construction of a replacement of the federally owned 
     bridge over the Hoover Dam in the Lake Mead National 
     Recreation Area.
       ``(iv) $12,500,000 per fiscal year to the State of Missouri 
     for construction of a structure over the Mississippi River to 
     connect the city of St. Louis, Missouri, to the State of 
     Illinois.
       ``(v) $12,500,000 per fiscal year for replacement and 
     reconstruction of State maintained bridges in the State of 
     Oklahoma.
       ``(vi) $4,500,000 per fiscal year for replacement of the 
     Missisquoi Bay Bridge, Vermont.
       ``(vii) $8,000,000 per fiscal year for replacement and 
     reconstruction of State-maintained bridges in the State of 
     Vermont.
       ``(viii) $8,750,000 per fiscal year for design, planning, 
     and right-of-way acquisition for the Interstate Route 74 
     bridge from Bettendorf, Iowa, to Moline, Illinois.
       ``(ix) $10,000,000 per fiscal year for replacement and 
     reconstruction of State-maintained bridges in the State of 
     Oregon.
       ``(B) Gravina access scoring.--The project described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) shall not be counted for purposes of the 
     reduction set forth in the fourth sentence of subsection (e).
       ``(C) Period of availability.--Amounts made available to a 
     State under this paragraph shall remain available until 
     expended.'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
       (f) Continuation of Report; Federal Share.--Section 144 of 
     such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Annual Materials Report on New Bridge Construction 
     and Bridge Rehabilitation.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal 
     Register a report describing construction materials used in 
     new Federal-aid bridge construction and bridge rehabilitation 
     projects.
       ``(s) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
     the Federal share of the cost of a project payable from funds 
     made available to carry out this section shall be determined 
     under section 120(b).
       ``(2) Interstate system.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     a project on the Interstate System payable from funds made 
     available to carry out this section shall be determined under 
     section 120(a).''.
       (g) Technical Amendment.--Section 144(i) of such title is 
     amended by striking ``at the same time'' and all that follows 
     through ``Congress''.

     SEC. 1115. HIGHWAY USE TAX EVASION PROJECTS.

       (a) Eligible Activities.--
       (1) Intergovernmental enforcement efforts.--Section 
     143(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting before the period the following: ``; except that of 
     funds so made available for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009, $2,000,000 shall be available only to carry out 
     intergovernmental enforcement efforts, including research and 
     training''.
       (2) Conditions on funds allocated to internal revenue 
     service.--Section 143(b)(3) of such title is amended by 
     striking ``The'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise provided 
     in this section, the''.
       (3) Limitation on use of funds.--Section 143(b)(4) of such 
     title is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (F);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) to support efforts between States and Indian tribes 
     to address issues relating to State motor fuel taxes; and
       ``(I) to analyze and implement programs to reduce tax 
     evasion associated with foreign imported fuel.''.
       (4) Reports.--Section 143(b) of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Reports.--The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 
     Service and each State shall submit to the Secretary an 
     annual report that describes the projects, examinations, and 
     criminal investigations funded by and carried out under this 
     section. Such report shall specify the estimated annual yield 
     from such projects, examinations, and criminal 
     investigations.''.
       (b) Excise Fuel Reporting System.--Section 143(c) of such 
     title is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Excise Tax Fuel Reporting.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the Secretary shall enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding with the Commissioner of the 
     Internal Revenue Service for the purposes of--
       ``(A) the additional development of capabilities needed to 
     support new reporting requirements and databases established 
     under such Act and the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 
     (P.L. 108-357), and such other reporting requirements and 
     database development as may be determined by the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 
     Service, to be useful in the enforcement of fuel excise 
     taxes, including provisions recommended by the Fuel Tax 
     Enforcement Advisory Committee;
       ``(B) the completion of requirements needed for the 
     electronic reporting of fuel transactions from carriers and 
     terminal operators,
       ``(C) the operation and maintenance of an excise summary 
     terminal activity reporting system and other systems used to 
     provide strategic analyses of domestic and foreign motor fuel 
     distribution trends and patterns,
       ``(D) the collection, analysis, and sharing of information 
     on fuel distribution and compliance or noncompliance with 
     fuel taxes, and
       ``(E) the development, completion, operation, and 
     maintenance of an electronic claims filing system and 
     database and an electronic database of heavy vehicle highway 
     use payments.
       ``(2) Elements of memorandum of understanding.--The 
     memorandum of understanding shall provide that--
       ``(A) the Internal Revenue Service shall develop and 
     maintain any system under paragraph (1) through contracts,
       ``(B) any system under paragraph (1) shall be under the 
     control of the Internal Revenue Service, and
       ``(C) any system under paragraph (1) shall be made 
     available for use by appropriate State and Federal revenue, 
     tax, and law enforcement authorities, subject to section 6103 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(3) Funding.--Of the amounts made available to carry out 
     this section for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the 
     Secretary shall make available to the Internal Revenue 
     Service such funds as may be necessary to complete, operate, 
     and maintain the systems under paragraph (1) in accordance 
     with this subsection.
       ``(4) Reports.--Not later than September 30 of each year, 
     the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall 
     provide reports to the Secretary on the status of the 
     Internal Revenue Service projects funded under this 
     subsection.''.
       (c) Allocations.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 1101(a)(21) of this Act for 
     highway use tax evasion projects for each of the fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009, the following amounts shall be allocated 
     to the Internal Revenue Service to carry out section 143 of 
     title 23, United States Code:
       (1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       (2) $44,800,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (3) $53,300,000 for fiscal year 2007.
       (4) $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

     SEC. 1116. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

       (a) Apportionment.--The Secretary shall apportion funds 
     made available by section 1101(a)(7) of this Act for fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009 among the States based on the latest 
     available cost to complete estimate for the Appalachian 
     development highway system under section 14501 of title 40, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available by 
     section 1101(a)(7) of this Act for the Appalachian 
     development highway system shall be available for obligation 
     in the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that the 
     Federal share of the cost of any project under this section 
     shall be determined in accordance with section 14501 of title 
     40, United States Code, and such funds shall be available to 
     construct highways and access roads under such section and 
     shall remain available until expended.
       (c) Use of Toll Credits.--Section 120(j)(1) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``and the 
     Appalachian development highway system program under section 
     14501 of title 40'' after ``section 125''.

     SEC. 1117. TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNITY, AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--In cooperation with appropriate State, 
     tribal, regional, and local governments, the Secretary shall 
     establish a comprehensive program to address the 
     relationships

[[Page 18368]]

     among transportation, community, and system preservation 
     plans and practices and identify private sector-based 
     initiatives to improve such relationships.
       (b) Purpose.--Through the program under this section, the 
     Secretary shall facilitate the planning, development, and 
     implementation of strategies to integrate transportation, 
     community, and system preservation plans and practices that 
     address 1 or more of the following:
       (1) Improve the efficiency of the transportation system of 
     the United States.
       (2) Reduce the impacts of transportation on the 
     environment.
       (3) Reduce the need for costly future investments in public 
     infrastructure.
       (4) Provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers 
     of trade.
       (5) Examine community development patterns and identify 
     strategies to encourage private sector development that 
     achieves the purposes identified in paragraphs (1) through 
     (4).
       (c) General Authority.--The Secretary shall allocate funds 
     made available to carry out this section to States, 
     metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and 
     tribal governments to carry out eligible projects to 
     integrate transportation, community, and system preservation 
     plans and practices.
       (d) Eligibility.--A project described in subsection (c) is 
     an eligible project under this section if the project--
       (1) is eligible for assistance under title 23 or chapter 53 
     of title 49, United States Code; or
       (2) is to conduct any other activity relating to 
     transportation, community, and system preservation that the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate, including corridor 
     preservation activities that are necessary to implement 1 or 
     more of the following:
       (A) Transit-oriented development plans.
       (B) Traffic calming measures.
       (C) Other coordinated transportation, community, and system 
     preservation practices.
       (e) Criteria.--In allocating funds made available to carry 
     out this section, the Secretary shall give priority 
     consideration to applicants that--
       (1) have instituted preservation or development plans and 
     programs that--
       (A) are coordinated with State and local preservation or 
     development plans, including transit-oriented development 
     plans;
       (B) promote cost-effective and strategic investments in 
     transportation infrastructure that minimize adverse impacts 
     on the environment; or
       (C) promote innovative private sector strategies;
       (2) have instituted other policies to integrate 
     transportation, community, and system preservation practices, 
     such as--
       (A) spending policies that direct funds to high-growth 
     areas;
       (B) urban growth boundaries to guide metropolitan 
     expansion;
       (C) ``green corridors'' programs that provide access to 
     major highway corridors for areas targeted for efficient and 
     compact development; or
       (D) other similar programs or policies as determined by the 
     Secretary;
       (3) have preservation or development policies that include 
     a mechanism for reducing potential impacts of transportation 
     activities on the environment;
       (4) demonstrate a commitment to public and private 
     involvement, including the involvement of nontraditional 
     partners in the project team; and
       (5) examine ways to encourage private sector investments 
     that address the purposes of this section.
       (f) Equitable Distribution.--In allocating funds to carry 
     out this section, the Secretary shall ensure the equitable 
     distribution of funds to a diversity of populations and 
     geographic regions.
       (g) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2005 and $61,250,000 for each of fiscal years 2006, 
     2007, 2008, and 2009.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds made available to carry out 
     this section shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code; except that such funds shall 
     not be transferable, and the Federal share for projects and 
     activities carried out with such funds shall be determined in 
     accordance with section 120(b) of title 23, United States 
     Code.
       (h) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1221 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 101 
     note; 112 Stat. 221) is repealed.

     SEC. 1118. TERRITORIAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking section 215 and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 215. Territorial highway program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Program.--The term `program' means the territorial 
     highway program established under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Territory.--The term `territory' means the any of the 
     following territories of the United States:
       ``(A) American Samoa.
       ``(B) The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       ``(C) Guam.
       ``(D) The United States Virgin Islands.
       ``(b) Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Recognizing the mutual benefits that 
     will accrue to the territories and the United States from the 
     improvement of highways in the territories, the Secretary may 
     carry out a program to assist each government of a territory 
     in the construction and improvement of a system of arterial 
     and collector highways, and necessary inter-island 
     connectors, that is--
       ``(A) designated by the Governor or chief executive officer 
     of each territory; and
       ``(B) approved by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of Federal 
     financial assistance provided to territories under this 
     section shall be in accordance with section 120(h).
       ``(c) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--To continue a long-range highway 
     development program, the Secretary may provide technical 
     assistance to the governments of the territories to enable 
     the territories to, on a continuing basis--
       ``(A) engage in highway planning;
       ``(B) conduct environmental evaluations;
       ``(C) administer right-of-way acquisition and relocation 
     assistance programs; and
       ``(D) design, construct, operate, and maintain a system of 
     arterial and collector highways, including necessary inter-
     island connectors.
       ``(2) Form and terms of assistance.--Technical assistance 
     provided under paragraph (1), and the terms for the sharing 
     of information among territories receiving the technical 
     assistance, shall be included in the agreement required by 
     subsection (e).
       ``(d) Nonapplicability of Certain Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except to the extent that provisions of 
     chapter 1 are determined by the Secretary to be inconsistent 
     with the needs of the territories and the intent of the 
     program, chapter 1 (other than provisions of chapter 1 
     relating to the apportionment and allocation of funds) shall 
     apply to funds authorized to be appropriated for the program.
       ``(2) Applicable provisions.--The agreement required by 
     subsection (e) for each territory shall identify the sections 
     of chapter 1 that are applicable to that territory and the 
     extent of the applicability of those sections.
       ``(e) Agreement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), 
     none of the funds made available for the program shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure with respect to any 
     territory until the chief executive officer of the territory 
     enters into an agreement with the Secretary (not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of SAFETEA-LU), providing 
     that the government of the territory shall--
       ``(A) implement the program in accordance with applicable 
     provisions of chapter 1 and subsection (d);
       ``(B) design and construct a system of arterial and 
     collector highways, including necessary inter-island 
     connectors, in accordance with standards that are--
       ``(i) appropriate for each territory; and
       ``(ii) approved by the Secretary;
       ``(C) provide for the maintenance of facilities constructed 
     or operated under this section in a condition to adequately 
     serve the needs of present and future traffic; and
       ``(D) implement standards for traffic operations and 
     uniform traffic control devices that are approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--The agreement required by 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) specify the kind of technical assistance to be 
     provided under the program;
       ``(B) include appropriate provisions regarding information 
     sharing among the territories; and
       ``(C) delineate the oversight role and responsibilities of 
     the territories and the Secretary.
       ``(3) Review and revision of agreement.--The agreement 
     entered into under paragraph (1) shall be reevaluated and, as 
     necessary, revised, at least every 2 years.
       ``(4) Existing agreements.--With respect to an agreement 
     under the section between the Secretary and the chief 
     executive officer of a territory that is in effect as of the 
     date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU--
       ``(A) the agreement shall continue in force until replaced 
     by an agreement entered into in accordance with paragraph 
     (1); and
       ``(B) amounts made available for the program under the 
     existing agreement shall be available for obligation or 
     expenditure so long as the agreement, or the existing 
     agreement entered into under paragraph (1), is in effect.
       ``(f) Permissible Uses of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds made available for the program may 
     be used only for the following projects and activities 
     carried out in a territory:
       ``(A) Eligible surface transportation program projects 
     described in section 133(b).
       ``(B) Cost-effective, preventive maintenance consistent 
     with section 116(d).
       ``(C) Ferry boats, terminal facilities, and approaches, in 
     accordance with subsections (b) and (c) of section 129.
       ``(D) Engineering and economic surveys and investigations 
     for the planning, and the financing, of future highway 
     programs.
       ``(E) Studies of the economy, safety, and convenience of 
     highway use.
       ``(F) The regulation and equitable taxation of highway use.
       ``(G) Such research and development as are necessary in 
     connection with the planning, design, and maintenance of the 
     highway system.
       ``(2) Prohibition on use of funds for routine 
     maintenance.--None of the funds made available for the 
     program shall be obligated or expended for routine 
     maintenance.
       ``(g) Location of Projects.--Territorial highway projects 
     (other than those described in paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) 
     of section 133(b))

[[Page 18369]]

     may not be undertaken on roads functionally classified as 
     local.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Eligible projects.--Section 103(b) of such title is 
     amended--
       (A) in the heading for paragraph (6) by striking 
     ``Eligible'' and inserting ``State eligible'';
       (B) in paragraph (6) by striking subparagraph (P) ; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Territory eligible projects.--Subject to approval by 
     the Secretary, funds set aside for this program under section 
     104(b)(1) for the National Highway System may be obligated 
     for projects eligible for assistance under the territorial 
     highway program under section 215.''.
       (2) Funding.--Section 104(b)(1)(A) of such title is amended 
     by striking ``to the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 
     and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands'' and 
     inserting ``for the territorial highway program under section 
     215''.
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The analysis for chapter 2 of such 
     title is amended by striking the item relating to section 215 
     and inserting the following:

``215. Territorial highway program.''.

     SEC. 1119. FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS.

       (a) Federal Share Payable.--
       (1) In general.--Section 120(k) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Federal-aid highway''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 104'' and inserting ``this title 
     or chapter 53 of title 49''.
       (2) Technical references.--Section 120(l) of such title is 
     amended by striking ``section 104'' and inserting ``this 
     title or chapter 53 of title 49''.
       (b) Payments to Federal Agencies for Federal-Aid 
     Projects.--Section 132 of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking the first 2 sentences and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--In a case in which a proposed Federal-
     aid project is to be undertaken by a Federal agency in 
     accordance with an agreement between a State and the Federal 
     agency, the State may--
       ``(1) direct the Secretary to transfer the funds for the 
     Federal share of the project directly to the Federal agency; 
     or
       ``(2) make such deposit with, or payment to, the Federal 
     agency as is required to meet the obligation of the State 
     under the agreement for the work undertaken or to be 
     undertaken by the Federal agency.
       ``(b) Reimbursement.--On execution with a State of a 
     project agreement described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
     may reimburse the State, using any available funds, for the 
     estimated Federal share under this title of the obligation of 
     the State deposited or paid under subsection (a)(2).''; and
       (2) in the last sentence by striking ``Any sums'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Recovery and Crediting of Funds.--Any sums''.
       (c)  Allocations.--Section 202 of such title is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``(a) On October 1'' and 
     all that follows through ``Such allocation'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Allocation Based on Need.--
       ``(1) In general.--On October 1 of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall allocate sums authorized to be appropriated 
     for the fiscal year for forest development roads and trails 
     according to the relative needs of the various national 
     forests and grasslands.
       ``(2) Planning.--The allocation under paragraph (1)'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(2)--
       (A) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Transferred funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which funds are made available to the Secretary of the 
     Interior under this paragraph, the funds shall be distributed 
     to, and available for immediate use by, the eligible Indian 
     tribes, in accordance with the formula for distribution of 
     funds under the Indian reservation roads program.
       ``(ii) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, funds available to Indian tribes for Indian 
     reservation roads shall be expended on projects identified in 
     a transportation improvement program approved by the 
     Secretary.''; and
       (B) in subsection (d)(3)(A) by striking ``under this 
     title'' and inserting ``under this chapter and section 
     125(e)''.
       (d) Federal Lands Highways Program.--Section 202 of such 
     title is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Allocation for Public Lands Highways.--
       ``(1) Public lands highways.--
       ``(A) In general.--On October 1 of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall allocate 34 percent of the sums authorized to 
     be appropriated for that fiscal year for public lands 
     highways among those States having unappropriated or 
     unreserved public lands, nontaxable Indian lands, or other 
     Federal reservations, on the basis of need in the States, 
     respectively, as determined by the Secretary, on application 
     of the State transportation departments of the respective 
     States.
       ``(B) Preference.--In making the allocation under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give preference to 
     those projects that are significantly impacted by Federal 
     land and resource management activities that are proposed by 
     a State that contains at least 3 percent of the total public 
     land in the United States.
       ``(2) Forest highways.--
       ``(A) In general.--On October 1 of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall allocate 66 percent of the funds authorized 
     to be appropriated for public lands highways for forest 
     highways in accordance with section 134 of the Federal-Aid 
     Highway Act of 1987 (23 U.S.C. 202 note; 101 Stat. 173).
       ``(B) Public access to and within national forest system.--
     In making the allocation under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall give equal consideration to projects that 
     provide access to and within the National Forest System, as 
     identified by the Secretary of Agriculture through--
       ``(i) renewable resource and land use planning; and
       ``(ii) assessments of the impact of that planning on 
     transportation facilities.''.
       (e) BIA Administrative Expenses.--Section 202(d)(2) of such 
     title (as amended by subsection (c)(2) of this section) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) Administrative expenses.--
       ``(i) In general.--Of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated for Indian reservation roads, $20,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, 
     $24,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $27,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2009 may be used by the Secretary of the Interior for 
     program management and oversight and project-related 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(ii) Health and safety assurances.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, an Indian tribal government may 
     approve plans, specifications, and estimates and commence 
     road and bridge construction with funds made available for 
     Indian reservation roads under the Transportation Equity Act 
     for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) and SAFETEA-LU 
     through a contract or agreement under the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et 
     seq.) if the Indian tribal government--

       ``(I) provides assurances in the contract or agreement that 
     the construction will meet or exceed applicable health and 
     safety standards;
       ``(II) obtains the advance review of the plans and 
     specifications from a State-licensed civil engineer that has 
     certified that the plans and specifications meet or exceed 
     the applicable health and safety standards; and
       ``(III) provides a copy of the certification under 
     subclause (I) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal 
     Government Affairs or the Assistant Secretary for Indian 
     Affairs, as appropriate.''.

       (f) National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory.--
     Section 202(d)(2) of such title (as amended by subsection 
     (e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) National tribal transportation facility inventory.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the Secretary, in cooperation 
     with the Secretary of the Interior, shall complete a 
     comprehensive national inventory of transportation facilities 
     that are eligible for assistance under the Indian reservation 
     roads program.
       ``(ii) Transportation facilities included in the 
     inventory.--For purposes of identifying the tribal 
     transportation system and determining the relative 
     transportation needs among Indian tribes, the Secretary shall 
     include, at a minimum, transportation facilities that are 
     eligible for assistance under the Indian reservation roads 
     program that a tribe has requested, including facilities 
     that--

       ``(I) were included in the Bureau of Indian Affairs system 
     inventory for funding formula purposes in 1992 or any 
     subsequent fiscal year;
       ``(II) were constructed or reconstructed with funds from 
     the Highway Trust Funds (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     under the Indian reservation roads program since 1983;
       ``(III) are owned by an Indian tribal government; or
       ``(IV) are community streets or bridges within the exterior 
     boundary of Indian reservations, Alaska Native villages, and 
     other recognized Indian communities (including communities in 
     former Indian reservations in Oklahoma) in which the majority 
     of residents are American Indians or Alaska Natives; or
       ``(V) are primary access routes proposed by tribal 
     governments, including roads between villages, roads to 
     landfills, roads to drinking water sources, roads to natural 
     resources identified for economic development, and roads that 
     provide access to intermodal termini, such as airports, 
     harbors, or boat landings.

       ``(iii) Limitation on primary access routes.--For purposes 
     of this subparagraph, a proposed primary access route is the 
     shortest practicable route connecting 2 points of the 
     proposed route.
       ``(iv) Additional facilities.--Nothing in this subparagraph 
     shall preclude the Secretary from including additional 
     transportation facilities that are eligible for funding under 
     the Indian reservation roads program in the inventory used 
     for the national funding allocation if such additional 
     facilities are included in the inventory in a uniform and 
     consistent manner nationally.
       ``(v) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of completion of the inventory under this subparagraph, 
     the Secretary shall prepare and submit a report to Congress 
     that includes the data gathered and the results of the 
     inventory.''.
       (g) Indian Reservation Road Bridges.--Section 202(d)(4) of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``(B) Reservation.--Of the amounts'' and 
     all that follows through ``to replace,'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Funding.--

[[Page 18370]]

       ``(i) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to any 
     other funds made available for Indian reservation roads for 
     each fiscal year, there is authorized to be appropriated from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     $14,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to 
     carry out planning, design, engineering, preconstruction, 
     construction, and inspection of projects to replace,''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Availability.--Funds made available to carry out 
     this subparagraph shall be available for obligation in the 
     same manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 
     1.'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C) by striking clause (iii) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(iii) be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; 
     and''; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(D) Approval requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), on request by an 
     Indian tribe or the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary 
     may make funds available under this subsection for 
     preliminary engineering for Indian reservation road bridge 
     projects.
       ``(ii) Construction and construction engineering.--The 
     Secretary may make funds available under clause (i) for 
     construction and construction engineering after approval of 
     applicable plans, specifications, and estimates in accordance 
     with this title.''.
       (4) Contracts and agreements with indian tribes.--Section 
     202(d) of such title is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Contracts and agreements with indian tribes.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law or any interagency agreement, program guideline, manual, 
     or policy directive, all funds made available to an Indian 
     tribal government under this chapter for a highway, road, 
     bridge, parkway, or transit facility program or project that 
     is located on an Indian reservation or provides access to the 
     reservation or a community of the Indian tribe shall be made 
     available, on the request of the Indian tribal government, to 
     the Indian tribal government for use in carrying out, in 
     accordance with the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), contracts and 
     agreements for the planning, research, design, engineering, 
     construction, and maintenance relating to the program or 
     project.
       ``(B) Exclusion of agency participation.--In accordance 
     with subparagraph (A), all funds for a program or project to 
     which subparagraph (A) applies shall be paid to the Indian 
     tribal government without regard to the organizational level 
     at which the Department of the Interior has previously 
     carried out, or the Department of Transportation has 
     previously carried out under the Federal lands highway 
     programs, the programs, functions, services, or activities 
     involved.
       ``(C) Consortia.--Two or more Indian tribes that are 
     otherwise eligible to participate in a program or project to 
     which this chapter applies may form a consortium to be 
     considered as a single Indian tribe for the purpose of 
     participating in the project under this section.
       ``(D) Secretary as signatory.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary is authorized to enter into a 
     funding agreement with an Indian tribal government to carry 
     out a highway, road, bridge, parkway, or transit program or 
     project under subparagraph (A) that is located on an Indian 
     reservation or provides access to the reservation or a 
     community of the Indian tribe.
       ``(E) Funding.--The amount an Indian tribal government 
     receives for a program or project under subparagraph (A) 
     shall equal the sum of the funding that the Indian tribal 
     government would otherwise receive for the program or project 
     in accordance with the funding formula established under this 
     subsection and such additional amounts as the Secretary 
     determines equal the amounts that would have been withheld 
     for the costs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 
     administration of the program or project.
       ``(F) Eligibility.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), funds may be 
     made available under subparagraph (A) to an Indian tribal 
     government for a program or project in a fiscal year only if 
     the Indian tribal government requesting such funds 
     demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary financial 
     stability and financial management capability during the 3 
     fiscal years immediately preceding the fiscal year for which 
     the request is being made.
       ``(ii) Criteria for determining financial stability and 
     financial management capability.--An Indian tribal government 
     that had no uncorrected significant and material audit 
     exceptions in the required annual audit of the Indian tribal 
     government self-determination contracts or self-governance 
     funding agreements with any Federal agency during the 3-
     fiscal year period referred in clause (i) shall be conclusive 
     evidence of the financial stability and financial management 
     capability for purposes of clause (i).
       ``(G) Assumption of functions and duties.--An Indian tribal 
     government receiving funding under subparagraph (A) for a 
     program or project shall assume all functions and duties that 
     the Secretary of the Interior would have performed with 
     respect to a program or project under this chapter, other 
     than those functions and duties that inherently cannot be 
     legally transferred under the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.).
       ``(H) Powers.--An Indian tribal government receiving 
     funding under subparagraph (A) for a program or project shall 
     have all powers that the Secretary of the Interior would have 
     exercised in administering the funds transferred to the 
     Indian tribal government for such program or project under 
     this section if the funds had not been transferred, except to 
     the extent that such powers are powers that inherently cannot 
     be legally transferred under the Indian Self-Determination 
     and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.).
       ``(I) Dispute resolution.--In the event of a disagreement 
     between the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior and an 
     Indian tribe over whether a particular function, duty, or 
     power may be lawfully transferred under the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et 
     seq.), the Indian tribe shall have the right to pursue all 
     alternative dispute resolutions and appeal procedures 
     authorized by such Act, including regulations issued to carry 
     out such Act.
       ``(J) Termination of contract or agreement.--On the date of 
     the termination of a contract or agreement under this section 
     by an Indian tribal government, the Secretary shall transfer 
     all funds that would have been allocated to the Indian tribal 
     government under the contract or agreement to the Secretary 
     of the Interior to provide continued transportation services 
     in accordance with applicable law.''.
       (h) Planning and Agency Coordination.--Section 204 of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``refuge roads,'' 
     after ``parkways,''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds made available for public lands 
     highways, park roads and parkways, and Indian reservation 
     roads shall be used by the Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     appropriate Federal land management agency to pay the cost 
     of--
       ``(A) transportation planning, research, and engineering 
     and construction of, highways, roads, parkways, and transit 
     facilities located on public lands, national parks, and 
     Indian reservations; and
       ``(B) operation and maintenance of transit facilities 
     located on public lands, national parks, and Indian 
     reservations.
       ``(2) Contract.--In connection with an activity described 
     in paragraph (1), the Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     appropriate Federal land management agency may enter into a 
     contract or other appropriate agreement with respect to such 
     activity with--
       ``(A) a State (including a political subdivision of a 
     State); or
       ``(B) an Indian tribe.
       ``(3) Indian reservation roads.--In the case of an Indian 
     reservation road--
       ``(A) Indian labor may be employed, in accordance with such 
     rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Secretary 
     of the Interior, to carry out any construction or other 
     activity described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) funds made available to carry out this section may be 
     used to pay bridge preconstruction costs (including planning, 
     design, and engineering).
       ``(4) Federal employment.--No maximum limitation on Federal 
     employment shall be applicable to construction or improvement 
     of Indian reservation roads.
       ``(5) Availability of funds.--Funds made available under 
     this section for each class of Federal lands highways shall 
     be available for any transportation project eligible for 
     assistance under this title that is within or adjacent to, or 
     that provides access to, the areas served by the particular 
     class of Federal lands highways.
       ``(6) Reservation of funds.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     may reserve funds from administrative funds of the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs that are associated with the Indian 
     reservation roads program to finance Indian technical centers 
     under section 504(b).''.
       (i) Maintenance of Indian Reservation Roads.--Section 
     204(c) of such title is amended by striking the second and 
     third sentences and inserting the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, of the 
     amount of funds allocated for Indian reservation roads from 
     the Highway Trust Fund, not more than 25 percent of the funds 
     allocated to an Indian tribe may be expended for the purpose 
     of maintenance, excluding road sealing which shall not be 
     subject to any limitation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs shall 
     continue to retain primary responsibility, including annual 
     funding request responsibility, for road maintenance programs 
     on Indian reservations. The Secretary shall ensure that 
     funding made available under this subsection for maintenance 
     of Indian reservation roads for each fiscal year is 
     supplementary to and not in lieu of any obligation of funds 
     by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for road maintenance programs 
     on Indian reservations.''.
       (j) Refuge Roads.--Section 204(k)(1) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``(2), (5),'' and inserting ``(2), (3), 
     (5),''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (C) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) the non-Federal share of the cost of any project 
     funded under this title or chapter 53 of title 49 that 
     provides access to or within a wildlife refuge; and
       ``(E) maintenance and improvement of recreational trails; 
     except that expenditures on

[[Page 18371]]

     trails under this subparagraph shall not exceed 5 percent of 
     available funds for each fiscal year.''.
       (k) Tribal-State Road Maintenance Agreements.--Section 204 
     of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Tribal-State Road Maintenance Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--An Indian tribe and a State may enter 
     into a road maintenance agreement under which an Indian tribe 
     assumes the responsibilities of the State for--
       ``(A) Indian reservation roads; and
       ``(B) roads providing access to Indian reservation roads.
       ``(2) Tribal-state agreements.--Agreements entered into 
     under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall be negotiated between the State and the Indian 
     tribe; and
       ``(B) shall not require the approval of the Secretary.
       ``(3) Annual report.--Effective beginning with fiscal year 
     2005, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress an 
     annual report that identifies--
       ``(A) the Indian tribes and States that have entered into 
     agreements under paragraph (1);
       ``(B) the number of miles of roads for which Indian tribes 
     have assumed maintenance responsibilities; and
       ``(C) the amount of funding transferred to Indian tribes 
     for the fiscal year under agreements entered into under 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (l) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Tribal 
     Government Affairs.--Section 102 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government 
     Affairs.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--In accordance with Federal policies 
     promoting Indian self determination, the Department of 
     Transportation shall have, within the office of the 
     Secretary, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government 
     Affairs appointed by the President to plan, coordinate, and 
     implement the Department of Transportation policy and 
     programs serving Indian tribes and tribal organizations and 
     to coordinate tribal transportation programs and activities 
     in all offices and administrations of the Department and to 
     be a participant in any negotiated rulemaking relating to, or 
     having an impact on, projects, programs, or funding 
     associated with the tribal transportation program.
       ``(2) Reservation of trust obligations.--
       ``(A) Responsibility of secretary.--In carrying out this 
     title, the Secretary shall be responsible to exercise the 
     trust obligations of the United States to Indians and Indian 
     tribes to ensure that the rights of a tribe or individual 
     Indian are protected.
       ``(B) Preservation of united states responsibility.--
     Nothing in this title shall absolve the United States from 
     any responsibility to Indians and Indian tribes, including 
     responsibilities derived from the trust relationship and any 
     treaty, executive order, or agreement between the United 
     States and an Indian tribe.''.
       (m) Forest Highways.--Of the amounts made available for 
     public lands highways under section 1101--
       (1) not to exceed $20,000,000 per fiscal year may be used 
     for the maintenance of forest highways;
       (2) not to exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year may be used 
     for signage identifying public hunting and fishing access; 
     and
       (3) not to exceed $10,000,000 per fiscal year shall be used 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture to pay the costs of 
     facilitating the passage of aquatic species beneath roads in 
     the National Forest System, including the costs of 
     constructing, maintaining, replacing, or removing culverts 
     and bridges, as appropriate.
       (n) Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of 
     methods to reduce collisions between motor vehicles and 
     wildlife (in this subsection referred to as ``wildlife 
     vehicle collisions'').
       (2) Contents.--
       (A) Areas of study.--The study shall include an assessment 
     of the causes and impacts of wildlife vehicle collisions and 
     solutions and best practices for reducing such collisions.
       (B) Methods for conducting the study.--In carrying out the 
     study, the Secretary shall--
       (i) conduct a thorough literature review; and
       (ii) survey current practices of the Department of 
     Transportation.
       (3) Consultation.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary 
     shall consult with appropriate experts in the field of 
     wildlife vehicle collisions.
       (4) Report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the results of the study.
       (B) Contents.--The report shall include a description of 
     each of the following:
       (i) Causes of wildlife vehicle collisions.
       (ii) Impacts of wildlife vehicle collisions.
       (iii) Solutions to and prevention of wildlife vehicle 
     collisions.
       (5) Manual.--
       (A) Development.--Based upon the results of the study, the 
     Secretary shall develop a best practices manual to support 
     State efforts to reduce wildlife vehicle collisions.
       (B) Availability.--The manual shall be made available to 
     States not later than 1 year after the date of transmission 
     of the report under paragraph (4).
       (C) Contents.--The manual shall include, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       (i) A list of best practices addressing wildlife vehicle 
     collisions.
       (ii) A list of information, technical, and funding 
     resources for addressing wildlife vehicle collisions.
       (iii) Recommendations for addressing wildlife vehicle 
     collisions.
       (iv) Guidance for developing a State action plan to address 
     wildlife vehicle collisions.
       (6) Training.--Based upon the manual developed under 
     paragraph (5), the Secretary shall develop a training course 
     on addressing wildlife vehicle collisions for transportation 
     professionals.
       (o) Limitation on Applicability.--The requirements of the 
     January 4, 2005, Federal Highway Administration, a final rule 
     on the implementation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     and Real Property Acquisition policy Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     4601 et seq.) shall not apply to the voluntary conservation 
     easement activities of the Department of Agriculture or the 
     Department of the Interior.

     SEC. 1120. PUERTO RICO HIGHWAY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 165. Puerto Rico highway program

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall allocate funds made 
     available to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to carry 
     out a highway program in the Commonwealth.
       ``(b) Applicability of Title.--Amounts made available by 
     section 1101(a)(14) of the SAFETEA-LU shall be available for 
     obligation in the same manner as if such funds were 
     apportioned under this chapter.
       ``(c) Treatment of Funds.--Amounts made available to carry 
     out this section for a fiscal year shall be administered as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Apportionment.--For the purpose of imposing any 
     penalty under this title or title 49, the amounts shall be 
     treated as being apportioned to Puerto Rico under sections 
     104(b) and 144, for each program funded under those sections 
     in an amount determined by multiplying--
       ``(A) the aggregate of the amounts for the fiscal year; by
       ``(B) the ratio that--
       ``(i) the amount of funds apportioned to Puerto Rico for 
     each such program for fiscal year 1997; bears to
       ``(ii) the total amount of funds apportioned to Puerto Rico 
     for all such programs for fiscal year 1997.
       ``(2) Penalty.--The amounts treated as being apportioned to 
     Puerto Rico under each section referred to in paragraph (1) 
     shall be deemed to be required to be apportioned to Puerto 
     Rico under that section for purposes of the imposition of any 
     penalty under this title or title 49.
       ``(d) Effect on Allocations and Apportionments.--Subject to 
     subsection (c)(2), nothing in this section affects any 
     allocation under section 105 and any apportionment under 
     sections 104 and 144.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 1 of such title is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``165. Puerto Rico highway program.''.
       (c) Definition of State.--For the purposes of apportioning 
     funds under sections 104, 105, 130, 144, and 206 of title 23, 
     United States Code, and section 1404, relating to the safe 
     routes to school program, the term ``State'' means any of the 
     50 States and the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 1121. HOV FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code (as amended by section 1120 of this Act), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 166. HOV Facilities

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Authority of state agencies.--A State agency that has 
     jurisdiction over the operation of a HOV facility shall 
     establish the occupancy requirements of vehicles operating on 
     the facility.
       ``(2) Occupancy requirement.--Except as otherwise provided 
     by this section, no fewer than 2 occupants per vehicle may be 
     required for use of a HOV facility.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the occupancy 
     requirement of subsection (a)(2), the exceptions in 
     paragraphs (2) through (5) shall apply with respect to a 
     State agency operating a HOV facility.
       ``(2) Motorcycles and bicycles.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the State 
     agency shall allow motorcycles and bicycles to use the HOV 
     facility.
       ``(B) Safety exception.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State agency may restrict use of the 
     HOV facility by motorcycles or bicycles (or both) if the 
     agency certifies to the Secretary that such use would create 
     a safety hazard and the Secretary accepts the certification.
       ``(ii) Acceptance of certification.--The Secretary may 
     accept a certification under this subparagraph only after the 
     Secretary publishes notice of the certification in the 
     Federal Register and provides an opportunity for public 
     comment.
       ``(3) Public transportation vehicles.--The State agency may 
     allow public transportation vehicles to use the HOV facility 
     if the agency--
       ``(A) establishes requirements for clearly identifying the 
     vehicles; and
       ``(B) establishes procedures for enforcing the restrictions 
     on the use of the facility by the vehicles.

[[Page 18372]]

       ``(4) High occupancy toll vehicles.--The State agency may 
     allow vehicles not otherwise exempt pursuant to this 
     subsection to use the HOV facility if the operators of the 
     vehicles pay a toll charged by the agency for use of the 
     facility and the agency--
       ``(A) establishes a program that addresses how motorists 
     can enroll and participate in the toll program;
       ``(B) develops, manages, and maintains a system that will 
     automatically collect the toll; and
       ``(C) establishes policies and procedures to--
       ``(i) manage the demand to use the facility by varying the 
     toll amount that is charged; and
       ``(ii) enforce violations of use of the facility.
       ``(5) Low emission and energy-efficient vehicles.--
       ``(A) Inherently low emission vehicle.--Before September 
     30, 2009, the State agency may allow vehicles that are 
     certified as inherently low-emission vehicles pursuant to 
     section 88.311-93 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (or successor regulations), and are labeled in accordance 
     with section 88.312-93 of such title (or successor 
     regulations), to use the HOV facility if the agency 
     establishes procedures for enforcing the restrictions on the 
     use of the facility by the vehicles.
       ``(B) Other low emission and energy-efficient vehicles.--
     Before September 30, 2009, the State agency may allow 
     vehicles certified as low emission and energy-efficient 
     vehicles under subsection (e), and labeled in accordance with 
     subsection (e), to use the HOV facility if the operators of 
     the vehicles pay a toll charged by the agency for use of the 
     facility and the agency--
       ``(i) establishes a program that addresses the selection of 
     vehicles under this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) establishes procedures for enforcing the 
     restrictions on the use of the facility by the vehicles.
       ``(C) Amount of tolls.--Under subparagraph (B), a State 
     agency may charge no toll or may charge a toll that is less 
     than tolls charged under paragraph (3).
       ``(c) Requirements Applicable to Tolls.--
       ``(1) In general.--Tolls may be charged under paragraphs 
     (3) and (4) of subsection (b) notwithstanding section 301 
     and, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), subject to 
     the requirements of section 129.
       ``(2) HOV facilities on the interstate system.--
     Notwithstanding section 129, tolls may be charged under 
     paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) on a HOV facility on 
     the Interstate System.
       ``(3) Excess toll revenues.--If a State agency makes a 
     certification under section 129(a)(3) with respect to toll 
     revenues collected under paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection 
     (b), the State, in the use of toll revenues under that 
     sentence, shall give priority consideration to projects for 
     developing alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel 
     and projects for improving highway safety.
       ``(d) HOV Facility Management, Operation, Monitoring, and 
     Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State agency that allows vehicles to 
     use a HOV facility under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection 
     (b) in a fiscal year shall certify to the Secretary that the 
     agency will carry out the following responsibilities with 
     respect to the facility in the fiscal year:
       ``(A) Establishing, managing, and supporting a performance 
     monitoring, evaluation, and reporting program for the 
     facility that provides for continuous monitoring, assessment, 
     and reporting on the impacts that the vehicles may have on 
     the operation of the facility and adjacent highways.
       ``(B) Establishing, managing, and supporting an enforcement 
     program that ensures that the facility is being operated in 
     accordance with the requirements of this section.
       ``(C) Limiting or discontinuing the use of the facility by 
     the vehicles if the presence of the vehicles has degraded the 
     operation of the facility.
       ``(2) Degraded facility.--
       ``(A) Definition of minimum average operating speed.--In 
     this paragraph, the term `minimum average operating speed' 
     means--
       ``(i) 45 miles per hour, in the case of a HOV facility with 
     a speed limit of 50 miles per hour or greater; and
       ``(ii) not more than 10 miles per hour below the speed 
     limit, in the case of a HOV facility with a speed limit of 
     less than 50 miles per hour.
       ``(B) Standard for determining degraded facility.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1), the operation of a HOV facility 
     shall be considered to be degraded if vehicles operating on 
     the facility are failing to maintain a minimum average 
     operating speed 90 percent of the time over a consecutive 
     180-day period during morning or evening weekday peak hour 
     periods (or both).
       ``(C) Management of low emission and energy-efficient 
     vehicles.--In managing the use of HOV lanes by low emission 
     and energy-efficient vehicles that do not meet applicable 
     occupancy requirements, a State agency may increase the 
     percentages described in subsection (f)(3)(B)(i).
       ``(e) Certification of Low Emission and Energy-Efficient 
     Vehicles.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall--
       ``(1) issue a final rule establishing requirements for 
     certification of vehicles as low emission and energy-
     efficient vehicles for purposes of this section and 
     requirements for the labeling of the vehicles; and
       ``(2) establish guidelines and procedures for making the 
     vehicle comparisons and performance calculations described in 
     subsection (f)(3)(B), in accordance with section 32908(b) of 
     title 49.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Alternative fuel vehicle.--The term `alternative fuel 
     vehicle' means a vehicle that is operating on--
       ``(A) methanol, denatured ethanol, or other alcohols;
       ``(B) a mixture containing at least 85 percent of methanol, 
     denatured ethanol, and other alcohols by volume with gasoline 
     or other fuels;
       ``(C) natural gas;
       ``(D) liquefied petroleum gas;
       ``(E) hydrogen;
       ``(F) coal derived liquid fuels;
       ``(G) fuels (except alcohol) derived from biological 
     materials;
       ``(H) electricity (including electricity from solar 
     energy); or
       ``(I) any other fuel that the Secretary prescribes by 
     regulation that is not substantially petroleum and that would 
     yield substantial energy security and environmental benefits, 
     including fuels regulated under section 490 of title 10, Code 
     of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
       ``(2) HOV facility.--The term `HOV facility' means a high 
     occupancy vehicle facility.
       ``(3) Low emission and energy-efficient vehicle.--The term 
     `low emission and energy-efficient vehicle' means a vehicle 
     that--
       ``(A) has been certified by the Administrator as meeting 
     the Tier II emission level established in regulations 
     prescribed by the Administrator under section 202(i) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(i)) for that make and model 
     year vehicle; and
       ``(B)(i) is certified by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the 
     manufacturer, to have achieved not less than a 50-percent 
     increase in city fuel economy or not less than a 25-percent 
     increase in combined city-highway fuel economy (or such 
     greater percentage of city or city-highway fuel economy as 
     may be determined by a State under subsection (d)(2)(C)) 
     relative to a comparable vehicle that is an internal 
     combustion gasoline fueled vehicle (other than a vehicle that 
     has propulsion energy from onboard hybrid sources); or
       ``(ii) is an alternative fuel vehicle.
       ``(4) Public transportation vehicle.--The term `public 
     transportation vehicle' means a vehicle that--
       ``(A) provides designated public transportation (as defined 
     in section 221 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12141) or provides public school transportation 
     (to and from public or private primary, secondary, or 
     tertiary schools); and
       ``(B)(i) is owned or operated by a public entity;
       ``(ii) is operated under a contract with a public entity; 
     or
       ``(iii) is operated pursuant to a license by the Secretary 
     or a State agency to provide motorbus or school vehicle 
     transportation services to the public.
       ``(5) State agency.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `State agency', as used with 
     respect to a HOV facility, means an agency of a State or 
     local government having jurisdiction over the operation of 
     the facility.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `State agency' includes a State 
     transportation department.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Program efficiencies.--Section 102 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (a); and
       (B) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (a) and (b), respectively.
       (2) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for such subchapter (as 
     amended by section 1120 of this Act) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``166. HOV facilities.''.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary and the States should provide additional 
     incentives (including the use of high occupancy vehicle lanes 
     on State and Interstate highways) for the purchase and use of 
     hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles, which have been 
     proven to minimize air emissions and decrease consumption of 
     fossil fuels.

     SEC. 1122. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Transportation Enhancement Activity.--Section 
     101(a)(35) of title 23, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(35) Transportation enhancement activity.--The term 
     `transportation enhancement activity' means, with respect to 
     any project or the area to be served by the project, any of 
     the following activities as the activities relate to surface 
     transportation:
       ``(A) Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
       ``(B) Provision of safety and educational activities for 
     pedestrians and bicyclists.
       ``(C) Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or 
     historic sites (including historic battlefields).
       ``(D) Scenic or historic highway programs (including the 
     provision of tourist and welcome center facilities).
       ``(E) Landscaping and other scenic beautification.
       ``(F) Historic preservation.
       ``(G) Rehabilitation and operation of historic 
     transportation buildings, structures, or facilities 
     (including historic railroad facilities and canals).
       ``(H) Preservation of abandoned railway corridors 
     (including the conversion and use of the corridors for 
     pedestrian or bicycle trails).
       ``(I) Inventory, control, and removal of outdoor 
     advertising.

[[Page 18373]]

       ``(J) Archaeological planning and research.
       ``(K) Environmental mitigation--
       ``(i) to address water pollution due to highway runoff; or
       ``(ii) reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while 
     maintaining habitat connectivity.
       ``(L) Establishment of transportation museums.''.
       (b) Advanced Truck Stop Electrification System.--Such 
     section 101(a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(38) Advanced truck stop electrification system.--The 
     term `advanced truck stop electrification system' means a 
     system that delivers heat, air conditioning, electricity, or 
     communications to a heavy duty vehicle.''.
                     Subtitle B--Congestion Relief

     SEC. 1201. REAL-TIME SYSTEM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a real-time 
     system management information program to provide, in all 
     States, the capability to monitor, in real-time, the traffic 
     and travel conditions of the major highways of the United 
     States and to share that information to improve the security 
     of the surface transportation system, to address congestion 
     problems, to support improved response to weather events and 
     surface transportation incidents, and to facilitate national 
     and regional highway traveler information.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the real-time system 
     management information program are to--
       (A) establish, in all States, a system of basic real-time 
     information for managing and operating the surface 
     transportation system;
       (B) identify longer range real-time highway and transit 
     monitoring needs and develop plans and strategies for meeting 
     such needs; and
       (C) provide the capability and means to share that data 
     with State and local governments and the traveling public.
       (b) Data Exchange Formats.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     establish data exchange formats to ensure that the data 
     provided by highway and transit monitoring systems, including 
     statewide incident reporting systems, can readily be 
     exchanged across jurisdictional boundaries, facilitating 
     nationwide availability of information.
       (c) Regional Intelligent Transportation System 
     Architecture.--
       (1) Addressing information needs.--As State and local 
     governments develop or update regional intelligent 
     transportation system architectures, described in section 
     940.9 of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, such 
     governments shall explicitly address real-time highway and 
     transit information needs and the systems needed to meet such 
     needs, including addressing coverage, monitoring systems, 
     data fusion and archiving, and methods of exchanging or 
     sharing highway and transit information.
       (2) Data exchange.--States shall incorporate the data 
     exchange formats established by the Secretary under 
     subsection (b) to ensure that the data provided by highway 
     and transit monitoring systems may readily be exchanged with 
     State and local governments and may be made available to the 
     traveling public.
       (d) Eligibility.--Subject to project approval by the 
     Secretary, a State may obligate funds apportioned to the 
     State under sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(2), and 104(b)(3) of 
     title 23, United States Code, for activities relating to the 
     planning and deployment of real-time monitoring elements that 
     advance the goals and purposes described in subsection (a).
       (e) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed as altering or otherwise affecting 
     the applicability of the requirements of chapter 1 of title 
     23, United States Code (including requirements relating to 
     the eligibility of a project for assistance under the 
     program, the location of the project, and the Federal-share 
     payable on account of the project), to amounts apportioned to 
     a State for a program under section 104(b) that are obligated 
     by the State for activities and projects under this section.
       (f) Statewide Incident Reporting System Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``statewide incident reporting system'' 
     means a statewide system for facilitating the real-time 
     electronic reporting of surface transportation incidents to a 
     central location for use in monitoring the event, providing 
     accurate traveler information, and responding to the incident 
     as appropriate.
                  Subtitle C--Mobility and Efficiency

     SEC. 1301. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Under current law, surface transportation programs rely 
     primarily on formula capital apportionments to States.
       (2) Despite the significant increase for surface 
     transportation program funding in the Transportation Equity 
     Act of the 21st Century, current levels of investment are 
     insufficient to fund critical high-cost transportation 
     infrastructure facilities that address critical national 
     economic and transportation needs.
       (3) Critical high-cost transportation infrastructure 
     facilities often include multiple levels of government, 
     agencies, modes of transportation, and transportation goals 
     and planning processes that are not easily addressed or 
     funded within existing surface transportation program 
     categories.
       (4) Projects of national and regional significance have 
     national and regional benefits, including improving economic 
     productivity by facilitating international trade, relieving 
     congestion, and improving transportation safety by 
     facilitating passenger and freight movement.
       (5) The benefits of projects described in paragraph (4) 
     accrue to local areas, States, and the Nation as a result of 
     the effect such projects have on the national transportation 
     system.
       (6) A program dedicated to constructing projects of 
     national and regional significance is necessary to improve 
     the safe, secure, and efficient movement of people and goods 
     throughout the United States and improve the health and 
     welfare of the national economy.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a program to provide grants to States for projects 
     of national and regional significance.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Eligible project costs.--The term ``eligible project 
     costs'' means the costs of--
       (A) development phase activities, including planning, 
     feasibility analysis, revenue forecasting, environmental 
     review, preliminary engineering and design work, and other 
     preconstruction activities; and
       (B) construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and 
     acquisition of real property (including land related to the 
     project and improvements to land), environmental mitigation, 
     construction contingencies, acquisition of equipment, and 
     operational improvements.
       (2) Eligible project.--The term ``eligible project'' means 
     any surface transportation project eligible for Federal 
     assistance under title 23, United States Code, including 
     freight railroad projects and activities eligible under such 
     title.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning such term 
     has in section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code.
       (d) Eligibility.--To be eligible for assistance under this 
     section, a project shall have eligible project costs that are 
     reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed the lesser of--
       (1) $500,000,000; or
       (2) 75 percent of the amount of Federal highway assistance 
     funds apportioned for the most recently completed fiscal year 
     to the State in which the project is located.
       (e) Applications.--Each State seeking to receive a grant 
     under this section for an eligible project shall submit to 
     the Secretary an application in such form and in accordance 
     with such requirements as the Secretary shall establish.
       (f) Competitive Grant Selection and Criteria for Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) establish criteria for selecting among projects that 
     meet the eligibility criteria specified in subsection (d);
       (B) conduct a national solicitation for applications; and
       (C) award grants on a competitive basis.
       (2) Criteria for grants.--The Secretary may approve a grant 
     under this section for a project only if the Secretary 
     determines that the project--
       (A) is based on the results of preliminary engineering;
       (B) is justified based on the ability of the project--
       (i) to generate national economic benefits, including 
     creating jobs, expanding business opportunities, and 
     impacting the gross domestic product;
       (ii) to reduce congestion, including impacts in the State, 
     region, and Nation;
       (iii) to improve transportation safety, including reducing 
     transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities;
       (iv) to otherwise enhance the national transportation 
     system; and
       (v) to garner support for non-Federal financial commitments 
     and provide evidence of stable and dependable financing 
     sources to construct, maintain, and operate the 
     infrastructure facility; and
       (C) is supported by an acceptable degree of non-Federal 
     financial commitments, including evidence of stable and 
     dependable financing sources to construct, maintain, and 
     operate the infrastructure facility.
       (3) Selection considerations.--In selecting a project under 
     this section, the Secretary shall consider the extent to 
     which the project--
       (A) leverages Federal investment by encouraging non-Federal 
     contributions to the project, including contributions from 
     public-private partnerships;
       (B) uses new technologies, including intelligent 
     transportation systems, that enhance the efficiency of the 
     project; and
       (C) helps maintain or protect the environment.
       (4) Preliminary engineering.--In evaluating a project under 
     paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall analyze and consider 
     the results of preliminary engineering for the project.
       (5) Non-federal financial commitment.--
       (A) Evaluation of project.--In evaluating a project under 
     paragraph (2)(C), the Secretary shall require that--
       (i) the proposed project plan provides for the availability 
     of contingency amounts that the Secretary determines to be 
     reasonable to cover unanticipated cost increases; and
       (ii) each proposed non-Federal source of capital and 
     operating financing is stable, reliable, and available within 
     the proposed project timetable.
       (B) Considerations.--In assessing the stability, 
     reliability, and availability of proposed sources of non-
     Federal financing under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     consider--
       (i) existing financial commitments;
       (ii) the degree to which financing sources are dedicated to 
     the purposes proposed;

[[Page 18374]]

       (iii) any debt obligation that exists or is proposed by the 
     recipient for the proposed project; and
       (iv) the extent to which the project has a non-Federal 
     financial commitment that exceeds the required non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project.
       (6) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations 
     on the manner in which the Secretary will evaluate and rate 
     the projects based on the results of preliminary engineering, 
     project justification, and the degree of non-Federal 
     financial commitment, as required under this subsection.
       (7) Project evaluation and rating.--
       (A) In general.--A proposed project may advance from 
     preliminary engineering to final design and construction only 
     if the Secretary finds that the project meets the 
     requirements of this subsection and there is a reasonable 
     likelihood that the project will continue to meet such 
     requirements.
       (B) Evaluation and rating.--In making such findings, the 
     Secretary shall evaluate and rate the project as ``highly 
     recommended'', ``recommended'', or ``not recommended'' based 
     on the results of preliminary engineering, the project 
     justification criteria, and the degree of non-Federal 
     financial commitment, as required under this subsection. In 
     rating the projects, the Secretary shall provide, in addition 
     to the overall project rating, individual ratings for each of 
     the criteria established under the regulations issued under 
     paragraph (6).
       (g) Letters of Intent and Full Funding Grant Agreements.--
       (1) Letter of intent.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may issue a letter of intent 
     to an applicant announcing an intention to obligate, for a 
     project under this section, an amount from future available 
     budget authority specified in law that is not more than the 
     amount stipulated as the financial participation of the 
     Secretary in the project.
       (B) Notification.--At least 60 days before issuing a letter 
     under subparagraph (A) or entering into a full funding grant 
     agreement, the Secretary shall notify in writing the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate of the proposed letter or 
     agreement. The Secretary shall include with the notification 
     a copy of the proposed letter or agreement as well as the 
     evaluations and ratings for the project.
       (C) Not an obligation.--The issuance of a letter is deemed 
     not to be an obligation under sections 1108(c), 1108(d), 
     1501, and 1502(a) of title 31, United States Code, or an 
     administrative commitment.
       (D) Obligation or commitment.--An obligation or 
     administrative commitment may be made only when contract 
     authority is allocated to a project.
       (2) Full funding grant agreement.--
       (A) In general.--A project financed under this subsection 
     shall be carried out through a full funding grant agreement. 
     The Secretary shall enter into a full funding grant agreement 
     based on the evaluations and ratings required under 
     subsection (f)(7).
       (B) Terms.--If the Secretary makes a full funding grant 
     agreement with an applicant, the agreement shall--
       (i) establish the terms of participation by the United 
     States Government in a project under this section;
       (ii) establish the maximum amount of Government financial 
     assistance for the project;
       (iii) cover the period of time for completing the project, 
     including a period extending beyond the period of an 
     authorization; and
       (iv) make timely and efficient management of the project 
     easier according to the laws of the United States.
       (C) Agreement.--An agreement under this paragraph obligates 
     an amount of available budget authority specified in law and 
     may include a commitment, contingent on amounts to be 
     specified in law in advance for commitments under this 
     paragraph, to obligate an additional amount from future 
     available budget authority specified in law. The agreement 
     shall state that the contingent commitment is not an 
     obligation of the Government. Interest and other financing 
     costs of efficiently carrying out a part of the project 
     within a reasonable time are a cost of carrying out the 
     project under a full funding grant agreement, except that 
     eligible costs may not be more than the cost of the most 
     favorable financing terms reasonably available for the 
     project at the time of borrowing. The applicant shall 
     certify, in a way satisfactory to the Secretary, that the 
     applicant has shown reasonable diligence in seeking the most 
     favorable financing terms.
       (3) Amounts.--The total estimated amount of future 
     obligations of the Government and contingent commitments to 
     incur obligations covered by all outstanding letters of 
     intent and full funding grant agreements may be not more than 
     the greater of the amount authorized to carry out this 
     section or an amount equivalent to the last 2 fiscal years of 
     funding authorized to carry out this section less an amount 
     the Secretary reasonably estimates is necessary for grants 
     under this section not covered by a letter. The total amount 
     covered by new letters and contingent commitments included in 
     full funding grant agreements may be not more than a 
     limitation specified in law.
       (h) Grant Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--A grant for a project under this section 
     shall be subject to all of the requirements of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Other terms and conditions.--The Secretary shall 
     require that all grants under this section be subject to all 
     terms, conditions, and requirements that the Secretary 
     decides are necessary or appropriate for purposes of this 
     section, including requirements for the disposition of net 
     increases in value of real property resulting from the 
     project assisted under this section.
       (i) Government's Share of Project Cost.--Based on 
     engineering studies, studies of economic feasibility, and 
     information on the expected use of equipment or facilities, 
     the Secretary shall estimate the cost of a project receiving 
     assistance under this section. A grant for the project is for 
     80 percent of the project cost, unless the grant recipient 
     requests a lower grant percentage. A refund or reduction of 
     the remainder may be made only if a refund of a proportional 
     amount of the grant of the Government is made at the same 
     time.
       (j) Fiscal Capacity Considerations.--If the Secretary gives 
     priority consideration to financing projects that include 
     more than the non-Government share required under subsection 
     (i) the Secretary shall give equal consideration to 
     differences in the fiscal capacity of State and local 
     governments.
       (k) Reports.--
       (1) Annual report.--Not later than the first Monday in 
     February of each year, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report that includes a proposal 
     on the allocation of amounts to be made available to finance 
     grants under this section.
       (2) Recommendations on funding.--The annual report under 
     this paragraph shall include evaluations and ratings, as 
     required under subsection (f). The report shall also include 
     recommendations of projects for funding based on the 
     evaluations and ratings and on existing commitments and 
     anticipated funding levels for the next 3 fiscal years and 
     for the next 10 fiscal years based on information currently 
     available to the Secretary.
       (l) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available to 
     carry out this section shall be available for obligation in 
     the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that such 
     funds shall not be transferable and shall remain available 
     until expended and the Federal share of the cost of a project 
     under this section shall be as provided in this section.
       (m) Designated Projects.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, the Secretary shall allocate for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, from funds made 
     available to carry out this section, 20 percent of the 
     following amounts for grants to carry out the following 
     projects under this section:

[[Page 18375]]

TH28JY7.001



[[Page 18376]]

TH28JY7.002



[[Page 18377]]

     SEC. 1302. NATIONAL CORRIDOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement a program to make allocations to States for highway 
     construction projects in corridors of national significance 
     to promote economic growth and international or interregional 
     trade pursuant to the selection factors provided in this 
     section. A State must submit an application to the Secretary 
     in order to receive an allocation under this section.
       (b) Selection Process.--
       (1) Priority.--In the selection process under this section, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to projects in corridors 
     that are a part of, or will be designated as part of, the 
     Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and 
     Defense Highways after completion of the work described in 
     the application received by the Secretary and to any project 
     that will be completed within 5 years of the date of the 
     allocation of funds for the project.
       (2) Selection factors.--In making allocations under this 
     section, the Secretary shall consider the following factors:
       (A) The extent to which the corridor provides a link 
     between 2 existing segments of the Interstate System.
       (B) The extent to which the project will facilitate major 
     multistate or regional mobility and economic growth and 
     development in areas underserved by existing highway 
     infrastructure.
       (C) The extent to which commercial vehicle traffic in the 
     corridor--
       (i) has increased since the date of enactment of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 
     4401 et seq.); and
       (ii) is projected to increase in the future.
       (D) The extent to which international truck-borne 
     commodities move through the corridor.
       (E) The extent to which the project will make improvements 
     to an existing segment of the Interstate System that will 
     result in a decrease in congestion.
       (F) The reduction in commercial and other travel time 
     through a major freight corridor expected as a result of the 
     project.
       (G) The value of the cargo carried by commercial vehicle 
     traffic in the corridor and the economic costs arising from 
     congestion in the corridor.
       (H) The extent of leveraging of Federal funds provided to 
     carry out this section, including--
       (i) use of innovative financing;
       (ii) combination with funding provided under other sections 
     of this Act and title 23, United States Code; and
       (iii) combination with other sources of Federal, State, 
     local, or private funding.
       (c) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available by 
     section 1101(a)(10) of this Act to carry out this section 
     shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if 
     such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code; except that such funds shall remain 
     available until expended, and the Federal share of the cost 
     of a project under this section shall be determined in 
     accordance with section 120 of such title.
       (d) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State'' has 
     the meaning such term has in section 101(a) of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (e) Designated Projects.--The Secretary shall allocate for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, from funds made 
     available to carry out this section, 20 percent of the 
     following amounts for grants to carry out the following 
     projects under this section:

[[Page 18378]]

TH28JY7.003



[[Page 18379]]

TH28JY7.004



[[Page 18380]]

     SEC. 1303. COORDINATED BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM.

       (a) General Authority.--The Secretary shall implement a 
     coordinated border infrastructure program under which the 
     Secretary shall distribute funds to border States to improve 
     the safe movement of motor vehicles at or across the border 
     between the United States and Canada and the border between 
     the United States and Mexico.
       (b) Eligible Uses.--Subject to subsection (d), a State may 
     use funds apportioned under this section only for--
       (1) improvements in a border region to existing 
     transportation and supporting infrastructure that facilitate 
     cross-border motor vehicle and cargo movements;
       (2) construction of highways and related safety and safety 
     enforcement facilities in a border region that facilitate 
     motor vehicle and cargo movements related to international 
     trade;
       (3) operational improvements in a border region, including 
     improvements relating to electronic data interchange and use 
     of telecommunications, to expedite cross border motor vehicle 
     and cargo movement;
       (4) modifications to regulatory procedures to expedite safe 
     and efficient cross border motor vehicle and cargo movements; 
     and
       (5) international coordination of transportation planning, 
     programming, and border operation with Canada and Mexico 
     relating to expediting cross border motor vehicle and cargo 
     movements.
       (c) Apportionment of Funds.--On October 1 of each fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall apportion among border States sums 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section for 
     such fiscal year as follows:
       (1) 20 percent in the ratio that--
       (A) the total number of incoming commercial trucks that 
     pass through the land border ports of entry within the 
     boundaries of a border State, as determined by the Secretary; 
     bears to
       (B) the total number of incoming commercial trucks that 
     pass through such ports of entry within the boundaries of all 
     the border States, as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) 30 percent in the ratio that--
       (A) the total number of incoming personal motor vehicles 
     and incoming buses that pass through land border ports of 
     entry within the boundaries of a border State, as determined 
     by the Secretary; bears to
       (B) the total number of incoming personal motor vehicles 
     and incoming buses that pass through such ports of entry 
     within the boundaries of all the border States, as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       (3) 25 percent in the ratio that--
       (A) the total weight of incoming cargo by commercial trucks 
     that pass through land border ports of entry within the 
     boundaries of a border State, as determined by the Secretary; 
     bears to
       (B) the total weight of incoming cargo by commercial trucks 
     that pass through such ports of entry within the boundaries 
     of all the border States, as determined by the Secretary.
       (4) 25 percent of the ratio that--
       (A) the total number of land border ports of entry within 
     the boundaries of a border State, as determined by the 
     Secretary; bears to
       (B) the total number of land border ports of entry within 
     the boundaries of all the border States, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (d) Projects in Canada or Mexico.--A project in Canada or 
     Mexico, proposed by a border State to directly and 
     predominantly facilitate cross-border motor vehicle and cargo 
     movements at an international port of entry into the border 
     region of the State, may be constructed using funds 
     apportioned to the State under this section if, before 
     obligation of those funds, Canada or Mexico, or the political 
     subdivision of Canada or Mexico that is responsible for the 
     operation of the facility to be constructed, provides 
     assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that any facility 
     constructed under this subsection will be--
       (1) constructed in accordance with standards equivalent to 
     applicable standards in the United States; and
       (2) properly maintained and used over the useful life of 
     the facility for the purpose for which the Secretary is 
     allocating such funds to the project.
       (e) Transfer of Funds to the General Services 
     Administration.--
       (1) State funds.--At the request of a border State, funds 
     apportioned to the State under this section may be 
     transferred to the General Services Administration for the 
     purpose of funding 1 or more projects described in subsection 
     (b) if--
       (A) the Secretary determines, after consultation with the 
     transportation department of the border State, that the 
     General Services Administration should carry out the project; 
     and
       (B) the General Services Administration agrees to accept 
     the transfer of, and to administer, those funds in accordance 
     with this section.
       (2) Non-federal share.--
       (A) In general.--A border State that makes a request under 
     paragraph (1) shall provide directly to the General Services 
     Administration, for each project covered by the request, the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
       (B) No augmentation of appropriations.--Funds provided by a 
     border State under subparagraph (A)--
       (i) shall not be considered to be an augmentation of the 
     appropriations made available to the General Services 
     Administration; and
       (ii) shall be--

       (I) administered, subject to paragraph (1)(B), in 
     accordance with the procedures of the General Services 
     Administration; but
       (II) available for obligation in the same manner as if the 
     funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United 
     States Code.

       (3) Obligation authority.--Obligation authority shall be 
     transferred to the General Services Administration for a 
     project in the same manner and amount as the funds provided 
     for the project under paragraph (1).
       (4) Limitation on transfer of funds.--No State may transfer 
     to the General Services Administration under this subsection 
     an amount that is more than the lesser of--
       (A) 15 percent of the aggregate amount of funds apportioned 
     to the State under this section for such fiscal year; or
       (B) $5,000,000.
       (f) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available to 
     carry out this section shall be available for obligation in 
     the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that, 
     subject to subsection (e), such funds shall not be 
     transferable and shall remain available until expended, and 
     the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section 
     shall be determined in accordance with section 120 of such 
     title.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Border region.--The term ``border region'' means any 
     portion of a border State within 100 miles of an 
     international land border with Canada or Mexico.
       (2) Border state.--The term ``border State'' means any 
     State that has an international land border with Canada or 
     Mexico.
       (3) Commercial truck.--The term ``commercial truck'' means 
     a commercial motor vehicle as defined in section 31301(4) 
     (other than subparagraph (B)) of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (4) Motor vehicle.--The term ``motor vehicle'' has the 
     meaning such term has under section 101(a) of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning such term 
     has in section 101(a) of such title 23.

     SEC. 1304. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Evacuation Routes.--Section 1105(b) of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 
     102-240; 105 Stat. 2032) is amended in the first sentence by 
     inserting ``and evacuation routes'' after ``corridors'' the 
     first place it appears.
       (b) Corridors.--Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (14) and inserting the following:
       ``(14) Heartland Expressway from Denver, Colorado, through 
     Scottsbluff, Nebraska, to Rapid City, South Dakota as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In the State of Colorado, the Heartland Expressway 
     Corridor shall generally follow--
       ``(i) Interstate 76 from Denver to Brush; and
       ``(ii) Colorado Highway 71 from Limon to the border between 
     the States of Colorado and Nebraska.
       ``(B) In the State of Nebraska, the Heartland Expressway 
     Corridor shall generally follow--
       ``(i) Nebraska Highway 71 from the border between the 
     States of Colorado and Nebraska to Scottsbluff;
       ``(ii) United States Route 26 from Scottsbluff to the 
     intersection with State Highway L62A;
       ``(iii) State Highway L62A from the intersection with 
     United States Route 26 to United States Route 385 north of 
     Bridgeport;
       ``(iv) United States Route 385 to the border between the 
     States of Nebraska and South Dakota; and
       ``(v) United States Highway 26 from Scottsbluff to the 
     border of the States of Nebraska and Wyoming.
       ``(C) In the State of Wyoming, the Heartland Expressway 
     Corridor shall generally follow United States Highway 26 from 
     the border of the States of Nebraska and Wyoming to the 
     termination at Interstate 25 at Interchange number 94.
       ``(D) In the State of South Dakota, the Heartland 
     Expressway Corridor shall generally follow--
       ``(i) United States Route 385 from the border between the 
     States of Nebraska and South Dakota to the intersection with 
     State Highway 79; and
       ``(ii) State Highway 79 from the intersection with United 
     States Route 385 to Rapid City.'';
       (2) in paragraph (23) by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``and the connection from Wichita, Kansas, 
     to Sioux City, Iowa, which includes I-135 from Wichita, 
     Kansas to Salina, Kansas, United States Route 81 from Salina, 
     Kansas, to Norfolk, Nebraska, Nebraska State Route 35 from 
     Norfolk, Nebraska, to South Sioux City, Nebraska, and the 
     connection to I-29 in Sioux City, Iowa'';
       (3) in paragraph (33) by striking ``I-395'' and inserting 
     ``and including the I-395 corridor'';
       (4) by striking paragraph (34) and inserting the following:
       ``(34) The Alameda Corridor-East and Southwest Passage, 
     California. The Alameda Corridor-East is generally described 
     as the corridor from East Los Angeles (terminus of Alameda 
     Corridor) through Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and 
     Riverside Counties, to termini at Barstow in San Bernardino 
     County and Coachella in Riverside County. The Southwest 
     Passage shall follow I-10 from San Bernardino to the Arizona 
     State line.'';
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(46) Interstate Route 710 between the terminus at Long 
     Beach, California, to California State Route 60.
       ``(47) Interstate Route 87 from the Quebec border to New 
     York City.

[[Page 18381]]

       ``(48) The Route 50 High Plains Corridor along the United 
     States Route 50 corridor from Newton, Kansas, to Pueblo, 
     Colorado.
       ``(49) The Atlantic Commerce Corridor on Interstate Route 
     95 from Jacksonville, Florida, to Miami, Florida.
       ``(50) The East-West Corridor commencing in Watertown, New 
     York, continuing northeast through New York, Vermont, New 
     Hampshire, and Maine, and terminating in Calais, Maine.
       ``(51) The SPIRIT Corridor on United States Route 54 from 
     El Paso, Texas, through New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma to 
     Wichita, Kansas.
       ``(52) The route in Arkansas running south of and parallel 
     to Arkansas State Highway 226 from the relocation of United 
     States Route 67 to the vicinity of United States Route 49 and 
     United States Route 63.
       ``(53) United States Highway Route 6 from Interstate Route 
     70 to Interstate Route 15, Utah.
       ``(54) The California Farm-to-Market Corridor, California 
     State Route 99 from south of Bakersfield to Sacramento, 
     California.
       ``(55) In Texas, Interstate Route 20 from Interstate Route 
     35E in Dallas County, east to the intersection of Interstate 
     Route 635, north to the intersection of Interstate Route 30, 
     northeast through Texarkana to Little Rock, Arkansas, 
     Interstate Route 40 northeast from Little Rock east to the 
     proposed Interstate Route 69 corridor.
       ``(56) In the State of Texas, the La Entrada al Pacifico 
     Corridor consisting of the following highways and any portion 
     of a highway in a corridor on 2 miles of either side of the 
     center line of the highway:
       ``(A) State Route 349 from Lamesa to the point on that 
     highway that is closest to 32 degrees, 7 minutes, north 
     latitude, by 102 degrees, 6 minutes, west longitude.
       ``(B) The segment or any roadway extending from the point 
     described by subparagraph (A) to the point on Farm-to-Market 
     Road 1788 closest to 32 degrees, 0 minutes, north latitude, 
     by 102 degrees, 16 minutes, west longitude.
       ``(C) Farm-to-Market Road 1788 from the point described by 
     subparagraph (B) to its intersection with Interstate Route 
     20.
       ``(D) Interstate Route 20 from its intersection with Farm-
     to-Market Road 1788 to its intersection with United States 
     Route 385.
       ``(E) United States Route 385 from Odessa to Fort Stockton, 
     including those portions that parallel United States Route 67 
     and Interstate Route 10.
       ``(F) United States Route 67 from Fort Stockton to 
     Presidio, including those portions that parallel Interstate 
     Route 10 and United States Route 90.
       ``(57) United States Route 41 corridor between Interstate 
     Route 94 via Interstate Route 894 and Highway 45 near 
     Milwaukee and Interstate Route 43 near Green Bay in the State 
     of Wisconsin.
       ``(58) The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway from Rapid City, 
     South Dakota, north on United States Route 85 to Williston, 
     North Dakota, west on United States Route 2 to Culbertson, 
     Montana, and north on Montana Highway 16 to the international 
     border with Canada at the port of Raymond, Montana.
       ``(59) The Central North American Trade Corridor from the 
     border between North Dakota and South Dakota, north on United 
     States Route 83 through Bismark and Minot, North Dakota, to 
     the international border with Canada.
       ``(60) The Providence Beltline Corridor beginning at 
     Interstate Route 95 in the vicinity of Hope Valley, Rhode 
     Island, traversing eastwardly intersecting and merging into 
     Interstate Route 295, continuing northeastwardly along 
     Interstate Route 95, and terminating at the Massachusetts 
     border, and including the western bypass of Providence, Rhode 
     Island, from Interstate Route 295 to the Massachusetts 
     border.
       ``(61) In the State of Missouri, the corridors consisting 
     of the following highways:
       ``(A) Interstate Route 70, from Interstate Route 29/35 to 
     United States Route 61/Avenue of the Saints.
       ``(B) Interstate Route 72/United States Route 36, from the 
     intersection with Interstate Route 29 to United States Route 
     61/Avenue of the Saints.
       ``(C) United States Route 67, from Interstate Route 55 to 
     the Arkansas State line.
       ``(D) United States Route 65, from United States Route 36/
     Interstate Route 72 to the East-West TransAmerica corridor, 
     at the Arkansas State line.
       ``(E) United States Route 63, from United States Route 36 
     and the proposed Interstate Route 72 to the East-West 
     TransAmerica corridor, at the Arkansas State line.
       ``(F) United States Route 54, from the Kansas State line to 
     United States Route 61/Avenue of the Saints.
       ``(62) The Georgia Developmental Highway System Corridors 
     identified in section 32-4-22 of the Official Code of 
     Georgia, Annotated.
       ``(63) The Liberty Corridor, a corridor in an area 
     encompassing very critical and significant transportation 
     infrastructure providing regional, national, and 
     international access through the State of New Jersey, 
     including Interstate Routes 95, 80, 287, and 78, and United 
     States Routes 1, 3, 9, 17, and 46, and portways and 
     connecting infrastructure.
       ``(64) The corridor in an area of passage in the State of 
     New Jersey serving significant interstate and regional 
     traffic, located near the cities of Camden, New Jersey, and 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and including Interstate Route 
     295, United States Route 42, United States Route 130, and 
     Interstate Route 676.
       ``(65) The Interstate Route 95 Corridor beginning at the 
     New York State line and continuing through Connecticut to the 
     Rhode Island State line.
       ``(66) The Interstate Route 91 Corridor from New Haven, 
     Connecticut, to the Massachusetts State line.
       ``(67) The Fairbanks-Yukon International Corridor 
     consisting of the portion of the Alaska Highway from the 
     international border with Canada to the Richardson Highway, 
     and the Richardson Highway from its junction with the Alaska 
     Highway to Fairbanks, Alaska.
       ``(68) The Washoe County corridor, along Interstate Route 
     580/United States Route 95/United States Route 95A, from 
     Reno, Nevada, to Las Vegas, Nevada.
       ``(69) The Cross Valley Connector connecting Interstate 
     Route 5 and State Route 14, Santa Clarita Valley, California.
       ``(70) The Economic Lifeline corridor, along Interstate 
     Route 15 and Interstate Route 40, California, Arizona, and 
     Nevada, including Interstate Route 215 South from near San 
     Bernadino, California, to Riverside, California, and State 
     Route 91 from Riverside, California, to the intersection with 
     Interstate Route 15 near Corona, California.
       ``(71) The High Desert Corridor/E-220 from Los Angeles, 
     California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, via Palmdale and 
     Victorville, California.
       ``(72) The North-South corridor, along Interstate Route 49 
     North, from Kansas City, Missouri, to Shreveport, Louisiana.
       ``(73) The Louisiana Highway corridor, along Louisiana 
     Highway 1, from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to the intersection 
     with United States Route 90.
       ``(74) The portion of United States Route 90 from 
     Interstate Route 49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to Interstate 
     Route 10 in New Orleans, Louisiana.
       ``(75) The Louisiana 28 corridor from Fort Polk to 
     Alexandria, Louisiana.
       ``(76) The portion of Interstate Route 75 from Toledo, 
     Ohio, to Cincinnati, Ohio.
       ``(77) The portion of United States Route 24 from the 
     Indiana/Ohio State line to Toledo, Ohio.
       ``(78) The portion of Interstate Route 71 from Cincinnati, 
     Ohio, to Cleveland, Ohio.
       ``(79) Interstate Route 376 from the Pittsburgh Interchange 
     (I/C No. 56) of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, westward on 
     Interstate Route 279, United States Route 22, United States 
     Route 30, and Pennsylvania Route 60, continuing past the 
     Pittsburgh International Airport on Turnpike Route 60, to the 
     Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate Route 76), Interchange 10, 
     and continuing north on Pennsylvania Turnpike Route 60 and on 
     United States Route 422 to Interstate Route 80.
       ``(80) The Intercounty Connector, a new east-west 
     multimodal highway between Interstate Route 270 and 
     Interstate Route 95/United States Route 1 in Montgomery and 
     Prince George's Counties, Maryland.''; and
       (6) by aligning paragraph (45) with paragraph (46) (as 
     added by paragraph (5)).
       (c) Interstate Routes.--Section 1105(e)(5) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transporation Efficiency Act of 1991 is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and subsection 
     (c)(45)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(45), subsection 
     (c)(54), and subsection (c)(57)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as 
     subparagraphs (C) through (E); and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Interstate route 376.--
       ``(i) Designation of interstate route 376.--

       ``(I) In general.--The routes referred to in subsection 
     (c)(79), except the portion of Pennsylvania Turnpike Route 60 
     and United States Route 422 between Pennsylvania Turnpike 
     Interchange 10 and Interstate Route 80, shall be designated 
     as Interstate Route 376.
       ``(II) Signs.--The State of Pennsylvania shall have 
     jurisdiction over the highways described in subclause (I) 
     (except Pennsylvania Turnpike Route 60) and erect signs in 
     accordance with Interstate signing criteria that identify the 
     routes described in subclause (I) as Interstate Route 376.
       ``(III) Assistance from secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     assist the State of Pennsylvania in carrying out, not later 
     than December 31, 2008, an activity under subclause (II) 
     relating to Interstate Route 376 and in complying with 
     sections 109 and 139 of title 23, United States Code.

       ``(ii) Other segments.--The segment of the route referred 
     to in subsection (c)(79) located between the Pennsylvania 
     Turnpike, Interchange 10, and Interstate Route 80 may be 
     signed as Interstate Route 376 under clause (i)(II) if that 
     segment meets the criteria under sections 109 and 139 of 
     title 23, United States Code.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out, in accordance with title 23, 
     United States Code, projects on corridors identified in 
     section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) such sums as may be 
     necessary.

     SEC. 1305. TRUCK PARKING FACILITIES.

       (a) Establishment.--In cooperation with appropriate State, 
     regional, and local governments, the Secretary shall 
     establish a pilot program to address the shortage of long-
     term parking for commercial motor vehicles on the National 
     Highway System.
       (b) Allocation of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate funds made 
     available to carry out this section

[[Page 18382]]

     among States, metropolitan planning organizations, and local 
     governments.
       (2) Applications.--To be eligible for an allocation under 
     this section, a State (as defined in section 101(a) of title 
     23, United States Code), metropolitan planning organization, 
     or local government shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require.
       (3) Eligible projects.--Funds allocated under this 
     subsection shall be used by the recipient for projects 
     described in an application approved by the Secretary. Such 
     projects shall serve the National Highway System and may 
     include the following:
       (A) Constructing safety rest areas (as defined in section 
     120(c) of title 23, United States Code) that include parking 
     for commercial motor vehicles.
       (B) Constructing commercial motor vehicle parking 
     facilities adjacent to commercial truck stops and travel 
     plazas.
       (C) Opening existing facilities to commercial motor vehicle 
     parking, including inspection and weigh stations and park-
     and-ride facilities.
       (D) Promoting the availability of publicly or privately 
     provided commercial motor vehicle parking on the National 
     Highway System using intelligent transportation systems and 
     other means.
       (E) Constructing turnouts along the National Highway System 
     for commercial motor vehicles.
       (F) Making capital improvements to public commercial motor 
     vehicle parking facilities currently closed on a seasonal 
     basis to allow the facilities to remain open year-round.
       (G) Improving the geometric design of interchanges on the 
     National Highway System to improve access to commercial motor 
     vehicle parking facilities.
       (4) Priority.--In allocating funds made available to carry 
     out this section, the Secretary shall give priority to 
     applicants that--
       (A) demonstrate a severe shortage of commercial motor 
     vehicle parking capacity in the corridor to be addressed;
       (B) have consulted with affected State and local 
     governments, community groups, private providers of 
     commercial motor vehicle parking, and motorist and trucking 
     organizations; and
       (C) demonstrate that their proposed projects are likely to 
     have positive effects on highway safety, traffic congestion, 
     or air quality.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the pilot program.
       (d) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section $6,250,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized under this 
     subsection shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code; except that such funds shall 
     not be transferable and shall remain available until 
     expended, and the Federal share of the cost of a project 
     under this section shall be determined in accordance with 
     sections 120(b) and 120(c) of such title.
       (e) Treatment of Projects.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, projects funded under this section shall be 
     treated as projects on a Federal-aid system under chapter 1 
     of title 23, United States Code.

     SEC. 1306. FREIGHT INTERMODAL DISTRIBUTION PILOT GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement a freight intermodal distribution pilot grant 
     program.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program established 
     under subsection (a) shall be for the Secretary to make 
     grants to States--
       (1) to facilitate and support intermodal freight 
     transportation initiatives at the State and local levels to 
     relieve congestion and improve safety; and
       (2) to provide capital funding to address infrastructure 
     and freight distribution needs at inland ports and intermodal 
     freight facilities.
       (c) Eligible Projects.--Projects for which grants may be 
     made under this section shall help relieve congestion, 
     improve transportation safety, facilitate international 
     trade, and encourage public-private partnership and may 
     include projects for the development and construction of 
     intermodal freight distribution and transfer facilities at 
     inland ports.
       (d) Selection Process.--
       (1) Applications.--A State (as defined in section 101(a) of 
     title 23, United States Code) shall submit for approval by 
     the Secretary an application for a grant under this section 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require to 
     receive such a grant.
       (2) Priority.--In selecting projects for grants, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to projects that will--
       (A) reduce congestion into and out of international ports 
     located in the United States;
       (B) demonstrate ways to increase the likelihood that 
     freight container movements involve freight containers 
     carrying goods; and
       (C) establish or expand intermodal facilities that 
     encourage the development of inland freight distribution 
     centers.
       (3) Designated projects.--Subject to the provisions of this 
     section, the Secretary shall allocate for each of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009, from funds made available to carry 
     out this section, 20 percent of the following amounts for 
     grants to carry out the following projects under this 
     section:
       (A) Short-haul intermodal projects, Oregon, $5,000,000.
       (B) The Georgia Port Authority, $5,000,000.
       (C) The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, 
     $5,000,000.
       (D) Fairbanks, Alaska, $5,000,000.
       (E) Charlotte Douglas International Airport Freight 
     Intermodal Facility, North Carolina, $5,000,000.
       (F) South Piedmont Freight Intermodal Center, North 
     Carolina, $5,000,000.
       (e) Use of Grant Funds.--Funds made available to a 
     recipient of a grant under this section shall be used by the 
     recipient for the project described in the application of the 
     recipient approved by the Secretary.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the results of the pilot program carried out 
     under this section.
       (g) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section $6,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized by this 
     subsection shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code; except that such funds shall 
     not be transferable and shall remain available until 
     expended, and the Federal share of the cost of a project 
     under this section shall be determined in accordance with 
     section 120 of such title.
       (h) Treatment of Projects.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, projects for which grants are made under 
     this section shall be treated as projects on a Federal-aid 
     system under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code.

     SEC. 1307. DEPLOYMENT OF MAGNETIC LEVITATION TRANSPORTATION 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Eligible project costs.--The term ``eligible project 
     costs''--
       (A) means the capital cost of the fixed guideway 
     infrastructure of a MAGLEV project, including land, piers, 
     guideways, propulsion equipment and other components attached 
     to guideways, power distribution facilities (including 
     substations), control and communications facilities, access 
     roads, and storage, repair, and maintenance facilities, but 
     not including costs incurred for a new station; and
       (B) includes the costs of preconstruction planning 
     activities.
       (2) Full project costs.--The term ``full project costs'' 
     means the total capital costs of a MAGLEV project, including 
     eligible project costs and the costs of stations, vehicles, 
     and equipment.
       (3) MAGLEV.--The term ``MAGLEV'' means transportation 
     systems employing magnetic levitation that would be capable 
     of safe use by the public at a speed in excess of 240 miles 
     per hour.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning such term 
     has under section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code.
       (b) In General.--
       (1) Assistance for eligible projects.--The Secretary shall 
     make available financial assistance to pay the Federal share 
     of full project costs of eligible projects authorized by this 
     section.
       (2) Use of assistance.--Financial assistance provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall be used only to pay eligible project 
     costs of projects authorized by this section.
       (3) Applicability of other laws.--Financial assistance made 
     available under this section, and projects assisted with such 
     assistance, shall be subject to section 5333(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (c) Project Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive 
     financial assistance under subsection (b), a project shall--
       (1) involve a segment or segments of a high-speed ground 
     transportation corridor;
       (2) result in an operating transportation facility that 
     provides a revenue producing service; and
       (3) be approved by the Secretary based on an application 
     submitted to the Secretary by a State or authority designated 
     by 1 or more States.
       (d) Allocation.--Of the amounts made available to carry out 
     this section for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate 
     50 percent for the MAGLEV project between Las Vegas and 
     Primm, Nevada, and 50 percent for a MAGLEV project located 
     east of the Mississippi River.

     SEC. 1308. DELTA REGION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program in 
     the 8 States comprising the Delta Region (Alabama, Arkansas, 
     Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 
     Tennessee) to--
       (1) support and encourage multistate transportation 
     planning and corridor development;
       (2) provide for transportation project development;
       (3) facilitate transportation decisionmaking; and
       (4) support transportation construction.
       (b) Eligible Recipients.--A State transportation department 
     or metropolitan planning organization in a Delta Region State 
     may receive and administer funds provided under the program.
       (c) Eligible Activities.--The Secretary shall make 
     allocations under the program for multistate highway 
     planning, development, and construction projects.
       (d) Other Provisions Regarding Eligibility.--All activities 
     funded under this program shall be consistent with the 
     continuing,

[[Page 18383]]

     cooperative, and comprehensive planning processes required by 
     sections 134 and 135 of title 23, United States Code.
       (e) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall select 
     projects to be carried out under the program based on--
       (1) whether the project is located--
       (A) in an area under the authority of the Delta Regional 
     Authority; and
       (B) on a Federal-aid highway;
       (2) endorsement of the project by the State department of 
     transportation; and
       (3) evidence of the ability of the recipient of funds 
     provided under the program to complete the project.
       (f) Program Priorities.--In administering the program, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) encourage State and local officials to work together to 
     develop plans for multimodal and multijurisdictional 
     transportation decisionmaking; and
       (2) give priority to projects that emphasize multimodal 
     planning, including planning for operational improvements 
     that--
       (A) increase the mobility of people and goods;
       (B) improve the safety of the transportation system with 
     respect to catastrophic natural disasters or disasters caused 
     by human activity; and
       (C) contribute to the economic vitality of the area in 
     which the project is being carried out.
       (g) Federal Share.--Amounts provided by the Delta Regional 
     Authority to carry out a project under this subsection may be 
     applied to the non-Federal share of the project required by 
     section 120 of title 23, United States Code.
       (h) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds made available to carry out 
     this section shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code; except that such funds shall 
     not be transferable and shall remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 1309. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLE EXEMPTION FROM 
                   AXLE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

       Section 1023(h)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 127 note; 106 Stat. 1552) 
     is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2009''.

     SEC. 1310. INTERSTATE OASIS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, in consultation with the States 
     and other interested parties, the Secretary shall--
       (1) establish an interstate oasis program; and
       (2) after providing an opportunity for public comment, 
     develop standards for designating, as an interstate oasis, a 
     facility that--
       (A) offers--
       (i) products and services to the public;
       (ii) 24-hour access to restrooms; and
       (iii) parking for automobiles and heavy trucks; and
       (B) meets other standards established by the Secretary.
       (b) Standards for Designation.--The standards for 
     designation under subsection (a) shall include standards 
     relating to--
       (1) the appearance of a facility; and
       (2) the proximity of the facility to the Dwight D. 
     Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense 
     Highways.
       (c) Eligibility for Designation.--If a State (as defined in 
     section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code) elects to 
     participate in the interstate oasis program, any facility 
     meeting the standards established by the Secretary shall be 
     eligible for designation under this section.
       (d) Logo.--The Secretary shall design a logo to be 
     displayed by a facility designated under this section.
                       Subtitle D--Highway Safety

     SEC. 1401. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Safety Improvement.--
       (1) In general.--Section 148 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 148. Highway safety improvement program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) High risk rural road.--The term `high risk rural 
     road' means any roadway functionally classified as a rural 
     major or minor collector or a rural local road--
       ``(A) on which the accident rate for fatalities and 
     incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average for 
     those functional classes of roadway; or
       ``(B) that will likely have increases in traffic volume 
     that are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities and 
     incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average 
     for those functional classes of roadway.
       ``(2) Highway safety improvement program.--The term 
     `highway safety improvement program' means the program 
     carried out under this section.
       ``(3) Highway safety improvement project.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `highway safety improvement 
     project' means a project described in the State strategic 
     highway safety plan that--
       ``(i) corrects or improves a hazardous road location or 
     feature; or
       ``(ii) addresses a highway safety problem.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `highway safety improvement 
     project' includes a project for one or more of the following:
       ``(i) An intersection safety improvement.
       ``(ii) Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition 
     of a passing lane to remedy an unsafe condition).
       ``(iii) Installation of rumble strips or another warning 
     device, if the rumble strips or other warning devices do not 
     adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, 
     pedestrians, and the disabled.
       ``(iv) Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an 
     intersection or other location with a high frequency of 
     accidents.
       ``(v) An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or 
     safety of the disabled.
       ``(vi) Construction of any project for the elimination of 
     hazards at a railway-highway crossing that is eligible for 
     funding under section 130, including the separation or 
     protection of grades at railway-highway crossings.
       ``(vii) Construction of a railway-highway crossing safety 
     feature, including installation of protective devices.
       ``(viii) The conduct of a model traffic enforcement 
     activity at a railway-highway crossing.
       ``(ix) Construction of a traffic calming feature.
       ``(x) Elimination of a roadside obstacle.
       ``(xi) Improvement of highway signage and pavement 
     markings.
       ``(xii) Installation of a priority control system for 
     emergency vehicles at signalized intersections.
       ``(xiii) Installation of a traffic control or other warning 
     device at a location with high accident potential.
       ``(xiv) Safety-conscious planning.
       ``(xv) Improvement in the collection and analysis of crash 
     data.
       ``(xvi) Planning, integrated interoperable emergency 
     communications equipment, operational activities, or traffic 
     enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating 
     to workzone safety.
       ``(xvii) Installation of guardrails, barriers (including 
     barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes 
     for the safety of motorists and workers), and crash 
     attenuators.
       ``(xviii) The addition or retrofitting of structures or 
     other measures to eliminate or reduce accidents involving 
     vehicles and wildlife.
       ``(xix) Installation and maintenance of signs (including 
     fluorescent, yellow-green signs) at pedestrian-bicycle 
     crossings and in school zones.
       ``(xx) Construction and yellow-green signs at pedestrian-
     bicycle crossings and in school zones.
       ``(xxi) Construction and operational improvements on high 
     risk rural roads.
       ``(4) Safety project under any other section.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `safety project under any other 
     section' means a project carried out for the purpose of 
     safety under any other section of this title.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `safety project under any other 
     section' includes a project to promote the awareness of the 
     public and educate the public concerning highway safety 
     matters (including motorcyclist safety) and a project to 
     enforce highway safety laws.
       ``(5) State highway safety improvement program.--The term 
     `State highway safety improvement program' means projects or 
     strategies included in the State strategic highway safety 
     plan carried out as part of the State transportation 
     improvement program under section 135(g).
       ``(6) State strategic highway safety plan.--The term `State 
     strategic highway safety plan' means a plan developed by the 
     State transportation department that--
       ``(A) is developed after consultation with--
       ``(i) a highway safety representative of the Governor of 
     the State;
       ``(ii) regional transportation planning organizations and 
     metropolitan planning organizations, if any;
       ``(iii) representatives of major modes of transportation;
       ``(iv) State and local traffic enforcement officials;
       ``(v) persons responsible for administering section 130 at 
     the State level;
       ``(vi) representatives conducting Operation Lifesaver;
       ``(vii) representatives conducting a motor carrier safety 
     program under section 31102, 31106, or 31309 of title 49;
       ``(viii) motor vehicle administration agencies; and
       ``(ix) other major State and local safety stakeholders;
       ``(B) analyzes and makes effective use of State, regional, 
     or local crash data;
       ``(C) addresses engineering, management, operation, 
     education, enforcement, and emergency services elements 
     (including integrated, interoperable emergency 
     communications) of highway safety as key factors in 
     evaluating highway projects;
       ``(D) considers safety needs of, and high-fatality segments 
     of, public roads;
       ``(E) considers the results of State, regional, or local 
     transportation and highway safety planning processes;
       ``(F) describes a program of projects or strategies to 
     reduce or eliminate safety hazards;
       ``(G) is approved by the Governor of the State or a 
     responsible State agency; and
       ``(H) is consistent with the requirements of section 
     135(g).
       ``(b) Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a highway 
     safety improvement program.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the highway safety 
     improvement program shall be to achieve a significant 
     reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on 
     public roads.

[[Page 18384]]

       ``(c) Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--To obligate funds apportioned under 
     section 104(b)(5) to carry out this section, a State shall 
     have in effect a State highway safety improvement program 
     under which the State--
       ``(A) develops and implements a State strategic highway 
     safety plan that identifies and analyzes highway safety 
     problems and opportunities as provided in paragraph (2);
       ``(B) produces a program of projects or strategies to 
     reduce identified safety problems;
       ``(C) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the 
     accuracy of the data and priority of proposed improvements; 
     and
       ``(D) submits to the Secretary an annual report that--
       ``(i) describes, in a clearly understandable fashion, not 
     less than 5 percent of locations determined by the State, 
     using criteria established in accordance with paragraph 
     (2)(B)(ii), as exhibiting the most severe safety needs; and
       ``(ii) contains an assessment of--

       ``(I) potential remedies to hazardous locations identified;
       ``(II) estimated costs associated with those remedies; and
       ``(III) impediments to implementation other than cost 
     associated with those remedies.

       ``(2) Identification and analysis of highway safety 
     problems and opportunities.--As part of the State strategic 
     highway safety plan, a State shall--
       ``(A) have in place a crash data system with the ability to 
     perform safety problem identification and countermeasure 
     analysis;
       ``(B) based on the analysis required by subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) identify hazardous locations, sections, and elements 
     (including roadside obstacles, railway-highway crossing 
     needs, and unmarked or poorly marked roads) that constitute a 
     danger to motorists (including motorcyclists), bicyclists, 
     pedestrians, and other highway users; and
       ``(ii) using such criteria as the State determines to be 
     appropriate, establish the relative severity of those 
     locations, in terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, traffic 
     volume levels, and other relevant data;
       ``(C) adopt strategic and performance-based goals that--
       ``(i) address traffic safety, including behavioral and 
     infrastructure problems and opportunities on all public 
     roads;
       ``(ii) focus resources on areas of greatest need; and
       ``(iii) are coordinated with other State highway safety 
     programs;
       ``(D) advance the capabilities of the State for traffic 
     records data collection, analysis, and integration with other 
     sources of safety data (such as road inventories) in a manner 
     that--
       ``(i) complements the State highway safety program under 
     chapter 4 and the commercial vehicle safety plan under 
     section 31102 of title 49;
       ``(ii) includes all public roads;
       ``(iii) identifies hazardous locations, sections, and 
     elements on public roads that constitute a danger to 
     motorists (including motorcyclists), bicyclists, pedestrians, 
     the disabled, and other highway users; and
       ``(iv) includes a means of identifying the relative 
     severity of hazardous locations described in clause (iii) in 
     terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, and traffic volume 
     levels;
       ``(E)(i) determine priorities for the correction of 
     hazardous road locations, sections, and elements (including 
     railway-highway crossing improvements), as identified through 
     crash data analysis;
       ``(ii) identify opportunities for preventing the 
     development of such hazardous conditions; and
       ``(iii) establish and implement a schedule of highway 
     safety improvement projects for hazard correction and hazard 
     prevention; and
       ``(F)(i) establish an evaluation process to analyze and 
     assess results achieved by highway safety improvement 
     projects carried out in accordance with procedures and 
     criteria established by this section; and
       ``(ii) use the information obtained under clause (i) in 
     setting priorities for highway safety improvement projects.
       ``(d) Eligible Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may obligate funds apportioned 
     to the State under section 104(b)(5) to carry out--
       ``(A) any highway safety improvement project on any public 
     road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or 
     trail; or
       ``(B) as provided in subsection (e), other safety projects.
       ``(2) Use of other funding for safety.--
       ``(A) Effect of section.--Nothing in this section prohibits 
     the use of funds made available under other provisions of 
     this title for highway safety improvement projects.
       ``(B) Use of other funds.--States are encouraged to address 
     the full scope of their safety needs and opportunities by 
     using funds made available under other provisions of this 
     title (except a provision that specifically prohibits that 
     use).
       ``(e) Flexible Funding for States With a Strategic Highway 
     Safety Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--To further the implementation of a State 
     strategic highway safety plan, a State may use up to 10 
     percent of the amount of funds apportioned to the State under 
     section 104(b)(5) for a fiscal year to carry out safety 
     projects under any other section as provided in the State 
     strategic highway safety plan if the State certifies that--
       ``(A) the State has met needs in the State relating to 
     railway-highway crossings; and
       ``(B) the State has met the State's infrastructure safety 
     needs relating to highway safety improvement projects.
       ``(2) Other transportation and highway safety plans.--
     Nothing in this subsection requires a State to revise any 
     State process, plan, or program in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(f) High Risk Rural Roads.--
       ``(1) In general.--After making an apportionment under 
     section 104(b)(5) for a fiscal year beginning after September 
     30, 2005, the Secretary shall ensure, from amounts made 
     available to carry out this section for such fiscal year, 
     that a total of $90,000,000 of such apportionment is set 
     aside by the States, proportionally according to the share of 
     each State of the total amount so apportioned, for use only 
     for construction and operational improvements on high risk 
     rural roads.
       ``(2) Special rule.--A State may use funds apportioned to 
     the State pursuant to this subsection for any project under 
     this section if the State certifies to the Secretary that the 
     State has met all of State needs for construction and 
     operational improvements on high risk rural roads.
       ``(g) Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State shall submit to the Secretary a 
     report that--
       ``(A) describes progress being made to implement highway 
     safety improvement projects under this section;
       ``(B) assesses the effectiveness of those improvements; and
       ``(C) describes the extent to which the improvements funded 
     under this section contribute to the goals of--
       ``(i) reducing the number of fatalities on roadways;
       ``(ii) reducing the number of roadway-related injuries;
       ``(iii) reducing the occurrences of roadway-related 
     crashes;
       ``(iv) mitigating the consequences of roadway-related 
     crashes; and
       ``(v) reducing the occurrences of crashes at railway-
     highway crossings.
       ``(2) Contents; schedule.--The Secretary shall establish 
     the content and schedule for a report under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Transparency.--The Secretary shall make reports 
     submitted under subsection (c)(1)(D) available to the public 
     through--
       ``(A) the Web site of the Department; and
       ``(B) such other means as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(4) Discovery and admission into evidence of certain 
     reports, surveys, and information.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data 
     compiled or collected for any purpose directly relating to 
     paragraph (1) or subsection (c)(1)(D), or published by the 
     Secretary in accordance with paragraph (3), shall not be 
     subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal 
     or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in 
     any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a 
     location identified or addressed in such reports, surveys, 
     schedules, lists, or other data.
       ``(h) Federal Share of Highway Safety Improvement 
     Projects.--Except as provided in sections 120 and 130, the 
     Federal share of the cost of a highway safety improvement 
     project carried out with funds apportioned to a State under 
     section 104(b)(5) shall be 90 percent.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of such 
     title is amended by striking the item relating to section 148 
     and inserting the following:

``148. Highway safety improvement program.''.

       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Transfers of apportionments.--Section 104(g) of such 
     title is amended in the first sentence by striking ``sections 
     130, 144, and 152 of this title'' and inserting ``sections 
     130 and 144''.
       (B) Uniform transferability.--Section 126(a) of such title 
     is amended by inserting ``under'' after ``State's 
     apportionment''.
       (C) Other sections.--Sections 154, 164, and 409 of such 
     title are amended by striking ``152'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``148''.
       (b) Apportionment of Highway Safety Improvement Program 
     Funds.--Section 104(b) of such title (as amended by section 
     1103 of this Act) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting 
     after ``Improvement program,'' the following: ``the highway 
     safety improvement program,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Highway safety improvement program.--
       ``(A) In general.--For the highway safety improvement 
     program, in accordance with the following formula:
       ``(i) 33\1/3\ percent of the apportionments in the ratio 
     that--

       ``(I) the total lane miles of Federal-aid highways in each 
     State; bears to
       ``(II) the total lane miles of Federal-aid highways in all 
     States.

       ``(ii) 33\1/3\ percent of the apportionments in the ratio 
     that--

       ``(I) the total vehicle miles traveled on lanes on Federal-
     aid highways in each State; bears to
       ``(II) the total vehicle miles traveled on lanes on 
     Federal-aid highways in all States.

       ``(iii) 33\1/3\ percent of the apportionments in the ratio 
     that--

       ``(I) the number of fatalities on the Federal-aid system in 
     each State in the latest fiscal year for which data are 
     available; bears to
       ``(II) the number of fatalities on the Federal-aid system 
     in all States in the latest fiscal year for which data are 
     available.

[[Page 18385]]

       ``(B) Minimum apportionment.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), each State shall receive a minimum of \1/2\ of 1 percent 
     of the funds apportioned under this paragraph.''.
       (d) Elimination of Hazards Relating to Railway-Highway 
     Crossings.--
       (1) Funds for protective devices.--Section 130(e) of such 
     title is amended--
       (A) by striking ``At'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Before making an apportionment under 
     section 104(b)(5) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall set 
     aside, from amounts made available to carry out the highway 
     safety improvement program under section 148 for such fiscal 
     year, at least $220,000,000 for the elimination of hazards 
     and the installation of protective devices at railway-highway 
     crossings. At''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Special rule.--If a State demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that the State has met all its 
     needs for installation of protective devices at railway-
     highway crossings, the State may use funds made available by 
     this section for other purposes under this subsection.''.
       (2) Apportionment.--Section 130(f) of such title is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(f) Apportionment.--
       ``(1) Formula.--Fifty percent of the funds set aside to 
     carry out this section pursuant to subsection (e)(1) shall be 
     apportioned to the States in accordance with the formula set 
     forth in section 104(b)(3)(A), and 50 percent of such funds 
     shall be apportioned to the States in the ratio that total 
     public railway-highway crossings in each State bears to the 
     total of such crossings in all States.
       ``(2) Minimum apportionment.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (1), each State shall receive a minimum of \1/2\ of 1 percent 
     of the funds apportioned under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share payable on account 
     of any project financed with funds set aside to carry out 
     this section shall be 90 percent of the cost thereof.''.
       (3) Biennial reports to congress.--Section 130(g) of such 
     title is amended in the third sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation,'' after ``Public Works''; and
       (B) by striking ``not later than April 1 of each year'' and 
     inserting ``, not later than April 1, 2006, and every 2 years 
     thereafter,''.
       (4) Expenditure of funds.--Section 130 of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Expenditure of Funds.--Not more than 2 percent of 
     funds apportioned to a State to carry out this section may be 
     used by the State for compilation and analysis of data in 
     support of activities carried out under subsection (g).''.
       (e) Transition.--
       (1) Implementation.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary shall approve obligations of funds apportioned 
     under section 104(b)(5) of title 23, United States Code (as 
     added by subsection (b)) to carry out section 148 of that 
     title, only if, not later than October 1 of the second fiscal 
     year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
     State has developed and implemented a State strategic highway 
     safety plan as required pursuant to section 148(c) of that 
     title.
       (2) Interim period.--
       (A) In general.--Before October 1 of the second fiscal year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act and until the date on 
     which a State develops and implements a State strategic 
     highway safety plan, the Secretary shall apportion funds to a 
     State for the highway safety improvement program and the 
     State may obligate funds apportioned to the State for the 
     highway safety improvement program under section 148 for 
     projects that were eligible for funding under sections 130 
     and 152 of that title, as in effect on the day before the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) No strategic highway safety plan.--If a State has not 
     developed a strategic highway safety plan by October 1, 2007, 
     the State shall receive for the highway safety improvement 
     program for each subsequent fiscal year until the date of 
     development of such plan an amount that equals the amount 
     apportioned to the State for that program for fiscal year 
     2007.

     SEC. 1402. WORKER INJURY PREVENTION AND FREE FLOW OF 
                   VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations to decrease the 
     likelihood of worker injury and maintain the free flow of 
     vehicular traffic by requiring workers whose duties place 
     them on or in close proximity to a Federal-aid highway (as 
     defined in section 101 of title 23, United States Code) to 
     wear high visibility garments. The regulations may also 
     require such other worker-safety measures for workers with 
     those duties as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

     SEC. 1403. TOLL FACILITIES WORKPLACE SAFETY STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the 
     safety of highway toll collection facilities, including toll 
     booths, to determine the safety of the facilities for the 
     toll collectors who work in and around the facilities, 
     including consideration of--
       (1) the effect of design or construction of the facilities 
     on the likelihood of vehicle collisions with the facilities;
       (2) the safety of crosswalks used by toll collectors in 
     transit to and from toll booths;
       (3) the extent of the enforcement of speed limits in the 
     vicinity of the facilities;
       (4) the use of warning devices, such as vibration and 
     rumble strips, to alert drivers approaching the facilities;
       (5) the use of cameras to record traffic violations in the 
     vicinity of the facilities;
       (6) the use of traffic control arms in the vicinity of the 
     facilities;
       (7) law enforcement practices and jurisdictional issues 
     that affect safety in the vicinity of the facilities; and
       (8) the incidence of accidents and injuries in the vicinity 
     of toll booths.
       (b) Data Collection.--As part of the study, the Secretary 
     shall collect data regarding the incidence of accidents and 
     injuries in the vicinity of highway toll collection 
     facilities.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the 
     study, together with recommendations for improving toll 
     facilities workplace safety.
       (d) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, out of the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), 
     $500,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this section shall be available for 
     obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as if 
     the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, except that the Federal share of the cost 
     of the project shall be 100 percent, and the funds shall 
     remain available until expended and shall not be 
     transferable.

     SEC. 1404. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--Subject to the requirements of this 
     section, the Secretary shall establish and carry out a safe 
     routes to school program for the benefit of children in 
     primary and middle schools.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program shall be--
       (1) to enable and encourage children, including those with 
     disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school;
       (2) to make bicycling and walking to school a safer and 
     more appealing transportation alternative, thereby 
     encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; 
     and
       (3) to facilitate the planning, development, and 
     implementation of projects and activities that will improve 
     safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air 
     pollution in the vicinity of schools.
       (c) Apportionment of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), 
     amounts made available to carry out this section for a fiscal 
     year shall be apportioned among the States in the ratio 
     that--
       (A) the total student enrollment in primary and middle 
     schools in each State; bears to
       (B) the total student enrollment in primary and middle 
     schools in all States.
       (2) Minimum apportionment.--No State shall receive an 
     apportionment under this section for a fiscal year of less 
     than $1,000,000.
       (3) Set-aside for administrative expenses.--Before 
     apportioning under this subsection amounts made available to 
     carry out this section for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     set aside not more than $3,000,000 of such amounts for the 
     administrative expenses of the Secretary in carrying out this 
     subsection.
       (4) Determination of student enrollments.--Determinations 
     under this subsection concerning student enrollments shall be 
     made by the Secretary.
       (d) Administration of Amounts.--Amounts apportioned to a 
     State under this section shall be administered by the State's 
     department of transportation.
       (e) Eligible Recipients.--Amounts apportioned to a State 
     under this section shall be used by the State to provide 
     financial assistance to State, local, and regional agencies, 
     including nonprofit organizations, that demonstrate an 
     ability to meet the requirements of this section.
       (f) Eligible Projects and Activities.--
       (1) Infrastructure-related projects.--
       (A) In general.--Amounts apportioned to a State under this 
     section may be used for the planning, design, and 
     construction of infrastructure-related projects that will 
     substantially improve the ability of students to walk and 
     bicycle to school, including sidewalk improvements, traffic 
     calming and speed reduction improvements, pedestrian and 
     bicycle crossing improvements, on-street bicycle facilities, 
     off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities, secure bicycle 
     parking facilities, and traffic diversion improvements in the 
     vicinity of schools.
       (B) Location of projects.--Infrastructure-related projects 
     under subparagraph (A) may be carried out on any public road 
     or any bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail in the vicinity 
     of schools.
       (2) Noninfrastructure-related activities.--
       (A) In general.--In addition to projects described in 
     paragraph (1), amounts apportioned to a State under this 
     section may be used for noninfrastructure-related activities 
     to encourage walking and bicycling to school, including 
     public awareness campaigns and outreach to press and 
     community leaders, traffic education and enforcement in the 
     vicinity of schools, student sessions on bicycle and 
     pedestrian safety, health, and environment, and funding for 
     training, volunteers, and managers of safe routes to school 
     programs.

[[Page 18386]]

       (B) Allocation.--Not less than 10 percent and not more than 
     30 percent of the amount apportioned to a State under this 
     section for a fiscal year shall be used for 
     noninfrastructure-related activities under this subparagraph.
       (3) Safe routes to school coordinator.--Each State 
     receiving an apportionment under this section for a fiscal 
     year shall use a sufficient amount of the apportionment to 
     fund a full-time position of coordinator of the State's safe 
     routes to school program.
       (g) Clearinghouse.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to a 
     national nonprofit organization engaged in promoting safe 
     routes to schools to--
       (A) operate a national safe routes to school clearinghouse;
       (B) develop information and educational programs on safe 
     routes to school; and
       (C) provide technical assistance and disseminate techniques 
     and strategies used for successful safe routes to school 
     programs.
       (2) Funding.--The Secretary shall carry out this subsection 
     using amounts set aside for administrative expenses under 
     subsection (c)(3).
       (h) Task Force.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a national 
     safe routes to school task force composed of leaders in 
     health, transportation, and education, including 
     representatives of appropriate Federal agencies, to study and 
     develop a strategy for advancing safe routes to school 
     programs nationwide.
       (2) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2006, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of 
     the study conducted, and a description of the strategy 
     developed, under paragraph (1) and information regarding the 
     use of funds for infrastructure-related and 
     noninfrastructure-related activities under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (f).
       (3) Funding.--The Secretary shall carry out this subsection 
     using amounts set aside for administrative expenses under 
     subsection (c)(3).
       (i) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available to 
     carry out this section shall be available for obligation in 
     the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that such 
     funds shall not be transferable and shall remain available 
     until expended, and the Federal share of the cost of a 
     project or activity under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (j) Treatment of Projects.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, projects assisted under this subsection 
     shall be treated as projects on a Federal-aid system under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code.
       (k) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) In the vicinity of schools.--The term ``in the vicinity 
     of schools'' means, with respect to a school, the area within 
     bicycling and walking distance of the school (approximately 2 
     miles).
       (2) Primary and middle schools.--The term ``primary and 
     middle schools'' means schools providing education from 
     kindergarten through eighth grade.

     SEC. 1405. ROADWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR OLDER DRIVERS AND 
                   PEDESTRIANS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to 
     improve traffic signs and pavement markings in all States (as 
     such term is defined in section 101 of title 23, United 
     States Code) in a manner consistent with the recommendations 
     included in the publication of the Federal Highway 
     Administration entitled ``Guidelines and Recommendations to 
     Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians (FHWA-RD-01-103)'' 
     and dated October 2001.
       (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project carried out under this section shall be determined in 
     accordance with section 120 of title 23, United States Code.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

     SEC. 1406. SAFETY INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR USE OF SEAT BELTS.

       Section 157(g)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``2004, and'' and all that follows 
     through ``2005'' and inserting ``2004, and $112,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005''.

     SEC. 1407. SAFETY INCENTIVES TO PREVENT OPERATION OF MOTOR 
                   VEHICLES BY INTOXICATED PERSONS.

       (a) Codification of Penalty.--Section 163 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--On October 1, 2003, and October 1 of 
     each fiscal year thereafter, if a State has not enacted or is 
     not enforcing a law described in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall withhold from amounts apportioned to the 
     State on that date under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) 
     of section 104(b) an amount equal to the amount specified in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Amount to be withheld.--If a State is subject to a 
     penalty under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall withhold for 
     a fiscal year from the apportionments of the State described 
     in paragraph (1) an amount equal to a percentage of the funds 
     apportioned to the State under paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) 
     of section 104(b) for fiscal year 2003. The percentage shall 
     be as follows:
       ``(A) For fiscal year 2004, 2 percent.
       ``(B) For fiscal year 2005, 4 percent.
       ``(C) For fiscal year 2006, 6 percent.
       ``(D) For fiscal year 2007, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, 8 percent.
       ``(3) Failure to comply.--If, within 4 years from the date 
     that an apportionment for a State is withheld in accordance 
     with this subsection, the Secretary determines that the State 
     has enacted and is enforcing a law described in subsection 
     (a), the apportionment of the State shall be increased by an 
     amount equal to the amount withheld. If, at the end of such 
     4-year period, any State has not enacted or is not enforcing 
     a law described in subsection (a) any amounts so withheld 
     from such State shall lapse.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 163(f)(1) of 
     such title (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this 
     section) is amended by striking ``2004, and'' and inserting 
     ``2004, and $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2005''.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 351 of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (23 U.S.C. 163 note; 114 Stat. 1356A-34) is repealed.

     SEC. 1408. IMPROVEMENT OR REPLACEMENT OF HIGHWAY FEATURES ON 
                   NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

       (a) Update of Implementation Guidance.--The Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the American Association of State Highway 
     and Transportation Officials, shall update as appropriate the 
     August 28, 1998, Federal Highway Administration Policy on 
     Implementation of the report of the Transportation Research 
     Board of the National Research Council entitled ``NCHRP 
     Report 350-Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance 
     Evaluation of Highway Features''.
       (b) Guidance.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Association, shall publish updated guidance regarding the 
     conditions under which States, when choosing to improve or 
     replace highway features on the National Highway System, 
     should improve or replace such features with highway features 
     that have been tested, evaluated, and found to be acceptable 
     under the guidelines of the report referred to in subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Matters to Be Considered.--Guidance published in 
     accordance with subsection (a)--
       (1) shall address those highway features that are covered 
     by the guidelines in the report referred to in subsection 
     (b); and
       (2) shall consider types of highway features, cost-
     effectiveness, and practicality of replacement with highway 
     features that have been found to be acceptable under the 
     report guidelines to determine conditions when such features 
     should be used.

     SEC. 1409. WORK ZONE SAFETY GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement a work zone safety grant program under which the 
     Secretary may make grants to nonprofit organizations and not-
     for-profit organizations to provide training to prevent or 
     reduce highway work zone injuries and fatalities.
       (b) Eligible Activities.--Grants may be made under the 
     program for the following purposes:
       (1) Training for construction craft workers on the 
     prevention of injuries and fatalities in highway and road 
     construction.
       (2) Development of guidelines for the prevention of highway 
     work zone injuries and fatalities.
       (3) Training for State and local government transportation 
     agencies and other groups implementing guidelines for the 
     prevention of highway work zone injuries and fatalities.
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized by this 
     subsection shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code; except that such funds shall 
     not be transferable.
       (d) Construction Work in Alaska.--Section 114 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the 
     following:
       ``(c) Construction Work in Alaska.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that a worker 
     who is employed on a remote project for the construction of a 
     highway or portion of a highway located on a Federal-aid 
     system in the State of Alaska and who is not a domiciled 
     resident of the locality shall receive meals and lodging.
       ``(2) Lodging.--The lodging under paragraph (1) shall be in 
     accordance with section 1910.142 of title 29, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (relating to temporary labor camp requirements).
       ``(3) Per diem.--
       ``(A) In general.--Contractors are encouraged to use 
     commercial facilities and lodges on remote projects, however, 
     when such facilities are not available, per diem in lieu of 
     room and lodging may be paid on remote Federal highway 
     projects at a basic rate of $75.00 per day or part of a day 
     the worker is employed on the project. Where the contractor 
     provides or furnishes room and lodging or pays a per diem, 
     the cost of the amount shall not be considered a part of 
     wages and shall be excluded from the calculation of wages.
       ``(B) Secretary of labor.--Such per diem rate shall be 
     adopted by the Secretary of Labor for all applicable remote 
     Federal highway projects in Alaska.
       ``(C) Exception.--Per diem shall not be allowed on any of 
     the following remote projects for the construction of a 
     highway or portion of a highway located on a Federal-aid 
     system:

[[Page 18387]]

       ``(i) West of Livengood on the Elliot Highway.
       ``(ii) Mile 0 on the Dalton Highway to the North Slope of 
     Alaska; north of Mile 20 on the Taylor Highway.
       ``(iii) East of Chicken on the Top of the World Highway and 
     south of Tetlin Junction to the Alaska Canadian border.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Remote.--The term `remote', as used with respect to a 
     project, means that the project is 65 road miles or more from 
     the international airport in Fairbanks, Anchorage, or Juneau, 
     Alaska, as the case may be, or is inaccessible by road in a 
     2-wheel drive vehicle.
       ``(B) Resident.--The term `resident', as used with respect 
     to a project, means a person living within 65 road miles of 
     the midpoint of the project for at least 12 consecutive 
     months prior to the award of the project.''.

     SEC. 1410. NATIONAL WORK ZONE SAFETY INFORMATION 
                   CLEARINGHOUSE.

       (a) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants for fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009 to a national nonprofit foundation 
     for the operation of the National Work Zone Safety 
     Information Clearinghouse, authorized by section 358(b)(2) of 
     Public Law 104-59, created for the purpose of assembling and 
     disseminating, by electronic and other means, information 
     relating to improvement of roadway work zone safety.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this section 
     $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       (c) Contract Authority.--Funds authorized by this 
     subsection shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, except the Federal share of the 
     cost of activities carried out using such funds shall be 100 
     percent, and such funds shall remain available until expended 
     and shall not be transferable.

     SEC. 1411. ROADWAY SAFETY.

       (a) Road Safety.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement to assist in the activities of a national nonprofit 
     organization that is dedicated solely to improving public 
     road safety--
       (A) by improving the quality of data pertaining to public 
     road hazards and design features that affect or increase the 
     severity of motor vehicle crashes;
       (B) by developing and carrying out a public awareness 
     campaign to educate State and local transportation officials, 
     public safety officials, and motorists regarding the extent 
     to which public road hazards and design features are a factor 
     in motor vehicle crashes; and
       (C) by promoting public road safety research and technology 
     transfer activities.
       (2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to carry 
     out this subsection.
       (3) Applicability of title 23.--Funds made available by 
     this subsection shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, except that the funds shall 
     remain available until expended.
       (b) Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to a 
     national, not-for-profit organization engaged in promoting 
     bicycle and pedestrian safety--
       (A) to operate a national bicycle and pedestrian 
     clearinghouse;
       (B) to develop information and educational programs; and
       (C) to disseminate techniques and strategies for improving 
     bicycle and pedestrian safety.
       (2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     $300,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $500,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009 to carry out this subsection.
       (3) Applicability of title 23.--Funds made available by 
     this subsection shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, except that the funds shall 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 1412. IDLING REDUCTION FACILITIES IN INTERSTATE RIGHTS-
                   OF-WAY.

       Section 111 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Idling Reduction Facilities in Interstate Rights-of-
     Way.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a State 
     may--
       ``(A) permit electrification or other idling reduction 
     facilities and equipment, for use by motor vehicles used for 
     commercial purposes, to be placed in rest and recreation 
     areas, and in safety rest areas, constructed or located on 
     rights-of-way of the Interstate System in the State, so long 
     as those idling reduction measures do not reduce the existing 
     number of designated truck parking spaces at any given rest 
     or recreation area; and
       ``(B) charge a fee, or permit the charging of a fee, for 
     the use of those parking spaces actively providing power to a 
     truck to reduce idling.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The exclusive purpose of the facilities 
     described in paragraph (1) (or similar technologies) shall be 
     to enable operators of motor vehicles used for commercial 
     purposes--
       ``(A) to reduce idling of a truck while parked in the rest 
     or recreation area; and
       ``(B) to use installed or other equipment specifically 
     designed to reduce idling of a truck, or provide alternative 
     power for supporting driver comfort, while parked.''.
            Subtitle E--Construction and Contract Efficiency

     SEC. 1501. PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES.

       (a) Advance Construction.--Section 115 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may authorize a State to 
     proceed with a project authorized under this title--
       ``(1) without the use of Federal funds; and
       ``(2) in accordance with all procedures and requirements 
     applicable to the project other than those procedures and 
     requirements that limit the State to implementation of a 
     project--
       ``(A) with the aid of Federal funds previously apportioned 
     or allocated to the State; or
       ``(B) with obligation authority previously allocated to the 
     State.
       ``(b) Obligation of Federal Share.--The Secretary, on the 
     request of a State and execution of a project agreement, may 
     obligate all or a portion of the Federal share of a project 
     authorized to proceed under this section from any category of 
     funds for which the project is eligible.''.
       (b) Obligation and Release of Funds.--Section 118(d) of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Obligation and Release of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds apportioned or allocated to a 
     State for a purpose for any fiscal year shall be considered 
     to be obligated if a sum equal to the total of the funds 
     apportioned or allocated to the State for that purpose for 
     that fiscal year and previous fiscal years is obligated.
       ``(2) Released funds.--Any funds released by the final 
     payment for a project, or by modifying the project agreement 
     for a project, shall be--
       ``(A) credited to the same class of funds previously 
     apportioned or allocated to the State for the project; and
       ``(B) immediately available for obligation.
       ``(3) Net obligations.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law (including a regulation), obligations recorded against 
     funds made available under this subsection shall be recorded 
     and reported as net obligations.''.

     SEC. 1502. HIGHWAYS FOR LIFE PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement a pilot program to be known as the ``Highways for 
     LIFE Pilot Program''.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the pilot program shall be to 
     advance longer-lasting highways using innovative technologies 
     and practices to accomplish the fast construction of 
     efficient and safe highways and bridges.
       (3) Objectives.--Under the pilot program, the Secretary 
     shall provide leadership and incentives to demonstrate and 
     promote state-of-the-art technologies, elevated performance 
     standards, and new business practices in the highway 
     construction process that result in improved safety, faster 
     construction, reduced congestion from construction, and 
     improved quality and user satisfaction.
       (b) Projects.--
       (1) Applications.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     pilot program, a State shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application that is in such form and contains such 
     information as the Secretary requires. Each application shall 
     contain a description of proposed projects to be carried by 
     the State under the pilot program.
       (2) Eligibility.--A proposed project shall be eligible for 
     assistance under the pilot program if the project--
       (A) constructs, reconstructs, or rehabilitates a route or 
     connection on a Federal-aid highway eligible for assistance 
     under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code;
       (B) uses innovative technologies, manufacturing processes, 
     financing, or contracting methods that improve safety, reduce 
     congestion due to construction, and improve quality; and
       (C) meets additional criteria as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (3) Project proposal.--A project proposal submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall contain--
       (A) an identification and description of the projects to be 
     delivered;
       (B) a description of how the projects will result in 
     improved safety, faster construction, reduced congestion due 
     to construction, user satisfaction, and improved quality;
       (C) a description of the innovative technologies, 
     manufacturing processes, financing, and contracting methods 
     that will be used for the proposed projects; and
       (D) such other information as the Secretary may require.
       (4) Selection criteria.--In selecting projects for approval 
     under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the 
     projects provide an evaluation of a broad range of 
     technologies in a wide variety of project types and shall 
     give priority to the projects that--
       (A) address achieving the Highways for LIFE performance 
     standards for quality, safety, and speed of construction;
       (B) deliver and deploy innovative technologies, 
     manufacturing processes, financing, contracting practices, 
     and performance measures that will demonstrate substantial 
     improvements in safety, congestion, quality, and cost-
     effectiveness;
       (C) include innovation that will lead to change in the 
     administration of the State's transportation program to more 
     quickly construct long-lasting, high-quality, cost-effective 
     projects that improve safety and reduce congestion;

[[Page 18388]]

       (D) are or will be ready for construction within 1 year of 
     approval of the project proposal; and
       (E) meet such other criteria as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (5) Financial assistance.--
       (A) Funds for highways for life projects.--Out of amounts 
     made available to carry out this section for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary may allocate to a State up to 20 percent, but 
     not more than $5,000,000, of the total cost of a project 
     approved under this section. Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds allocated to a State under this 
     subparagraph may be applied to the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of construction of a project under title 23, United 
     States Code.
       (B) Use of apportioned funds.--A State may obligate not 
     more than 10 percent of the amount apportioned to the State 
     under 1 or more of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of 
     section 104(b) of title 23, United States Code, for a fiscal 
     year for projects approved under this section.
       (C) Increased federal share.--Notwithstanding sections 120 
     and 129 of title 23, United States Code, the Federal share 
     payable on account of any project constructed with Federal 
     funds allocated under this section, or apportioned under 
     section 104(b) of such title, to a State under such title and 
     approved under this section may amount to 100 percent of the 
     cost of construction of such project.
       (D) Limitation on statutory construction.--Except as 
     provided in subparagraph (C), nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed as altering or otherwise affecting the 
     applicability of the requirements of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code (including requirements relating to the 
     eligibility of a project for assistance under the program and 
     the location of the project), to amounts apportioned to a 
     State for a program under section 104(b) that are obligated 
     by the State for projects approved under this subsection.
       (6) Project selections.--In the period of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009, the Secretary, to the maximum extent possible, 
     shall approve at least 1 project in each State for 
     participation in the pilot program and for financial 
     assistance under paragraph (5) if the State submits an 
     application and the project meets the eligibility 
     requirements and selection criteria under this subsection.
       (7) Maximum number of projects.--The maximum number of 
     projects for which the Secretary may allocate funds under 
     this subsection in a fiscal year is 15.
       (c) Technology Partnerships.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants or enter 
     into cooperative agreements or other transactions to foster 
     the development, improvement, and creation of innovative 
     technologies and facilities to improve safety, enhance the 
     speed of highway construction, and improve the quality and 
     durability of highways.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity carried out under this subsection shall not exceed 
     80 percent.
       (d) Technology Transfer and Information Dissemination.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a highways for 
     life technology transfer program.
       (2) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that the information and technology used, developed, 
     or deployed under this subsection is made available to the 
     transportation community and the public.
       (e) Stakeholder Input and Involvement.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a process for stakeholder input and involvement in 
     the development, implementation, and evaluation of the 
     Highways for LIFE Pilot Program. The process may include 
     participation by representatives of State departments of 
     transportation and other interested persons.
       (f) Project Monitoring and Evaluation.--The Secretary shall 
     monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of any activity 
     carried out under this section.
       (g) Contract Authority.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     this section, funds authorized to be appropriated to carry 
     out this section shall be available for obligation in the 
     same manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 
     of title 23, United States Code.
       (h) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State'' has 
     the meaning such term has in section 101(a) of title 23, 
     United States Code.

     SEC. 1503. DESIGN BUILD.

       Section 112(b)(3) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) Qualified projects.--A qualified project referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) is a project under this chapter 
     (including intermodal projects) for which the Secretary has 
     approved the use of design-build contracting under criteria 
     specified in regulations issued by the Secretary.
       ``(D) Regulatory process.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the Secretary shall 
     issue revised regulations under section 1307(c) of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 112 
     note; 112 Stat. 230) that--
       ``(i) do not preclude a State transportation department or 
     local transportation agency, prior to compliance with section 
     102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4332), from--

       ``(I) issuing requests for proposals;
       ``(II) proceeding with awards of design-build contracts; or
       ``(III) issuing notices to proceed with preliminary design 
     work under design-build contracts;

       ``(ii) require that the State transportation department or 
     local transportation agency receive concurrence from the 
     Secretary before carrying out an activity under clause (i); 
     and
       ``(iii) preclude the design-build contractor from 
     proceeding with final design or construction of any permanent 
     improvement prior to completion of the process under such 
     section 102.''.
                          Subtitle F--Finance

     SEC. 1601. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND 
                   INNOVATION ACT AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 181 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``category'' and ``offered 
     into the capital markets'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (7) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (8) through (15) as paragraphs (7) through (14), 
     respectively;
       (3) in paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(D) a project that--
       ``(i) is a project--

       ``(I) for a public freight rail facility or a private 
     facility providing public benefit for highway users;
       ``(II) for an intermodal freight transfer facility;
       ``(III) for a means of access to a facility described in 
     subclause (I) or (II);
       ``(IV) for a service improvement for a facility described 
     in subclause (I) or (II) (including a capital investment for 
     an intelligent transportation system); or
       ``(V) that comprises a series of projects described in 
     subclauses (I) through (IV) with the common objective of 
     improving the flow of goods;

       ``(ii) may involve the combining of private and public 
     sector funds, including investment of public funds in private 
     sector facility improvements; and
       ``(iii) if located within the boundaries of a port 
     terminal, includes only such surface transportation 
     infrastructure modifications as are necessary to facilitate 
     direct intermodal interchange, transfer, and access into and 
     out of the port.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (10) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection) by striking ``bond'' and inserting 
     ``credit''.
       (b) Determination of Eligibility.--Section 182(a) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Inclusion in transportation plans and programs.--The 
     project shall satisfy the applicable planning and programming 
     requirements of sections 134 and 135 at such time as an 
     agreement to make available a Federal credit instrument is 
     entered into under this subchapter.
       ``(2) Application.--A State, local government, public 
     authority, public-private partnership, or any other legal 
     entity undertaking the project and authorized by the 
     Secretary, shall submit a project application to the 
     Secretary.'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A)(i) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$50,000,000'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii) by striking ``50'' and 
     inserting ``33\1/3\'';
       (4) in paragraph (3)(B) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$15,000,000''; and
       (5) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``Project financing'' and inserting ``The 
     Federal credit instrument''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end ``that also 
     secure the project obligations''.
       (c) Project Selection.--Section 182(b) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``criteria'' the second 
     place it appears and inserting ``requirements''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B) by inserting ``, which may be the 
     Federal credit instrument,'' after ``obligations''.
       (d) Secured Loans.--
       (1) Agreements.--Section 183(a)(1) of such title is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``of any project 
     selected under section 602'' after ``costs'';
       (B) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
     (B) and all that follows through ``under section 182.'' and 
     inserting ``of any project selected under section 602; or''; 
     and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) to refinance long-term project obligations or Federal 
     credit instruments if such refinancing provides additional 
     funding capacity for the completion, enhancement, or 
     expansion of any project that--
       ``(i) is selected under section 602; or
       ``(ii) otherwise meets the requirements of section 602.''.
       (2) Investment-grade rating requirement.--Section 183(a)(4) 
     of such title is amended--
       (A) by striking ``The funding'' and inserting ``The 
     execution''; and
       (B) by striking the first comma and all that follows 
     through ``1 rating agency''.
       (3) Terms and limitations.--Section 183(b) of such title is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting ``the lesser of'' after ``exceed''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``or, if the secured loan does not 
     receive an investment grade rating, the amount of the senior 
     project obligations'' after ``costs'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)(i) by inserting ``that also secure 
     the senior project obligations'' after ``sources''; and

[[Page 18389]]

       (C) in paragraph (4) by striking ``marketable''.
       (4) Repayment.--Section 183(c) of such title is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3);
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively;
       (C) in paragraph (3)(A) (as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (B) of this paragraph) by striking ``during the 10 years''; 
     and
       (D) in subparagraph (3)(B)(ii) (as so redesignated) by 
     striking ``loan'' and all that follows and inserting 
     ``loan.''.
       (e) Lines of Credit.--
       (1) Terms and limitations.--Section 184(b) of such title is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Maximum amounts.--The total amount of the line of 
     credit shall not exceed 33 percent of the reasonably 
     anticipated eligible project costs.'';
       (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``, any debt service 
     reserve fund, and any other available reserve'' and inserting 
     ``but not including reasonably required financing reserves'';
       (C) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``marketable'';
       (ii) by striking ``on which'' and inserting ``of execution 
     of''; and
       (iii) by striking ``is obligated'' and inserting 
     ``agreement'';
       (D) in paragraph (5)(A)(i) by inserting ``that also secure 
     the senior project obligations'' after ``sources''; and
       (E) in paragraph (6) by striking ``line of credit'' and 
     inserting ``full amount of the line of credit, to the extent 
     not drawn upon,''.
       (2) Repayment.--Section 184(c) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``scheduled'';
       (ii) by inserting ``be scheduled to'' after ``shall''; and
       (iii) by striking ``be fully repaid, with interest,'' and 
     inserting ``to conclude, with full repayment of principal and 
     interest,''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3).
       (f) Program Administration.--Section 185 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 185. Program administration

       ``(a) Requirement.--The Secretary shall establish a uniform 
     system to service the Federal credit instruments made 
     available under this subchapter.
       ``(b) Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may collect and spend 
     fees, contingent upon authority being provided in 
     appropriations Acts, at a level that is sufficient to cover--
       ``(A) the costs of services of expert firms retained 
     pursuant to subsection (d); and
       ``(B) all or a portion of the costs to the Federal 
     Government of servicing the Federal credit instruments.
       ``(c) Servicer.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may appoint a financial 
     entity to assist the Secretary in servicing the Federal 
     credit instruments.
       ``(2) Duties.--The servicer shall act as the agent for the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Fee.--The servicer shall receive a servicing fee, 
     subject to approval by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Assistance From Expert Firms.--The Secretary may 
     retain the services of expert firms, including counsel, in 
     the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the 
     underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments.''.
       (g) Funding.--Section 188 of such title is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``Sec. 188. Funding

       ``(a) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this subchapter $122,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts made available to carry out 
     this chapter shall remain available until expended.
       ``(3) Administrative costs.--From funds made available to 
     carry out this chapter, the Secretary may use, for the 
     administration of this subchapter, not more than $2,200,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       ``(b) Contract Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, approval by the Secretary of a Federal credit instrument 
     that uses funds made available under this subchapter shall 
     impose upon the United States a contractual obligation to 
     fund the Federal credit investment.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts authorized under this section 
     for a fiscal year shall be available for obligation on 
     October 1 of the fiscal year.''.
       (h) Dates for Submission of Reports.--Section 189 of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by striking the section designation and heading and 
     inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 189. Reports to Congress'';

       (2) by striking ``Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this subchapter,'' and inserting ``On June 1, 
     2006, and every 2 years thereafter,''; and
       (3) by striking ``subchapter'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``chapter (other than section 610)''.
       (i) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of such 
     title is amended by striking the item relating to section 185 
     and inserting the following:

``185. Program administration.''.

     SEC. 1602. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANKS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 190. State infrastructure bank program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Capital project.--The term `capital project' has the 
     meaning such term has under section 5302 of title 49.
       ``(2) Other forms of credit assistance.--The term `other 
     forms of credit assistance' includes any use of funds in an 
     infrastructure bank--
       ``(A) to provide credit enhancements;
       ``(B) to serve as a capital reserve for bond or debt 
     instrument financing;
       ``(C) to subsidize interest rates;
       ``(D) to insure or guarantee letters of credit and credit 
     instruments against credit risk of loss;
       ``(E) to finance purchase and lease agreements with respect 
     to transit projects;
       ``(F) to provide bond or debt financing instrument 
     security; and
       ``(G) to provide other forms of debt financing and methods 
     of leveraging funds that are approved by the Secretary and 
     that relate to the project with respect to which such 
     assistance is being provided.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' has the meaning such term 
     has under section 401.
       ``(4) Capitalization.--The term `capitalization' means the 
     process used for depositing funds as initial capital into a 
     State infrastructure bank to establish the infrastructure 
     bank.
       ``(5) Cooperative agreement.--The term `cooperative 
     agreement' means written consent between a State and the 
     Secretary which sets forth the manner in which the 
     infrastructure bank established by the State in accordance 
     with this section will be administered.
       ``(6) Loan.--The term `loan' means any form of direct 
     financial assistance from a State infrastructure bank that is 
     required to be repaid over a period of time and that is 
     provided to a project sponsor for all or part of the costs of 
     the project.
       ``(7) Guarantee.--The term `guarantee' means a contract 
     entered into by a State infrastructure bank in which the bank 
     agrees to take responsibility for all or a portion of a 
     project sponsor's financial obligations for a project under 
     specified conditions.
       ``(8) Initial assistance.--The term `initial assistance' 
     means the first round of funds that are loaned or used for 
     credit enhancement by a State infrastructure bank for 
     projects eligible for assistance under this section.
       ``(9) Leverage.--The term `leverage' means a financial 
     structure used to increase funds in a State infrastructure 
     bank through the issuance of debt instruments.
       ``(10) Leveraged.--The term `leveraged', as used with 
     respect to a State infrastructure bank, means that the bank 
     has total potential liabilities that exceed the capital of 
     the bank.
       ``(b) Cooperative Agreements.--Subject to the provisions of 
     this section, the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
     agreements with States for the establishment of State 
     infrastructure banks for making loans and providing other 
     forms of credit assistance to public and private entities 
     carrying out or proposing to carry out projects eligible for 
     assistance under this section.
       ``(c) Interstate Compacts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Congress grants consent to 2 or more of 
     the States, entering into a cooperative agreement under 
     subsection (a) with the Secretary for the establishment by 
     such States of a multistate infrastructure bank in accordance 
     with this section, to enter into an interstate compact 
     establishing such bank in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Reservation of rights.--The right to alter, amend, or 
     repeal interstate compacts entered into under this subsection 
     is expressly reserved.
       ``(d) Funding.--
       ``(1) Highway account.--Subject to subsection (j), the 
     Secretary may permit a State entering into a cooperative 
     agreement under this section to establish a State 
     infrastructure bank to deposit into the highway account of 
     the bank not to exceed--
       ``(A) 10 percent of the funds apportioned to the State for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 under each of sections 
     104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), 104(b)(4), and 144; and
       ``(B) 10 percent of the funds allocated to the State for 
     each of such fiscal years under section 105.
       ``(2) Transit account.--Subject to subsection (j), the 
     Secretary may permit a State entering into a cooperative 
     agreement under this section to establish a State 
     infrastructure bank, and any other recipient of Federal 
     assistance under section 5307, 5309, or 5311 of title 49, to 
     deposit into the transit account of the bank not to exceed 10 
     percent of the funds made available to the State or other 
     recipient in each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for 
     capital projects under each of such sections.
       ``(3) Rail account.--Subject to subsection (j), the 
     Secretary may permit a State entering into a cooperative 
     agreement under this section to establish a State 
     infrastructure bank, and any other recipient of Federal 
     assistance under subtitle V of title 49, to deposit into the 
     rail account of the bank funds made available to the State or 
     other recipient in each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for 
     capital projects under such subtitle.
       ``(4) Capital grants.--

[[Page 18390]]

       ``(A) Highway account.--Federal funds deposited into a 
     highway account of a State infrastructure bank under 
     paragraph (1) shall constitute for purposes of this section a 
     capitalization grant for the highway account of the bank.
       ``(B) Transit account.--Federal funds deposited into a 
     transit account of a State infrastructure bank under 
     paragraph (2) shall constitute for purposes of this section a 
     capitalization grant for the transit account of the bank.
       ``(C) Rail account.--Federal funds deposited into a rail 
     account of a State infrastructure bank under paragraph 3 
     shall constitute for purposes of this section a 
     capitalization grant for the rail account of the bank.
       ``(5) Special rule for urbanized areas of over 200,000.--
     Funds in a State infrastructure bank that are attributed to 
     urbanized areas of a State with urbanized populations of over 
     200,000 under section 133(d)(3) may be used to provide 
     assistance with respect to a project only if the metropolitan 
     planning organization designated for such area concurs, in 
     writing, with the provision of such assistance.
       ``(6) Discontinuance of funding.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a State is not implementing the State's 
     infrastructure bank in accordance with a cooperative 
     agreement entered into under subsection (b), the Secretary 
     may prohibit the State from contributing additional Federal 
     funds to the bank.
       ``(e) Forms of Assistance From Infrastructure Banks.--An 
     infrastructure bank established under this section may make 
     loans or provide other forms of credit assistance to a public 
     or private entity in an amount equal to all or a part of the 
     cost of carrying out a project eligible for assistance under 
     this section. The amount of any loan or other form of credit 
     assistance provided for the project may be subordinated to 
     any other debt financing for the project. Initial assistance 
     provided with respect to a project from Federal funds 
     deposited into an infrastructure bank under this section may 
     not be made in the form of a grant.
       ``(f) Eligible Projects.--Subject to subsection (e), funds 
     in an infrastructure bank established under this section may 
     be used only to provide assistance for projects eligible for 
     assistance under this title and capital projects defined in 
     section 5302 of title 49, and any other projects relating to 
     surface transportation that the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(g) Infrastructure Bank Requirements.--In order to 
     establish an infrastructure bank under this section, the 
     State establishing the bank shall--
       ``(1) deposit in cash, at a minimum, into each account of 
     the bank from non-Federal sources an amount equal to 25 
     percent of the amount of each capitalization grant made to 
     the State and deposited into such account; except that, if 
     the deposit is into the highway account of the bank and the 
     State has a non-Federal share under section 120(b) that is 
     less than 25 percent, the percentage to be deposited from 
     non-Federal sources shall be the lower percentage of such 
     grant;
       ``(2) ensure that the bank maintains on a continuing basis 
     an investment grade rating on its debt, or has a sufficient 
     level of bond or debt financing instrument insurance, to 
     maintain the viability of the bank;
       ``(3) ensure that investment income derived from funds 
     deposited to an account of the bank are--
       ``(A) credited to the account;
       ``(B) available for use in providing loans and other forms 
     of credit assistance to projects eligible for assistance from 
     the account; and
       ``(C) invested in United States Treasury securities, bank 
     deposits, or such other financing instruments as the 
     Secretary may approve to earn interest to enhance the 
     leveraging of projects assisted by the bank;
       ``(4) ensure that any loan from the bank will bear interest 
     at or below market interest rates, as determined by the 
     State, to make the project that is the subject of the loan 
     feasible;
       ``(5) ensure that repayment of any loan from the bank will 
     commence not later than 5 years after the project has been 
     completed or, in the case of a highway project, the facility 
     has opened to traffic, whichever is later;
       ``(6) ensure that the term for repaying any loan will not 
     exceed 30 years after the date of the first payment on the 
     loan; and
       ``(7) require the bank to make an annual report to the 
     Secretary on its status no later than September 30 of each 
     year and such other reports as the Secretary may require 
     under guidelines issued to carry out this section.
       ``(h) Applicability of Federal Law.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this title and title 
     49 that would otherwise apply to funds made available under 
     this title or such title and projects assisted with those 
     funds shall apply to--
       ``(A) funds made available under this title or such title 
     and contributed to an infrastructure bank established under 
     this section, including the non-Federal contribution required 
     under subsection (g); and
       ``(B) projects assisted by the bank through the use of the 
     funds;
     except to the extent that the Secretary determines that any 
     requirement of such title (other than sections 113 and 114 of 
     this title and section 5333 of title 49) is not consistent 
     with the objectives of this section.
       ``(2) Repayments.--The requirements of this title and title 
     49 shall apply to repayments from non-Federal sources to an 
     infrastructure bank from projects assisted by the bank. Such 
     a repayment shall be considered to be Federal funds.
       ``(i) United States not Obligated.--The deposit of Federal 
     funds into an infrastructure bank established under this 
     section shall not be construed as a commitment, guarantee, or 
     obligation on the part of the United States to any third 
     party, nor shall any third party have any right against the 
     United States for payment solely by virtue of the 
     contribution. Any security or debt-financing instrument 
     issued by the infrastructure bank shall expressly state that 
     the security or instrument does not constitute a commitment, 
     guarantee, or obligation of the United States.
       ``(j) Management of Federal Funds.--Sections 3335 and 6503 
     of title 31 shall not apply to funds deposited into an 
     infrastructure bank under this section.
       ``(k) Program Administration.--For each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009, a State may expend not to exceed 2 percent 
     of the Federal funds contributed to an infrastructure bank 
     established by the State under this section to pay the 
     reasonable costs of administering the bank.''.
       (b) Preparatory Amendments.--
       (1) Section 181.--Section 181 of such title is amended--
       (A) by striking the section designator and heading and 
     inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 181. Generally applicable provisions'';

       (B) by striking ``In this subchapter'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this chapter'';
       (C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``184'' and inserting 
     ``604'';
       (D) in paragraph (11) (as redesignated by section 1601(a) 
     of this Act) by striking ``183'' and inserting ``603''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Treatment of Chapter.--For purposes of this title, 
     this chapter shall be treated as being part of chapter 1.''.
       (2) Section 182.--Section 182(b)(2)(A)(viii) of such title 
     is amended by inserting ``and chapter 1'' after ``this 
     chapter''.
       (3) Section 183.--Section 183(a)(3) of such title is 
     amended by striking ``182(b)(2)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``602(b)(2)(B)''.
       (4) Section 184.--Section 184 of such title is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``182'' and inserting 
     ``602'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``182(b)(2)(B)'' and 
     inserting ``602(b)(2)(B)''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(10) by striking ``183'' and inserting 
     ``603''.
       (5) References in subchapter.--Subchapter II of chapter 1 
     of such title is amended by striking ``this subchapter'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``this chapter''.
       (6) Subchapter headings.--Chapter 1 of such title is 
     further amended--
       (A) by striking ``SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS'' 
     preceding section 101; and
       (B) by striking ``SUBCHAPTER II--INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE'' 
     preceding section 181.
       (c) Chapter 6.--Such title is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                  ``CHAPTER 6--INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE

``Sec.
``601. Generally applicable provisions.
``602. Determination of eligibility and project selection.
``603. Secured loans.
``604. Lines of credit.
``605. Program administration.
``606. State and local permits.
``607. Regulations.
``608. Funding.
``609. Reports to Congress.
``610. State infrastructure bank program.''.
       (d) Moving and Redesignating.--Such title is further 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 181 through 189 as sections 
     601 through 609, respectively;
       (2) by moving such sections from chapter 1 to chapter 6 (as 
     added by subsection (c)); and
       (3) by inserting such sections after the analysis for 
     chapter 6.
       (e) Analysis for Chapter 1 and Table of Chapters.--
       (1) Analysis for chapter 1.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     such title is amended--
       (A) by striking the headings for subchapters I and II; and
       (B) by striking the items relating to sections 181 through 
     189.
       (2) Table of chapters.--The table of chapters for such 
     title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     chapter 5 the following:

``6. Infrastructure Finance.....................................601.''.

     SEC. 1603. USE OF EXCESS FUNDS AND FUNDS FOR INACTIVE 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Eligible funds.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``eligible funds'' means excess 
     funds or inactive funds for a specific transportation project 
     or activity that were--
       (i) allocated before fiscal year 1991; and
       (ii) designated in a public law, or a report accompanying a 
     public law, for allocation for the specific surface 
     transportation project or activity.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``eligible funds'' includes funds 
     described in subparagraph (A) that were allocated and 
     designated for a demonstration project.
       (2) Excess funds.--The term ``excess funds'' means--
       (A) funds obligated for a specific transportation project 
     or activity that remain available for the project or activity 
     after the project or activity has been completed or canceled; 
     or
       (B) an unobligated balance of funds allocated for a 
     transportation project or activity that the State in which 
     the project or activity was to be

[[Page 18391]]

     carried out certifies are no longer needed for the project or 
     activity.
       (3) Inactive funds.--The term ``inactive funds'' means--
       (A) an obligated balance of Federal funds for an eligible 
     transportation project or activity against which no 
     expenditures have been charged during any 1-year period 
     beginning after the date of obligation of the funds; and
       (B) funds that are available to carry out a transportation 
     project or activity in a State, but, as certified by the 
     State, are unlikely to be advanced for the project or 
     activity during the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
     certification.
       (b) Availability for STP Purposes.--Eligible funds shall 
     be--
       (1) made available in accordance with this section to the 
     State that originally received the funds; and
       (2) available for obligation for any eligible purpose under 
     section 133 of title 23, United States Code.
       (c) Retention for Original Purpose.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may determine that eligible 
     funds identified as inactive funds shall remain available for 
     the purpose for which the funds were initially made available 
     if the applicable State certifies that the funds are 
     necessary for that initial purpose.
       (2) Report.--A certification provided by a State under 
     paragraph (1) shall include a report on the status of, and an 
     estimated completion date for, the project that is the 
     subject of the certification.
       (d) Authority to Obligate.--Notwithstanding the original 
     source or period of availability of eligible funds, the 
     Secretary may, on the request by a State--
       (1) obligate the funds for any eligible purpose under 
     section 133 of title 23, United States Code; or
       (2)(A) deobligate the funds; and
       (B) reobligate the funds for any eligible purpose under 
     that section.
       (e) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), this section 
     applies only to eligible funds.
       (2) Discretionary allocations; section 125 projects.--This 
     section does not apply to funds that are--
       (A) allocated at the discretion of the Secretary and for 
     which the Secretary has the authority to withdraw the 
     allocation for use on other projects; or
       (B) made available to carry out projects under section 125 
     of title 23, United States Code.
       (f) Period of Availability; Title 23 Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the original source or 
     period of availability of eligible funds obligated, or 
     deobligated and reobligated, under subsection (d), the 
     eligible funds--
       (A) shall remain available for obligation for a period of 3 
     fiscal years after the fiscal year in which this Act is 
     enacted; and
       (B) except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be subject 
     to the requirements of title 23, United States Code, that 
     apply to section 133 of that title, including provisions 
     relating to Federal share.
       (2) Exception.--With respect to eligible funds described in 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) section 133(d) of title 23, United States Code, shall 
     not apply; and
       (B) the period of availability of the eligible funds shall 
     be determined in accordance with this section.
       (g) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report 
     describing any action taken by the Secretary under this 
     section.
       (h) Sense of Congress Regarding Use of Eligible Funds.--It 
     is the sense of Congress that eligible funds made available 
     under this Act or title 23, United States Code, should be 
     available for obligation for transportation projects and 
     activities in the same geographic region for which the 
     eligible funds were initially made available.

     SEC. 1604. TOLLING.

       (a) Value Pricing Pilot Program.--Section 1012(b)(8) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 
     U.S.C. 149 note; 105 Stat. 1938) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (C) (as redesignated 
     by paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account) to carry out this subsection--
       ``(i) for fiscal year 2005, $11,000,000; and
       ``(ii) for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, 
     $12,000,000.
       ``(B) Set-aside for projects not involving highway tolls.--
     Of the amounts made available to carry out this subsection, 
     $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 shall 
     be available only for congestion pricing pilot projects that 
     do not involve highway tolls.''.
       (b) Express Lanes Demonstration Program.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (A) Eligible toll facility.--The term ``eligible toll 
     facility'' includes--
       (i) a facility in existence on the date of enactment of 
     this Act that collects tolls;
       (ii) a facility in existence on the date of enactment of 
     this Act that serves high occupancy vehicles;
       (iii) a facility modified or constructed after the date of 
     enactment of this Act to create additional tolled lane 
     capacity (including a facility constructed by a private 
     entity or using private funds); and
       (iv) in the case of a new lane added to a previously non-
     tolled facility, only the new lane.
       (B) Nonattainment area.--The term ``nonattainment area'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 171 of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7501).
       (2) Demonstration program.--Notwithstanding sections 129 
     and 301 of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary shall 
     carry out 15 demonstration projects during the period of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to permit States, public 
     authorities, or a public or private entities designated by 
     States, to collect a toll from motor vehicles at an eligible 
     toll facility for any highway, bridge, or tunnel, including 
     facilities on the Interstate System--
       (A) to manage high levels of congestion;
       (B) to reduce emissions in a nonattainment area or 
     maintenance area; or
       (C) to finance the expansion of a highway, for the purpose 
     of reducing traffic congestion, by constructing 1 or more 
     additional lanes (including bridge, tunnel, support, and 
     other structures necessary for that construction) on the 
     Interstate System.
       (3) Limitation on use of revenues.--
       (A) Use.--
       (i) In general.--Toll revenues received under paragraph (2) 
     shall be used by a State, public authority, or private entity 
     designated by a State, for--

       (I) debt service;
       (II) a reasonable return on investment of any private 
     financing;
       (III) the costs necessary for proper operation and 
     maintenance of any facilities under paragraph (2) (including 
     reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and 
     rehabilitation); or
       (IV) if the State, public authority, or private entity 
     annually certifies that the tolled facility is being 
     adequately operated and maintained, any other purpose 
     relating to a highway or transit project carried out under 
     title 23 or 49, United States Code.

       (B) Requirements.--
       (i) Variable price requirement.--A facility that charges 
     tolls under this subsection may establish a toll that varies 
     in price according to time of day or level of traffic, as 
     appropriate to manage congestion or improve air quality.
       (ii) HOV variable pricing requirement.--The Secretary shall 
     require, for each high occupancy vehicle facility that 
     charges tolls under this subsection, that the tolls vary in 
     price according to time of day or level of traffic, as 
     appropriate to manage congestion or improve air quality.
       (iii) HOV passenger requirements.--Pursuant to section 166 
     of title 23, United States Code, a State may permit motor 
     vehicles with fewer than 2 occupants to operate in high 
     occupancy vehicle lanes as part of a variable toll pricing 
     program established under this subsection.
       (C) Agreement.--
       (i) In general.--Before the Secretary may permit a facility 
     to charge tolls under this subsection, the Secretary and the 
     applicable State, public authority, or private entity 
     designated by a State shall enter into an agreement for each 
     facility incorporating the conditions described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       (ii) Termination.--An agreement under clause (i) shall 
     terminate with respect to a facility upon the decision of the 
     State, public authority, or private entity designated by a 
     State to discontinue the variable tolling program under this 
     subsection for the facility.
       (iii) Debt.--If there is any debt outstanding on a facility 
     at the time at which the decision is made to discontinue the 
     program under this subsection with respect to the facility, 
     the facility may continue to charge tolls in accordance with 
     the terms of the agreement until such time as the debt is 
     retired.
       (D) Limitation on federal share.--The Federal share of the 
     cost of a project on a facility tolled under this subsection, 
     including a project to install the toll collection facility 
     shall be a percentage, not to exceed 80 percent, determined 
     by the applicable State.
       (4) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     program under this subsection, a State, public authority, or 
     private entity designated by a State shall provide to the 
     Secretary--
       (A) a description of the congestion or air quality problems 
     sought to be addressed under the program;
       (B) a description of--
       (i) the goals sought to be achieved under the program; and
       (ii) the performance measures that would be used to gauge 
     the success made toward reaching those goals; and
       (C) such other information as the Secretary may require.
       (5) Automation.--Fees collected from motorists using an 
     express lane shall be collected only through the use of 
     noncash electronic technology that optimizes the free flow of 
     traffic on the tolled facility.
       (6) Interoperability.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate a final 
     rule specifying requirements, standards, or performance 
     specifications for automated toll collection systems 
     implemented under this section.
       (B) Development.--In developing that rule, which shall be 
     designed to maximize the interoperability of electronic 
     collection systems, the

[[Page 18392]]

     Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
       (i) seek to accelerate progress toward the national goal of 
     achieving a nationwide interoperable electronic toll 
     collection system;
       (ii) take into account the use of noncash electronic 
     technology currently deployed within an appropriate 
     geographical area of travel and the noncash electronic 
     technology likely to be in use within the next 5 years; and
       (iii) seek to minimize additional costs and maximize 
     convenience to users of toll facility and to the toll 
     facility owner or operator.
       (7) Reporting.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with State 
     and local agencies and other program participants and with 
     opportunity for public comment, shall--
       (i) develop and publish performance goals for each express 
     lane project;
       (ii) establish a program for regular monitoring and 
     reporting on the achievement of performance goals, 
     including--

       (I) effects on travel, traffic, and air quality;
       (II) distribution of benefits and burdens;
       (III) use of alternative transportation modes; and
       (IV) use of revenues to meet transportation or impact 
     mitigation needs.

       (B) Reports to congress.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives--
       (i) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter, a report that describes in 
     detail the uses of funds under this subsection in accordance 
     with paragraph (8)(D); and
       (ii) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and every 3 years thereafter, a report that 
     describes any success of the program under this subsection in 
     meeting congestion reduction and other performance goals 
     established for express lane programs.
       (c) Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement an Interstate System construction toll pilot 
     program under which the Secretary, notwithstanding sections 
     129 and 301 of title 23, United States Code, may permit a 
     State or an interstate compact of States to collect tolls on 
     a highway, bridge, or tunnel on the Interstate System for the 
     purpose of constructing Interstate highways.
       (2) Limitation on number of facilities.--The Secretary may 
     permit the collection of tolls under this section on 3 
     facilities on the Interstate System.
       (3) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     pilot program, a State shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application that contains, at a minimum, the following:
       (A) An identification of the facility on the Interstate 
     System proposed to be a toll facility.
       (B) In the case of a facility that affects a metropolitan 
     area, an assurance that the metropolitan planning 
     organization designated under section 134 or 135 for the area 
     has been consulted concerning the placement and amount of 
     tolls on the facility.
       (C) An analysis demonstrating that financing the 
     construction of the facility with the collection of tolls 
     under the pilot program is the most efficient and economical 
     way to advance the project.
       (D) A facility management plan that includes--
       (i) a plan for implementing the imposition of tolls on the 
     facility;
       (ii) a schedule and finance plan for the construction of 
     the facility using toll revenues;
       (iii) a description of the public transportation agency 
     that will be responsible for implementation and 
     administration of the pilot program;
       (iv) a description of whether consideration will be given 
     to privatizing the maintenance and operational aspects of the 
     facility, while retaining legal and administrative control of 
     the portion of the Interstate route; and
       (v) such other information as the Secretary may require.
       (4) Selection criteria.--The Secretary may approve the 
     application of a State under paragraph (3) only if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       (A) the State's analysis under paragraph (3)(C) is 
     reasonable;
       (B) the State plan for implementing tolls on the facility 
     takes into account the interests of local, regional, and 
     interstate travelers;
       (C) the State plan for construction of the facility using 
     toll revenues is reasonable;
       (D) the State will develop, manage, and maintain a system 
     that will automatically collect the tolls; and
       (E) the State has given preference to the use of a public 
     toll agency with demonstrated capability to build, operate, 
     and maintain a toll expressway system meeting criteria for 
     the Interstate System.
       (5) Prohibition on noncompete agreements.--Before the 
     Secretary may permit a State to participate in the pilot 
     program, the State must enter into an agreement with the 
     Secretary that provides that the State will not enter into an 
     agreement with a private person under which the State is 
     prevented from improving or expanding the capacity of public 
     roads adjacent to the toll facility to address conditions 
     resulting from traffic diverted to such roads from the toll 
     facility, including--
       (A) excessive congestion;
       (B) pavement wear; and
       (C) an increased incidence of traffic accidents, injuries, 
     or fatalities.
       (6) Limitations on use of revenues; audits.--Before the 
     Secretary may permit a State to participate in the pilot 
     program, the State must enter into an agreement with the 
     Secretary that provides that--
       (A) all toll revenues received from operation of the toll 
     facility will be used only for--
       (i) debt service;
       (ii) reasonable return on investment of any private person 
     financing the project; and
       (iii) any costs necessary for the improvement of and the 
     proper operation and maintenance of the toll facility, 
     including reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and 
     rehabilitation of the toll facility; and
       (B) regular audits will be conducted to ensure compliance 
     with subparagraph (A) and the results of such audits will be 
     transmitted to the Secretary.
       (7) Limitation on use of interstate maintenance funds.--
     During the term of the pilot program, funds apportioned for 
     Interstate maintenance under section 104(b)(4) of title 23, 
     United States Code, may not be used on a facility for which 
     tolls are being collected under the program.
       (8) Program term.--The Secretary may approve an application 
     of a State for permission to collect a toll under this 
     section only if the application is received by the Secretary 
     before the last day of the 10-year period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (9) Interstate system defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Interstate System'' has the meaning such term has under 
     section 101 of title 23, United States Code.
                   Subtitle G--High Priority Projects

     SEC. 1701. HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorization of High Priority Projects.--Section 
     117(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Authorization of High Priority Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     high priority projects with funds made available to carry out 
     the high priority projects program under this section.
       ``(2) Availability of funds.--
       ``(A) For tea21.--Of amounts made available to carry out 
     this section for fiscal years 1998 through 2003, the 
     Secretary, subject to subsection (b), shall make available to 
     carry out each project described in section 1602 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century the amount 
     listed for such project in such section.
       ``(B) For safetea-lu.--Of amounts made available to carry 
     out this section for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the 
     Secretary, subject to subsection (b), shall make available to 
     carry out each project described in section 1702 of the 
     SAFETEA-LU the amount listed for such project in such 
     section.
       ``(3) Availability of unallocated funds.--Any amounts made 
     available to carry out such program that are not allocated 
     for projects described in such section shall be available to 
     the Secretary, subject to subsection (b), to carry out such 
     other high priority projects as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.''.
       (b) Allocation Percentages.--Section 117(b) of such title 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) For TEA21.--For each project to be carried out with 
     funds made available to carry out the high priority projects 
     program under this section for fiscal years 1998 through 
     2003--
       ``(1) 11 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 1998;
       ``(2) 15 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 1999;
       ``(3) 18 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 2000;
       ``(4) 18 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 2001;
       ``(5) 19 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(6) 19 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 2003.
       ``(c) For SAFETEA-LU.--For each project to be carried out 
     with funds made available to carry out the high priority 
     projects program under this section for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009--
       ``(1) 20 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 2005;
       ``(2) 20 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 2006;
       ``(3) 20 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 2007;
       ``(4) 20 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(5) 20 percent of such amount shall be available for 
     obligation beginning in fiscal year 2009.''.
       (c) Advance Construction.--Section 117(e) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting after ``21st Century'' 
     the following: ``or section 1701 of the SAFETEA-LU , as the 
     case may be,''; and
       (2) by striking ``section 1602 of the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century.'' and inserting ``such section 1602 
     or 1702, as the case may be.''
       (d) Availability of Obligation Limitation.--Section 117(g) 
     of such title is amended by inserting after ``21st Century'' 
     the following: ``or section 1102(g) of the SAFETEA-LU, as the 
     case may be''.
       (e) Federal-State Relationship.--Section 145(b) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``described in'' the following: 
     ``section 1702 of the SAFETEA-LU,'';
       (2) by inserting after ``for such projects by'' the 
     following: ``section 1101(a)(16) of the SAFETEA-LU,''; and
       (3) by striking ``117 of title 23, United States Code,'' 
     and inserting ``section 117 of this title,''.

[[Page 18393]]

     SEC. 1702. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the 
     amount listed for each high priority project in the following 
     table shall be available (from amounts made available by 
     section 1101(a)(16) of this Act) for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to carry out each such project:

[[Page 18394]]

TH28JY7.005



[[Page 18395]]

TH28JY7.006



[[Page 18396]]

TH28JY7.007



[[Page 18397]]

TH28JY7.008



[[Page 18398]]

TH28JY7.009



[[Page 18399]]

TH28JY7.010



[[Page 18400]]

TH28JY7.011



[[Page 18401]]

TH28JY7.012



[[Page 18402]]

TH28JY7.013



[[Page 18403]]

TH28JY7.014



[[Page 18404]]

TH28JY7.015



[[Page 18405]]

TH28JY7.016



[[Page 18406]]

TH28JY7.017



[[Page 18407]]

TH28JY7.018



[[Page 18408]]

TH28JY7.019



[[Page 18409]]

TH28JY7.020



[[Page 18410]]

TH28JY7.021



[[Page 18411]]

TH28JY7.022



[[Page 18412]]

TH28JY7.023



[[Page 18413]]

TH28JY7.024



[[Page 18414]]

TH28JY7.025



[[Page 18415]]

TH28JY7.026



[[Page 18416]]

TH28JY7.027



[[Page 18417]]

TH28JY7.028



[[Page 18418]]

TH28JY7.029



[[Page 18419]]

TH28JY7.030



[[Page 18420]]

TH28JY7.031



[[Page 18421]]

TH28JY7.032



[[Page 18422]]

TH28JY7.033



[[Page 18423]]

TH28JY7.034



[[Page 18424]]

TH28JY7.035



[[Page 18425]]

TH28JY7.036



[[Page 18426]]

TH28JY7.037



[[Page 18427]]

TH28JY7.038



[[Page 18428]]

TH28JY7.039



[[Page 18429]]

TH28JY7.040



[[Page 18430]]

TH28JY7.041



[[Page 18431]]

TH28JY7.042



[[Page 18432]]

TH28JY7.043



[[Page 18433]]

TH28JY7.044



[[Page 18434]]

TH28JY7.045



[[Page 18435]]

TH28JY7.046



[[Page 18436]]

TH28JY7.047



[[Page 18437]]

TH28JY7.048



[[Page 18438]]

TH28JY7.049



[[Page 18439]]

TH28JY7.050



[[Page 18440]]

TH28JY7.051



[[Page 18441]]

TH28JY7.052



[[Page 18442]]

TH28JY7.053



[[Page 18443]]

TH28JY7.054



[[Page 18444]]

TH28JY7.055



[[Page 18445]]

TH28JY7.056



[[Page 18446]]

TH28JY7.057



[[Page 18447]]

TH28JY7.058



[[Page 18448]]

TH28JY7.059



[[Page 18449]]

TH28JY7.060



[[Page 18450]]

TH28JY7.061



[[Page 18451]]

TH28JY7.062



[[Page 18452]]

TH28JY7.063



[[Page 18453]]

TH28JY7.064



[[Page 18454]]

TH28JY7.065



[[Page 18455]]

TH28JY7.066



[[Page 18456]]

TH28JY7.067



[[Page 18457]]

TH28JY7.068



[[Page 18458]]

TH28JY7.069



[[Page 18459]]

TH28JY7.070



[[Page 18460]]

TH28JY7.071



[[Page 18461]]

TH28JY7.072



[[Page 18462]]

TH28JY7.073



[[Page 18463]]

TH28JY7.074



[[Page 18464]]

TH28JY7.075



[[Page 18465]]

TH28JY7.076



[[Page 18466]]

TH28JY7.077



[[Page 18467]]

TH28JY7.078



[[Page 18468]]

TH28JY7.079



[[Page 18469]]

TH28JY7.080



[[Page 18470]]

TH28JY7.081



[[Page 18471]]

TH28JY7.082



[[Page 18472]]

TH28JY7.083



[[Page 18473]]

TH28JY7.084



[[Page 18474]]

TH28JY7.085



[[Page 18475]]

TH28JY7.086



[[Page 18476]]

TH28JY7.087



[[Page 18477]]

TH28JY7.088



[[Page 18478]]

TH28JY7.089



[[Page 18479]]

TH28JY7.090



[[Page 18480]]

TH28JY7.091



[[Page 18481]]

TH28JY7.092



[[Page 18482]]

TH28JY7.093



[[Page 18483]]

TH28JY7.094



[[Page 18484]]

TH28JY7.095



[[Page 18485]]

TH28JY7.096



[[Page 18486]]

TH28JY7.097



[[Page 18487]]

TH28JY7.098



[[Page 18488]]

TH28JY7.099



[[Page 18489]]

TH28JY7.100



[[Page 18490]]

TH28JY7.101



[[Page 18491]]

TH28JY7.102



[[Page 18492]]

TH28JY7.103



[[Page 18493]]

TH28JY7.104



[[Page 18494]]

TH28JY7.105



[[Page 18495]]

TH28JY7.106



[[Page 18496]]

TH28JY7.107



[[Page 18497]]

TH28JY7.108



[[Page 18498]]

TH28JY7.109



[[Page 18499]]

TH28JY7.110



[[Page 18500]]

TH28JY7.111



[[Page 18501]]

TH28JY7.112



[[Page 18502]]

TH28JY7.113



[[Page 18503]]

TH28JY7.114



[[Page 18504]]

TH28JY7.115



[[Page 18505]]

TH28JY7.116



[[Page 18506]]

TH28JY7.117



[[Page 18507]]

TH28JY7.118



[[Page 18508]]

TH28JY7.119



[[Page 18509]]

TH28JY7.120



[[Page 18510]]

TH28JY7.121



[[Page 18511]]

TH28JY7.122



[[Page 18512]]

TH28JY7.123



[[Page 18513]]

TH28JY7.124



[[Page 18514]]

TH28JY7.125



[[Page 18515]]

TH28JY7.126



[[Page 18516]]

TH28JY7.127



[[Page 18517]]

TH28JY7.128



[[Page 18518]]

TH28JY7.129



[[Page 18519]]

TH28JY7.130



[[Page 18520]]

TH28JY7.131



[[Page 18521]]

TH28JY7.132



[[Page 18522]]

TH28JY7.133



[[Page 18523]]

TH28JY7.134



[[Page 18524]]

TH28JY7.135



[[Page 18525]]

TH28JY7.136



[[Page 18526]]

TH28JY7.137



[[Page 18527]]

TH28JY7.138



[[Page 18528]]

TH28JY7.139



[[Page 18529]]

TH28JY7.140



[[Page 18530]]

TH28JY7.141



[[Page 18531]]

TH28JY7.142



[[Page 18532]]

TH28JY7.143



[[Page 18533]]

TH28JY7.144



[[Page 18534]]

TH28JY7.145



[[Page 18535]]

TH28JY7.146



[[Page 18536]]

TH28JY7.147



[[Page 18537]]

TH28JY7.148



[[Page 18538]]

TH28JY7.149



[[Page 18539]]

TH28JY7.150



[[Page 18540]]

TH28JY7.151



[[Page 18541]]

TH28JY7.152



[[Page 18542]]

TH28JY7.153



[[Page 18543]]

TH28JY7.154



[[Page 18544]]

TH28JY7.155



[[Page 18545]]

TH28JY7.156



[[Page 18546]]

TH28JY7.157



[[Page 18547]]

TH28JY7.158



[[Page 18548]]

TH28JY7.159



[[Page 18549]]

TH28JY7.160



[[Page 18550]]

TH28JY7.161



[[Page 18551]]

TH28JY7.162



[[Page 18552]]

TH28JY7.163



[[Page 18553]]

TH28JY7.164



[[Page 18554]]

TH28JY7.165



[[Page 18555]]

TH28JY7.166



[[Page 18556]]

TH28JY7.167



[[Page 18557]]

TH28JY7.168



[[Page 18558]]

TH28JY7.169



[[Page 18559]]

TH28JY7.170



[[Page 18560]]

TH28JY7.171



[[Page 18561]]

TH28JY7.172



[[Page 18562]]

TH28JY7.173



[[Page 18563]]

TH28JY7.174



[[Page 18564]]

TH28JY7.175



[[Page 18565]]

TH28JY7.176



[[Page 18566]]

TH28JY7.177



[[Page 18567]]

TH28JY7.178



[[Page 18568]]

TH28JY7.179



[[Page 18569]]

TH28JY7.180



[[Page 18570]]

TH28JY7.181



[[Page 18571]]

TH28JY7.182



[[Page 18572]]

TH28JY7.183



[[Page 18573]]

TH28JY7.184



[[Page 18574]]

TH28JY7.185



[[Page 18575]]

TH28JY7.186



[[Page 18576]]

TH28JY7.187



[[Page 18577]]

TH28JY7.188



[[Page 18578]]

TH28JY7.189



[[Page 18579]]

TH28JY7.190



[[Page 18580]]

TH28JY7.191



[[Page 18581]]

TH28JY7.192



[[Page 18582]]

TH28JY7.193



[[Page 18583]]

TH28JY7.194



[[Page 18584]]

TH28JY7.195



[[Page 18585]]

TH28JY7.196



[[Page 18586]]

TH28JY7.197



[[Page 18587]]

TH28JY7.198



[[Page 18588]]

TH28JY7.199



[[Page 18589]]

TH28JY7.200



[[Page 18590]]

TH28JY7.201



[[Page 18591]]

TH28JY7.202



[[Page 18592]]

TH28JY7.203



[[Page 18593]]

TH28JY7.204



[[Page 18594]]

TH28JY7.205

 

[[Page 18595]]

     SEC. 1703. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS.

       (a) TEA-21.--The table contained in section 1602 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 
     257) is amended--
       (1) in item number 35 by inserting ``and for other related 
     purposes'' after ``Yard'';
       (2) in item number 78 by striking ``Third'' and all that 
     follows through ``Bridge'' and inserting ``Bayview 
     Transportation Improvements Project'';
       (3) in item number 312 by inserting ``through 
     construction'' after ``engineering'';
       (4) in item number 566 by striking ``Prunedale Bypass'' and 
     inserting ``improvements to Prunedale'';
       (5) in item number 732 by striking ``reviews and other 
     preliminary work'' and inserting ``reviews, other preliminary 
     work, and transitional construction'';
       (6) in item number 744 by striking ``Preliminary'' and all 
     that follows through ``Fitchburg'' and inserting ``Design, 
     construction or reconstruction, and right of way acquisition 
     for roadway improvements along the Route 12 corridor in 
     Leominster and Fitchburg to enhance access from Route 2 to 
     North Leominster and downtown Fitchburg'';
       (7) in item number 800 by striking ``Fairview Township'' 
     and inserting ``or other projects selected by the York 
     County, Pennsylvania MPO'';
       (8) in item number 820 by striking ``Conduct'' and all that 
     follows through ``interchange'' and inserting ``Conduct a 
     transportation needs study and make improvements to I-75 
     interchanges in the Grayling area'';
       (9) in item number 863, by adding at the end the following: 
     ``, including the Cuyahoga-Woodland Avenue Bridge'';
       (10) in item number 897 by striking ``Road upgrade'' and 
     all that follows through ``Hills'' and inserting 
     ``Engineering and construction of a new access road to a 
     development near Interstate Route 57 and 167th Street in 
     Country Club Hills'';
       (11) in item 1096 by striking ``Construct'' and all that 
     follows through ``Independence'' and inserting ``Construction 
     and improvements in Reminderville, Ohio (43 percent); 
     streetscaping, bicycle trails, and related improvements to 
     the I-90--SR 615 Interchange in Mentor, Ohio (20 percent); 
     planning and construction of a bicycle trail adjacent to such 
     Interchange (14 percent); Eastlake Stadium transit intermodal 
     facility (16 percent); and purchase of right-of-way for 
     transportation enhancement activities in Bainbridge Township, 
     Ohio (7 percent)'';
       (12) in item number 1121 by striking ``Construct'' and all 
     that follows through ``Douglaston Parkway'' and inserting 
     ``Provide landscaping along both sides of the Grand Central 
     Parkway from 188th Street to 172nd Street'';
       (13) in item number 1225 by striking ``Construct SR 9 
     bypass'' and inserting ``Study, design, and construct 
     transportation solutions for SR 9 corridor'';
       (14) in item number 1349 by inserting ``, and improvements 
     to streets and roads providing access to,'' after ``along'';
       (15) in item number 1375 by striking ``Preliminary'' and 
     all that follows through ``Emmet County'' and inserting 
     ``Petoskey area transportation needs study and trunkline 
     preservation and safety in the Petoskey area'';
       (16) in item number 1392 by striking ``Construct'' and all 
     that follows through ``multimodal center'' and inserting 
     ``Improve the ramp configuration at the I-476 PA Turnpike 
     Landsdale Interchange'';
       (17) in item number 1447 by striking ``Extend'' and all 
     that follows through ``Valparaiso'' and inserting ``Design 
     and construction of interchange at I-65 and 109th Avenue, 
     Crown Point''; and
       (18) in item number 1474 by adding at the end the 
     following: ``, widen Cuyahoga SR87, and $4,000,000 of the 
     amount authorized to construct grading separation at Front 
     Street, Berea''.
       (b) ISTEA.--Item number 32 in the table contained in 
     section 1106(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2038) is amended by 
     striking ``Extension of 34th Street from IL Rt.15 to County 
     Road 10'' and inserting ``Extension and improvements of 34th 
     Street''.
                        Subtitle H--Environment

     SEC. 1801. CONSTRUCTION OF FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 147 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 147. Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal 
       facilities

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program 
     for construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities 
     in accordance with section 129(c).
       ``(b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     construction of ferry boats, ferry terminals, and ferry 
     maintenance facilities under this section shall be 80 
     percent.
       ``(c) Allocation of Funds.--The Secretary shall give 
     priority in the allocation of funds under this section to 
     those ferry systems, and public entities responsible for 
     developing ferries, that--
       ``(1) provide critical access to areas that are not well-
     served by other modes of surface transportation;
       ``(2) carry the greatest number of passengers and vehicles; 
     or
       ``(3) carry the greatest number of passengers in passenger-
     only service.
       ``(d) Set-Aside for Projects on NHS.--
       ``(1) In general.--$20,000,000 of the amount made available 
     to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 shall be obligated for the construction or 
     refurbishment of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities 
     and approaches to such facilities within marine highway 
     systems that are part of the National Highway System.
       ``(2) Alaska.--$10,000,000 of the $20,000,000 for a fiscal 
     year made available under paragraph (1) shall be made 
     available to the State of Alaska.
       ``(3) New jersey.--$5,000,000 of the $20,000,000 for a 
     fiscal year made available under paragraph (1) shall be made 
     available to the State of New Jersey.
       ``(4) Washington.--$5,000,000 of the $20,000,000 for a 
     fiscal year made available under paragraph (1) shall be made 
     available to the State of Washington.
       ``(e) Period of Availability.--Notwithstanding section 
     118(b), funds made available to carry out this section shall 
     remain available until expended.
       ``(f) Applicability.--All provisions of this chapter that 
     are applicable to the National Highway System, other than 
     provisions relating to apportionment formula and Federal 
     share, shall apply to funds made available to carry out this 
     section, except as determined by the Secretary to be 
     inconsistent with this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     is amended by striking the item relating to section 147 and 
     inserting the following:

``147. Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.''.

       (c) Conforming Repeal.--Section 1064 of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
     2005) is repealed.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to 
     amounts made available to carry out section 147 of title 23, 
     United States Code, by section 1101 of this Act, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out such section 147 for fiscal year 2006 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter. Such funds shall remain available 
     until expended.
       (e) National Ferry Database.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Bureau of Transportation Statistics, shall establish and 
     maintain a national ferry database.
       (2) Contents.--The database shall contain current 
     information regarding ferry systems, including information 
     regarding routes, vessels, passengers and vehicles carried, 
     funding sources and such other information as the Secretary 
     considers useful.
       (3) Update report.--Using information collected through the 
     database, the Secretary shall periodically modify as 
     appropriate the report submitted under section 1207(c) of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 129 
     note; 112 Stat. 185-186).
       (4) Requirements.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) compile the database not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act and update the database every 2 
     years thereafter;
       (B) ensure that the database is easily accessible to the 
     public; and
       (C) make available, from the amounts made available for the 
     Bureau of Transportation Statistics by section 5101 of this 
     Act, not more than $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009 to establish and maintain the database.
       (f) Territory Ferries.--Section 129(c)(5) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico'' each place it appears and inserting ``any 
     territory of the United States''.

     SEC. 1802. NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 162(a) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``the roads as'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``the roads as--
       ``(A) National Scenic Byways;
       ``(B) All-American Roads; or
       ``(C) America's Byways.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Nomination.--
       ``(A) In general.--To be considered for a designation, a 
     road must be nominated by a State, an Indian tribe, or a 
     Federal land management agency and must first be designated 
     as a State scenic byway, an Indian tribe scenic byway, or, in 
     the case of a road on Federal land, as a Federal land 
     management agency byway.
       ``(B) Nomination by indian tribes.--An Indian tribe may 
     nominate a road as a National Scenic Byway under subparagraph 
     (A) only if a Federal land management agency (other than the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs), a State, or a political 
     subdivision of a State does not have--
       ``(i) jurisdiction over the road; or
       ``(ii) responsibility for managing the road.
       ``(C) Safety.--An Indian tribe shall maintain the safety 
     and quality of roads nominated by the Indian tribe under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Reciprocal notification.--States, Indian tribes, and 
     Federal land management agencies shall notify each other 
     regarding nominations made under this subsection for roads 
     that--
       ``(A) are within the jurisdictional boundary of the State, 
     Federal land management agency, or Indian tribe; or
       ``(B) directly connect to roads for which the State, 
     Federal land management agency, or Indian tribe is 
     responsible.''.
       (b) Grants and Technical Assistance.--Section 162(b) of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``and Indian tribes'' 
     after ``provide technical assistance to States'';

[[Page 18596]]

       (2) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``designated as'' and 
     all that follows through ``; and'' and inserting ``designated 
     as--
       ``(i) National Scenic Byways;
       ``(ii) All-American Roads;
       ``(iii) America's Byways;
       ``(iv) State scenic byways; or
       ``(v) Indian tribe scenic byways; and''; and
       (3) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' 
     after ``State'';
       (4) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``Byway or All-American 
     Road'' and inserting ``Byway, All-American Road, or 1 of 
     America's Byways'';
       (5) in paragraph (2)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``State-designated'' and inserting ``State 
     or Indian tribe''; and
       (B) by striking ``designation as a'' and all that follows 
     through ``; and'' and inserting ``designation as--
       ``(i) a National Scenic Byway;
       ``(ii) an All-American Road; or
       ``(iii) 1 of America's Byways; and''; and
       (6) in paragraph (2)(C) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' 
     after ``State''.
       (c) Eligible Projects.--Section 162(c) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after 
     ``State'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by inserting ``Indian tribe scenic byway,'' after 
     ``improvements to a State scenic byway,''; and
       (B) by inserting ``Indian tribe scenic byway,'' after 
     ``designation as a State scenic byway,''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4) by striking ``passing lane,''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 162(e) of such title is 
     amended by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State''.

     SEC. 1803. AMERICA'S BYWAYS RESOURCE CENTER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall allocate funds made 
     available to carry out this section to the America's Byways 
     Resource Center established pursuant to section 1215(b)(1) of 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 
     209).
       (b) Technical Support and Education.--
       (1) Use of funds.--The Center shall use funds allocated to 
     the Center under this section to continue to provide 
     technical support and conduct educational activities for the 
     national scenic byways program established under section 162 
     of title 23, United States Code.
       (2) Eligible activities.--Technical support and educational 
     activities carried out under this subsection shall provide 
     local officials and organizations associated with National 
     Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, and America's Byways with 
     proactive, technical, and on-site customized assistance, 
     including training, communications (including a public 
     awareness series), publications, conferences, on-site 
     meetings, and other assistance considered appropriate to 
     develop and sustain such byways and roads.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this section 
     $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $3,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       (d) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds authorized by this 
     section shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
     as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 
     23, United States Code; except that the Federal share of the 
     cost of any project or activity carried out under this 
     section shall be 100 percent, and such funds shall remain 
     available until expended and shall not be transferable.

     SEC. 1804. NATIONAL HISTORIC COVERED BRIDGE PRESERVATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Historic covered bridge.--The term ``historic covered 
     bridge'' means a covered bridge that is listed or eligible 
     for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning such term 
     has in section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code.
       (b) Historic Covered Bridge Preservation.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) collect and disseminate information on historic covered 
     bridges;
       (2) conduct educational programs relating to the history 
     and construction techniques of historic covered bridges;
       (3) conduct research on the history of historic covered 
     bridges; and
       (4) conduct research on, and study techniques for, 
     protecting historic covered bridges from rot, fire, natural 
     disasters, or weight-related damage.
       (c) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant to a 
     State that submits an application to the Secretary that 
     demonstrates a need for assistance in carrying out 1 or more 
     historic covered bridge projects described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Eligible projects.--A grant under paragraph (1) may be 
     made for a project--
       (A) to rehabilitate or repair a historic covered bridge; or
       (B) to preserve a historic covered bridge, including 
     through--
       (i) installation of a fire protection system, including a 
     fireproofing or fire detection system and sprinklers;
       (ii) installation of a system to prevent vandalism and 
     arson; or
       (iii) relocation of a bridge to a preservation site.
       (3) Authenticity requirements.--A grant under paragraph (1) 
     may be made for a project only if--
       (A) to the maximum extent practicable, the project--
       (i) is carried out in the most historically appropriate 
     manner; and
       (ii) preserves the existing structure of the historic 
     covered bridge; and
       (B) the project provides for the replacement of wooden 
     components with wooden components, unless the use of wood is 
     impracticable for safety reasons.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, out of the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), 
     $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       (e) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds made available to 
     carry out this section shall be available for obligation in 
     the same manner as if the funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that the 
     Federal share of the cost of any project or activity carried 
     out under this section shall be determined in accordance with 
     section 120 of such title, and such funds shall remain 
     available until expended and shall not be transferable.

     SEC. 1805. USE OF DEBRIS FROM DEMOLISHED BRIDGES AND 
                   OVERPASSES.

       (a) In General.--Any State that demolishes a bridge or an 
     overpass that is eligible for Federal assistance under the 
     highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program under 
     section 144 of title 23, United States Code, is directed to 
     first make the debris from the demolition of such bridge or 
     overpass available for beneficial use by a Federal, State, or 
     local government, unless such use obstructs navigation.
       (b) Recipient Responsibilities.--A recipient of the debris 
     described in subsection (a) shall--
       (1) bear the additional cost associated with having the 
     debris made available;
       (2) ensure that placement of the debris complies with 
     applicable law; and
       (3) assume all future legal responsibility arising from the 
     placement of the debris, which may include entering into an 
     agreement to hold the owner of the demolished bridge or 
     overpass harmless in any liability action.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``beneficial 
     use'' means the application of the debris for purposes of 
     shore erosion control or stabilization, ecosystem 
     restoration, and marine habitat creation.

     SEC. 1806. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR 
                   STATES WITH INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

       Section 1214(d)(5)(A) of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 202 note; 112 Stat. 206) is 
     amended by striking ``$1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1998 through 2003'' and inserting ``$1,800,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009''.

     SEC. 1807. NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a nonmotorized transportation pilot program to construct, 
     in the following 4 communities selected by the Secretary, a 
     network of nonmotorized transportation infrastructure 
     facilities, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and 
     pedestrian and bicycle trails, that connect directly with 
     transit stations, schools, residences, businesses, recreation 
     areas, and other community activity centers:
       (1) Columbia, Missouri.
       (2) Marin County, California.
       (3) Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.
       (4) Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program shall be to 
     demonstrate the extent to which bicycling and walking can 
     carry a significant part of the transportation load, and 
     represent a major portion of the transportation solution, 
     within selected communities.
       (c) Grants.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary may 
     make a grant of $6,250,000 per fiscal year for each of the 
     communities set forth in subsection (a) to State, local, and 
     regional agencies that the Secretary determines are suitably 
     equipped and organized to carry out the objectives and 
     requirements of this section. An agency that receives a grant 
     under this section may suballocate grant funds to a nonprofit 
     organization to carry out the program under this section.
       (d) Statistical Information.--In carrying out the program, 
     the Secretary shall develop statistical information on 
     changes in motor vehicle, nonmotorized transportation, and 
     public transportation usage in communities participating in 
     the program and assess how such changes decrease congestion 
     and energy usage, increase the frequency of bicycling and 
     walking, and promote better health and a cleaner environment.
       (e) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress an 
     interim report not later than September 30, 2007, and a final 
     report not later than September 30, 2010, on the results of 
     the program.
       (f) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, out of the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), 
     $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this section shall be available for 
     obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as if 
     the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code; except that the Federal share of the cost 
     of the project shall be 100 percent, and the funds shall 
     remain available until expended and shall not be 
     transferable.
       (g) Treatment of Projects.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, projects assisted under this subsection 
     shall be treated as

[[Page 18597]]

     projects on a Federal-aid system under chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code.

     SEC. 1808. ADDITION TO CMAQ-ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.

       (a) Former 1-Hour Maintenance Areas.--Section 149(b) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1)(A) by inserting ``or is required to 
     prepare, and file with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, maintenance plans under the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)'' after ``1997,''.
       (b) Eligible Projects.--Section 149(b) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1)(A)(i) if the Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Administrator determines, on the basis of information 
     published by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to 
     section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (other than clause 
     (xvi)) that the project or program is likely to contribute 
     to--
       ``(I) the attainment of a national ambient air quality 
     standard; or
       ``(II) the maintenance of a national ambient air quality 
     standard in a maintenance area; and
       ``(ii) a high level of effectiveness in reducing air 
     pollution, in cases of projects or programs where sufficient 
     information is available in the database established pursuant 
     to subsection (h) to determine the relative effectiveness of 
     such projects or programs; or,
       ``(B) in any case in which such information is not 
     available, if the Secretary, after such consultation, 
     determines that the project or program is part of a program, 
     method, or strategy described in such section 
     108(f)(1)(A);''.
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting ``, including advanced truck stop 
     electrification systems,'' after ``facility or program''; and
       (B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``improve transportation systems 
     management and operations that mitigate congestion and 
     improve air quality,'' after ``intersections,''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) if the project or program involves the purchase of 
     integrated, interoperable emergency communications equipment; 
     or
       ``(7) if the project or program is for--
       ``(A) the purchase of diesel retrofits that are--
       ``(i) for motor vehicles (as defined in section 216 of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550)); or
       ``(ii) published in the list under subsection (f)(2) for 
     non-road vehicles and non-road engines (as defined in section 
     216 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550)) that are used in 
     construction projects that are--

       ``(I) located in nonattainment or maintenance areas for 
     ozone, PM10, or PM2.5 (as defined under 
     the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)); and
       ``(II) funded, in whole or in part, under this title; or

       ``(B) the conduct of outreach activities that are designed 
     to provide information and technical assistance to the owners 
     and operators of diesel equipment and vehicles regarding the 
     purchase and installation of diesel retrofits.''.
       (c) States Receiving Minimum Apportionment.--Section 149(c) 
     of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``for any project eligible 
     under the surface transportation program under section 133.'' 
     and inserting the following: ``for any project in the State 
     that--
       ``(A) would otherwise be eligible under this section as if 
     the project were carried out in a nonattainment or 
     maintenance area; or
       ``(B) is eligible under the surface transportation program 
     under section 133.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``for any project in the 
     State eligible under section 133.'' and inserting the 
     following: ``for any project in the State that--
       ``(A) would otherwise be eligible under this section as if 
     the project were carried out in a nonattainment or 
     maintenance area; or
       ``(B) is eligible under the surface transportation program 
     under section 133.''.
       (d) Cost-Effective Emission Reduction Guidance.--Section 
     149 of such title is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Cost-Effective Emission Reduction Guidance.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(B) Diesel retrofit.--The term `diesel retrofit' means a 
     replacement, repowering, rebuilding, after treatment, or 
     other technology, as determined by the Administrator.
       ``(2) Emission reduction guidance.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary, shall publish a list of 
     diesel retrofit technologies and supporting technical 
     information for--
       ``(A) diesel emission reduction technologies certified or 
     verified by the Administrator, the California Air Resources 
     Board, or any other entity recognized by the Administrator 
     for the same purpose;
       ``(B) diesel emission reduction technologies identified by 
     the Administrator as having an application and approvable 
     test plan for verification by the Administrator or the 
     California Air Resources Board that is submitted not later 
     that 18 months of the date of enactment of this subsection;
       ``(C) available information regarding the emission 
     reduction effectiveness and cost effectiveness of 
     technologies identified in this paragraph, taking into 
     consideration air quality and health effects.
       ``(3) Priority.--
       ``(A) In general.--States and metropolitan planning 
     organizations shall give priority in distributing funds 
     received for congestion mitigation and air quality projects 
     and programs from apportionments derived from application of 
     sections 104(b)(2)(B) and 104(b)(2)(C) to--
       ``(i) diesel retrofits, particularly where necessary to 
     facilitate contract compliance, and other cost-effective 
     emission reduction activities, taking into consideration air 
     quality and health effects; and
       ``(ii) cost-effective congestion mitigation activities that 
     provide air quality benefits.
       ``(B) Savings.--This paragraph is not intended to disturb 
     the existing authorities and roles of governmental agencies 
     in making final project selections.
       ``(4) No effect on authority or restrictions.--Nothing in 
     this subsection modifies or otherwise affects any authority 
     or restriction established under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7401 et seq.) or any other law (other than provisions of this 
     title relating to congestion mitigation and air quality).''.
       (e) Improved Interagency Consultation.--Section 149 of such 
     title (as amended by subsection (d)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(g) Interagency Consultation.--The Secretary shall 
     encourage States and metropolitan planning organizations to 
     consult with State and local air quality agencies in 
     nonattainment and maintenance areas on the estimated emission 
     reductions from proposed congestion mitigation and air 
     quality improvement programs and projects.''.
       (f) Evaluation and Assessment of CMAQ Projects.--Section 
     149 of such title (as amended by subsection (e)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Evaluation and Assessment of Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall 
     evaluate and assess a representative sample of projects 
     funded under the congestion mitigation and air quality 
     program to--
       ``(A) determine the direct and indirect impact of the 
     projects on air quality and congestion levels; and
       ``(B) ensure the effective implementation of the program.
       ``(2) Database.--Using appropriate assessments of projects 
     funded under the congestion mitigation and air quality 
     program and results from other research, the Secretary shall 
     maintain and disseminate a cumulative database describing the 
     impacts of the projects.
       ``(3) Consideration.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Administrator, shall consider the recommendations and 
     findings of the report submitted to Congress under section 
     1110(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
     (112 Stat. 144), including recommendations and findings that 
     would improve the operation and evaluation of the congestion 
     mitigation and air quality improvement program.''.
       (g) Flexibility in the State of Montana.--The State of 
     Montana may use funds apportioned under section 104(b)(2) of 
     title 23, United States Code, for the operation of public 
     transit activities that serve a nonattainment or maintenance 
     area.
       (h) Availability of Funds for State of Michigan.--The State 
     of Michigan may use funds apportioned under section 104(b)(2) 
     of such title for the operation and maintenance of 
     intelligent transportation system strategies that serve a 
     nonattainment or maintenance area.
       (i) Availability of Funds for the State of Maine.--The 
     State of Maine may use funds apportioned under section 
     104(b)(2) of such title to support, through September 30, 
     2009, the operation of passenger rail service between Boston, 
     Massachusetts, and Portland, Maine.
       (j) Availability of Funds for Oregon.--The State of Oregon 
     may use funds apportioned on or before September 30, 2009, 
     under section 104(b)(2) of such title to support the 
     operation of additional passenger rail service between Eugene 
     and Portland.
       (k) Availabilty of Funds for Certain Other States.--The 
     States of Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, 
     Indiana, and Ohio may use funds apportioned under section 
     104(b)(2) of such title to purchase alternative fuel (as 
     defined in section 301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 
     U.S.C. 13211)) or biodiesel.
                       Subtitle I--Miscellaneous

     SEC. 1901. INCLUSION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS IDENTIFYING 
                   FUNDING SOURCES IN TITLE 23.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 320--
       (1) the following:

     ``Sec. 321. Signs identifying funding sources''; and

       (2) the text of section 154 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act 
     of 1987 (23 U.S.C. 101 note).
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 320 
     the following:

``321. Signs identifying funding sources.''.

       (c) Conforming Repeal.--Section 154 of the Federal-Aid 
     Highway Act of 1987 (23 U.S.C. 101 note; 101 Stat. 209) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 1902. DONATIONS AND CREDITS.

       Section 323 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (c) by inserting 
     ``, or a local government from offering to

[[Page 18598]]

     donate funds, materials, or services performed by local 
     government employees,'' after ``services''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e).

     SEC. 1903. INCLUSION OF BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENTS IN TITLE 23.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 312--
       (1) the following:

     ``Sec. 313. Buy America''; and

       (2) the text of section 165 of the Highway Improvement Act 
     of 1982 (23 U.S.C. 101 note; 96 Stat. 2136).
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of such 
     title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 312 the following:

``313. Buy America.''.

       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 313 of such title (as 
     added by subsection (a)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``by this Act'' the first 
     place it appears and all that follows through ``of 1978'' and 
     inserting ``to carry out the Surface Transportation 
     Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2097) or this title'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by redesignating paragraph (4) as 
     paragraph (3);
       (3) in subsection (d) by striking ``this Act,'' and all 
     that follows through ``Code, which'' and inserting ``the 
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2097) 
     or this title that'';
       (4) by striking subsection (e); and
       (5) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively.
       (d) Conforming Repeal.--Section 165 of the Highway 
     Improvement Act of 1982 (23 U.S.C. 101 note; 96 Stat. 2136) 
     is repealed.

     SEC. 1904. STEWARDSHIP AND OVERSIGHT.

       (a) In General.--Section 106 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Value Engineering Analysis.--
       ``(1) Definition of value engineering analysis.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term `value 
     engineering analysis' means a systematic process of review 
     and analysis of a project, during the concept and design 
     phases, by a multidisciplined team of persons not involved in 
     the project, that is conducted to provide recommendations 
     such as those described in subparagraph (B) for--
       ``(i) providing the needed functions safely, reliably, and 
     at the lowest overall cost;
       ``(ii) improving the value and quality of the project; and
       ``(iii) reducing the time to complete the project.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The recommendations referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) include, with respect to a project--
       ``(i) combining or eliminating otherwise inefficient use of 
     costly parts of the original proposed design for the project; 
     and
       ``(ii) completely redesigning the project using different 
     technologies, materials, or methods so as to accomplish the 
     original purpose of the project.
       ``(2) Analysis.--The State shall provide a value 
     engineering analysis or other cost-reduction analysis for--
       ``(A) each project on the Federal-aid system with an 
     estimated total cost of $25,000,000 or more;
       ``(B) a bridge project with an estimated total cost of 
     $20,000,000 or more; and
       ``(C) any other project the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Major projects.--The Secretary may require more than 
     1 analysis described in paragraph (2) for a major project 
     described in subsection (h).
       ``(4) Requirements.--Analyses described in paragraph (1) 
     for a bridge project shall--
       ``(A) include bridge substructure requirements based on 
     construction material; and
       ``(B) be evaluated--
       ``(i) on engineering and economic bases, taking into 
     consideration acceptable designs for bridges; and
       ``(ii) using an analysis of life-cycle costs and duration 
     of project construction.''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (g) and (h) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(g) Oversight Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     oversight program to monitor the effective and efficient use 
     of funds authorized to carry out this title.
       ``(B) Minimum requirement.--At a minimum, the program shall 
     be responsive to all areas relating to financial integrity 
     and project delivery.
       ``(2) Financial integrity.--
       ``(A) Financial management systems.--The Secretary shall 
     perform annual reviews that address elements of the State 
     transportation departments' financial management systems that 
     affect projects approved under subsection (a).
       ``(B) Project costs.--The Secretary shall develop minimum 
     standards for estimating project costs and shall periodically 
     evaluate the practices of States for estimating project 
     costs, awarding contracts, and reducing project costs.
       ``(3) Project delivery.--The Secretary shall perform annual 
     reviews that address elements of the project delivery system 
     of a State, which elements include 1 or more activities that 
     are involved in the life cycle of a project from conception 
     to completion of the project.
       ``(4) Responsibility of the states.--
       ``(A) In general.--The States shall be responsible for 
     determining that subrecipients of Federal funds under this 
     title have--
       ``(i) adequate project delivery systems for projects 
     approved under this section; and
       ``(ii) sufficient accounting controls to properly manage 
     such Federal funds.
       ``(B) Periodic review.--The Secretary shall periodically 
     review the monitoring of subrecipients by the States.
       ``(5) Specific oversight responsibilities.--
       ``(A) Effect of section.--Nothing in this section shall 
     affect or discharge any oversight responsibility of the 
     Secretary specifically provided for under this title or other 
     Federal law.
       ``(B) Appalachian development highways.--The Secretary 
     shall retain full oversight responsibilities for the design 
     and construction of all Appalachian development highways 
     under section 14501 of title 40.
       ``(h) Major Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, a recipient of Federal financial assistance for 
     a project under this title with an estimated total cost of 
     $500,000,000 or more, and recipients for such other projects 
     as may be identified by the Secretary, shall submit to the 
     Secretary for each project--
       ``(A) a project management plan; and
       ``(B) an annual financial plan.
       ``(2) Project management plan.--A project management plan 
     shall document--
       ``(A) the procedures and processes that are in effect to 
     provide timely information to the project decisionmakers to 
     effectively manage the scope, costs, schedules, and quality 
     of, and the Federal requirements applicable to, the project; 
     and
       ``(B) the role of the agency leadership and management team 
     in the delivery of the project.
       ``(3) Financial plan.--A financial plan shall--
       ``(A) be based on detailed estimates of the cost to 
     complete the project; and
       ``(B) provide for the annual submission of updates to the 
     Secretary that are based on reasonable assumptions, as 
     determined by the Secretary, of future increases in the cost 
     to complete the project.
       ``(i) Other Projects.--A recipient of Federal financial 
     assistance for a project under this title with an estimated 
     total cost of $100,000,000 or more that is not covered by 
     subsection (h) shall prepare an annual financial plan. Annual 
     financial plans prepared under this subsection shall be made 
     available to the Secretary for review upon the request of the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 114(a) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``highways or 
     portions of highways located on a Federal-aid system'' and 
     inserting ``Federal-aid highway or a portion of a Federal-aid 
     highway''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence and inserting ``The 
     Secretary shall have the right to conduct such inspections 
     and take such corrective action as the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate.''.

     SEC. 1905. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CREDITS.

       Section 120(j)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``A State'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--A State''; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Special rule for use of federal funds.--If the 
     public, quasi-public, or private agency has built, improved, 
     or maintained the facility using Federal funds, the credit 
     under this paragraph shall be reduced by a percentage equal 
     to the percentage of the total cost of building, improving, 
     or maintaining the facility that was derived from Federal 
     funds.
       ``(C) Federal funds defined.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `Federal funds' does not include loans of Federal funds or 
     other financial assistance that must be repaid to the 
     Government.''.

     SEC. 1906. GRANT PROGRAM TO PROHIBIT RACIAL PROFILING.

       (a) Grants.--Subject to the requirements of this section, 
     the Secretary shall make grants to a State that--
       (1)(A) has enacted and is enforcing a law that prohibits 
     the use of racial profiling in the enforcement of State laws 
     regulating the use of Federal-aid highways; and
       (B) is maintaining and allows public inspection of 
     statistical information for each motor vehicle stop made by a 
     law enforcement officer on a Federal-aid highway in the State 
     regarding the race and ethnicity of the driver and any 
     passengers; or
       (2) provides assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that 
     the State is undertaking activities to comply with the 
     requirements of paragraph (1).
       (b) Eligible Activities.--A grant received by a State under 
     subsection (a) shall be used by the State--
       (1) in the case of a State eligible under subsection 
     (a)(1), for costs of--
       (A) collecting and maintaining of data on traffic stops;
       (B) evaluating the results of the data; and
       (C) developing and implementing programs to reduce the 
     occurrence of racial profiling, including programs to train 
     law enforcement officers; and
       (2) in the case of a State eligible under subsection 
     (a)(2), for costs of--
       (A) activities to comply with the requirements of 
     subsection (a)(1); and
       (B) any eligible activity under paragraph (1).

[[Page 18599]]

       (c) Racial Profiling.--
       (1) In general.--To meet the requirement of subsection 
     (a)(1), a State law shall prohibit, in the enforcement of 
     State laws regulating the use of Federal-aid highways, a 
     State or local law enforcement officer from using the race or 
     ethnicity of the driver or passengers to any degree in making 
     routine or spontaneous law enforcement decisions, such as 
     ordinary traffic stops on Federal-aid highways.
       (2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall alter the 
     manner in which a State or local law enforcement officer 
     considers race or ethnicity whenever there is trustworthy 
     information, relevant to the locality or time frame, that 
     links persons of a particular race or ethnicity to an 
     identified criminal incident, scheme, or organization.
       (d) Limitations.--
       (1) Maximum amount of grants.--The total amount of grants 
     made to a State under this section in a fiscal year may not 
     exceed 5 percent of the amount made available to carry out 
     this section in the fiscal year.
       (2) Eligibility.--A State may not receive a grant under 
     subsection (a)(2) in more than 2 fiscal years.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section $7,500,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized by this 
     subsection shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, except the Federal share of the 
     cost of activities carried out using such funds shall be 80 
     percent, and such funds shall remain available until expended 
     and shall not be transferable.

     SEC. 1907. PAVEMENT MARKING SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     demonstration project in the State of Alaska, and a 
     demonstration project in the State of Tennessee, to study the 
     safety impacts, environmental impacts, and cost effectiveness 
     of different pavement marking systems and the effect of State 
     bidding and procurement processes on the quality of pavement 
     marking material employed in highway projects. The 
     demonstration projects shall each include an evaluation of 
     the impacts and effectiveness of increasing the width of 
     pavement marking edge lines from 4 inches to 6 inches and an 
     evaluation of advanced acrylic water-borne pavement markings.
       (b) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2009, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     demonstration projects, together with findings and 
     recommendations on methods that will optimize the cost-
     benefit ratio of the use of Federal funds on pavement 
     marking.
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, out of the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), 
     $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this section shall be available for 
     obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as if 
     such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code; expect that the Federal share of the cost 
     of the demonstration projects shall be 100 percent, and such 
     funds shall remain available until expended and shall not be 
     transferable.

     SEC. 1908. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON INTERSTATE 
                   SYSTEM AND NHS.

       (a) Interstate System.--
       (1) Creek turnpike, oklahoma.--The Secretary shall 
     designate as part of the Interstate System (as defined in 
     section 101 of title 23, United States Code) in accordance 
     with section 103(c)(4) of such title the portion of the Creek 
     Turnpike connecting Interstate Route 44 east and west of 
     Tulsa, Oklahoma.
       (2) Certain section of interstate route 181.--The Secretary 
     shall designate as part of Interstate Route 26 the 11-mile 
     section of Interstate Route 181 lying northwest of the 
     intersection with Interstate Route 81, Tennessee.
       (3) Treatment.--The designations under paragraph (2) shall 
     be treated, for purposes of title 23, United States Code, as 
     being made under section 103(c)(4) of such title.
       (b) National Highway System.--The Secretary shall designate 
     as a component of the National Highway System in accordance 
     with section 103(b)(4) of title 23, United States Code, the 
     portion of United States Route 271 from the Arkansas State 
     line, west to the intersection with United States Route 59, 
     and northwest to the intersection with Interstate Route 40, 
     Sallisaw, Oklahoma.

     SEC. 1909. FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--Section 101(b) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) It is hereby declared'' and all that 
     follows through the first undesignated paragraph and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) Declaration of Policy.--
       ``(1) Acceleration of construction of federal-aid highway 
     systems.--Congress declares that it is in the national 
     interest to accelerate the construction of Federal-aid 
     highway systems, including the Dwight D. Eisenhower National 
     System of Interstate and Defense, because many of the 
     highways (or portions of the highways) are inadequate to meet 
     the needs of local and interstate commerce for the national 
     and civil defense.'';
       (2) in the second undesignated paragraph by striking ``It 
     is hereby declared'' and all that follows through 
     ``objectives of this Act'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Completion of interstate system.--Congress declares 
     that the prompt and early completion of the Dwight D. 
     Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
     (referred to in this section as the `Interstate System'), so 
     named because of its primary importance to the national 
     defense, is essential to the national interest''; and
       (3) by striking the third undesignated paragraph and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Transportation needs of 21st century.--Congress 
     declares that--
       ``(A) it is in the national interest to preserve and 
     enhance the surface transportation system to meet the needs 
     of the United States for the 21st Century;
       ``(B) the current urban and long distance personal travel 
     and freight movement demands have surpassed the original 
     forecasts and travel demand patterns are expected to continue 
     to change;
       ``(C) continued planning for and investment in surface 
     transportation is critical to ensure the surface 
     transportation system adequately meets the changing travel 
     demands of the future;
       ``(D) among the foremost needs that the surface 
     transportation system must meet to provide for a strong and 
     vigorous national economy are safe, efficient, and reliable--
       ``(i) national and interregional personal mobility 
     (including personal mobility in rural and urban areas) and 
     reduced congestion;
       ``(ii) flow of interstate and international commerce and 
     freight transportation; and
       ``(iii) travel movements essential for national security;
       ``(E) special emphasis should be devoted to providing safe 
     and efficient access for the type and size of commercial and 
     military vehicles that access designated National Highway 
     System intermodal freight terminals;
       ``(F) the connection between land use and infrastructure is 
     significant;
       ``(G) transportation should play a significant role in 
     promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and 
     sustaining the quality of life; and
       ``(H) the Secretary should take appropriate actions to 
     preserve and enhance the Interstate System to meet the needs 
     of the 21st Century.''.
       (b) National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue 
     Study Commission.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``National Surface Transportation Policy and 
     Revenue Study Commission'' (in this subsection referred to as 
     the ``Commission'').
       (2) Membership.--
       (A) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members, of whom--
       (i) 1 member shall be the Secretary, who shall serve as 
     Chairperson;
       (ii) 3 members shall be appointed by the President;
       (iii) 2 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (iv) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the House of Representatives;
       (v) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of 
     the Senate; and
       (vi) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the Senate.
       (B) Qualifications.--Members appointed under subparagraph 
     (A)--
       (i) shall include--

       (I) individuals representing State and local governments, 
     metropolitan planning organizations, transportation-related 
     industries, and public interest organizations involved with 
     scientific, regulatory, economic, and environmental 
     activities relating to transportation;
       (II) individuals with a background in public finance, 
     including experience in developing State and local revenue 
     resources;
       (III) individuals involved in surface transportation 
     program administration;
       (IV) individuals that have conducted academic research into 
     related issues; and
       (V) individuals that provide unique perspectives on current 
     and future requirements for revenue sources to support the 
     Highway Trust Fund and policies impacting those revenues; and

       (ii) shall be balanced geographically to the extent 
     consistent with maintaining the highest level of expertise on 
     the Commission.
       (C) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of 
     the Commission shall be made not later than 120 days after 
     the date of establishment of the Commission.
       (D) Terms.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (E) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission--
       (i) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
       (ii) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.
       (F) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the 
     Commission.
       (G) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (H) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (I) Vice chairperson.--The Commission shall select a Vice 
     Chairperson from among the appointed members of the 
     Commission.

[[Page 18600]]

       (3) Duties.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall--
       (i) conduct a comprehensive study of--

       (I) the current condition and future needs of the surface 
     transportation system;
       (II) short-term sources of Highway Trust Fund revenues;
       (III) long-term alternatives to replace or supplement the 
     fuel tax as the principal revenue source to support the 
     Highway Trust Fund, including new or alternate sources of 
     revenue;
       (IV) revenue sources to fund the needs of the surface 
     transportation system over at least the 30-year period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, including new 
     or alternate sources of revenue;
       (V) revenues flowing into the Highway Trust Fund under laws 
     in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including 
     individual components of the overall flow of the revenues; 
     and
       (VI) whether the amount of revenues described in subclause 
     (V) is likely to increase, decrease, or remain constant 
     absent any change in law, taking into consideration the 
     impact of possible changes in public vehicular choice, fuel 
     use, and travel alternatives that could be expected to reduce 
     or increase revenues into the Highway Trust Fund;

       (B) develop a conceptual plan, with alternative approaches, 
     to ensure that the surface transportation system will 
     continue to serve the needs of the United States, including 
     specific recommendations regarding design and operational 
     standards, Federal policies, and legislative changes;
       (C) consult with the Secretary of the Treasury in 
     conducting the study to ensure that the views of the 
     Secretary concerning essential attributes of Highway Trust 
     Fund revenue alternatives are considered;
       (D) consult with representatives of State departments of 
     transportation and metropolitan planning organizations and 
     other key interested stakeholders in conducting the study to 
     ensure that--
       (i) the views of the stakeholders on alternative revenue 
     sources to support State transportation improvement programs 
     are considered; and
       (ii) any recommended Federal financing strategy takes into 
     account State financial requirements; and
       (E) based on the study, make specific recommendations 
     regarding--
       (i) actions that should be taken to develop alternative 
     revenue sources to sup port the Highway Trust Fund; and
       (ii) the time frame for taking those actions.
       (4) Related work.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     study shall build on related work that has been completed 
     by--
       (A) the Secretary;
       (B) the Secretary of Energy;
       (C) the Transportation Research Board, including the 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the recent 
     study conducted by the Transportation Research Board on 
     alternatives to the fuel tax to support highway program 
     financing; and
       (D) other entities and persons.
       (5) Surface transportation needs.--With respect to surface 
     transportation needs, the investigation and study shall 
     specifically address--
       (A) the current condition and performance of the Interstate 
     System (including the physical condition of bridges and 
     pavements and operational characteristics and performance), 
     relying primarily on existing data sources;
       (B) the future of the Interstate System, based on a range 
     of legislative and policy approaches for 15-, 30-, and 50-
     year time periods;
       (C) the expected demographics and business uses that impact 
     the surface transportation system;
       (D) the expected use of the surface transportation system, 
     including the effects of changing vehicle types, modes of 
     transportation, fleet size and weights, and traffic volumes;
       (E) desirable design policies and standards for future 
     improvements of the surface transportation system, including 
     additional access points;
       (F) the identification of urban, rural, national, and 
     interregional needs for the surface transportation system;
       (G) the potential for expansion, upgrades, or other changes 
     to the surface transportation system, including--
       (i) deployment of advanced materials and intelligent 
     technologies;
       (ii) critical multistate, urban, and rural corridors 
     needing capacity, safety, and operational enhancements;
       (iii) improvements to intermodal linkages;
       (iv) security and military deployment enhancements;
       (v) strategies to enhance asset preservation; and
       (vi) implementation strategies;
       (H) the improvement of emergency preparedness and 
     evacuation using the surface transportation system, 
     including--
       (i) examination of the potential use of all modes of the 
     surface transportation system in the safe and efficient 
     evacuation of citizens during times of emergency;
       (ii) identification of the location of critical 
     bottlenecks; and
       (iii) development of strategies to improve system 
     redundancy, especially in areas with a high potential for 
     terrorist attacks;
       (I) alternatives for addressing environmental concerns 
     associated with the future development of the surface 
     transportation system;
       (J) the assessment of the current and future capabilities 
     for conducting system-wide real-time performance data 
     collection and analysis, traffic monitoring, and 
     transportation systems operations and management; and
       (K) policy and legislative alternatives for addressing 
     future needs for the surface transportation system.
       (6) Financing.--With respect to financing, the study shall 
     address specifically--
       (A) the advantages and disadvantages of alternative revenue 
     sources to meet anticipated Federal surface transportation 
     financial requirements;
       (B) recommendations concerning the most promising revenue 
     sources to support long-term Federal surface transportation 
     financing requirements;
       (C) development of a broad transition strategy to move from 
     the current tax base to new funding mechanisms, including the 
     time frame for various components of the transition strategy;
       (D) recommendations for additional research that may be 
     needed to implement recommended alternatives; and
       (E) the extent to which revenues should reflect the 
     relative use of the highway system.
       (7) Financing recommendations.--
       (A) Factors for consideration.--In developing financing 
     recommendations under this subsection, the Commission shall 
     consider--
       (i) the ability to generate sufficient revenues from all 
     modes to meet anticipated long-term surface transportation 
     financing needs;
       (ii) the roles of the various levels of government and the 
     private sector in meeting future surface transportation 
     financing needs;
       (iii) administrative costs (including enforcement costs) to 
     implement each option;
       (iv) the expected increase in nontaxed fuels and the impact 
     of taxing those fuels;
       (v) the likely technological advances that could ease 
     implementation of each option;
       (vi) the equity and economic efficiency of each option;
       (vii) the flexibility of different options to allow various 
     pricing alternatives to be implemented; and
       (viii) potential compatibility issues with State and local 
     tax mechanisms under each alternative.
       (B) Need and revenue analysis.--In developing financing 
     recommendations under this subsection, the Commission shall 
     distinguish between--
       (i) the needs of, and revenues for, the surface 
     transportation system that are eligible to receive funds from 
     the Highway Trust Fund; and
       (ii) the needs for projects and programs that are not 
     eligible to receive funds from the Highway Trust Fund.
       (8) Technical advisory committee.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a technical advisory committee, in a manner 
     consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
     App.), to collect and evaluate technical input from--
       (A) appropriate Federal, State, and local officials with 
     responsibility for transportation;
       (B) appropriate State and local elected officials;
       (C) transportation and trade associations;
       (D) emergency management officials;
       (E) freight providers;
       (F) the general public; and
       (G) other entities and persons determined to be appropriate 
     by the Secretary to ensure a diverse range of views.
       (9) Report and recommendations.--Not later than July 1, 
     2007, the Commission shall submit to Congress--
       (A) a final report that contains a detailed statement of 
     the findings and conclusions of the Commission; and
       (B) the recommendations of the Commission for such 
     legislation and administrative actions as the Commission 
     considers to be appropriate.
       (10) Powers of the commission.--
       (A) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, meet 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out this section.
       (B) Information from federal agencies.--
       (i) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a 
     Federal agency such information as the Commission considers 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       (ii) Provision of information.--On request of the 
     Chairperson of the Commission, the head of a Federal agency 
     shall provide the requested information to the Commission.
       (C) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other agencies of the Federal Government.
       (D) Donations.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose 
     of donations of services or property.
       (11) Commission personnel matters.--
       (A) Members.--A member of the Commission shall serve 
     without pay but shall be allowed travel expenses, including 
     per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an 
     employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or 
     regular place of business of the member in the performance of 
     the duties of the Commission.
       (B) Contractors.--The Commission may enter into agreements 
     with an appropriate organizations, agencies, and entities to 
     conduct the study required under this section, under the 
     strategic guidance of the Commission.
       (C) Administrative support.--On the request of the 
     Commission, the Administrator of the Federal Highway 
     Administration shall provide to the Commission, on a 
     reimbursable basis, the administrative support and services 
     necessary for the Commission to carry out the duties of the 
     Commission under this section.

[[Page 18601]]

       (D) Detail of personnel.--
       (i) In general.--On the request of the Commission, the 
     Secretary may detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the 
     personnel of the Department to the Commission to assist the 
     Commission in carrying out the duties of the Commission under 
     this section.
       (ii) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee 
     shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status 
     or privilege.
       (12) Cooperation.--The staff of the Secretary shall 
     cooperate with the Commission in the study required under 
     this section, including providing such nonconfidential data 
     and information as are necessary to conduct the study.
       (13) Relationship to other law.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), funds made available to carry out this section shall 
     be available for obligation in the same manner as if the 
     funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United 
     States Code.
       (B) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     study and the Commission under this section shall be 100 
     percent.
       (C) Availability.--Funds made available to carry out this 
     section shall remain available until expended.
       (14) Definition of surface transportation system.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``surface transportation system'' 
     includes--
       (A) the National Highway System, as defined in section 
     103(b) of title 23, United States Code;
       (B) congressional high priority corridors;
       (C) intermodal connectors;
       (D) intermodal freight facilities;
       (E) public transportation infrastructure and facilities; 
     and
       (F) freight and intercity passenger bus and rail 
     infrastructure and facilities.
       (15) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account) to carry out this section 
     $1,400,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
       (16) Applicability of title 23.--Funds made available to 
     carry out this section shall be available for obligation in 
     the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that such 
     funds shall remain available until expended, and the Federal 
     share of the cost of a project under this section shall be as 
     provided in this section.
       (17) Termination.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall terminate on the date 
     that is 180 days after the date on which the Commission 
     submits the report of the Commission under paragraph (9).
       (B) Records.--Not later than the date of termination of the 
     Commission under subparagraph (A), all records and papers of 
     the Commission shall be delivered to the Archivist of the 
     United States for deposit in the National Archives.

     SEC. 1910. MOTORIST INFORMATION CONCERNING FULL SERVICE 
                   RESTAURANTS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary may initiate a rulemaking to determine 
     whether--
       (1) full service restaurants should be given priority on 
     not more than 2 panels of the camping or attractions logo-
     specific service signs in the Manual on Uniform Traffic 
     Control Devices of the Department of Transportation when the 
     food logo-specific service sign is fully used; and
       (2) full service restaurants should be given priority on 
     not more than 2 panels of the food logo-specific service 
     signs in such Manual when the camping or attractions logo 
     specific service signs are fully used.

     SEC. 1911. APPROVAL AND FUNDING FOR CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Project Approval.--If the Secretary finds that the 
     project number STP-189-1(15)CT 3 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, 
     was not listed in the current regional transportation plan 
     because of a clerical error, such failure to be listed shall 
     not be a basis for not approving the project. The Secretary 
     shall make a final decision on the approval of the project 
     within 30 days after the date of receipt by the Secretary of 
     a construction authorization request from the department of 
     transportation for the State of Georgia.
       (b) Conformity Determination.--
       (1) In general.--Approval, funding, and implementation of 
     the project referred to in subsection (a) shall not be 
     subject to the requirements of part 93 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).
       (2) Regional emissions.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), all 
     subsequent regional emission analyses required by section 
     93.118 or 93.119 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or 
     successor regulations), shall include the project.

     SEC. 1912. LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION.

       The public entity established under California law in 1989 
     to acquire rights-of-way in northwestern California to 
     maintain surface transportation infrastructure is designated 
     as the lead agency for the purpose of accepting Federal funds 
     authorized under item 13 of the table contained in section 
     1108(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2061).

     SEC. 1913. BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, NORTH DAKOTA.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and regardless 
     of the source of Federal funds, the Federal share of the 
     eligible costs of construction of a bridge between Bismarck, 
     North Dakota, and Mandan, North Dakota, shall be 90 percent.

     SEC. 1914. MOTORCYCLIST ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, in 
     consultation with the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, 
     shall appoint a Motorcyclist Advisory Council to coordinate 
     with and advise the Administrator on infrastructure issues of 
     concern to motorcyclists, including--
       (1) barrier design;
       (2) road design, construction, and maintenance practices; 
     and
       (3) the architecture and implementation of intelligent 
     transportation system technologies.
       (b) Composition.--The Council shall consist of not more 
     than 10 members of the motorcycling community with 
     professional expertise in national motorcyclist safety 
     advocacy, including--
       (1) at least--
       (A) 1 member recommended by a national motorcyclist 
     association;
       (B) 1 member recommended by a national motorcycle riders 
     foundation;
       (C) 1 representative of the National Association of State 
     Motorcycle Safety Administrators;
       (D) 2 members of State motorcyclists' organizations;
       (E) 1 member recommended by a national organization that 
     represents the builders of highway infrastructure;
       (F) 1 member recommended by a national association that 
     represents the traffic safety systems industry; and
       (G) 1 member of a national safety organization; and
       (2) at least 1, and not more than 2, motorcyclists who are 
     traffic system design engineers or State transportation 
     department officials.

     SEC. 1915. LOAN FORGIVENESS.

       Debt outstanding as of the date of enactment of this Act 
     for project number Q-DPM-0013(001) carried out under section 
     108(c) of title 23, United States Code, is deemed satisfied.

     SEC. 1916. TREATMENT OF OFF RAMP.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the New Harbor 
     Boulevard North off-ramp project along the Interstate Route 
     405 Collector-Distributor Road in Costa Mesa, California 
     (Susan Street Slip-Ramp), shall be treated for purposes of 
     title 23, United States Code, as satisfying all Federal 
     requirements, and the California State department of 
     transportation shall authorize any final environmental, 
     engineering, or design analyses necessary to approve, as 
     expeditiously as possible, construction of the project 
     consistent with applicable California State operational and 
     safety standards.

     SEC. 1917. OPENING OF INTERSTATE RAMPS.

       (a) In General.--The Maryland State highway administration 
     and the Federal Highway Administration shall work 
     cooperatively--
       (1) to expedite the project being developed as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act to improve Interstate Route 495 
     through the area of the Arena Drive interchange to allow for 
     safe exit, including improvements to the adjacent 
     interchanges upstream and downstream along Interstate Route 
     495; and
       (2) to expedite action on the Interstate access request so 
     that the Interstate Route 495/Arena Drive interchange can be 
     opened safely to all vehicles 24 hours per day, 7 days per 
     week.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the status of opening the Interstate Route 495/
     Arena Drive interchange to full-time use.

     SEC. 1918. CREDIT TO STATE OF LOUISIANA FOR STATE MATCHING 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide a credit to the 
     State of Louisiana in an amount equal to non Federal Share of 
     the cost of any planning, engineering, design, or 
     construction work carried out by the State on any project 
     that the Secretary determines is integral to the project 
     authorized by item number 202 in the table contained in 
     section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century (112 Stat. 264).
       (b) Eligibility of Credit.--The credit may be used for any 
     future payment relating to the completion of the project 
     referred to in subsection (a) that is required by the State 
     under title 23, United States Code.

     SEC. 1919. ROAD USER FEES.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement 
     with the Public Policy Center of the University of Iowa for 
     an analysis and report to the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     the Treasury on a long-term field test of an approach to 
     assessing highway use fees based upon actual mileage driven 
     by a specific vehicle on specific types of highways by use of 
     an onboard computer--
       (1) which is linked to satellites to calculate highway 
     mileage traversed;
       (2) which computes the appropriate highway use fees for 
     each of the Federal, State, and local governments as the 
     vehicle makes use of the highways; and
       (3) the data from which is periodically downloaded by the 
     vehicle owner to a collection center for an assessment of 
     highway use fees due in each jurisdiction traversed; and
       (4) which includes methods of ensuring privacy of road 
     users.
       (b) Components of Field Test.--The components of the field 
     test shall include 2 years for preparation, including 
     selection of vendors and test participants, and a 3-year 
     testing period.
       (c) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit annual reports on 
     the status of the analysis and, not later than July 1, 2009, 
     a final report on the results of the analysis, together with 
     findings and recommendations. The reports shall be submitted 
     to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of

[[Page 18602]]

     the House of Representatives, and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriation.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section $2,000,000 fiscal year 
     2006 and $3,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 
     2009.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized under this 
     subsection shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code; except the Federal share of the 
     cost of the analysis and report shall be 100 percent, and 
     such funds shall remain available until expended and shall 
     not be transferable.

     SEC. 1920. TRANSPORTATION AND LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Federal-aid highway programs provide State and local 
     governments and other recipients substantial funds for 
     projects that produce significant employment and job-training 
     opportunities.
       (2) Every $1,000,000,000 in Federal infrastructure 
     investment creates an estimated 47,500 jobs.
       (3) Jobs in transportation construction, including 
     apprenticeship positions, typically pay more than twice the 
     minimum wage, and include health and other benefits.
       (4) Transportation projects provide the impetus for job 
     training and employment opportunities for low income 
     individuals residing in the area in which a transportation 
     project is planned.
       (5) Transportation projects can offer young people, 
     particularly those who are economically disadvantaged, the 
     opportunity to gain productive employment.
       (6) The Alameda Corridor, a $2,400,000,000 transportation 
     project, is an example of a transportation project that 
     included a local hiring provision resulting in a full 30 
     percent of the project jobs being filled by locally hired and 
     trained men and women.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Federal transportation projects should facilitate and 
     encourage the collaboration between interested persons, 
     including Federal, State, and local governments, community 
     colleges, apprentice programs, local high schools, and other 
     community-based organizations that have an interest in 
     improving the job skills of low-income individuals, to help 
     leverage scarce training and community resources and to help 
     ensure local participation in the building of transportation 
     projects.

     SEC. 1921. UPDATE OF OBSOLETE TEXT.

       Section 137(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     in the first sentence by striking ``on the Federal-aid urban 
     system'' and inserting ``on a Federal-aid highway''.

     SEC. 1922. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO NONDISCRIMINATION SECTION.

       (a) State Assurances.--Section 140(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``subsection (a) of 
     section 105 of this title'' and inserting ``section 135'';
       (2) in the second sentence by striking ``He'' and inserting 
     ``The Secretary'';
       (3) in the third sentence--
       (A) by striking ``shall, where he considers it necessary to 
     assure'' and inserting ``if necessary to ensure''; and
       (B) by inserting ``shall'' after ``opportunity,''; and
       (4) in the last sentence--
       (A) by striking ``him'' and inserting ``the Secretary'' and
       (B) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the Secretary of 
     Transportation''.
       (b) Highway Construction and Technology Training.--Section 
     140(b) of such title is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``highway 
     construction'' and inserting ``surface transportation''; and
       (2) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``he may deem''; and
       (B) by striking ``not to exceed $2,500,000 for the 
     transition quarter ending September 30, 1976, and''.
       (c) Minority Business Training Programs.--Section 140(c) of 
     such title is amended in the second sentence--
       (1) by striking ``subsection 104(b)(3) of this title'' and 
     inserting ``section 104(b)(3)''; and
       (2) by striking ``he may deem''.
       (d) Technical Amendment.--Section 140(d) of such title is 
     amended in the subsection heading by striking ``and 
     Contracting''.

     SEC. 1923. TRANSPORTATION ASSETS AND NEEDS OF DELTA REGION.

       (a) Agreement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Delta Regional Authority (in this section 
     referred to as the ``DRA'') to conduct a comprehensive study 
     of transportation assets and needs for all modes of 
     transportation (including passenger and freight 
     transportation) in the 8 States comprising the Delta region 
     (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee).
       (b) Consultation.--Under the agreement, the DRA, in 
     conducting the study, shall consult with the Department, 
     State transportation departments, local planning and 
     development districts, local and regional governments, and 
     metropolitan planning organizations.
       (c) Report.--Under the agreement, the DRA, not later than 2 
     years after the date of entry into the agreement, shall 
     submit to the Secretary and the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     final report on the results of the study, together with such 
     recommendations as the DRA considers to be appropriate.
       (d) Plan.--Under the agreement, the DRA, upon completion of 
     the report, shall establish a regional strategic plan to 
     implement the recommendations of the report.
       (e) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than 
     the Mass Transit Account), to carry out this section $500,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized by this section 
     shall be available for obligation in the same manner and to 
     the same extent as if such funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that such 
     funds shall remain available until expended and shall not be 
     transferable.

     SEC. 1924. ALASKA WAY VIADUCT STUDY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) in 2001, the Alaska Way Viaduct, a critical segment of 
     the National Highway System in Seattle, Washington, was 
     seriously damaged by the Nisqually earthquake;
       (2) an effort to address the possible repair, retrofit, or 
     replacement of the Viaduct that conforms with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is 
     underway; and
       (3) as a result of the efforts referred to in paragraph 
     (2), a locally preferred alternative for the Viaduct is being 
     developed.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Washington State department of transportation and the city of 
     Seattle, Washington, shall conduct a comprehensive study to 
     determine the specific damage to the Alaska Way Viaduct from 
     the Nisqually earthquake of 2001 that contribute to the 
     ongoing degradation of the Viaduct.
       (2) Requirements.--The study under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) identify any repair, retrofit, and replacement costs 
     for the Viaduct that are eligible for additional assistance 
     from the emergency fund authorized under section 125 of title 
     23, United States Code, consistent with the emergency relief 
     manual governing eligible expenses from the emergency fund; 
     and
       (B) determine the amount of assistance from the emergency 
     fund for which the Viaduct is eligible.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report that describes the findings of the study.

     SEC. 1925. COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on--
       (1) the role of well-designed transportation projects in--
       (A) promoting economic development;
       (B) protecting public health, safety and the environment; 
     and
       (C) enhancing the architectural design and planning of 
     communities; and
       (2) the positive economic, cultural, aesthetic, scenic, 
     architectural, and environmental benefits of such projects 
     for communities.
       (b) Contents.--The study shall address the following:
       (1) The degree to which well-designed transportation 
     projects have positive economic, cultural, aesthetic, scenic, 
     architectural, and environmental benefits for communities.
       (2) The degree to which such projects protect and 
     contribute to improvements in public health and safety.
       (3) The degree to which such projects use inclusive public 
     participation processes to achieve quicker, more certain, and 
     better results.
       (4) The degree to which positive results are achieved by 
     linking transportation, design, and the implementation of 
     community visions for the future.
       (5) Facilitating the use of successful models or best 
     practices in transportation investment or development to 
     accomplish each of the following:
       (A) Enhancement of community identity.
       (B) Protection of public health and safety.
       (C) Provision of a variety of choices in housing, shopping, 
     transportation, employment, and recreation.
       (D) Preservation and enhancement of existing 
     infrastructure.
       (E) Creation of a greater sense of community through public 
     involvement.
       (c) Report.--Not later than September 20, 2007, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report on the results of the study.
       (d) Administration.--To carry out this section, the 
     Secretary shall make a grant to, or enter into a cooperative 
     agreement or contract with, a national organization 
     representing architects who have expertise in the design of a 
     wide range of transportation and infrastructure projects, 
     which include the design of buildings, public facilities, and 
     surrounding communities.
       (e) Authorization.--Of the amounts made available to carry 
     out the transportation, community, and system preservation 
     program by section 1117 of this Act $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to carry out 
     this section; except that, notwithstanding section 1117(g) of 
     this Act, the Federal

[[Page 18603]]

     share of the cost of the study shall be 100 percent.

     SEC. 1926. BUDGET JUSTIFICATION.

       The Department of Transportation and each agency in the 
     Department shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     budget justification concurrently with the President's annual 
     budget submission to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 
     31, United States Code.

     SEC. 1927. 14TH AMENDMENT HIGHWAY AND 3RD INFANTRY DIVISION 
                   HIGHWAY.

       Not later than December 31, 2005, any funds made available 
     to commission studies and reports regarding construction of a 
     route linking Augusta, Georgia, Macon, Georgia, Columbus, 
     Georgia, Montgomery, Alabama, and Natchez, Mississippi and a 
     route linking through Savannah, Georgia, Augusta, Georgia, 
     and Knoxville, Tennessee, shall be provided to the Secretary 
     to--
       (1) carry out a study and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report that describes the steps and 
     estimated funding necessary to construct a route for the 14th 
     Amendment Highway, from Augusta, Georgia, to Natchez, 
     Mississippi (formerly designated the Fall Line Freeway in the 
     State of Georgia); and
       (2) carry out a study and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report that describes the steps and 
     estimated funding necessary to designate and construct a 
     route for the 3rd Infantry Division Highway, extending from 
     Savannah, Georgia, to Knoxville, Tennessee, by way of 
     Augusta, Georgia (formerly the Savannah River Parkway in the 
     State of Georgia).

     SEC. 1928. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUY AMERICA.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Buy America test required by section 165 of the 
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (23 U.S.C. 101 
     note) needs to be applied to an entire bridge project and not 
     only to component parts of such project;
       (2) the law clearly states that domestic materials must be 
     used in Federal highway projects unless there is a finding 
     that the inclusion of domestic materials will increase the 
     cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent;
       (3) uncertainty regarding how to apply Buy America laws for 
     major bridge projects threatens the domestic bridge industry;
       (4) because the Nation's unemployment rate continues to 
     hover around 5.6 percent, steps are needed to protect 
     American workers and the domestic bridge building industry; 
     and
       (5) the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) was 
     designed to ensure that, when taxpayer money is spent on 
     direct Federal Government procurement and infrastructure 
     projects, these expenditures stimulate United States 
     production and job creation.

     SEC. 1929. DESIGNATION OF DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN INTERSTATE 
                   HIGHWAY.

       (a) Designation.--The portion of Interstate Route 86 in the 
     State of New York, extending from the Pennsylvania border 
     near Lake Erie through Orange County, New York, shall be 
     known and designated as the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan 
     Interstate Highway''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     highway portion referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
     to be a reference to the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate 
     Highway''.

     SEC. 1930. DESIGNATION OF THOMAS P. ``TIP'' O'NEILL, JR. 
                   TUNNEL.

       (a) Designation.--In honor of his service to the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States, and in 
     recognition of his contributions toward the construction of 
     the Central Artery project in Boston, the northbound and 
     southbound tunnel of Interstate Route 93, located in the city 
     of Boston, which extends north of the intersection of 
     Interstate Route 90 and Interstate Route 93 to the Leonard P. 
     Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, shall be known and designated as 
     the ``Thomas P. `Tip' O'Neill, Jr. Tunnel''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     tunnel referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the ``Thomas P. `Tip' O'Neill, Jr. Tunnel''.

     SEC. 1931. RICHARD NIXON PARKWAY, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Designation.--The segment of the Imperial Highway 
     located between California State Route 91 and Esperanza Road 
     in the State of California shall be known and designated as 
     the ``Richard Nixon Parkway''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     highway segment referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
     to be a reference to the ``Richard Nixon Parkway''.

     SEC. 1932. AMO HOUGHTON BYPASS.

       (a) Designation.--The 3-mile segment of Interstate Route 86 
     between its interchange with New York State Route 15 in the 
     vicinity of Painted Post, New York, and its interchange with 
     New York State Route 352 in the vicinity of Corning, New 
     York, shall be known and designated as the ``Amo Houghton 
     Bypass''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     highway segment referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
     to be a reference to the ``Amo Houghton Bypass''.

     SEC. 1933. BILLY TAUZIN ENERGY CORRIDOR.

       (a) Designation.--Louisiana Route 1 shall be known and 
     designated as the ``Billy Tauzin Energy Corridor''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     highway segment referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
     to be a reference to the ``Billy Tauzin Energy Corridor''.

     SEC. 1934. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009, there are authorized to be appropriated from the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) such 
     sums as are necessary to make allocations in accordance with 
     paragraph (2) to carry out each project described in the 
     table contained in subsection (c), at the amount specified 
     for each such project in that table.
       (2) Allocation percentages.--Of the total amount specified 
     for each project described in the table contained in 
     subsection (c), 10 percent for fiscal year 2005, 20 percent 
     for fiscal year 2006, 25 percent for fiscal year 2007, 25 
     percent for fiscal year 2008, and 20 percent for fiscal year 
     2009 shall be allocated to carry out each such project in 
     that table.
       (b) Contract Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Funds authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this subsection shall be available for obligation 
     in the same manner as if the funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, except that the 
     funds shall remain available until expended.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project under this section shall be determined in accordance 
     with section 120 of such title.
       (c) Table.--The table referred to in subsections (a) and 
     (b) is as follows:

[[Page 18604]]

TH28JY7.206



[[Page 18605]]

TH28JY7.207



[[Page 18606]]

TH28JY7.208



[[Page 18607]]

TH28JY7.209



[[Page 18608]]

TH28JY7.210



[[Page 18609]]

TH28JY7.211



[[Page 18610]]

TH28JY7.212



[[Page 18611]]

TH28JY7.213



[[Page 18612]]

TH28JY7.214



[[Page 18613]]

TH28JY7.215



[[Page 18614]]

TH28JY7.216



[[Page 18615]]

TH28JY7.217



[[Page 18616]]

TH28JY7.218



[[Page 18617]]

TH28JY7.219



[[Page 18618]]

TH28JY7.220



[[Page 18619]]

TH28JY7.221



[[Page 18620]]

TH28JY7.222



[[Page 18621]]

TH28JY7.223



[[Page 18622]]

TH28JY7.224

 

[[Page 18623]]

     SEC. 1935. PROJECT FLEXIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, funds allocated for a project described in subsection 
     (b) in a State may be obligated for any other project in the 
     State for which funds are so allocated, except that the total 
     amount of funds authorized for any project for which funds 
     are so allocated shall not be reduced.
       (b) Projects.--The projects described in this subsection 
     are--
       (1) the projects numbered greater than 3676 listed in the 
     table contained in section 1702 of this Act;
       (2) the projects numbered greater than 18 listed in the 
     table contained in section 1301 of this Act;
       (3) the projects numbered greater than 27 listed in the 
     table contained in section 1302 of this Act; and
       (4) the projects listed in the table contained in section 
     1934 of this Act.

     SEC. 1936. ADVANCES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     apportioned to a State under section 104(b) of title 23, 
     United States Code, may be obligated to carry out a project 
     designated in any of sections 1301, 1302, 1306, and 1934 of 
     this Act and sections 117 and 144(g) of title 23, United 
     States Code, in an amount not to exceed the amount authorized 
     for that project, only from a program under which the project 
     would be eligible, except that any amounts obligated to carry 
     out the project shall be restored from funds allocated for 
     the project.

     SEC. 1937. ROADS IN CLOSED BASINS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall use funds made 
     available to carry out section 125 of title 23, United States 
     Code, through advancement or reimbursement, without further 
     emergency declaration, to construct such measures as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary for the continuation of 
     roadway services, or the impoundment of water to protect 
     roads, or both, at Devils Lake in the State of North Dakota, 
     as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (b) Requirements.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     construction under subsection (a) in accordance with--
       (1) the options and needs identified in the report of the 
     Devils Lake Surface Transportation Task Force of the Federal 
     Highway Administration dated May 4, 2000, and entitled 
     ``Roadways Serving as Water Barriers'';
       (2) any needs relating to Devils Lake identified after May 
     4, 2000; and
       (3) any monitoring, study, or design or preliminary 
     engineering associated with evaluating or constructing the 
     measures.
       (c) Affected Areas.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     construction under this section in an area that has been the 
     subject of an emergency declaration issued during the period 
     beginning on January 1, 1993, and ending on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), to 
     the extent that expenditures relating to construction under 
     this section could not be made pursuant to any other 
     authority under section 125 of title 23, United States Code, 
     the expenditures shall not exceed--
       (A) $10,000,000 during any fiscal year; and
       (B) a total amount of $70,000,000.
       (2) Exception.--Nothing in paragraph (1) limits any 
     expenditure with respect to--
       (A) emergency relief in response to a development occurring 
     after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) an authority under any other provision of law 
     (including section 125 of such title).
       (e) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section authorizes 
     or provides funding for the construction, operation, or 
     maintenance of an outlet at Devils Lake in the State of North 
     Dakota.

     SEC. 1938. TECHNOLOGY.

       States are encouraged to consider using a nondestructive 
     technology able to detect cracks including sub-surface flaws 
     as small as 0.005 inches in length or depth in steel bridges.

     SEC. 1939. BIA INDIAN ROAD PROGRAM.

       (a) Limitation on Applicability of Certain Rule.--The final 
     rule effective October 1, 2004, published in the Federal 
     Register, July 19, 2004, at pages 43089, relating to the 
     Indian reservation road program administered by the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior, shall not 
     apply to the following Alaska villages with respect to the 
     following projects:
       (1) Craig, Alaska, Craig Community Association, Point St. 
     Nicholas Road improvements.
       (2) Cordova, Alaska, Native Village of Eyak, Shepard's 
     Point Road improvements.
       (3) Hydaburg, Alaska, Hydaburg Community Association, 
     Hydaburg community street improvements.
       (4) Healy Lake, Alaska, Healy Lake Traditional, Cummings 
     Road improvements.
       (b) Special Rule.--For the villages listed in subsection 
     (a), the Indian reservation road program shall be 
     administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the rules 
     and regulations in effect before the adoption of the final 
     rule referred to in subsection (a), and the Secretary shall 
     pay, from amounts made available to carry out section 202(d) 
     of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year 2006 each of 
     the tribal organizations referred to in subsection (a) for 
     the Federal share of the costs of the projects listed in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 1940. GOING-TO-THE-SUN ROAD, GLACIER NATIONAL PARK, 
                   MONTANA.

       (a) Project Authorization.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) to resurface, repair, 
     rehabilitate, and reconstruct the Going-to-the-Sun Road at 
     Glacier National Park, Montana, in accordance with the 
     framework identified in Alternative 3 (shared use 
     alternative) of the environmental impact statement and record 
     of decision dated 2003 and relating to the Going-to-the-Sun 
     Road, to remain available until expended--
       (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (2) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (3) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (4) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (5) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the costs of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall be 100 percent.

     SEC. 1941. BEARTOOTH HIGHWAY, MONTANA.

       (a) Project Authorization.--Of funds made available for the 
     State of Montana for the project for development and 
     construction of United States Route 212, Red Lodge North, 
     Montana, as described in the table contained in section 1934 
     (including amounts transferred to the project under section 
     1935), on request of the State of Montana, the Secretary 
     shall obligate such sums as are necessary to reconstruct the 
     Beartooth Highway in the State of Montana.
       (b) Reimbursement.--The amounts used for reconstruction 
     under subsection (a) shall be reimbursed to the project 
     relating to United States Route 212 described in subsection 
     (a) on the date or dates on which funding is allocated for 
     the Beartooth Highway under section 125 of title 23, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share payable for funds 
     allocated for the Beartooth Highway under section 125 of such 
     title shall be 100 percent.

     SEC. 1942. OPENING OF AIRFIELD AT MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, 
                   MONTANA.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall--
       (1) open the airfield at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; 
     and
       (2) enable flying operations for all fixed-wing aircraft at 
     that base.

     SEC. 1943. GREAT LAKES ITS IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the 
     State of Wisconsin to continue intelligent transportation 
     system activities in the corridor serving the Greater 
     Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Chicago, Illinois, and Gary, Indiana, 
     areas initiated under the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240) and other areas 
     of the State of Wisconsin.
       (b) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and 
     $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 to carry out this section.
       (c) Contract Authority.--Funds made available to carry out 
     this section shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code.

     SEC. 1944. TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION AND REMEDIATION, 
                   OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall allocate to the State 
     of Oklahoma amounts made available to carry out this section 
     for the activities described in subsection (b).
       (b) Oklahoma Plan for Tar Creek.--The activities referred 
     to in subsection (a) are all activities described in the 
     Oklahoma Plan for Tar Creek, including activities under that 
     Plan that are to be carried out by involved Federal and State 
     entities.
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--
       (A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2006.
       (B) Availability.--Funds authorized to be appropriated 
     under subparagraph (A) shall remain available until expended.
       (2) Contract authority.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     this section, funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
     section shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
     as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (3) Title 23 eligibility.--Activities described in 
     subsection (b) shall be considered to be eligible for funding 
     under any program for which funds are apportioned under 
     section 104(b) of such title, as in effect on the day before 
     the date of enactment of this section.

     SEC. 1945. INFRASTRUCTURE AWARENESS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--In cooperation with the subcontracting 
     production entity that received funds under section 1212(b) 
     of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 
     Stat. 193), the Secretary shall fund the production of a 
     documentary about infrastructure that demonstrates 
     advancements in Alaska, the last frontier.
       (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     production of the documentary under subsection (a) shall be 
     100 percent.
       (c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated out of 
     the Highway Trust fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     to carry out this section $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2005 and 
     $1,450,000 for fiscal year 2006. Such fund shall remain 
     available until expended.
       (d) Applicability of Title 23.--Funds authorized by this 
     section shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
     as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 
     23, United State Code; except that the Federal share of the 
     cost of production of the documentary under this section 
     shall be determined in accordance with this section.

[[Page 18624]]



     SEC. 1946. GATEWAY RURAL IMPROVEMENT PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot 
     program in the State of Vermont to be known as the ``Gateway 
     Rural Improvement Pilot Program'' (referred to in this 
     section as the ``program'') to demonstrate the benefits to a 
     rural rail corridor of a freight transportation gateway 
     program.
       (b) Eligible Activities.--Under the program--
       (1) funding preference shall be given to selecting a 
     corridor in the State of Vermont that includes a border 
     crossing; and
       (2) individual projects shall provide community and highway 
     benefits by addressing economic, congestion, security, 
     safety, and environmental issues.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project under this section shall be determined in accordance 
     with section 120 of title 23, United States Code.
       (2) Non-federal share.--Project user fees may be used to 
     provide all or part of the non-Federal share of the cost of a 
     project funded under this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to such 
     amounts as are otherwise authorized to be appropriated for 
     the Department, there are authorized to be appropriated such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

     SEC. 1947. ELIGIBLE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 120(c) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     in the first sentence by inserting ``traffic circles (also 
     known as `roundabouts'),'' after ``traffic control 
     signalization,''.

     SEC. 1948. EMERGENCY SERVICE ROUTE.

       Notwithstanding any Federal law, regulation, or policy to 
     the contrary, no Federal funds shall be obligated or expended 
     for the demolition of the existing Brightman Street Bridge 
     connecting Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts, and the 
     existing Brightman Street Bridge shall be maintained for 
     pedestrian and bicycle access, and as an emergency service 
     route.

     SEC. 1949. KNIK ARM BRIDGE FUNDING CLARIFICATION.

       The Secretary shall provide to the public entity known as 
     the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, established by the 
     State of Alaska, funds provided in items 2465 and 3677 in the 
     table contained in section 1702, item 2 in the table 
     contained in section 1934, and item 14 in the table contained 
     in section 1302.

     SEC. 1950. LINCOLN PARISH, LA/I-20 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall credit non-Federal 
     expenditures paid on or after October 23, 2000, by project 
     sponsors of the Lincoln Parish transportation and community 
     and system preservation project funded by the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (Public Law 106-346), and the United States Route 167/I-20 
     interchange Interstate maintenance discretionary project 
     funded by the Department of Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-87), that 
     are in excess of the non-Federal matching requirements for 
     such projects as non-Federal contributions toward the non-
     Federal matching requirements for all LA/I-20 Transportation 
     Corridor Program elements between Louisiana Route 149 and 
     Louisiana Route 33.
       (b) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to provide 
     credit under subsection (a) expires on September 30, 2009.

     SEC. 1951. BONDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 332 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following:
       ``(e) Bonding Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Minority Resource Center established under subsection (b), 
     shall provide assistance in obtaining bid, payment, and 
     performance bonds by disadvantaged business enterprises 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(4).
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriation.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to carry out activities under 
     this subsection.''.

     SEC. 1952. CONGESTION RELIEF.

       The Secretary shall conduct a design and feasibility 
     analysis to alleviate southbound traffic congestion along the 
     George Washington Parkway, Virginia, between Interstate Route 
     495 and the 14th Street Bridge and shall take appropriate 
     action in response to the results of that analysis.

     SEC. 1953. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out, in 
     accordance with title 23, United States Code, projects under 
     section 1301 and 1302 of this Act.

     SEC. 1954. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS.

       Section 217(c) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``in conjunction with such trails, roads, 
     highways, and parkways''.

     SEC. 1955. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF ELY, NEVADA.

       Notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711, 1712), the 
     Secretary of Interior, acting through the Director of the 
     Bureau of Land Management, shall convey within 45 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act to the city of Ely, Nevada, 
     subject to valid existing rights, without consideration, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in the land 
     located within the railroad corridor described in rights-of-
     way numbered Nev-043230, Nev-043231, Nev-043232, Nev-43240, 
     Nev-043234, ELKO-03009, ELKO-03514, and CC-05887.

     SEC. 1956. BROWNFIELDS GRANTS.

       Section 104(k)(4)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9604(k)(4)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) Exception.--Notwithstanding clause (i)(IV), the 
     Administrator may use up to 25 percent of the funds made 
     available to carry out this subsection to make a grant or 
     loan under this subsection to eligible entities that satisfy 
     all of the elements set forth in section 101(40) to qualify 
     as a bona fide prospective purchaser, except that the date of 
     acquisition of the property was on or before January 11, 
     2002.''.

     SEC. 1957. TRAFFIC CIRCLE CONSTRUCTION, CLARENDON, VERMONT.

       (a) In General.--The State of Vermont agency of 
     transportation shall--
       (1) not later than August 1, 2005, commence planning for a 
     traffic circle at the intersection of United States Route 7 
     and Vermont Route 103 in Clarendon, Vermont; and
       (2) not later than August 1, 2007, complete construction of 
     that traffic circle.
       (b) Funding.--From amounts made available to the State of 
     Vermont by this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the State 
     of Vermont agency of transportation $1,000,000 for use in 
     carrying out this section.

     SEC. 1958. LIMITATION ON PROJECT APPROVAL.

       Notwithstanding any provision of title 23, United States 
     Code, the Secretary is prohibited from approving any Federal-
     aid highway project in Orange and Seminole Counties, Florida, 
     which provides access from Interstate Route 4 to the right-
     of-way or median of Interstate Route 4 if tolls or toll 
     facilities are used for the access to the right-of-way or 
     median.

     SEC. 1959. CROSS HARBOR FREIGHT MOVEMENT PROJECT.

       The Secretary shall provide to the public entity known as 
     the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, established by 
     the States of New York and New Jersey, funds provided for 
     project numbered 12 in section 1301 of this Act.

     SEC. 1960. DENALI ACCESS SYSTEM PROGRAM.

       The Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 3121 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 309 as section 310; and
       (2) by inserting after section 308 the following:

     ``SEC. 309. DENALI ACCESS SYSTEM PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment of the Denali Access System Program.--
     Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of the 
     SAFETEA-LU, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish a 
     program to pay the costs of planning, designing, engineering, 
     and constructing road and other surface transportation 
     infrastructure identified for the Denali access system 
     program under this section.
       ``(b) Denali Access System Program Advisory Committee.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 3 months after the 
     date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the Denali Commission 
     shall establish a Denali Access System Program Advisory 
     Committee (referred to in this section as the `advisory 
     committee') .
       ``(2) Membership.--The advisory committee shall be composed 
     of 9 members to be appointed by the Governor of the State of 
     Alaska as follows:
       ``(A) The chairman of the Denali Commission.
       ``(B) 4 members who represent existing regional native 
     corporations, native nonprofit entities, or tribal 
     governments, including one member who is a civil engineer.
       ``(C) 4 members who represent rural Alaska regions or 
     villages, including one member who is a civil engineer.
       ``(3) Terms.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except for the chairman of the 
     Commission who shall remain a member of the advisory 
     committee, members shall be appointed to serve a term of 4 
     years.
       ``(B) Initial members.--Except for the chairman of the 
     Commission, of the 8 initial members appointed to the 
     advisory committee, 2 shall be appointed for a term of 1 
     year, 2 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years, 2 shall be 
     appointed for a term of 3 years, and 2 shall be appointed for 
     a term of 4 years. All subsequent appointments shall be for 4 
     years.
       ``(4) Responsibilities.--The advisory committee shall be 
     responsible for the following activities:
       ``(A) Advising the Commission on the surface transportation 
     needs of Alaska Native villages and rural communities, 
     including projects for the construction of essential access 
     routes within remote Alaska Native villages and rural 
     communities and for the construction of roads and facilities 
     necessary to connect isolated rural communities to a road 
     system.
       ``(B) Advising the Commission on considerations for 
     coordinated transportation planning among the Alaska Native 
     villages, Alaska rural villages, the State of Alaska, and 
     other government entities.
       ``(C) Establishing a list of transportation priorities for 
     Alaska Native village and rural community transportation 
     projects on an annual basis, including funding 
     recommendations.
       ``(D) Facilitate the Commission's work on transportation 
     projects involving more than one region.
       ``(5) FACA exemption.--The provisions of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the 
     advisory committee.
       ``(c) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate funding 
     authorized and made available for the Denali access system 
     program to the Commission to carry out this section.
       ``(2) Distribution of funding.--In distributing funds for 
     surface transportation projects

[[Page 18625]]

     funded under the program, the Commission shall consult the 
     list of transportation priorities developed by the advisory 
     committee.
       ``(d) Preference to Alaska Materials and Products.--To 
     construct a project under this section, the Commission shall 
     encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of 
     employees and businesses that are residents of Alaska.
       ``(e) Design Standards.--Each project carried out under 
     this section shall use technology and design standards 
     determined by the Commission to be appropriate given the 
     location and the functionality of the project.
       ``(f) Maintenance.--Funding for a construction project 
     under this section may include an additional amount equal to 
     not more than 10 percent of the total cost of construction, 
     to be retained for future maintenance of the project. All 
     such retained funds shall be dedicated for maintenance of the 
     project and may not be used for other purposes.
       ``(g) Lead Agency Designation.--For purposes of projects 
     carried out under this section, the Commission shall be 
     designated as the lead agency for purposes of accepting 
     Federal funds and for purposes of carrying out this project.
       ``(h) Non-Federal Share.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, funds made available to carry out this 
     section may be used to meet the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of projects under title 23, United States Code.
       ``(i) Surface Transportation Program Transferability.--
       ``(1) Transferability.--In any fiscal year, up to 15 
     percent of the amounts made available to the State of Alaska 
     for surface transportation by section 133 of title 23, United 
     States Code, may be transferred to the Denali access system 
     program.
       ``(2) No effect on set-aside.--Paragraph (2) of section 
     133(d), United States Code, shall not apply to funds 
     transferred under paragraph (1).
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
     Account) to carry out this section $15,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       ``(2) Applicability of title 23.--Funds made available to 
     carry out this section shall be available for obligation in 
     the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that such 
     funds shall not be transferable and shall remain available 
     until expended, and the Federal share of the cost of any 
     project carried out using such funds shall be determined in 
     accordance with section 120(b).''.

     SEC. 1961. I-95/CONTEE ROAD INTERCHANGE STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the 
     I-95/Contee Road relocated interchange project located in 
     Prince George's County, Maryland. The study shall assess how 
     the proposed interchange will--
       (1) leverage Federal investment in the I-95/Contee Road 
     relocated interchange project by encouraging a public-private 
     partnership between the State of Maryland and the private 
     financial interests supporting the project;
       (2) improve overall transportation efficiency in the area 
     and enhance fire, rescue, and emergency response in the area;
       (3) complement planned development in the area by providing 
     sufficient access to the Interstate System; and
       (4) otherwise provide public benefits and revenues.
       (b) Data Collection.--As part of the study, the Secretary 
     shall collect data regarding the economic impact of the 
     project, including new jobs and State and county revenues in 
     the form of real estate property taxes, retail sales taxes, 
     and income and hotel sales and occupancy taxes.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the 
     study, including any recommendations of the Secretary.
       (d) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, out of the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), 
     $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (2) Contract authority.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this section shall be available for 
     obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as if 
     such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code; except that the Federal share of the cost 
     of the project shall be 100 percent, and such funds shall 
     remain available until expended and shall not be 
     transferable.

     SEC. 1962. MULTIMODAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--The Secretary shall 
     make available from funds in the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009 for multimodal facility improvements, 
     construction, and ferry acquisition by North Bay Ferry 
     Service, Inc., located at Port Sonoma in Petaluma, 
     California.
       (b) Contract Authority.--Funds appropriated to carry out 
     this section shall be available for obligation in the same 
     manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, except that such funds shall 
     remain available until expended.
       (c) Limitation.--Not more than 50 percent of funds 
     appropriated to carry out this section shall be used for 
     facility improvements and construction.
       (d) Federal Share.--The Federal Share of the cost of a 
     facility improvement or construction project under this 
     section shall be 80 percent.
       (e) Requirement.--Ferries to which assistance is provided 
     under this section shall be purchased by a United States 
     company that designs and builds vessels in the United States.

     SEC. 1963. APOLLO THEATER LEASES.

       Notwithstanding the Public Works and Economic Development 
     Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.), or any other provision 
     of law, the Economic Development Administration shall, in 
     order to facilitate the further financing of the project, 
     approve, without compensation to the agency, a series of 
     leases of the Apollo Theater, located in Harlem, New York, to 
     be improved by Economic Development Administration project 
     numbers 01-01-7308 and 01-01-07552.

     SEC. 1964. PROJECT FEDERAL SHARE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, only for the States of Alaska, Montana, Nevada, North 
     Dakota, Oregon, and South Dakota, the Federal share of the 
     cost of a project described in subsection (b) shall be 
     determined in accordance with section 120(b) of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Projects.--The projects described in this subsection 
     are--
       (1) the projects listed in section 1702;
       (2) the projects listed in section 1301; and
       (3) the projects listed in section 1934.

                        TITLE II--HIGHWAY SAFETY

     SEC. 2001. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following sums are authorized to be 
     appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account):
       (1) Highway safety programs.--For carrying out section 402 
     of title 23, United States Code, $163,680,000 for fiscal year 
     2005, $217,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $220,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $225,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $235,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (2) Highway safety research and development.--For carrying 
     out section 403 of title 23, United States Code, $71,424,000 
     for fiscal year 2005, $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $107,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $107,750,000 for fiscal 
     year 2008, and $105,500,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (3) Occupant protection incentive grants.--For carrying out 
     section 405 of title 23, United States Code, $19,840,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2008, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (4) Safety belt performance grants.--For carrying out 
     section 406 of title 23, United States Code, $124,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, $124,500,000 for fiscal year 2007, 
     $124,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $124,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009.
       (5) State traffic safety information system improvements.--
     For carrying out section 408 of title 23, United States Code, 
     $34,500,000 for fiscal year 2006, $34,500,000 for fiscal year 
     2007, $34,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $34,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009.
       (6) Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive 
     grant program.--For carrying out section 410 of title 23, 
     United States Code, $39,680,000 for fiscal year 2005, 
     $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $125,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, $131,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $139,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (7) National driver register.--For the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration to carry out chapter 303 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $3,968,000 for fiscal year 
     2005, $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $4,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007, $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $4,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2009.
       (8) High visibility enforcement program.--For carrying out 
     section 2009 of this title $29,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $29,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $29,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2008, and $29,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (9) Motorcyclist safety.--For carrying out section 2010 of 
     this title $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $6,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (10) Child safety and child booster seat safety incentive 
     grants.--For carrying out section 2011 of this title 
     $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $6,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2007, $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $7,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009.
       (11) Administrative expenses.--For administrative and 
     related operating expenses of the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration in carrying out chapter 4 of title 23, 
     United States Code, and this title $17,500,000 for fiscal 
     year 2006, $17,750,000 for fiscal year 2007, $18,250,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008, and $18,500,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (b) Prohibition on Other Uses.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code, and 
     this title, (including the amendments made by this title), 
     the amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund (other 
     than the Mass Transit Account) for a program under such 
     chapter shall only be used to carry out such program and may 
     not be used by States or local governments for construction 
     purposes.
       (c) Applicability of Title 23.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code, and 
     this title, amounts made available under subsection (a) for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 shall be available

[[Page 18626]]

     for obligation in the same manner as if such funds were 
     apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code.
       (d) Transfers.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary may 
     transfer any amounts remaining available under paragraph (3), 
     (5), or (6) of subsection (a) to the amounts made available 
     under any other of such paragraphs in order to ensure, to the 
     maximum extent possible, that each State receives the maximum 
     incentive funding for which the State is eligible under 
     sections 405, 408, and 410 of title 23, United States Code.
       (e) Clarifications.--The amounts made available by each of 
     subsections (a)(1) through (a)(7) shall be less any amounts 
     made available from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account) by laws enacted before the date of 
     enactment of this Act for the respective programs referred to 
     in each of such subsections for fiscal year 2005. Amounts 
     authorized by such subsections are post-rescission and shall 
     not be subject to any rescission after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 2002. HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Programs to Be Included.--Section 402(a) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in clause (2) by striking ``and to increase public 
     awareness of the benefit of motor vehicles equipped with 
     airbags'';
       (2) by redesignating clause (6) as clause (7);
       (3) by inserting after clause (5) the following: ``(6) to 
     reduce accidents resulting from unsafe driving behavior 
     (including aggressive or fatigued driving and distracted 
     driving arising from the use of electronic devices in 
     vehicles)''; and
       (4) in the 10th sentence by inserting ``aggressive driving, 
     fatigued driving, distracted driving,'' after ``school bus 
     accidents,''
       (b) Administration of State Programs.--Section 402(b)(1) of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating clause (6) as clause (7);
       (3) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``State.'' and 
     inserting ``State; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) provide satisfactory assurances that the State will 
     implement activities in support of national highway safety 
     goals to reduce motor vehicle related fatalities that also 
     reflect the primary data-related crash factors within a State 
     as identified by the State highway safety planning process, 
     including--
       ``(i) national law enforcement mobilizations;
       ``(ii) sustained enforcement of statutes addressing 
     impaired driving, occupant protection, and driving in excess 
     of posted speed limits;
       ``(iii) an annual statewide safety belt use survey in 
     accordance with criteria established by the Secretary for the 
     measurement of State safety belt use rates to ensure that the 
     measurements are accurate and representative; and
       ``(iv) development of statewide data systems to provide 
     timely and effective data analysis to support allocation of 
     highway safety resources.''.
       (c) Deduction Deletion.--Section 402(c) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the second sentence; and
       (2) in the sixth sentence by striking ``three-fourths of 1 
     percent'' and inserting ``2 percent''.
       (d) Law Enforcement and Consolidation of Applications.--
     Section 402 of such title is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(l) Law Enforcement Vehicular Pursuit Training.--A State 
     shall actively encourage all relevant law enforcement 
     agencies in such State to follow the guidelines established 
     for vehicular pursuits issued by the International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police that are in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this subsection or as revised and in 
     effect after such date as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(m) Consolidation of Grant Applications.--The Secretary 
     shall establish an approval process by which a State may 
     apply for all grants under this chapter through a single 
     application process with one annual deadline. The Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs shall establish a similar simplified process 
     for applications for grants from Indian tribes under this 
     chapter.''.
       (e) Conforming Repeal for Administrative Expenses.--Section 
     405(d) of such title is repealed.

     SEC. 2003. HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS.

       (a) Revised Authority and Requirements.--Section 403(a) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Authority of the Secretary.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to use funds appropriated to carry out this 
     section to--
       ``(1) conduct research on all phases of highway safety and 
     traffic conditions, including accident causation, highway or 
     driver characteristics, communications, and emergency care;
       ``(2) conduct ongoing research into driver behavior and its 
     effect on traffic safety;
       ``(3) conduct research on, launch initiatives to counter, 
     and conduct demonstration projects on fatigued driving by 
     drivers of motor vehicles and distracted driving in such 
     vehicles, including the effect that the use of electronic 
     devices and other factors deemed relevant by the Secretary 
     have on driving;
       ``(4) conduct training or education programs in cooperation 
     with other Federal departments and agencies, States, private 
     sector persons, highway safety personnel, and law enforcement 
     personnel;
       ``(5) conduct research on, and evaluate the effectiveness 
     of, traffic safety countermeasures, including seat belts and 
     impaired driving initiatives;
       ``(6) conduct research on, evaluate, and develop best 
     practices related to driver education programs (including 
     driver education curricula, instructor training and 
     certification, program administration and delivery 
     mechanisms) and make recommendations for harmonizing driver 
     education and multistage graduated licensing systems;
       ``(7) conduct research, training, and education programs 
     related to older drivers;
       ``(8) conduct demonstration projects; and
       ``(9) conduct research, training, and programs relating to 
     motorcycle safety, including impaired driving.''
       (b) International Cooperation.--Section 403 of such title 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) International Cooperation.--The Administrator of the 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration may 
     participate and cooperate in international activities to 
     enhance highway safety.''.
       (c) On-Scene Motor Vehicle Collision Causation.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct under section 403 
     of title 23, United States Code, a nationally representative 
     study to collect on-scene motor vehicle collision data and to 
     determine crash causation. The Secretary shall enter into a 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
     review of the research, design, methodology, and 
     implementation of the study.
       (2) Consultation.--The study under this subsection may be 
     conducted in consultation with other Federal departments and 
     agencies with relevant expertise.
       (3) Final report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report on 
     the results of the study conducted under this subsection to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (d) Research on Distracted, Inattentive, and Fatigued 
     Drivers.--In conducting research under section 403(a)(3) of 
     title 23, United States Code, the Secretary shall carry out 
     not less than 2 demonstration projects to evaluate new and 
     innovative means of combating traffic system problems caused 
     by distracted, inattentive, or fatigued drivers. The 
     demonstration projects shall be in addition to any other 
     research carried out under such section.
       (e) Pedestrian Safety.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) produce a comprehensive report on pedestrian safety 
     that builds on the current level of knowledge of pedestrian 
     safety countermeasures by identifying the most effective 
     advanced technology and intelligent transportation systems, 
     such as automated pedestrian detection and warning systems 
     (infrastructure-based and vehicle-based), road design, and 
     vehicle structural design that could potentially mitigate the 
     crash forces on pedestrians in the event of a crash; and
       (B) include in the report recommendations on how new 
     technological developments could be incorporated into 
     educational and enforcement efforts and how they could be 
     integrated into national design guidelines developed by the 
     American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
     Officials.
       (2) Due date.--The Secretary shall complete the report 
     under this subsection not less than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and submit a copy of the report to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (f)  Refusal of Intoxication Testing.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall carry out under section 403 
     of title 23, United States Code, a study of the frequency 
     with which persons arrested for the offense of operating a 
     motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and 
     persons arrested for the offense of operating a motor vehicle 
     while intoxicated refuse to take a test to determine blood 
     alcohol concentration levels and the effect such refusals 
     have on the ability of States to prosecute such persons for 
     those offenses.
       (2) Consultation.--In carrying out the study under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall consult with the Governors of 
     the States, the States' Attorneys General, and the United 
     States Sentencing Commission.
       (3) Report.--
       (A) Requirement for report.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit a report on the results of the study to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (B) Content.--The report shall include any recommendation 
     for legislation, including any recommended model State 
     legislation, and any other recommendations that the Secretary 
     considers appropriate for implementing a program designed to 
     decrease the occurrence of refusals by arrested persons to 
     submit to a test to determine blood alcohol concentration 
     levels.
       (g) Impaired Motorcycle Driving.--
       (1) Studying.--In conducting research under section 
     403(a)(9) of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary 
     shall conduct a study on educational, public information and 
     other activities targeted at reducing motorcycle accidents 
     and resulting fatalities and injuries, where the operator of 
     the motorcycle is impaired.

[[Page 18627]]

       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of 
     the study, including the data collected and statistics 
     compiled and recommendations to reduce the number of 
     motorcycle accidents described in paragraph (1) and the 
     resulting fatalities and injuries.
       (h) Reducing Impaired Driving Recidivism.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on reducing 
     the incidence of alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes and 
     fatalities through research of advanced vehicle-based alcohol 
     detection systems, including an assessment of the 
     practicability and cost effectiveness of such systems.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of 
     the study.

     SEC. 2004. OCCUPANT PROTECTION INCENTIVE GRANTS.

       (a) General Authority.--Section 405(a) of title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended-
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century'' and inserting ``SAFETEA-LU'';
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``1997'' and inserting 
     ``2003''; and
       (3) in each of paragraphs (4)(A), (4)(B), and (4)(C) by 
     inserting after ``years'' the following: ``beginning after 
     September 30, 2003,''.
       (c) Grant Amounts.--Section 405(c) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``25 percent'' and inserting ``100 
     percent''; and
       (2) by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``2003''.

     SEC. 2005. GRANTS FOR PRIMARY SAFETY BELT USE LAWS.

       (a) In General.--Section 406 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 406. Safety belt performance grants

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     States in accordance with the provisions of this section to 
     encourage the enactment and enforcement of laws requiring the 
     use of safety belts in passenger motor vehicles.
       ``(b) Grants for Enacting Primary Safety Belt Use Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make a single grant 
     to each State that either--
       ``(A) enacts for the first time after December 31, 2002, 
     and has in effect and is enforcing a conforming primary 
     safety belt use law for all passenger motor vehicles; or
       ``(B) in the case of a State that does not have such a 
     primary safety belt use law, has after December 31, 2005, a 
     State safety belt use rate of 85 percent or more for each of 
     the 2 calendar years immediately preceding the fiscal year of 
     a grant, as measured under criteria determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Amount.--The amount of a grant available to a State 
     in fiscal year 2006 or in a subsequent fiscal year under 
     paragraph (1) shall equal 475 percent of the amount 
     apportioned to the State under section 402(c) for fiscal year 
     2003.
       ``(3) July 1 cut-off.--For the purpose of determining the 
     eligibility of a State for a grant under paragraph (1)(A), a 
     conforming primary safety belt use law enacted after June 
     30th of any year shall--
       ``(A) not be considered to have been enacted in the Federal 
     fiscal year in which that June 30th falls; but
       ``(B) be considered as if it were enacted after October 1 
     of the next Federal fiscal year.
       ``(4) Shortfall.--If the total amount of grants provided 
     for by this subsection for a fiscal year exceeds the amount 
     of funds available for such grants for that fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall make grants under this subsection to States 
     in the order in which--
       ``(A) the conforming primary safety belt use law came into 
     effect; or
       ``(B) the State's safety belt use rate was 85 percent or 
     more for 2 consecutive calendar years (as measured under by 
     criteria determined by the Secretary), whichever first 
     occurs.
       ``(5) Catch-up grants.--The Secretary shall make a grant to 
     any State eligible for a grant under this subsection that did 
     not receive a grant for a fiscal year because of the 
     application of paragraph (4), in the next fiscal year if the 
     State's conforming primary safety belt use law remains in 
     effect or its safety belt use rate is 85 percent or more for 
     the 2 consecutive calendar years preceding such next fiscal 
     year (subject to the condition in paragraph (4)).
       ``(c) Grants for Pre-2003 Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the extent that amounts made 
     available for grants under this section for any of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009 exceed the total amount of grants to 
     be awarded under subsection (b) for the fiscal year, 
     including amounts to be awarded for catch-up grants under 
     subsection (b)(5), the Secretary shall make a single grant to 
     each State that enacted, has in effect, and is enforcing a 
     conforming primary safety belt use law for all passenger 
     motor vehicles that was in effect before January 1, 2003.
       ``(2) Amount; installments.--The amount of a grant 
     available to a State under this subsection shall be equal to 
     200 percent of the amount of funds apportioned to the State 
     under section 402(c) for fiscal year 2003. The Secretary may 
     award the grant in annual installments.
       ``(d) Allocation of Unallocated Funds.--
       ``(1) Additional grants.--The Secretary shall make 
     additional grants under this section of any amounts made 
     available for grants under this section that, on July 1, 
     2009, have not been allocated to States under this section.
       ``(2) Allocation.--The additional grants made under this 
     subsection shall be allocated among all States that, as of 
     that date, have enacted, have in effect, and are enforcing 
     conforming primary safety belt laws for all passenger motor 
     vehicles. The allocations shall be made in accordance with 
     the formula for apportioning funds among the States under 
     section 402(c).
       ``(e) Use of Grant Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a State may 
     use a grant under this section for any safety purpose under 
     this title or for any project that corrects or improves a 
     hazardous roadway location or feature or proactively 
     addresses highway safety problems, including--
       ``(A) intersection improvements;
       ``(B) pavement and shoulder widening;
       ``(C) installation of rumble strips and other warning 
     devices;
       ``(D) improving skid resistance;
       ``(E) improvements for pedestrian or bicyclist safety;
       ``(F) railway-highway crossing safety;
       ``(G) traffic calming;
       ``(H) the elimination of roadside obstacles;
       ``(I) improving highway signage and pavement marking;
       ``(J) installing priority control systems for emergency 
     vehicles at signalized intersections;
       ``(K) installing traffic control or warning devices at 
     locations with high accident potential;
       ``(L) safety-conscious planning; and
       ``(M) improving crash data collection and analysis.
       ``(2) Safety activity requirement.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that at least 
     $1,000,000 of amounts received by States under this section 
     are obligated for safety activities under this chapter.
       ``(3) Support activity.--The Secretary or his designee may 
     engage in activities with States and State legislators to 
     consider proposals related to safety belt use laws.
       ``(f) Carry-Forward of Excess Funds.--If the amount 
     available for grants under this section for any fiscal year 
     exceeds the sum of the grants made under this section for 
     that fiscal year, the excess amount and obligational 
     authority shall be carried forward and made available for 
     grants under this section in the succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(g) Federal Share.--The Federal share payable for grants 
     under this section shall be 100 percent.
       ``(h) Passenger Motor Vehicle Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `passenger motor vehicle' means--
       ``(1) a passenger car;
       ``(2) a pickup truck; and
       ``(3) a van, minivan, or sport utility vehicle with a gross 
     vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 4 of such 
     title is amended by striking the item relating to section 406 
     and inserting the following:

``406. Safety belt performance grants.''.

     SEC. 2006. STATE TRAFFIC SAFETY INFORMATION SYSTEM 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 408 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 408. State traffic safety information system 
       improvements

       ``(a) Grant Authority.--Subject to the requirements of this 
     section, the Secretary shall make grants to eligible States 
     to support the development and implementation of effective 
     programs by such States to--
       ``(1) improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, 
     uniformity, integration, and accessibility of the safety data 
     of the State that is needed to identify priorities for 
     national, State, and local highway and traffic safety 
     programs;
       ``(2) evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to make such 
     improvements;
       ``(3) link the State data systems, including traffic 
     records, with other data systems within the State, such as 
     systems that contain medical, roadway, and economic data; and
       ``(4) improve the compatibility and interoperability of the 
     data systems of the State with national data systems and data 
     systems of other States and enhance the ability of the 
     Secretary to observe and analyze national trends in crash 
     occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances.
       ``(b) First-Year Grants.--To be eligible for a first-year 
     grant under this section in a fiscal year, a State shall 
     demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the 
     State has--
       ``(1) established a highway safety data and traffic records 
     coordinating committee with a multidisciplinary membership 
     that includes, among others, managers, collectors, and users 
     of traffic records and public health and injury control data 
     systems; and
       ``(2) developed a multiyear highway safety data and traffic 
     records system strategic plan--
       ``(A) that addresses existing deficiencies in the State's 
     highway safety data and traffic records system;
       ``(B) that is approved by the highway safety data and 
     traffic records coordinating committee;
       ``(C) that specifies how existing deficiencies in the 
     State's highway safety data and traffic records system were 
     identified;

[[Page 18628]]

       ``(D) that prioritizes, on the basis of the identified 
     highway safety data and traffic records system deficiencies 
     of the State, the highway safety data and traffic records 
     system needs and goals of the State, including the activities 
     under subsection (a);
       ``(E) that identifies performance-based measures by which 
     progress toward those goals will be determined; and
       ``(F) that specifies how the grant funds and any other 
     funds of the State are to be used to address needs and goals 
     identified in the multiyear plan.
       ``(c) Successive Year Grants.--A State shall be eligible 
     for a grant under this subsection in a fiscal year succeeding 
     the first fiscal year in which the State receives a grant 
     under subsection (b) if the State--
       ``(1) certifies to the Secretary that an assessment or 
     audit of the State's highway safety data and traffic records 
     system has been conducted or updated within the preceding 5 
     years;
       ``(2) certifies to the Secretary that its highway safety 
     data and traffic records coordinating committee continues to 
     operate and supports the multiyear plan;
       ``(3) specifies how the grant funds and any other funds of 
     the State are to be used to address needs and goals 
     identified in the multiyear plan;
       ``(4) demonstrates to the Secretary measurable progress 
     toward achieving the goals and objectives identified in the 
     multiyear plan; and
       ``(5) submits to the Secretary a current report on the 
     progress in implementing the multiyear plan.
       ``(d) Grant Amount.--Subject to subsection (e)(3), the 
     amount of a year grant made to a State for a fiscal year 
     under this section shall equal the higher of--
       ``(1) the amount determined by multiplying--
       ``(A) the amount appropriated to carry out this section for 
     such fiscal year, by
       ``(B) the ratio that the funds apportioned to the State 
     under section 402 for fiscal year 2003 bears to the funds 
     apportioned to all States under such section for fiscal year 
     2003; or
       ``(2)(A) $300,000 in the case of the first fiscal year a 
     grant is made to a State under this section after the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph; or
       ``(B) $500,000 in the case of a succeeding fiscal year a 
     grant is made to the State under this section after such date 
     of enactment.
       ``(e) Additional Requirements and Limitations.--
       ``(1) Model data elements.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with States and other appropriate parties, shall determine 
     the model data elements that are useful for the observation 
     and analysis of State and national trends in occurrences, 
     rates, outcomes, and circumstances of motor vehicle traffic 
     accidents. In order to be eligible for a grant under this 
     section, a State shall submit to the Secretary a 
     certification that the State has adopted and uses such model 
     data elements, or a certification that the State will use 
     grant funds provided under this section toward adopting and 
     using the maximum number of such model data elements as soon 
     as practicable.
       ``(2) Data on use of electronic devices.--The model data 
     elements required under paragraph (1) shall include data 
     elements, as determined appropriate by the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the States and appropriate elements of the 
     law enforcement community, on the impact on traffic safety of 
     the use of electronic devices while driving.
       ``(3) Maintenance of effort.--No grant may be made to a 
     State under this section in any fiscal year unless the State 
     enters into such agreements with the Secretary as the 
     Secretary may require to ensure that the State will maintain 
     its aggregate expenditures from all other sources for highway 
     safety data programs at or above the average level of such 
     expenditures maintained by such State in the 2 fiscal years 
     preceding the date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU.
       ``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     adopting and implementing in a fiscal year a State program 
     described in subsection (a) may not exceed 80 percent.
       ``(5) Limitation on use of grant proceeds.--A State may use 
     the proceeds of a grant received under this section only to 
     implement the program described in subsection (a) for which 
     the grant is made.
       ``(f) Applicability of Chapter 1.--Section 402(d) of this 
     title shall apply in the administration of this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 4 of such 
     title is amended by striking the item relating to section 408 
     and inserting the following:

``408. State traffic safety information system improvements.''.

     SEC. 2007. ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING COUNTERMEASURES.

       (a) Maintenance of Effort.--Section 410(a)(2) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``under this section'' and inserting 
     ``under this subsection''; and
       (2) by striking ``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century'' and inserting ``SAFETEA-LU''.
       (b) Revised Grant Authority.--Section 410 of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
       (C) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated) by striking the 
     second comma following ``sixth'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (h) and (i), respectively;
       (3) by striking subsections (b) through (d) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Eligibility Requirements.--To be eligible for a grant 
     under subsection (a), a State shall--
       ``(1) have an alcohol related fatality rate of 0.5 or less 
     per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled as of the date of the 
     grant, as determined by the Secretary using the most recent 
     Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration; or
       ``(2)(A) for fiscal year 2006 by carrying out 3 of the 
     programs and activities under subsection (c);
       ``(B) for fiscal year 2007 by carrying out 4 of the 
     programs and activities under subsection (c); or
       ``(C) for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 by carrying out 5 of 
     the programs and activities under subsection (c).
       ``(c) State Programs and Activities.--The programs and 
     activities referred to in subsection (b) are the following:
       ``(1) Check point, saturation patrol program.--A State 
     program to conduct a series of high visibility, Statewide law 
     enforcement campaigns in which law enforcement personnel 
     monitor for impaired driving, either through the use of 
     sobriety check points or saturation patrols, on a 
     nondiscriminatory, lawful basis for the purpose of 
     determining whether the operators of the motor vehicles are 
     driving while under the influence of alcohol--
       ``(A) if the State organizes the campaigns in cooperation 
     with related periodic national campaigns organized by the 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, except that 
     this subparagraph does not preclude a State from initiating 
     sustained high visibility, Statewide law enforcement 
     campaigns independently of the cooperative efforts; and
       ``(B) if, for each fiscal year, the State demonstrates to 
     the Secretary that the State and the political subdivisions 
     of the State that receive funds under this section have 
     increased, in the aggregate, the total number of impaired 
     driving law enforcement activities at high incident locations 
     (or any other similar activity approved by the Secretary) 
     initiated in such State during the preceding fiscal year by a 
     factor that the Secretary determines meaningful for the State 
     over the number of such activities initiated in such State 
     during the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Prosecution and adjudication outreach program.--A 
     State prosecution and adjudication program under which--
       ``(A) the State works to reduce the use of diversion 
     programs by educating and informing prosecutors and judges 
     through various outreach methods about the benefits and 
     merits of prosecuting and adjudicating defendants who 
     repeatedly commit impaired driving offenses;
       ``(B) the courts in a majority of the judicial 
     jurisdictions of the State are monitored on the courts' 
     adjudication of cases of impaired driving offenses; or
       ``(C) annual statewide outreach is provided for judges and 
     prosecutors on innovative approaches to the prosecution and 
     adjudication of cases of impaired driving offenses that have 
     the potential for significantly improving the prosecution and 
     adjudication of such cases.
       ``(3) Testing of bac.--An effective system for increasing 
     from the previous year the rate of blood alcohol 
     concentration testing of motor vehicle drivers involved in 
     fatal accidents.
       ``(4) High risk drivers.--A law that establishes stronger 
     sanctions or additional penalties for individuals convicted 
     of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of 
     alcohol whose blood alcohol concentration is 0.15 percent or 
     more than for individuals convicted of the same offense but 
     with a lower blood alcohol concentration. For purposes of 
     this paragraph, `additional penalties' includes--
       ``(A) a 1 year suspension of a driver's license, but with 
     the individual whose license is suspended becoming eligible 
     after 45 days of such suspension to obtain a provisional 
     driver's license that would permit the individual to drive--
       ``(i) only to and from the individual's place of employment 
     or school; and
       ``(ii) only in an automobile equipped with a certified 
     alcohol ignition interlock device; and
       ``(B) a mandatory assessment by a certified substance abuse 
     official of whether the individual has an alcohol abuse 
     problem with possible referral to counseling if the official 
     determines that such a referral is appropriate.
       ``(5) Programs for effective alcohol rehabilitation and dwi 
     courts.--A program for effective inpatient and outpatient 
     alcohol rehabilitation based on mandatory assessment and 
     appropriate treatment for repeat offenders or a program to 
     refer impaired driving cases to courts that specialize in 
     driving while impaired cases that emphasize the close 
     supervision of high-risk offenders.
       ``(6) Underage drinking program.--An effective strategy, as 
     determined by the Secretary, for preventing operators of 
     motor vehicles under age 21 from obtaining alcoholic 
     beverages and for preventing persons from making alcoholic 
     beverages available to individuals under age 21. Such a 
     strategy may include--
       ``(A) the issuance of tamper-resistant drivers' licenses to 
     individuals under age 21 that are easily distinguishable in 
     appearance from drivers' licenses issued to individuals age 
     21 or older; and
       ``(B) a program provided by a nonprofit organization for 
     training point of sale personnel concerning, at a minimum--
       ``(i) the clinical effects of alcohol;

[[Page 18629]]

       ``(ii) methods of preventing second party sales of alcohol;
       ``(iii) recognizing signs of intoxication;
       ``(iv) methods to prevent underage drinking; and
       ``(v) Federal, State, and local laws that are relevant to 
     such personnel; and
       ``(C) having a law in effect that creates a 0.02 percent 
     blood alcohol content limit for drivers under 21 years old.
       ``(7) Administrative license revocation.--An administrative 
     driver's license suspension or revocation system for 
     individuals who operate motor vehicles while under the 
     influence of alcohol that requires that--
       ``(A) in the case of an individual who, in any 5-year 
     period beginning after the date of enactment of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, is determined 
     on the basis of a chemical test to have been operating a 
     motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or is 
     determined to have refused to submit to such a test as 
     proposed by a law enforcement officer, the State agency 
     responsible for administering drivers' licenses, upon receipt 
     of the report of the law enforcement officer--
       ``(i) suspend the driver's license of such individual for a 
     period of not less than 90 days if such individual is a first 
     offender in such 5-year period; except that under such 
     suspension an individual may operate a motor vehicle, after 
     the 15-day period beginning on the date of the suspension, to 
     and from employment, school, or an alcohol treatment program 
     if an ignition interlock device is installed on each of the 
     motor vehicles owned or operated, or both, by the individual; 
     and
       ``(ii) suspend the driver's license of such individual for 
     a period of not less than 1 year, or revoke such license, if 
     such individual is a repeat offender in such 5-year period; 
     except that such individual to operate a motor vehicle, after 
     the 45-day period beginning on the date of the suspension or 
     revocation, to and from employment, school, or an alcohol 
     treatment program if an ignition interlock device is 
     installed on each of the motor vehicles owned or operated, or 
     both, by the individual; and
       ``(B) the suspension and revocation referred to under 
     clause (i) take effect not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which the individual refused to submit to a chemical test 
     or received notice of having been determined to be driving 
     under the influence of alcohol, in accordance with the 
     procedures of the State.
       ``(8) Self sustaining impaired driving prevention 
     program.--A program under which a significant portion of the 
     fines or surcharges collected from individuals who are fined 
     for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of 
     alcohol are returned to communities for comprehensive 
     programs for the prevention of impaired driving.
       ``(d) Uses of Grants.--Subject to subsection (g)(2), grants 
     made under this section may be used for all programs and 
     activities described in subsection (c), and to defray the 
     following costs:
       ``(1) Labor costs, management costs, and equipment 
     procurement costs for the high visibility, Statewide law 
     enforcement campaigns under subsection (c)(1).
       ``(2) The costs of the training of law enforcement 
     personnel and the procurement of technology and equipment, 
     including video equipment and passive alcohol sensors, to 
     counter directly impaired operation of motor vehicles.
       ``(3) The costs of public awareness, advertising, and 
     educational campaigns that publicize use of sobriety check 
     points or increased law enforcement efforts to counter 
     impaired operation of motor vehicles.
       ``(4) The costs of public awareness, advertising, and 
     educational campaigns that target impaired operation of motor 
     vehicles by persons under 34 years of age.
       ``(5) The costs of the development and implementation of a 
     State impaired operator information system.
       ``(6) The costs of operating programs that result in 
     vehicle forfeiture or impoundment or license plate 
     impoundment.
       ``(e) Additional Authorities for Certain Authorized Uses.--
       ``(1) Combination of grant proceeds.--Grant funds used for 
     a campaign under subsection (d)(3) may be combined, or 
     expended in coordination, with proceeds of grants under 
     section 402.
       ``(2) Coordination of uses.--Grant funds used for a 
     campaign under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (d) may be 
     expended--
       ``(A) in coordination with employers, schools, entities in 
     the hospitality industry, and nonprofit traffic safety 
     groups; and
       ``(B) in coordination with sporting events and concerts and 
     other entertainment events.
       ``(f) Allocation.--Subject to subsection (g), funds made 
     available to carry out this section shall be allocated among 
     States that meet the eligibility criteria in subsection (b) 
     on the basis of the apportionment formula under section 
     402(c).
       ``(g) Grants to High Fatality Rate States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make a separate 
     grant under this section to each state that--
       ``(A) is among the 10 States with the highest impaired 
     driving related fatalities as determined by the Secretary 
     using the most recent Fatality Analysis Reporting System of 
     the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and
       ``(B) prepares a plan for grant expenditures under this 
     subsection that is approved by the Administrator of the 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
       ``(2) Required uses.--At least one-half of the amounts 
     allocated to States under this subsection may only be used 
     for the program described in subsection (c)(1).
       ``(3) Allocation.--Funds made available under this 
     subsection shall be allocated among States described in 
     paragraph (1) on the basis of the apportionment formula under 
     section 402(c), except that no State shall be allocated more 
     than 30 percent of the funds made available to carry out this 
     subsection for a fiscal year.
       ``(4) Funding.--Not more than 15 percent per fiscal year of 
     amounts made available to carry out this section for a fiscal 
     year shall be made available by the Secretary for making 
     grants under this subsection.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end of subsection (i) (as redesignated 
     by paragraph (2)) the following:
       ``(4) Impaired operator.-- The term `impaired operator' 
     means a person who, while operating a motor vehicle
       ``(A) has a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or 
     higher; or
       ``(B) is under the influence of a controlled substance.
       ``(5) Impaired driving related fatality rate.--The term 
     `impaired driving related fatality rate' means the rate of 
     alcohol related fatalities, as calculated in accordance with 
     regulations which the Administrator of the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration shall prescribe.''.
       (c) NHTSA to Issue Regulations.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration shall issue guidelines to the 
     States specifying the types and formats of data that States 
     should collect relating to drivers who are arrested or 
     convicted for violation of laws prohibiting the impaired 
     operation of motor vehicles.

     SEC. 2008. NHTSA ACCOUNTABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 412. Agency accountability

       ``(a) Triennial State Management Reviews.--At least once 
     every 3 years the Secretary shall conduct a review of each 
     State highway safety program. The review shall include a 
     management evaluation of all grant programs funded under this 
     chapter. The Secretary shall provide review-based 
     recommendations on how each State could improve the 
     management and oversight of its grant activities and may 
     provide a management and oversight plan for such grant 
     programs.
       ``(b) Recommendations Before Submission.--In order to 
     provide guidance to State highway safety agencies on matters 
     that should be addressed in the goals and initiatives of the 
     State highway safety program before the program is submitted 
     for review, the Secretary shall provide data-based 
     recommendations to each State at least 90 days before the 
     date on which the program is to be submitted for approval.
       ``(c) State Program Review.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) conduct a program improvement review of a highway 
     safety program under this chapter of a State that does not 
     make substantial progress over a 3-year period in meeting its 
     priority program goals; and
       ``(2) provide technical assistance and safety program 
     requirements to be incorporated in the State highway safety 
     program for any goal not achieved.
       ``(d) Regional Harmonization.--The Secretary and the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Transportation shall 
     undertake an administrative review of the practices and 
     procedures of the management reviews and program reviews of 
     State highway safety programs under this chapter conducted by 
     the regional offices of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration and prepare a written report of best practices 
     and procedures for use by the regional offices in conducting 
     such reviews. The report shall be completed within 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(e) Best Practices Guidelines.--
       ``(1) Uniform guidelines.--The Secretary shall issue 
     uniform management review guidelines and program review 
     guidelines based on the report under subsection (d). Each 
     regional office shall use the guidelines in executing its 
     State administrative review duties under this section.
       ``(2) Publication.--The Secretary shall make publicly 
     available on the Web site (or successor electronic facility) 
     of the Administration the following documents upon their 
     completion:
       ``(A) The Secretary's management review guidelines and 
     program review guidelines.
       ``(B) All State highway safety programs submitted under 
     this chapter.
       ``(C) State annual accomplishment reports.
       ``(D) The Administration's Summary Report of findings from 
     Management Reviews and Improvement Plans.
       ``(3) Reports to state highway safety agencies.--The 
     Secretary may not make publicly available a program, report, 
     or review under paragraph (2) that is directed to a State 
     highway safety agency until after the date on which the 
     program, report, or review is submitted to that agency under 
     this chapter.
       ``(f) GAO Review.--
       ``(1) Analysis.--The Comptroller General shall analyze the 
     effectiveness of the Administration's oversight of traffic 
     safety grants under this chapter by determining the 
     usefulness of the Administration's advice to the States 
     regarding administration and State activities under this 
     chapter, the extent to which the States incorporate the 
     Administration's recommendations into their highway safety 
     programs, and the improvements that result in a State's 
     highway safety program that may be attributable to the 
     Administration's recommendations.

[[Page 18630]]

       ``(2) Report.--Not later than the September 30, 2008, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit a report on the results of 
     the analysis to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate..''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 4 of such 
     title is amended by adding at the end the following:

``412. Agency accountability.''.

     SEC. 2009. HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration shall establish and administer 
     a program under which at least 2 high-visibility traffic 
     safety law enforcement campaigns will be carried out for the 
     purposes specified in subsection (b) in each of years 2006 
     through 2009.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of each law enforcement campaign 
     under this section shall be to achieve either or both of the 
     following objectives:
       (1) Reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of 
     motor vehicles.
       (2) Increase use of seat belts by occupants of motor 
     vehicles.
       (c) Advertising.--The Administrator may use, or authorize 
     the use of, funds available to carry out this section to pay 
     for the development, production, and use of broadcast and 
     print media advertising in carrying out traffic safety law 
     enforcement campaigns under this section. Consideration shall 
     be given to advertising directed at non-English speaking 
     populations, including those who listen, read, or watch 
     nontraditional media.
       (d) Coordination With States.--The Administrator shall 
     coordinate with the States in carrying out the traffic safety 
     law enforcement campaigns under this section, including 
     advertising funded under subsection (c), with a view to--
       (1) relying on States to provide the law enforcement 
     resources for the campaigns out of funding available under 
     this section and sections 402, 405, 406, and 410 of title 23, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) providing out of National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration resources most of the means necessary for 
     national advertising and education efforts associated with 
     the law enforcement campaigns.
       (e) Use of Funds.--Funds made available to carry out this 
     section may only be used for activities described in 
     subsections (a), (c), and (f).
       (f) Annual Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct an 
     annual evaluation of the effectiveness of campaigns referred 
     to in subsection (a).
       (g) State Defined.--The term ``State'' has the meaning such 
     term has under section 401 of title 23, United States Code.

     SEC. 2010. MOTORCYCLIST SAFETY.

       (a) Authority to Make Grants.--Subject to the requirements 
     of this section, the Secretary shall make grants to States 
     that adopt and implement effective programs to reduce the 
     number of single- and multi-vehicle crashes involving 
     motorcyclists.
       (b) Maintenance of Effort.--No grant may be made to a State 
     under this section in a fiscal year unless the State enters 
     into such agreements with the Secretary as the Secretary may 
     require to ensure that the State will maintain its aggregate 
     expenditures from all the other sources for motorcyclist 
     safety training programs and motorcyclist awareness programs 
     at or above the average level of such expenditures in its 2 
     fiscal years preceding the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Allocation.--The amount of a grant made to a State for 
     a fiscal year under this section may not be less than 
     $100,000 and may not exceed 25 percent of the amount 
     apportioned to the State for fiscal year 2003 under section 
     402 of title 23, United States Code.
       (d) Grant Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--A State becomes eligible for a grant under 
     this section by adopting or demonstrating to the satisfaction 
     of the Secretary--
       (A) for the first fiscal year for which the State will 
     receive a grant under this section, at least 1 of the 6 
     criteria listed in paragraph (2); and
       (B) for the second, third, and fourth fiscal years for 
     which the State will receive a grant under this section, at 
     least 2 of the 6 criteria listed in paragraph (2).
       (2) Criteria.--The criteria for eligibility for a grant 
     under this section are the following:
       (A) Motorcycle rider training courses.--An effective 
     motorcycle rider training course that is offered throughout 
     the State, provides a formal program of instruction in 
     accident avoidance and other safety-oriented operational 
     skills to motorcyclists and that may include innovative 
     training opportunities to meet unique regional needs.
       (B) Motorcyclists awareness program.--An effective 
     statewide program to enhance motorist awareness of the 
     presence of motorcyclists on or near roadways and safe 
     driving practices that avoid injuries to motorcyclists.
       (C) Reduction of fatalities and crashes involving 
     motorcycles.--A reduction for the preceding calendar year in 
     the number of motorcycle fatalities and the rate of motor 
     vehicle crashes involving motorcycles in the State (expressed 
     as a function of 10,000 motorcycle registrations).
       (D) Impaired driving program.--Implementation of a 
     statewide program to reduce impaired driving, including 
     specific measures to reduce impaired motorcycle operation.
       (E) Reduction of fatalities and accidents involving 
     impaired motorcyclists.--A reduction for the preceding 
     calendar year in the number of fatalities and the rate of 
     reported crashes involving alcohol- or drug-impaired 
     motorcycle operators (expressed as a function of 10,000 
     motorcycle registrations).
       (F) Fees collected from motorcyclists.--All fees collected 
     by the State from motorcyclists for the purposes of funding 
     motorcycle training and safety programs will be used for 
     motorcycle training and safety programs.
       (e) Eligible Uses.--
       (1) In general.--A State may use funds from a grant under 
     this section only for motorcyclist safety training and 
     motorcyclist awareness programs, including--
       (A) improvements to motorcyclist safety training curricula;
       (B) improvements in program delivery of motorcycle training 
     to both urban and rural areas, including--
       (i) procurement or repair of practice motorcycles;
       (ii) instructional materials;
       (iii) mobile training units; and
       (iv) leasing or purchasing facilities for closed-course 
     motorcycle skill training;
       (C) measures designed to increase the recruitment or 
     retention of motorcyclist safety training instructors; and
       (D) public awareness, public service announcements, and 
     other outreach programs to enhance driver awareness of 
     motorcyclists, such as the ``share-the-road'' safety messages 
     developed under subsection (g).
       (2) Suballocations of funds.--An agency of a State that 
     receives a grant under this section may suballocate funds 
     from the grant to a nonprofit organization incorporated in 
     that State to carry out under this section.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Motorcyclist safety training.--The term ``motorcyclist 
     safety training'' means a formal program of instruction 
     that--
       (A) is approved for use in a State by the designated State 
     authority having jurisdiction over motorcyclist safety 
     issues, which may include the State motorcycle safety 
     administrator or a motorcycle advisory council appointed by 
     the Governor of the State.
       (2) Motorcyclist awareness.--The term ``motorcyclist 
     awareness'' means individual or collective awareness of--
       (A) the presence of motorcycles on or near roadways; and
       (B) safe driving practices that avoid injury to 
     motorcyclists.
       (3) Motorcyclist awareness program.--The term 
     ``motorcyclist awareness program'' means an informational or 
     public awareness program designed to enhance motorcyclist 
     awareness that is developed by or in coordination with the 
     designated State authority having jurisdiction over 
     motorcyclist safety issues, which may include the State 
     motorcycle safety administrator or a motorcycle advisory 
     council appointed by the Governor of the State.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' has the same meaning such 
     term has in section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code.
       (g) Share-the-Road Model Language.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration, shall develop and provide to 
     the States model language for use in traffic safety education 
     courses, driver's manuals, and other driver's training 
     materials instructing the drivers of motor vehicles on the 
     importance of sharing the roads safely with motorcyclists.

     SEC. 2011. CHILD SAFETY AND CHILD BOOSTER SEAT INCENTIVE 
                   GRANTS.

       (a) General Authority.--Subject to the requirements of this 
     section, the Secretary shall make grants to States that are 
     enforcing a law requiring that any child riding in a 
     passenger motor vehicle in the State who is too large to be 
     secured in a child safety seat be secured in a child 
     restraint that meets the requirements prescribed by the 
     Secretary under section 3 of Anton's Law (49 U.S.C. 30127 
     note; 116 Stat. 2772).
       (b) Maintenance of Effort.--No grant may be made to a State 
     under this section in a fiscal year unless the State enters 
     into such agreements with the Secretary as the Secretary may 
     require to ensure that the State will maintain its aggregate 
     expenditures from all other sources for child safety seat and 
     child restraint programs at or above the average level of 
     such expenditures in its 2 fiscal years preceding the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the costs of 
     activities funded using amounts from grants under this 
     section shall not exceed--
       (1) for the first 3 fiscal years for which a State receives 
     a grant under this section, 75 percent; and
       (2) for the fourth fiscal year for which a State receives a 
     grant under this section, 50 percent.
       (d) Use of Grant Amounts.--
       (1) Allocations.--Of the amounts received by a State in 
     grants under this section for a fiscal year not more than 50 
     percent shall be used to fund programs for purchasing and 
     distributing child safety seats and child restraints to low-
     income families.
       (2) Remaining amounts.--Amounts received by a State in 
     grants under this section, other than amounts subject to 
     paragraph (1), shall be used to carry out child safety seat 
     and and child restraint programs, including the following:
       (A) A program to support enforcement of child restraint 
     laws.
       (B) A program to train child passenger safety 
     professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical 
     personnel, educators, and parents concerning all aspects of 
     the use of child safety seats and and child restraints.

[[Page 18631]]

       (C) A program to educate the public concerning the proper 
     use and installation of child safety seats and and child 
     restraints.
       (e) Grant Amount.--The amount of a grant to a State for a 
     fiscal year under this section may not exceed 25 percent of 
     the amount apportioned to the State for fiscal year 2003 
     under section 402 of title 23, United States Code.
       (f) Applicability of Chapter 1.--The provisions contained 
     in section 402(d) of such title shall apply to this section.
       (g) Report.--A State that receives a grant under this 
     section shall transmit to the Secretary a report documenting 
     the manner in which the grant amounts were obligated and 
     expended and identifying the specific programs carried out 
     using the grant funds. The report shall be in a form 
     prescribed by the Secretary and may be combined with other 
     State grant reporting requirements under of chapter 4 of 
     title 23, United States Code.
       (h) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Child restraint.--The term ``child restraint'' means 
     any product designed to provide restraint to a child 
     (including booster seats and other products used with a lap 
     and shoulder belt assembly) that meets applicable Federal 
     motor vehicle safety standards prescribed by the National 
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
       (2) Child safety seat.--The term ``child safety seat'' has 
     the meaning such term has in section 405(f) of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (3) Passenger motor vehicle.--The term ``passenger motor 
     vehicle'' has the meaning such term has in section 405(f) of 
     such title.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning such term 
     has in section 101(a) of such title.

     SEC. 2012. SAFETY DATA.

       (a) In General.--Using funds made available to carry out 
     section 403 of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009, the Secretary shall collect data and 
     compile statistics on accidents involving motor vehicles 
     being backed up that result in fatalities and injuries and 
     that occur on public and nonpublic roads and residential and 
     commercial driveways and parking facilities.
       (b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2009, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on accidents described in subsection (a), 
     including the data collected and statistics compiled under 
     subsection (a) and any recommendations regarding measures to 
     be taken to reduce the number of such accidents and the 
     resulting fatalities and injuries.

     SEC. 2013. DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Illicit Drug.--In this section, the term ``illicit 
     drug'' includes substances listed in schedules I through V of 
     section 112(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     812) not obtained by a legal and valid prescription.
       (b) Duties.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) advise and coordinate with other Federal agencies on 
     how to address the problem of driving under the influence of 
     an illegal drug; and
       (2) conduct research on the prevention, detection, and 
     prosecution of driving under the influence of an illegal 
     drug.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     National Institutes of Health, shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the problem of drug-impaired driving.
       (2) Contents.--The report shall include, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       (A) An assessment of methodologies and technologies for 
     measuring driver impairment resulting from use of the most 
     common illicit drugs (including the use of such drugs in 
     combination with alcohol).
       (B) Effective and efficient methods for training law 
     enforcement personnel, including drug recognition experts, to 
     detect or measure the level of impairment of a driver who is 
     under the influence of an illicit drug by the use of 
     technology or otherwise.
       (C) A description of the role of drugs as causal factor in 
     traffic crashes and the extent of the problem of drug-
     impaired driving.
       (D) A description and assessment of current State and 
     Federal laws relating to drug-impaired driving.
       (E) Recommendations for addressing the problem of drug-
     impaired driving, including recommendations on levels of 
     impairment.
       (F) Recommendations for developing a model statute relating 
     to drug-impaired driving.
       (d) Model Statute.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a model 
     statute for States relating to drug-impaired driving.
       (2) Contents.--Based on recommendations and findings 
     contained in the report submitted under subsection (c), the 
     model statute may include-
       (A) threshold levels of impairment for illicit drugs;
       (B) practicable methods for detecting the presence of 
     illicit drugs; and
       (C) penalties for drug impaired driving.
       (3) Date.--The model statute shall be provided to States 
     not later than 1 year after date of submission of the report 
     under subsection (c).
       (e) Research and Development.--Section 403(b) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Technology to detect drug use and enable States to 
     efficiently process toxicology evidence.
       ``(6) Research on the effects of illicit drugs and the 
     compound effects of alcohol and illicit drugs on 
     impairment.''.
       (f) Funding.--Out of amounts made available to carry out 
     section 403 of title 23, United States Code, for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the Secretary shall make 
     available $1,200,000 for such fiscal year to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 2014. FIRST RESPONDER VEHICLE SAFETY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, should--
       (1) develop and implement a comprehensive program to 
     promote compliance with State and local laws intended to 
     increase the safe and efficient operation of first responder 
     vehicles;
       (2) compile a list of best practices by State and local 
     governments to promote compliance with the laws described in 
     paragraph (1);
       (3) analyze State and local laws intended to increase the 
     safe and efficient operation of first responder vehicles; and
       (4) develop model legislation to increase the safe and 
     efficient operation of first responder vehicles.
       (b) Partnerships.--The Secretary may enter into 
     partnerships with qualified organizations to carry out this 
     section.
       (c) Public Outreach.--The Secretary shall use a variety of 
     public outreach strategies to carry out this section, 
     including public service announcements, publication of 
     informational materials, and posting information on the 
     Internet.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section for fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 2015. DRIVER PERFORMANCE STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Using funds made available to carry out 
     section 403 of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year 
     2005, the Secretary shall make $1,000,000 available to 
     conduct a study on the risks associated with glare to 
     oncoming drivers, including increased risks to drivers on 2-
     lane highways, increased risks to drivers over the age of 50, 
     and the overall effects of glare on driver performance.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of 
     the study and any recommendations regarding measures to 
     reduce the risks associated with glare to oncoming drivers.

     SEC. 2016. RURAL STATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 
                   OPTIMIZATION PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--From funds made available to carry out 
     section 403 of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal year 
     2006, the Secretary shall make $1,000,000 available to 
     conduct a pilot program for optimizing emergency medical 
     services in a rural State.
       (b) Collecting Data.--The pilot program shall focus on 
     collecting geo-coded data for highway accidents and resulting 
     injuries, analyzing data to develop injury patterns and 
     distributions, and improving placement and management of 
     emergency medical services resources and personnel.
       (c) Selection.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement 
     with the State of Alaska to conduct the pilot program.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the completion 
     of the pilot program, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of 
     the pilot program and recommendations for application to 
     other rural States.

     SEC. 2017. OLDER DRIVER SAFETY; LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING.

       (a) Improving Older Driver Safety.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds made available to carry out 
     section 403 of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary 
     shall allocate $1,700,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009 to conduct a comprehensive research and 
     demonstration program to improve traffic safety pertaining to 
     older drivers.
       (2) Elements of program.--The program shall--
       (A) provide information and guidelines to assist older 
     drivers, physicians, and other related medical personnel, 
     families, licensing agencies, enforcement officers, and 
     various public and transit agencies in enhancing the safety 
     of older drivers;
       (B) improve the scientific basis of medical standards and 
     screenings strategies used in the licensing of all drivers in 
     a non-discriminatory manner;
       (C) conduct field tests to assess the safety benefits and 
     mobility impacts of different driver licensing strategies and 
     driver assessment and rehabilitation methods;
       (D) assess the value and improve the safety potential of 
     driver retraining courses of particular benefit to older 
     drivers; and
       (E) conduct other activities to accomplish the objectives 
     of this section.
       (3) Formulation of plan.--After consultation with affected 
     parties, the Secretary shall formulate an older driver 
     traffic safety plan to guide the design and implementation of 
     the program.
       (4) Submision of plan to congress.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit the plan to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure House of Representatives and the

[[Page 18632]]

     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate.
       (b) Law Enforcement Training.--
       (1) Requirement for program.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     a program to provide guidance and support to law enforcement 
     agencies in police chase techniques that are consistent with 
     the police chase guidelines issued by the International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police.
       (2) Amount for program.--Of the funds made available to 
     carry out section 403 of title 23, United States Code, the 
     Secretary shall allocate $500,000 in each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 2018. SAFE INTERSECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 39. Traffic signal preemption transmitters

       ``(a) Offenses.--
       ``(1) Sale.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
     commerce, knowingly sells a traffic signal preemption 
     transmitter to a nonqualifying user shall be fined under this 
     title, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(2) Use.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
     commerce, being a nonqualifying user makes unauthorized use 
     of a traffic signal preemption transmitter shall be fined 
     under this title, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or 
     both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Traffic signal preemption transmitter.--The term 
     `traffic signal preemption transmitter' means any mechanism 
     that can change or alter a traffic signal's phase time or 
     sequence.
       ``(2) Nonqualifying user.--The term `nonqualifying user' 
     means a person who uses a traffic signal preemption 
     transmitter and is not acting on behalf of a public agency or 
     private corporation authorized by law to provide fire 
     protection, law enforcement, emergency medical services, 
     transit services, maintenance, or other services for a 
     Federal, State, or local government entity, but does not 
     include a person using a traffic signal preemption 
     transmitter for classroom or instructional purposes.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``39. Traffic signal preemption transmitters.''.

     SEC. 2019. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
                   TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       Section 404(d) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``Commerce'' and inserting ``Transportation''.

     SEC. 2020. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED 
                   DRIVING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) there has been considerable progress over the past 25 
     years in reducing the number and rate of alcohol-related 
     highway facilities;
       (2) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
     projects that fatalities in alcohol-related crashes declined 
     in 2003 for the 2nd year in a row;
       (3) in spite of this progress, an estimated 17,013 
     Americans died in 2003, in alcohol-related crashes;
       (4) these fatalities comprise 40 percent of the annual 
     total highway fatalities;
       (5) about 250,000 are injured each year in alcohol-related 
     crashes;
       (6) the past 2 years of decreasing alcohol-related 
     fatalities follows a 3-year increase;
       (7) alcohol-impaired driving is the Nation's most 
     frequently committed violent crime;
       (8) the annual cost of alcohol-related crashes is over 
     $100,000,000,000, including $9,000,000,000 in costs to 
     employers;
       (9) a Presidential Commission on Alcohol Impaired Driving 
     in 1982 and 1983 helped to lead to substantial progress on 
     this issue; and
       (10) these facts point to the need to renew the national 
     commitment to preventing these deaths and injuries.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that, in an effort to further change the culture of alcohol-
     impaired driving on our Nation's highways, the President 
     should consider establishing a Presidential Commission on 
     Alcohol-Impaired Driving--
       (1) comprised of representatives of--
       (A) State and local governments, including State 
     legislators;
       (B) law enforcement;
       (C) traffic safety experts, including researchers;
       (D) victims of alcohol-related crashes;
       (E) affected industries, including the alcohol, insurance, 
     motorcycle, and auto industries;
       (F) the business community;
       (G) labor;
       (H) the medical community;
       (I) public health; and
       (J) Members of Congress; and
       (2) that not later than September 30, 2006, would--
       (A) conduct a full examination of alcohol-impaired driving 
     issues; and
       (B) make recommendations for a broad range of policy and 
     program changes that would serve to further reduce the level 
     of deaths and injuries caused by alcohol impaired driving.

     SEC. 2021. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED 
                   PUBLIC AWARENESS OF BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION 
                   LEVELS AND DANGERS OF ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) in 2003--
       (A) 17,013 Americans died in alcohol-related traffic 
     crashes;
       (B) 40 percent of the persons killed in traffic crashes 
     died in alcohol-related crashes; and
       (C) drivers with blood alcohol concentration levels over 
     0.15 were involved in 58 percent of alcohol-related traffic 
     fatalities;
       (2) research shows that 77 percent of Americans think they 
     have received enough information about alcohol-impaired 
     driving and the way in which alcohol affects individual blood 
     alcohol levels; and
       (3) only 28 percent of the American public can correctly 
     identify the legal limit of blood alcohol concentration of 
     the State in which they reside.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should 
     work with State and local governments and independent 
     organizations to increase public awareness of--
       (1) State legal limits on blood alcohol concentration 
     levels; and
       (2) the dangers of alcohol-impaired driving.

     SEC. 2022. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Sections 2002 through 2007 of this title (and the 
     amendments and repeals made by such sections) shall take 
     effect October 1, 2005.
                    TITLE III--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

     SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Federal Public 
     Transportation Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 3002. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE; 
                   UPDATED TERMINOLOGY.

       (a) Amendments to Title 49.--Except as otherwise 
     specifically provided, whenever in this title an amendment or 
     repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
     of, a section or other provision of law, the reference shall 
     be considered to be made to a section or other provision of 
     title 49, United States Code.
       (b) Updated Terminology.--Chapter 53 is amended--
       (1) in the chapter heading by striking ``MASS'' and 
     inserting ``PUBLIC'';
       (2) in section 5310(h) by striking ``Mass'' and inserting 
     ``Public'';
       (3) in the subsection heading for section 5331(b) by 
     striking ``Mass'' and inserting ``Public''; and
       (4) by striking ``mass'' each place the term appears before 
     ``transportation'' and inserting ``public'', except in 
     sections 5301(f), 5302(a)(7), 5315, and 5323(a)(1).
       (c) Table of Chapters.--The table of chapters for subtitle 
     III is amended in the item relating to chapter 53 by striking 
     ``Mass'' and inserting ``Public''.

     SEC. 3003. POLICIES, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 5301(a) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Development and Revitalization of Public 
     Transportation Systems.--It is in the interest of the United 
     States, including its economic interest, to foster the 
     development and revitalization of public transportation 
     systems that--
       ``(1) maximize the safe, secure, and efficient mobility of 
     individuals;
       ``(2) minimize environmental impacts; and
       ``(3) minimize transportation-related fuel consumption and 
     reliance on foreign oil.''.
       (b) General Findings.--Section 5301(b)(1) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``70 percent'' and inserting ``two-
     thirds''; and
       (2) by striking ``urban areas'' and inserting ``urbanized 
     areas''.
       (c) Preserving the Environment.--Section 5301(e) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``an urban'' and inserting ``a''; and
       (2) by striking ``under sections 5309 and 5310 of this 
     title''.
       (d) General Purposes.--Section 5301(f) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``mass'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``public''; and
       (B) by striking ``public and private mass transportation 
     companies'' and inserting ``both public transportation 
     companies and private companies engaged in public 
     transportation'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``urban mass'' and inserting ``public''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``public and private mass transportation 
     companies'' and inserting ``both public transportation 
     companies and private companies engaged in public 
     transportation'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``urban mass'' and inserting ``public''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``public or private mass transportation 
     companies'' and inserting ``public transportation companies 
     or private companies engaged in public transportation''; and
       (4) in paragraph (5) by striking ``urban mass'' and 
     inserting ``public''.

     SEC. 3004. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Lead-in.--Section 5302(a) is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``In this chapter'' and 
     inserting ``Except as otherwise specifically provided, in 
     this chapter''.
       (b) Capital Project.--Section 5302(a)(1) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (G) by inserting ``construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of intercity bus and intercity 
     rail stations and terminals,'' before ``and the renovation 
     and improvement of historic transportation facilities,'';
       (2) in subparagraph (G)(ii) by inserting ``(other than an 
     intercity bus station or terminal)'' after ``commercial 
     revenue-producing facility'';
       (3) in subparagraph (H) by striking ``or'' at the end;

[[Page 18633]]

       (4) in subparagraph (I) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(J) crime prevention and security--
       ``(i) including--

       ``(I) projects to refine and develop security and emergency 
     response plans;
       ``(II) projects aimed at detecting chemical and biological 
     agents in public transportation;
       ``(III) the conduct of emergency response drills with 
     public transportation agencies and local first response 
     agencies; and
       ``(IV) security training for public transportation 
     employees; but

       ``(ii) excluding all expenses related to operations, other 
     than such expenses incurred in conducting activities 
     described in clauses (i)(III) and (i)(IV);
       ``(K) establishing a debt service reserve, made up of 
     deposits with a bondholder's trustee, to ensure the timely 
     payment of principal and interest on bonds issued by a grant 
     recipient to finance an eligible project under this chapter; 
     or
       ``(L) mobility management--
       ``(i) consisting of short-range planning and management 
     activities and projects for improving coordination among 
     public transportation and other transportation service 
     providers carried out by a recipient or subrecipient through 
     an agreement entered into with a person, including a 
     governmental entity, under this chapter (other than section 
     5309); but
       ``(ii) excluding operating public transportation 
     services.''.
       (c) Individual With a Disability.--Section 5302(a)(5) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading by striking ``Handicapped 
     individual'' and inserting ``Individual with a disability''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``handicapped individual'' and inserting 
     ``individual with a disability''.
       (d) Mass Transportation.--Section 5302(a)(7) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(7) Mass transportation.--The term `mass transportation' 
     means public transportation.''.
       (e) Public Transportation.--Section 5302(a)(10) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(10) Public transportation.--The term `public 
     transportation' means transportation by a conveyance that 
     provides regular and continuing general or special 
     transportation to the public, but does not include schoolbus, 
     charter, or intercity bus transportation or intercity 
     passenger rail transportation provided by the entity 
     described in chapter 243 (or a successor to such entity).''.
       (f) Urbanized Area.--Section 5302(a)(17) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(17) Urbanized area.--The term `urbanized area' means an 
     area encompassing a population of not less than 50,000 people 
     that has been defined and designated in the most recent 
     decennial census as an `urbanized area' by the Secretary of 
     Commerce.''.
       (g) Authority to Modify Definition.--Section 5302(b) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Handicapped 
     Individual'' and inserting ``Individual With a Disability''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``handicapped individual'' and inserting 
     ``individual with a disability''.

     SEC. 3005. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.

       (a) In General.--Section 5303 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 5303. Metropolitan transportation planning

       ``(a) Policy.--It is in the national interest to--
       ``(1) encourage and promote the safe and efficient 
     management, operation, and development of surface 
     transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of 
     people and freight and foster economic growth and development 
     within and between States and urbanized areas, while 
     minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air 
     pollution through metropolitan and statewide transportation 
     planning processes identified in this chapter; and
       ``(2) encourage the continued improvement and evolution of 
     the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning 
     processes by metropolitan planning organizations, State 
     departments of transportation, and public transit operators 
     as guided by the planning factors identified in subsection 
     (h) and section 5304(d).
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section and section 5304, the 
     following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Metropolitan planning area.--The term `metropolitan 
     planning area' means the geographic area determined by 
     agreement between the metropolitan planning organization for 
     the area and the Governor under subsection (e).
       ``(2) Metropolitan planning organization.--The term 
     `metropolitan planning organization' means the policy board 
     of an organization created as a result of the designation 
     process in subsection (d).
       ``(3) Nonmetropolitan area.--The term `nonmetropolitan 
     area' means a geographic area outside a designated 
     metropolitan planning area.
       ``(4) Nonmetropolitan local official.--The term 
     `nonmetropolitan local official' means elected and appointed 
     officials of general purpose local government in a 
     nonmetropolitan area with responsibility for transportation.
       ``(5) TIP.--The term `TIP' means a transportation 
     improvement program developed by a metropolitan planning 
     organization under subsection (j).
       ``(6) Urbanized area.--The term `urbanized area' means a 
     geographic area with a population of 50,000 or more, as 
     designated by the Bureau of the Census.
       ``(c) General Requirements.--
       ``(1) Development of long-range plans and tips.--To 
     accomplish the objectives in subsection (a), metropolitan 
     planning organizations designated under subsection (d), in 
     cooperation with the State and public transportation 
     operators, shall develop long-range transportation plans and 
     transportation improvement programs for metropolitan planning 
     areas of the State.
       ``(2) Contents.--The plans and TIPs for each metropolitan 
     area shall provide for the development and integrated 
     management and operation of transportation systems and 
     facilities (including accessible pedestrian walkways and 
     bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as an 
     intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan 
     planning area and as an integral part of an intermodal 
     transportation system for the State and the United States.
       ``(3) Process of development.--The process for developing 
     the plans and TIPs shall provide for consideration of all 
     modes of transportation and shall be continuing, cooperative, 
     and comprehensive to the degree appropriate, based on the 
     complexity of the transportation problems to be addressed.
       ``(d) Designation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.--
       ``(1) In general.--To carry out the transportation planning 
     process required by this section, a metropolitan planning 
     organization shall be designated for each urbanized area with 
     a population of more than 50,000 individuals--
       ``(A) by agreement between the Governor and units of 
     general purpose local government that together represent at 
     least 75 percent of the affected population (including the 
     largest incorporated city (based on population) as named by 
     the Bureau of the Census); or
       ``(B) in accordance with procedures established by 
     applicable State or local law.
       ``(2) Structure.--Each metropolitan planning organization 
     that serves an area designated as a transportation management 
     area, when designated or redesignated under this subsection, 
     shall consist of--
       ``(A) local elected officials;
       ``(B) officials of public agencies that administer or 
     operate major modes of transportation in the metropolitan 
     area; and
       ``(C) appropriate State officials.
       ``(3) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to interfere with the 
     authority, under any State law in effect on December 18, 
     1991, of a public agency with multimodal transportation 
     responsibilities to--
       ``(A) develop the plans and TIPs for adoption by a 
     metropolitan planning organization; and
       ``(B) develop long-range capital plans, coordinate transit 
     services and projects, and carry out other activities 
     pursuant to State law.
       ``(4) Continuing designation.--A designation of a 
     metropolitan planning organization under this subsection or 
     any other provision of law shall remain in effect until the 
     metropolitan planning organization is redesignated under 
     paragraph (5).
       ``(5) Redesignation procedures.--A metropolitan planning 
     organization may be redesignated by agreement between the 
     Governor and units of general purpose local government that 
     together represent at least 75 percent of the existing 
     planning area population (including the largest incorporated 
     city (based on population) as named by the Bureau of the 
     Census) as appropriate to carry out this section.
       ``(6) Designation of more than 1 metropolitan planning 
     organization.--More than 1 metropolitan planning organization 
     may be des ignated within an existing metropolitan planning 
     area only if the Governor and the existing metropolitan 
     planning organization determine that the size and complexity 
     of the existing metropolitan planning area make designation 
     of more than 1 metropolitan planning organization for the 
     area appropriate.
       ``(e) Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     boundaries of a metropolitan planning area shall be 
     determined by agreement between the metropolitan planning 
     organization and the Governor.
       ``(2) Included area.--Each metropolitan planning area--
       ``(A) shall encompass at least the existing urbanized area 
     and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 
     20-year forecast period for the transportation plan; and
       ``(B) may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical 
     area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as 
     defined by the Bureau of the Census.
       ``(3) Identification of new urbanized areas within existing 
     planning area boundaries.--The designation by the Bureau of 
     the Census of new urbanized areas within an existing 
     metropolitan planning area shall not require the 
     redesignation of the existing metropolitan planning 
     organization.
       ``(4) Existing metropolitan planning areas in 
     nonattainment.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in the case of 
     an urbanized area des ignated as a nonattainment area for 
     ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) as of the date of enactment of the 
     Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005, the boundaries 
     of the metropolitan planning area in existence as of such 
     date of enactment shall be retained; except that the 
     boundaries may be adjusted by agreement of the Governor 
     and affected metropolitan planning organizations in the 
     manner described in subsection (d)(5).
       ``(5) New metropolitan planning areas in nonattainment.--In 
     the case of an urbanized area designated after the date of 
     enactment of

[[Page 18634]]

     the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005 as a 
     nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide, the 
     boundaries of the metropolitan planning area--
       ``(A) shall be established in the manner described in 
     subsection (d)(1);
       ``(B) shall encompass the areas described in paragraph 
     (2)(A);
       ``(C) may encompass the areas described in paragraph 
     (2)(B); and
       ``(D) may address any nonattainment area identified under 
     the Clean Air Act for ozone or carbon monoxide.
       ``(f) Coordination in Multistate Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall encourage each 
     Governor with responsibility for a portion of a multistate 
     metropolitan area and the appropriate metropolitan planning 
     organizations to provide coordinated transportation planning 
     for the entire metropolitan area.
       ``(2) Interstate compacts.--The consent of Congress is 
     granted to any 2 or more States--
       ``(A) to enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict 
     with any law of the United States, for cooperative efforts 
     and mutual assistance in support of activities authorized 
     under this section as the activities pertain to interstate 
     areas and localities within the States; and
       ``(B) to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as 
     the States may determine desirable for making the agreements 
     and compacts effective.
       ``(3) Lake tahoe region.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `Lake Tahoe 
     region' has the meaning given the term `region' in 
     subdivision (a) of article II of the Tahoe Regional Planning 
     Compact, as set forth in the first section of Public Law 96-
     551 (94 Stat. 3234).
       ``(B) Transportation planning process.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(i) establish with the Federal land management agencies 
     that have jurisdiction over land in the Lake Tahoe region a 
     transportation planning process for the region; and
       ``(ii) coordinate the transportation planning process with 
     the planning process required of State and local governments 
     under this section and section 5304.
       ``(C) Interstate compact.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), and 
     notwithstanding subsection (b), to carry out the 
     transportation planning process required by this section, the 
     consent of Congress is granted to the States of California 
     and Nevada to designate a metropolitan planning organization 
     for the Lake Tahoe region, by agreement between the Governors 
     of the States of California and Nevada and units of general 
     purpose local government that together represent at least 75 
     percent of the affected population (including the central 
     city or cities (as defined by the Bureau of the Census)), or 
     in accordance with procedures established by applicable State 
     or local law.
       ``(ii) Involvement of federal land management agencies.--

       ``(I) Representation.--The policy board of a metropolitan 
     planning organization designated under clause (i) shall 
     include a representative of each Federal land management 
     agency that has jurisdiction over land in the Lake Tahoe 
     region.
       ``(II) Funding.--In addition to funds made available to the 
     metropolitan planning organization for the Lake Tahoe region 
     under other provisions of this chapter and title 23, 1 
     percent of the funds allocated under section 202 of title 23 
     shall be used to carry out the transportation planning 
     process for the Lake Tahoe region under this subparagraph.

       ``(D) Activities.--Highway projects included in 
     transportation plans developed under this paragraph--
       ``(i) shall be selected for funding in a manner that 
     facilitates the participation of the Federal land management 
     agencies that have jurisdiction over land in the Lake Tahoe 
     region; and
       ``(ii) may, in accordance with chapter 2 of title 23, be 
     funded using funds allocated under section 202 of such title.
       ``(4) Reservation of rights.--The right to alter, amend, or 
     repeal interstate compacts entered into under this subsection 
     is expressly reserved.
       ``(g) MPO Consultation in Plan and TIP Coordination.--
       ``(1) Nonattainment areas.--If more than 1 metropolitan 
     planning organization has authority within a metropolitan 
     area or an area which is designated as a nonattainment area 
     for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act, each 
     metropolitan planning organization shall consult with the 
     other metropolitan planning organizations designated for such 
     area and the State in the coordination of plans and TIPs 
     required by this section.
       ``(2) Transportation improvements located in multiple 
     mpos.--If a transportation improvement, funded from the 
     Highway Trust Fund or authorized under this chapter, is 
     located within the boundaries of more than 1 metropolitan 
     planning area, the metropolitan planning organizations shall 
     coordinate plans and TIPs regarding the transportation 
     improvement.
       ``(3) Relationship with other planning officials.--The 
     Secretary shall encourage each metropolitan planning 
     organization to consult with officials responsible for other 
     types of planning activities that are affected by 
     transportation in the area (including State and local planned 
     growth, economic development, environmental protection, 
     airport operations, and freight movements) or to coordinate 
     its planning process, to the maximum extent practicable, with 
     such planning activities. Under the metropolitan planning 
     process, transportation plans and TIPs shall be developed 
     with due consideration of other related planning activities 
     within the metropolitan area, and the process shall provide 
     for the design and delivery of transportation services within 
     the metropolitan area that are provided by--
       ``(A) recipients of assistance under this chapter;
       ``(B) governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations 
     (including representatives of the agencies and organizations) 
     that receive Federal assistance from a source other than the 
     Department of Transportation to provide nonemergency 
     transportation services; and
       ``(C) recipients of assistance under section 204 of title 
     23.
       ``(h) Scope of Planning Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--The metropolitan planning process for a 
     metropolitan planning area under this section shall provide 
     for consideration of projects and strategies that will--
       ``(A) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan 
     area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, 
     productivity, and efficiency;
       ``(B) increase the safety of the transportation system for 
     motorized and nonmotorized users;
       ``(C) increase the security of the transportation system 
     for motorized and nonmotorized users;
       ``(D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and 
     for freight;
       ``(E) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy 
     conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote 
     consistency between transportation improvements and State and 
     local planned growth and economic development patterns;
       ``(F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the 
     transportation system, across and between modes, for people 
     and freight;
       ``(G) promote efficient system management and operation; 
     and
       ``(H) emphasize the preservation of the existing 
     transportation system.
       ``(2) Failure to consider factors.--The failure to consider 
     any factor specified in paragraph (1) shall not be reviewable 
     by any court under this chapter, title 23, subchapter II of 
     chapter 5 of title 5, or chapter 7 of title 5 in any matter 
     affecting a transportation plan, a TIP, a project or 
     strategy, or the certification of a planning process.
       ``(i) Development of Transportation Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each metropolitan planning organization 
     shall prepare a transportation plan for its metropolitan 
     planning area in accordance with the requirements of this 
     subsection. The metropolitan planning organization shall 
     prepare and update such plan every 4 years (or more 
     frequently, if the metropolitan planning organization elects 
     to update more frequently) in the case of each of the 
     following:
       ``(A) Any area designated as nonattainment, as defined in 
     section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).
       ``(B) Any area that was nonattainment and subsequently 
     designated to attainment in accordance with section 107(d)(3) 
     of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)) and that is subject to a 
     maintenance plan under section 175A of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7505a).

     In the case of any other area required to have a 
     transportation plan in accordance with the requirements of 
     this subsection, the metropolitan planning organization shall 
     prepare and update such plan every 5 years unless the 
     metropolitan planning organization elects to update more 
     frequently.
       ``(2) Transportation plan.--A transportation plan under 
     this section shall be in a form that the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate and shall contain, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       ``(A) Identification of transportation facilities.--An 
     identification of transportation facilities (including major 
     roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, and 
     intermodal connectors) that should function as an integrated 
     metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to those 
     facilities that serve important national and regional 
     transportation functions. In formulating the transportation 
     plan, the metropolitan planning organization shall consider 
     factors described in subsection (h) as such factors relate to 
     a 20-year forecast period.
       ``(B) Mitigation activities.--
       ``(i) In general.--A long-range transportation plan shall 
     include a discussion of types of potential environmental 
     mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these 
     activities, including activities that may have the greatest 
     potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions 
     affected by the plan.
       ``(ii) Consultation.--The discussion shall be developed in 
     consultation with Federal, State, and tribal wildlife, land 
     management, and regulatory agencies.
       ``(C) Financial plan.--A financial plan that demonstrates 
     how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented, 
     indicates resources from public and private sources that are 
     reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the 
     plan, and recommends any additional financing strategies for 
     needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, 
     for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be 
     included in the adopted transportation plan if reasonable 
     additional resources beyond those identified in the financial 
     plan were available. For the purpose of developing the 
     transportation plan, the metropolitan planning organization, 
     transit operator, and State shall cooperatively develop 
     estimates of funds that will be available to support plan 
     implementation.
       ``(D) Operational and management strategies.--Operational 
     and management strategies to improve the performance of 
     existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular 
     congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and 
     goods.

[[Page 18635]]

       ``(E) Capital investment and other strategies.--Capital 
     investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and 
     projected future metropolitan transportation infrastructure 
     and provide for multimodal capacity increases based on 
     regional priorities and needs.
       ``(F) Transportation and transit enhancement activities.--
     Proposed transportation and transit enhancement activities.
       ``(3) Coordination with clean air act agencies.--In 
     metropolitan areas which are in nonattainment for ozone or 
     carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act, the metropolitan 
     planning organization shall coordinate the development of a 
     transportation plan with the process for development of the 
     transportation control measures of the State implementation 
     plan required by the Clean Air Act.
       ``(4) Consultation.--
       ``(A) In general.--In each metropolitan area, the 
     metropolitan planning organization shall consult, as 
     appropriate, with State and local agencies responsible for 
     land use management, natural resources, environmental 
     protection, conservation, and historic preservation 
     concerning the development of a long-range transportation 
     plan.
       ``(B) Issues.--The consultation shall involve, as 
     appropriate--
       ``(i) comparison of transportation plans with State 
     conservation plans or maps, if available; or
       ``(ii) comparison of transportation plans to inventories of 
     natural or historic resources, if available.
       ``(5) Participation by interested parties.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each metropolitan planning organization 
     shall provide citizens, affected public agencies, 
     representatives of public transportation employees, freight 
     shippers, providers of freight transportation services, 
     private providers of transportation, representatives of users 
     of public transportation, representatives of users of 
     pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, 
     representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties 
     with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 
     transportation plan.
       ``(B) Contents of participation plan.--A participation 
     plan--
       ``(i) shall be developed in consultation with all 
     interested parties; and
       ``(ii) shall provide that all interested parties have 
     reasonable opportunities to comment on the contents of the 
     transportation plan.
       ``(C) Methods.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the 
     metropolitan planning organization shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable--
       ``(i) hold any public meetings at convenient and accessible 
     locations and times;
       ``(ii) employ visualization techniques to describe plans; 
     and
       ``(iii) make public information available in electronically 
     accessible format and means, such as the World Wide Web, as 
     appropriate to afford reasonable opportunity for 
     consideration of public information under subparagraph (A).
       ``(6) Publication.--A transportation plan involving Federal 
     participation shall be published or otherwise made readily 
     available by the metropolitan planning organization for 
     public review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) 
     in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the 
     World Wide Web, approved by the metropolitan planning 
     organization and submitted for information purposes to the 
     Governor at such times and in such manner as the Secretary 
     shall establish.
       ``(7) Selection of projects from illustrative list.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(C), a State or metropolitan 
     planning organization shall not be required to select any 
     project from the illustrative list of additional projects 
     included in the financial plan under paragraph (2)(C).
       ``(j) Metropolitan Tip.--
       ``(1) Development.--
       ``(A) In general.--In cooperation with the State and any 
     affected public transportation operator, the metropolitan 
     planning organization designated for a metropolitan area 
     shall develop a TIP for the area for which the organization 
     is designated.
       ``(B) Opportunity for comment.--In developing the TIP, the 
     metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation with the 
     State and any affected public transportation operator, shall 
     provide an opportunity for participation by interested 
     parties in the development of the program, in accordance with 
     subsection (i)(5).
       ``(C) Funding estimates.--For the purpose of developing the 
     TIP, the metropolitan planning organization, public 
     transportation agency, and State shall cooperatively develop 
     estimates of funds that are reasonably expected to be 
     available to support program implementation.
       ``(D) Updating and approval.--The TIP shall be updated at 
     least once every 4 years and shall be approved by the 
     metropolitan planning organization and the Governor.
       ``(2) Contents.--
       ``(A) Priority list.--The TIP shall include a priority list 
     of proposed federally supported projects and strategies to be 
     carried out within each 4-year period after the initial 
     adoption of the TIP.
       ``(B) Financial plan.--The TIP shall include a financial 
     plan that--
       ``(i) demonstrates how the TIP can be implemented;
       ``(ii) indicates resources from public and private sources 
     that are reasonably expected to be available to carry out the 
     program;
       ``(iii) identifies innovative financing techniques to 
     finance projects, programs, and strategies; and
       ``(iv) may include, for illustrative purposes, additional 
     projects that would be included in the approved TIP if 
     reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in 
     the financial plan were available.
       ``(C) Descriptions.--Each project in the TIP shall include 
     sufficient descriptive material (such as type of work, 
     termini, length, and other similar factors) to identify the 
     project or phase of the project.
       ``(3) Included projects.--
       ``(A) Projects under this chapter and title 23.--A TIP 
     developed under this subsection for a metropolitan area shall 
     include the projects within the area that are proposed for 
     funding under this chapter and chapter 1 of title 23.
       ``(B) Projects under chapter 2 of title 23.--
       ``(i) Regionally significant projects.--Regionally 
     significant projects proposed for funding under chapter 2 of 
     title 23 shall be identified individually in the 
     transportation improvement program.
       ``(ii) Other projects.--Projects proposed for funding under 
     chapter 2 of title 23 that are not determined to be 
     regionally significant shall be grouped in 1 line item or 
     identified individually in the transportation improvement 
     program.
       ``(C) Consistency with long-range transportation plan.--
     Each project shall be consistent with the long-range 
     transportation plan developed under subsection (i) for the 
     area.
       ``(D) Requirement of anticipated full funding.--The program 
     shall include a project, or an identified phase of a project, 
     only if full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be 
     available for the project within the time period contemplated 
     for completion of the project.
       ``(4) Notice and comment.--Before approving a TIP, a 
     metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation with the 
     State and any affected public transportation operator, shall 
     provide an opportunity for participation by interested 
     parties in the development of the program, in accordance with 
     subsection (i)(5).
       ``(5) Selection of projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     subsection (k)(4) and in addition to the TIP development 
     required under paragraph (1), the selection of federally 
     funded projects in metropolitan areas shall be carried out, 
     from the approved TIP--
       ``(i) by--

       ``(I) in the case of projects under title 23, the State; 
     and
       ``(II) in the case of projects under this chapter, the 
     designated recipients of public transportation funding; and

       ``(ii) in cooperation with the metropolitan planning 
     organization.
       ``(B) Modifications to project priority.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, action by the Secretary shall not 
     be required to advance a project included in the approved TIP 
     in place of another project in the program.
       ``(6) Selection of projects from illustrative list.--
       ``(A) No required selection.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (2)(B)(iv), a State or metropolitan planning organization 
     shall not be required to select any project from the 
     illustrative list of additional projects included in the 
     financial plan under paragraph (2)(B)(iv).
       ``(B) Required action by the secretary.--Action by the 
     Secretary shall be required for a State or metropolitan 
     planning organization to select any project from the 
     illustrative list of additional projects included in the 
     financial plan under paragraph (2)(B)(iv) for inclusion in an 
     approved TIP.
       ``(7) Publication.--
       ``(A) Publication of tips.--A TIP involving Federal 
     participation shall be published or otherwise made readily 
     available by the metropolitan planning organization for 
     public review.
       ``(B) Publication of annual listings of projects.--An 
     annual listing of projects, including investments in 
     pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, 
     for which Federal funds have been obligated in the preceding 
     year shall be published or otherwise made available by the 
     cooperative effort of the State, transit operator, and 
     metropolitan planning organization for public review. The 
     listing shall be consistent with the categories identified in 
     the TIP.
       ``(C) Rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 
     2005, the Secretary shall issue regulations setting standards 
     for the listing required by subparagraph (B) and specifying 
     the types of data to be included in such list, including 
     sufficient information about each project to identify its 
     type, location, and amount obligated.
       ``(k) Transportation Management Areas.--
       ``(1) Identification and designation.--
       ``(A) Required identification.--The Secretary shall 
     identify as a transportation management area each urbanized 
     area (as defined by the Bureau of the Census) with a 
     population of over 200,000 individuals.
       ``(B) Designations on request.--The Secretary shall 
     designate any additional area as a transportation management 
     area on the request of the Governor and the metropolitan 
     planning organization designated for the area.
       ``(2) Transportation plans.--In a metropolitan planning 
     area serving a transportation management area, transportation 
     plans shall be based on a continuing and comprehensive 
     transportation planning process carried out by the 
     metropolitan planning organization in cooperation with the 
     State and public transportation operators.
       ``(3) Congestion management process.--Within a metropolitan 
     planning area serving a

[[Page 18636]]

     transportation management area, the transportation planning 
     process under this section shall address congestion 
     management through a process that provides for effective 
     management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed 
     and implemented metropolitan-wide strategy, of new and 
     existing transportation facilities eligible for funding under 
     this chapter and title 23 through the use of travel demand 
     reduction and operational management strategies. The 
     Secretary shall establish an appropriate phase-in schedule 
     for compliance with the requirements of this section but no 
     sooner than one year after the identification of a 
     transportation management area.
       ``(4) Selection of projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--All federally funded projects carried 
     out within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning area 
     serving a transportation management area under title 23 
     (excluding projects carried out on the National Highway 
     System and projects carried out under the bridge program or 
     the Interstate maintenance program) or under this chapter 
     shall be selected for implementation from the approved TIP by 
     the metropolitan planning organization designated for the 
     area in consultation with the State and any affected public 
     transportation operator.
       ``(B) National highway system projects.--Projects carried 
     out within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning area 
     serving a transportation management area on the National 
     Highway System and projects carried out within such 
     boundaries under the bridge program or the Interstate 
     maintenance program under title 23 shall be selected for 
     implementation from the approved TIP by the State in 
     cooperation with the metropolitan planning organization 
     designated for the area.
       ``(5) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) ensure that the metropolitan planning process of a 
     metropolitan planning organization serving a transportation 
     management area is being carried out in accordance with 
     applicable provisions of Federal law; and
       ``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), certify, not less often 
     than once every 4 years, that the requirements of this 
     paragraph are met with respect to the metropolitan planning 
     process.
       ``(B) Requirements for certification.--The Secretary may 
     make the certification under subparagraph (A) if--
       ``(i) the transportation planning process complies with the 
     requirements of this section and other applicable 
     requirements of Federal law; and
       ``(ii) there is a TIP for the metropolitan planning area 
     that has been approved by the metropolitan planning 
     organization and the Governor.
       ``(C) Effect of failure to certify.--
       ``(i) Withholding of project funds.--If a metropolitan 
     planning process of a metropolitan planning organization 
     serving a transportation management area is not certified, 
     the Secretary may withhold up to 20 percent of the funds 
     attributable to the metropolitan planning area of the 
     metropolitan planning organization for projects funded under 
     this chapter and title 23.
       ``(ii) Restoration of withheld funds.--The withheld funds 
     shall be restored to the metropolitan planning area at such 
     time as the metropolitan planning process is certified by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(D) Review of certification.--In making certification 
     determinations under this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     provide for public involvement appropriate to the 
     metropolitan area under review.
       ``(l) Abbreviated Plans for Certain Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in the case of 
     a metropolitan area not designated as a transportation 
     management area under this section, the Secretary may provide 
     for the development of an abbreviated transportation plan and 
     TIP for the metropolitan planning area that the Secretary 
     determines is appropriate to achieve the purposes of this 
     section, taking into account the complexity of transportation 
     problems in the area.
       ``(2) Nonattainment areas.--The Secretary may not permit 
     abbreviated plans or TIPs for a metropolitan area that is in 
     nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean 
     Air Act.
       ``(m) Additional Requirements for Certain Nonattainment 
     Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
     this chapter or title 23, for transportation management areas 
     classified as nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide 
     pursuant to the Clean Air Act, Federal funds may not be 
     advanced in such area for any highway project that will 
     result in a significant increase in the carrying capacity for 
     single-occupant vehicles unless the project is addressed 
     through a congestion management process.
       ``(2) Applicability.--This subsection applies to a 
     nonattainment area within the metropolitan planning area 
     boundaries determined under subsection (e).
       ``(n) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed to confer on a metropolitan 
     planning organization the authority to impose legal 
     requirements on any transportation facility, provider, or 
     project not eligible under this chapter or title 23.
       ``(o) Funding.--Funds set aside under section 5305(g) of 
     this title or section 104(f) of title 23 shall be available 
     to carry out this section.
       ``(p) Continuation of Current Review Practice.--Since plans 
     and TIPs described in this section are subject to a 
     reasonable opportunity for public comment, since individual 
     projects included in plans and TIPs are subject to review 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and since decisions by the Secretary 
     concerning plans and TIPs described in this section have not 
     been reviewed under such Act as of January 1, 1997, any 
     decision by the Secretary concerning a plan or TIP described 
     in this section shall not be considered to be a Federal 
     action subject to review under such Act.''.
       (b) Schedule for Implementation.--The Secretary shall issue 
     guidance on a schedule for implementation of the changes made 
     by this section, taking into consideration the established 
     planning update cycle for States and metropolitan planning 
     organizations. The Secretary shall not require a State or 
     metropolitan planning organization to deviate from its 
     established planning update cycle to implement changes made 
     by this section. Beginning July 1, 2007, State or 
     metropolitan planning organization plan or program updates 
     shall reflect changes made by this section.
       (c) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5303 and 
     inserting the following:

``5303. Metropolitan transportation planning.''.

     SEC. 3006. STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.

       (a) In General.--Section 5304 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 5304. Statewide transportation planning

       ``(a) General Requirements.--
       ``(1) Development of plans and programs.--To accomplish the 
     objectives stated in section 5303(a), each State shall 
     develop a statewide transportation plan and a statewide 
     transportation improvement program for all areas of the 
     State, subject to section 5303.
       ``(2) Contents.--The statewide transportation plan and the 
     transportation improvement program developed for each State 
     shall provide for the development and integrated management 
     and operation of transportation systems and facilities 
     (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle 
     transportation facilities) that will function as an 
     intermodal transportation system for the State and an 
     integral part of an intermodal transportation system for the 
     United States.
       ``(3) Process of development.--The process for developing 
     the statewide plan and the transportation improvement program 
     shall provide for consideration of all modes of 
     transportation and the policies stated in section 5303(a), 
     and shall be continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive to 
     the degree appropriate, based on the complexity of the 
     transportation problems to be addressed.
       ``(b) Coordination With Metropolitan Planning; State 
     Implementation Plan.--A State shall--
       ``(1) coordinate planning carried out under this section 
     with the transportation planning activities carried out under 
     section 5303 for metropolitan areas of the State and with 
     statewide trade and economic development planning activities 
     and related multistate planning efforts; and
       ``(2) develop the transportation portion of the State 
     implementation plan as required by the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
       ``(c) Interstate Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The consent of Congress is granted to 2 
     or more States entering into agreements or compacts, not in 
     conflict with any law of the United States, for cooperative 
     efforts and mutual assistance in support of activities 
     authorized under this section related to interstate areas and 
     localities in the States and establishing authorities the 
     States consider desirable for making the agreements and 
     compacts effective.
       ``(2) Reservation of rights.--The right to alter, amend, or 
     repeal interstate compacts entered into under this subsection 
     is expressly reserved.
       ``(d) Scope of Planning Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State shall carry out a statewide 
     transportation planning process that provides for 
     consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and 
     services that will--
       ``(A) support the economic vitality of the United States, 
     the States, nonmetropolitan areas, and metropolitan areas, 
     especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, 
     and efficiency;
       ``(B) increase the safety of the transportation system for 
     motorized and nonmotorized users;
       ``(C) increase the security of the transportation system 
     for motorized and nonmotorized users;
       ``(D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and 
     freight;
       ``(E) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy 
     conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote 
     consistency between transportation improvements and State and 
     local planned growth and economic development patterns;
       ``(F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the 
     transportation system, across and between modes throughout 
     the State, for people and freight;
       ``(G) promote efficient system management and operation; 
     and
       ``(H) emphasize the preservation of the existing 
     transportation system.
       ``(2) Failure to consider factors.--The failure to consider 
     any factor specified in paragraph (1) shall not be reviewable 
     by any court under this chapter, title 23, subchapter II of 
     chapter 5 of title 5, or chapter 7 of title 5 in any matter 
     affecting a statewide transportation

[[Page 18637]]

     plan, the transportation improvement program, a project or 
     strategy, or the certification of a planning process.
       ``(e) Additional Requirements.--In carrying out planning 
     under this section, each State shall consider, at a minimum--
       ``(1) with respect to nonmetropolitan areas, the concerns 
     of affected local officials with responsibility for 
     transportation;
       ``(2) the concerns of Indian tribal governments and Federal 
     land management agencies that have jurisdiction over land 
     within the boundaries of the State; and
       ``(3) coordination of transportation plans, the 
     transportation improvement program, and planning activities 
     with related planning activities being carried out outside of 
     metropolitan planning areas and between States.
       ``(f) Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan.--
       ``(1) Development.--Each State shall develop a long-range 
     statewide transportation plan, with a minimum 20-year 
     forecast period for all areas of the State, that provides for 
     the development and implementation of the intermodal 
     transportation system of the State.
       ``(2) Consultation with governments.--
       ``(A) Metropolitan areas.--The statewide transportation 
     plan shall be developed for each metropolitan area in the 
     State in cooperation with the metropolitan planning 
     organization designated for the metropolitan area under 
     section 5303.
       ``(B) Nonmetropolitan areas.--With respect to 
     nonmetropolitan areas, the statewide transportation plan 
     shall be developed in consultation with affected 
     nonmetropolitan officials with responsibility for 
     transportation. The Secretary shall not review or approve the 
     consultation process in each State.
       ``(C) Indian tribal areas.--With respect to each area of 
     the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribal 
     government, the statewide transportation plan shall be 
     developed in consultation with the tribal government and the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(D) Consultation, comparison, and consideration.--
       ``(i) In general.--The long-range transportation plan shall 
     be developed, as appropriate, in consultation with State, 
     tribal, and local agencies responsible for land use 
     management, natural resources, environmental protection, 
     conservation, and historic preservation.
       ``(ii) Comparison and consideration.--Consultation under 
     clause (i) shall involve comparison of transportation plans 
     to State and tribal conservation plans or maps, if available, 
     and comparison of transportation plans to inventories of 
     natural or historic resources, if available.
       ``(3) Participation by interested parties.--
       ``(A) In general.--In developing the statewide 
     transportation plan, the State shall provide citizens, 
     affected public agencies, representatives of public 
     transportation employees, freight shippers, private providers 
     of transportation, representatives of users of public 
     transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian 
     walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, 
     representatives of the disabled, providers of freight 
     transportation services, and other interested parties with a 
     reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed plan.
       ``(B) Methods.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the State 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(i) hold any public meetings at convenient and accessible 
     locations and times;
       ``(ii) employ visualization techniques to describe plans; 
     and
       ``(iii) make public information available in electronically 
     accessible format and means, such as the World Wide Web, as 
     appropriate to afford reasonable opportunity for 
     consideration of public information under subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Mitigation activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--A long-range transportation plan shall 
     include a discussion of potential environmental mitigation 
     activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, 
     including activities that may have the greatest potential to 
     restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by 
     the plan.
       ``(B) Consultation.--The discussion shall be developed in 
     consultation with Federal, State, and tribal wildlife, land 
     management, and regulatory agencies.
       ``(5) Financial plan.--The statewide transportation plan 
     may include a financial plan that demonstrates how the 
     adopted statewide transportation plan can be implemented, 
     indicates resources from public and private sources that are 
     reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the 
     plan, and recommends any additional financing strategies for 
     needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, 
     for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be 
     included in the adopted statewide transportation plan if 
     reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in 
     the financial plan were available.
       ``(6) Selection of projects from illustrative list.--A 
     State shall not be required to select any project from the 
     illustrative list of additional projects included in the 
     financial plan described in paragraph (5).
       ``(7) Existing system.--The statewide transportation plan 
     should include capital, operations and management strategies, 
     investments, procedures, and other measures to ensure the 
     preservation and most efficient use of the existing 
     transportation system.
       ``(8) Publication of long-range transportation plans.--Each 
     long-range transportation plan prepared by a State shall be 
     published or otherwise made available, including (to the 
     maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible 
     formats and means, such as the World Wide Web.
       ``(g) Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.--
       ``(1) Development.--Each State shall develop a statewide 
     transportation improvement program for all areas of the 
     State. Such program shall cover a period of 4 years and be 
     updated every 4 years or more frequently if the Governor 
     elects to update more frequently.
       ``(2) Consultation with governments.--
       ``(A) Metropolitan areas.--With respect to each 
     metropolitan area in the State, the program shall be 
     developed in cooperation with the metropolitan planning 
     organization designated for the metropolitan area under 
     section 5303.
       ``(B) Nonmetropolitan areas.--With respect to each 
     nonmetropolitan area in the State, the program shall be 
     developed in consultation with affected nonmetropolitan local 
     officials with responsibility for transportation. The 
     Secretary shall not review or approve the specific 
     consultation process in the State.
       ``(C) Indian tribal areas.--With respect to each area of 
     the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribal 
     government, the program shall be developed in consultation 
     with the tribal government and the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(3) Participation by interested parties.--In developing 
     the program, the State shall provide citizens, affected 
     public agencies, representatives of public transportation 
     employees, freight shippers, private providers of 
     transportation, providers of freight transportation services, 
     representatives of users of public transportation, 
     representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle 
     transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, 
     and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to 
     comment on the proposed program.
       ``(4) Included projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--A transportation improvement program 
     developed under this subsection for a State shall include 
     federally supported surface transportation expenditures 
     within the boundaries of the State.
       ``(B) Listing of projects.--An annual listing of projects 
     for which funds have been obligated in the preceding year in 
     each metropolitan planning area shall be published or 
     otherwise made available by the cooperative effort of the 
     State, transit operator, and the metropolitan planning 
     organization for public review. The listing shall be 
     consistent with the funding categories identified in each 
     metropolitan transportation improvement program.
       ``(C) Projects under chapter 2 of title 23.--
       ``(i) Regionally significant projects.--Regionally 
     significant projects proposed for funding under chapter 2 of 
     title 23 shall be identified individually in the 
     transportation improvement program.
       ``(ii) Other projects.--Projects proposed for funding under 
     chapter 2 of title 23 that are not determined to be 
     regionally significant shall be grouped in 1 line item or 
     identified individually in the transportation improvement 
     program.
       ``(D) Consistency with statewide transportation plan.--Each 
     project shall be--
       ``(i) consistent with the statewide transportation plan 
     developed under this section for the State;
       ``(ii) identical to the project or phase of the project as 
     described in an approved metropolitan transportation plan; 
     and
       ``(iii) in conformance with the applicable State air 
     quality implementation plan developed under the Clean Air 
     Act, if the project is carried out in an area designated as 
     nonattainment for ozone, particulate matter, or carbon 
     monoxide under that Act.
       ``(E) Requirement of anticipated full funding.--The 
     transportation improvement program shall include a project, 
     or an identified phase of a project, only if full funding can 
     reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project 
     within the time period contemplated for completion of the 
     project.
       ``(F) Financial plan.--The transportation improvement 
     program may include a financial plan that demonstrates how 
     the approved transportation improvement program can be 
     implemented, indicates resources from public and private 
     sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to 
     carry out the transportation improvement program, and 
     recommends any additional financing strategies for needed 
     projects and programs. The financial plan may include, for 
     illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be 
     included in the adopted transportation plan if reasonable 
     additional resources beyond those identified in the financial 
     plan were available.
       ``(G) Selection of projects from illustrative list.--
       ``(i) No required selection.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (F), a State shall not be required to select any project from 
     the illustrative list of additional projects included in the 
     financial plan under subparagraph (F).
       ``(ii) Required action by the secretary.--Action by the 
     Secretary shall be required for a State to select any project 
     from the illustrative list of additional projects included in 
     the financial plan under subparagraph (F) for inclusion in an 
     approved transportation improvement program.
       ``(H) Priorities.--The transportation improvement program 
     shall reflect the priorities for programming and expenditures 
     of funds, including transportation enhancement activities, 
     required by this chapter and title 23.
       ``(5) Project selection for areas of less than 50,000 
     population.--Projects carried out in

[[Page 18638]]

     areas with populations of less than 50,000 individuals shall 
     be selected, from the approved transportation improvement 
     program (excluding projects carried out on the National 
     Highway System and projects carried out under the bridge 
     program or the Interstate maintenance program under title 23 
     or sections 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 of this title) by the 
     State in cooperation with the affected nonmetropolitan local 
     officials with responsibility for transportation. Projects 
     carried out in areas with populations of less than 50,000 
     individuals on the National Highway System or under the 
     bridge program or the Interstate maintenance program under 
     title 23 or sections 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 of this title 
     shall be selected, from the approved statewide transportation 
     improvement program, by the State in consultation with the 
     affected nonmetropolitan local officials with responsibility 
     for transportation.
       ``(6) Transportation improvement program approval.--Every 4 
     years, a transportation improvement program developed under 
     this subsection shall be reviewed and approved by the 
     Secretary if based on a current planning finding.
       ``(7) Planning finding.--A finding shall be made by the 
     Secretary at least every 4 years that the transportation 
     planning process through which statewide transportation plans 
     and programs are developed is consistent with this section 
     and section 5303.
       ``(8) Modifications to project priority.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, action by the Secretary shall not 
     be required to advance a project included in the approved 
     transportation improvement program in place of another 
     project in the program.
       ``(h) Funding.--Funds set aside pursuant to section 5305(g) 
     of this title and section 104(i) of title 23 shall be 
     available to carry out this section.
       ``(i) Treatment of Certain State Laws as Congestion 
     Management Processes.--For purposes of this section and 
     section 5303, and sections 134 and 135 of title 23, State 
     laws, rules, or regulations pertaining to congestion 
     management systems or programs may constitute the congestion 
     management process under this section and section 5303, and 
     sections 134 and 135 of title 23, if the Secretary finds that 
     the State laws, rules, or regulations are consistent with, 
     and fulfill the intent of, the purposes of this section, 
     section 5303, and sections 134 and 135 of title 23, as 
     appropriate.
       ``(j) Continuation of Current Review Practice.--Since the 
     statewide transportation plan and the transportation 
     improvement program described in this section are subject to 
     a reasonable opportunity for public comment, since individual 
     projects included in the statewide transportation plans and 
     the transportation improvement program are subject to review 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and since decisions by the Secretary 
     concerning statewide transportation plans or the 
     transportation improvement program described in this section 
     have not been reviewed under such Act as of January 1, 1997, 
     any decision by the Secretary concerning a metropolitan or 
     statewide transportation plan or the transportation 
     improvement program described in this section shall not be 
     considered to be a Federal action subject to review under 
     such Act.''.
       (b) Schedule for Implementation.--The Secretary shall issue 
     guidance on a schedule for implementation of the changes made 
     by this section, taking into consideration the established 
     planning update cycle for States and metropolitan planning 
     organizations. The Secretary shall not require a State or 
     metropolitan planning organization to deviate from its 
     established planning update cycle to implement changes made 
     by this section. Beginning July 1, 2007, State or 
     metropolitan planning organization plan or program updates 
     shall reflect changes made by this section.
       (c) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5304 and 
     inserting the following:

``5304. Statewide transportation planning.''.

     SEC. 3007. PLANNING PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5305 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec.  5305. Planning programs

       ``(a) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State' 
     means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, 
     and Puerto Rico.
       ``(b) General Authority.--
       ``(1) Grants and agreements.--Under criteria established by 
     the Secretary, the Secretary may award grants to States, 
     authorities of the States, metropolitan planning 
     organizations, and local governmental authorities, and make 
     agreements with other departments, agencies, or 
     instrumentalities of the Government to--
       ``(A) develop transportation plans and programs;
       ``(B) plan, engineer, design, and evaluate a public 
     transportation project; and
       ``(C) conduct technical studies relating to public 
     transportation.
       ``(2) Eligible activities.--Activities eligible under 
     paragraph (1) include the following:
       ``(A) Studies related to management, planning, operations, 
     capital requirements, and economic feasibility.
       ``(B) Evaluating previously financed projects.
       ``(C) Peer reviews and exchanges of technical data, 
     information, assistance, and related activities in support of 
     planning and environmental analyses among metropolitan 
     planning organizations and other transportation planners.
       ``(D) Other similar and related activities preliminary to 
     and in preparation for constructing, acquiring, or improving 
     the operation of facilities and equipment.
       ``(c) Purpose.--To the extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall ensure that amounts appropriated or made available 
     under section 5338 to carry out this section and sections 
     5303, 5304, and 5306 are used to support balanced and 
     comprehensive transportation planning that considers the 
     relationships among land use and all transportation modes, 
     without regard to the programmatic source of the planning 
     amounts.
       ``(d) Metropolitan Planning Program.--
       ``(1) Apportionment to states.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall apportion 80 percent 
     of the amounts made available under subsection (g)(1) among 
     the States to carry out sections 5303 and 5306 in the ratio 
     that--
       ``(i) the population of urbanized areas in each State, as 
     shown by the latest available decennial census of population; 
     bears to
       ``(ii) the total population of urbanized areas in all 
     States, as shown by that census.
       ``(B) Minimum apportionment.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), a State may not receive less than 0.5 percent of the 
     amount apportioned under this paragraph.
       ``(2) Allocation to mpo's.--Amounts apportioned to a State 
     under paragraph (1) shall be made available, not later than 
     30 days after the date of apportionment, to metropolitan 
     planning organizations in the State designated under this 
     section under a formula that--
       ``(A) considers population of urbanized areas;
       ``(B) provides an appropriate distribution for urbanized 
     areas to carry out the cooperative processes described in 
     this section;
       ``(C) the State develops in cooperation with the 
     metropolitan planning organizations; and
       ``(D) the Secretary approves.
       ``(3) Supplemental amounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall apportion 20 percent 
     of the amounts made available under subsection (g)(1) among 
     the States to supplement allocations made under paragraph (1) 
     for metropolitan planning organizations.
       ``(B) Formula.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) under a formula that reflects 
     the additional cost of carrying out planning, programming, 
     and project selection responsibilities under sections 5303 
     and 5306 in certain urbanized areas.
       ``(e) State Planning and Research Program.--
       ``(1) Apportionment to states.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall apportion the 
     amounts made available under subsection (g)(2) among the 
     States for grants and contracts to carry out this section and 
     sections 5304, 5306, 5315, and 5322 in the ratio that--
       ``(i) the population of urbanized areas in each State, as 
     shown by the latest available decennial census; bears to
       ``(ii) the population of urbanized areas in all States, as 
     shown by that census.
       ``(B) Minimum apportionment.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), a State may not receive less than 0.5 percent of the 
     amount apportioned under this paragraph.
       ``(2) Supplemental amounts.--A State, as the State 
     considers appropriate, may authorize part of the amount made 
     available under this subsection to be used to supplement 
     amounts made available under subsection (d).
       ``(f) Government's Share of Costs.--The Government's share 
     of the cost of an activity funded using amounts made 
     available under this section may not exceed 80 percent of the 
     cost of the activity unless the Secretary determines that it 
     is in the interests of the Government not to require a State 
     or local match.
       ``(g) Allocation of Funds.--Of the funds made available by 
     or appropriated to carry out this section under section 
     5338(c) for fiscal years 2005 through 2009--
       ``(1) 82.72 percent shall be available for the metropolitan 
     planning program under subsection (d); and
       ``(2) 17.28 percent shall be available to carry out 
     subsection (e).
       ``(h) Availability of Funds.--Funds apportioned under this 
     section to a State that have not been obligated in the 3-year 
     period beginning after the last day of the fiscal year for 
     which the funds are authorized shall be reapportioned among 
     the States.''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5305 and 
     inserting the following:

``5305. Planning programs.''.

     SEC. 3008. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE PARTICIPATION.

       Section 5306(a) is amended by inserting ``, as determined 
     by local policies, criteria, and decisionmaking,'' after 
     ``feasible''.

     SEC. 3009. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS.

       (a) Technical Amendments.--Section 5307 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (h), (j) and (k); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (i), (l), (m), and (n) as 
     subsections (h), (i), (j), and (k), respectively.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) Associated capital maintenance items.--Section 
     5307(a)(1) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``means equipment, tires,'' and inserting 
     ``means--
       ``(A) equipment, tires,'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated) by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) reconstruction of equipment and material, each of 
     which after reconstruction will have a fair market value of 
     at least .5 percent of

[[Page 18639]]

     the current fair market value of rolling stock comparable to 
     the rolling stock for which the equipment and material will 
     be used.''.
       (2) Designated recipient.--Section 5307(a)(2)(A) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(A) an entity designated, in accordance with the planning 
     process under sections 5303, 5304, and 5306, by the chief 
     executive officer of a State, responsible local officials, 
     and publicly owned operators of public transportation, to 
     receive and apportion amounts under section 5336 that are 
     attributable to transportation management areas identified 
     under section 5303; or''.
       (c) General Authority.--Section 5307(b) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants under this 
     section for--
       ``(A) capital projects and associated capital maintenance 
     items;
       ``(B) planning;
       ``(C) transit enhancements;
       ``(D) operating costs of equipment and facilities for use 
     in public transportation in an urbanized area with a 
     population of less than 200,000;
       ``(E) operating costs of equipment and facilities for use 
     in public transportation in a portion or portions of an 
     urbanized area with a population of at least 200,000, but not 
     more than 225,000, if--
       ``(i) the urbanized area includes parts of more than one 
     State;
       ``(ii) the portion of the urbanized area includes only one 
     State;
       ``(iii) the population of the portion of the urbanized area 
     is less than 30,000; and
       ``(iv) the grants will not be used to provide public 
     transportation outside of the portion of the urbanized area; 
     and
       ``(F) operating costs of equipment and facilities for use 
     in public transportation for local governmental authorities 
     in areas which adopted transit operating and financing plans 
     that became a part of the Houston, Texas, urbanized area as a 
     result of the 2000 decennial census of population, but lie 
     outside the service area of the principal public 
     transportation agency that serves the Houston urbanized 
     area.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Special rule for fiscal years 2005 through 2007.--
       ``(A) Increased flexibility.--The Secretary may award 
     grants under this section, from funds made available to carry 
     out this section for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 
     2007, to finance the operating cost of equipment and 
     facilities for use in mass transportation in an urbanized 
     area with a population of at least 200,000, as determined by 
     the 2000 decennial census of population, if--
       ``(i) the urbanized area had a population of less than 
     200,000, as determined by the 1990 decennial census of 
     population;
       ``(ii) a portion of the urbanized area was a separate 
     urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000, as 
     determined by the 1990 decennial census of population;
       ``(iii) the area was not designated as an urbanized area, 
     as determined by the 1990 decennial census of population; or
       ``(iv) a portion of the area was not designated as an 
     urbanized area, as determined by the 1990 decennial census, 
     and received assistance under section 5311 in fiscal year 
     2002.
       ``(B) Maximum amounts in fiscal year 2005.--In fiscal year 
     2005--
       ``(i) amounts made available to any urbanized area under 
     clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall be not more than 
     the amount apportioned in fiscal year 2002 to the urbanized 
     area with a population of less than 200,000, as determined in 
     the 1990 decennial census of population;
       ``(ii) amounts made available to any urbanized area under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii) shall be not more than the amount 
     apportioned to the urbanized area under this section for 
     fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(iii) each portion of any area not designated as an 
     urbanized area, as determined by the 1990 decennial census, 
     and eligible to receive funds under subparagraph (A)(iv), 
     shall receive an amount of funds to carry out this section 
     that is not less than the amount the portion of the area 
     received under section 5311 for fiscal year 2002.
       ``(C) Maximum amounts in fiscal year 2006.--In fiscal year 
     2006--
       ``(i) amounts made available to any urbanized area under 
     clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall be not more than 
     50 percent of the amount apportioned in fiscal year 2002 to 
     the urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000, as 
     determined in the 1990 decennial census of population;
       ``(ii) amounts made available to any urbanized area under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii) shall be not more than 50 percent of 
     the amount apportioned to the urbanized area under this 
     section for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(iii) each portion of any area not designated as an 
     urbanized area, as determined by the 1990 decennial census, 
     and eligible to receive funds under subparagraph (A)(iv), 
     shall receive an amount of funds to carry out this section 
     that is not less 50 percent of the amount the portion of the 
     area received under section 5311 for fiscal year 2002.
       ``(D) Maximum amounts in fiscal year 2007.--In fiscal year 
     2007--
       ``(i) amounts made available to any urbanized area under 
     clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall be not more than 
     25 percent of the amount apportioned in fiscal year 2002 to 
     the urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000, as 
     determined in the 1990 decennial census of population;
       ``(ii) amounts made available to any urbanized area under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii) shall be not more than 25 percent of 
     the amount apportioned to the urbanized area under this 
     section for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(iii) each portion of any area not designated as an 
     urbanized area, as determined by the 1990 decennial census, 
     and eligible to receive funds under subparagraph (A)(iv), 
     shall receive an amount of funds to carry out this section 
     that is not less than 25 percent of the amount the portion of 
     the area received under section 5311 in fiscal year 2002.''; 
     and
       (3) by striking paragraph (4).
       (d) Grant Recipient Requirements.--Section 5307(d)(1) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``, including safety 
     and security aspects of the program'' after ``program'';
       (2) in subparagraph (E)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (B) by inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (iii); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) will comply with sections 5323 and 5325;'';
       (3) in subparagraph (H) by striking ``sections 5301(a) and 
     (d), 5303-5306, and 5310(a)-(d) of this title'' and inserting 
     ``section 5301(a), section 5301(d), and sections 5303 through 
     5306'';
       (4) in subparagraph (I) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(K) in the case of a recipient for an urbanized area with 
     a population of at least 200,000--
       ``(i) will expend not less than 1 percent of the amount the 
     recipient receives each fiscal year under this section for 
     transit enhancements, as defined in section 5302(a); and
       ``(ii) will submit an annual report listing projects 
     carried out in the preceding fiscal year with those funds; 
     and''.
       (e) Government's Share of Costs.--Section 5307(e) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Government's Share of Costs.--
       ``(1) Capital projects.--A grant for a capital project 
     (including associated capital maintenance items) under this 
     section shall be for 80 percent of the net project cost of 
     the project. The recipient may provide additional local 
     matching amounts.
       ``(2) Operating expenses.--A grant for operating expenses 
     under this section may not exceed 50 percent of the net 
     project cost of the project.
       ``(3) Remaining costs.--Subject to paragraph (4), the 
     remainder of the net project cost shall be provided--
       ``(A) in cash from non-Government sources other than 
     revenues from providing public transportation services;
       ``(B) from revenues derived from the sale of advertising 
     and concessions;
       ``(C) from an undistributed cash surplus, a replacement or 
     depreciation cash fund or reserve, or new capital; and
       ``(D) from amounts received under a service agreement with 
     a State or local social service agency or private social 
     service organization.
       ``(4) Use of certain funds.--The prohibitions on the use of 
     funds for matching requirements under section 
     403(a)(5)(C)(vii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(5)(C)(vii)) shall not apply to the remainder.''.
       (f) Undertaking Projects in Advance.--Section 5307(g) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (4).
       (g) Relationship to Other Laws.--Section 5307(k) (as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(k) Relationship to Other Laws.--
       ``(1) Applicable provisions.--Sections 5301, 5302, 5303, 
     5304, 5306, 5315(c), 5318, 5319, 5323, 5325, 5327, 5329, 
     5330, 5331, 5332, 5333, and 5335 apply to this section and to 
     any grant made under this section.
       ``(2) Inapplicable provisions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided by this section, no 
     other provision of this chapter applies to this section or to 
     a grant made under this section.
       ``(B) Title 5.--The provision of assistance under this 
     chapter shall not be construed as bringing within the 
     application of chapter 15 of title 5 any nonsupervisory 
     employee of a public transportation system (or any other 
     agency or entity performing related functions) to which such 
     chapter is otherwise inapplicable.''.
       (h) Treatment.--Section 5307 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(l) Treatment.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     United States Virgin Islands shall be treated as an urbanized 
     area, as defined in section 5302.''.
       (i) Contracted Paratransit Pilot.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 5302(a)(1)(I) of 
     title 49, United States Code, for fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009, a recipient of assistance under section 5307 of such 
     title in urbanized areas with a population of 558,329 or 
     747,003 according to the 2000 decennial census of population 
     may use not more than 20 percent of such recipient's annual 
     formula apportionment under section 5307 of such title for 
     the provision of nonfixed route paratransit services in 
     accordance with section 223 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12143), but only if the 
     grant recipient is in compliance with applicable requirements 
     of that Act, including both fixed route and demand responsive 
     service and the service is acquired by contract.
       (2) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2009, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate

[[Page 18640]]

     a report on the implementation of this subsection and any 
     recommendations of the Secretary regarding the application of 
     this subsection.

     SEC. 3010. CLEAN FUELS GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 5308 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 5308. Clean fuels grant program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Clean fuel bus.--The term `clean fuel bus' means a 
     passenger vehicle used to provide public transportation 
     that--
       ``(A) is powered by--
       ``(i) compressed natural gas;
       ``(ii) liquefied natural gas;
       ``(iii) biodiesel fuels;
       ``(iv) batteries;
       ``(v) alcohol-based fuels;
       ``(vi) hybrid electric;
       ``(vii) fuel cell;
       ``(viii) clean diesel, to the extent allowed under this 
     section; or
       ``(ix) other low or zero emissions technology; and
       ``(B) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency has certified sufficiently reduces harmful emissions.
       ``(2) Eligible project.--The term `eligible project'--
       ``(A) means a project in a nonattainment or maintenance 
     area described in paragraph (4)(A) for--
       ``(i) purchasing or leasing clean fuel buses, including 
     buses that employ a lightweight composite primary structure;
       ``(ii) constructing or leasing clean fuel buses or 
     electrical recharging facilities and related equipment for 
     such buses; or
       ``(iii) constructing new or improving existing public 
     transportation facilities to accommodate clean fuel buses; 
     and
       ``(B) at the discretion of the Secretary, may include a 
     project located in a nonattainment or maintenance area 
     described in paragraph (4)(A) relating to clean fuel, 
     biodiesel, hybrid electric, or zero emissions technology 
     buses that exhibit equivalent or superior emissions 
     reductions to existing clean fuel or hybrid electric 
     technologies.
       ``(3) Maintenance area.--The term `maintenance area' has 
     the meaning such term has under section 101 of title 23.
       ``(4) Recipient.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `recipient' means a designated 
     recipient (as defined in section 5307(a)(2)) for an area 
     that, and a recipient for an urbanized area with a population 
     of less than 200,000 that--
       ``(i) is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone or 
     carbon monoxide under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7407(d)); or
       ``(ii) is a maintenance area for ozone or carbon monoxide.
       ``(B) Smaller urbanized areas.--In the case of an urbanized 
     area with a population of less than 200,000, the State in 
     which the area is located shall act as the recipient for the 
     area under this section.
       ``(b) Authority.--The Secretary shall make grants in 
     accordance with this section to recipients to finance 
     eligible projects.
       ``(c) Clean Diesel Buses.--Not more than 25 percent of the 
     amount made available by or appropriated under section 5338 
     in each fiscal year to carry out this section may be made 
     available to fund clean diesel buses.
       ``(d) Grant Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--A grant under this section shall be 
     subject to the requirements of section 5307.
       ``(2) Government's share of costs for certain projects.--
     Section 5323(i) applies to projects carried out under this 
     section.
       ``(e) Availability of Funds.--Any amount made available or 
     appropriated under this section--
       ``(1) shall remain available to a project for 2 years after 
     the fiscal year for which the amount is made available or 
     appropriated; and
       ``(2) that remains unobligated at the end of the period 
     described in paragraph (1) shall be added to the amount made 
     available in the following fiscal year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5308 and 
     inserting the following:

``5308. Clean fuels grant program.''.

     SEC. 3011. CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5309 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 5309. Capital investment grants

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Alternatives analysis.--The term `alternatives 
     analysis' means a study conducted as part of the 
     transportation planning process required under sections 5303 
     and 5304, which includes--
       ``(A) an assessment of a wide range of public 
     transportation alternatives designed to address a 
     transportation problem in a corridor or subarea;
       ``(B) sufficient information to enable the Secretary to 
     make the findings of project justification and local 
     financial commitment required under this section;
       ``(C) the selection of a locally preferred alternative; and
       ``(D) the adoption of the locally preferred alternative as 
     part of the long-range transportation plan required under 
     section 5303.
       ``(2) Major new fixed guideway capital project.--The term 
     `major new fixed guideway capital project' means a new fixed 
     guideway capital project for which the Federal assistance 
     provided or to be provided under this section is $75,000,000 
     or more.
       ``(3) New fixed guideway capital project.--The term `new 
     fixed guideway capital project' means a minimum operable 
     segment of a capital project for a new fixed guideway system 
     or extension to an existing fixed guideway system.
       ``(b) General Authority.--The Secretary may make grants 
     under this section to assist State and local governmental 
     authorities in financing--
       ``(1) new fixed guideway capital projects under subsections 
     (d) and (e), including the acquisition of real property, the 
     initial acquisition of rolling stock for the systems, the 
     acquisition of rights of way, and relocation, for fixed 
     guideway corridor development for projects in the advanced 
     stages of alternatives analysis or preliminary engineering;
       ``(2) capital projects to modernize existing fixed guideway 
     systems;
       ``(3) capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and 
     purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-
     related facilities, including programs of bus and bus-related 
     projects for assistance to subrecipients that are public 
     agencies, private companies engaged in public transportation, 
     or private nonprofit organizations; and
       ``(4) the development of corridors to support new fixed 
     guideway capital projects under subsections (d) and (e), 
     including protecting rights of way through acquisition, 
     construction of dedicated bus and high occupancy vehicle 
     lanes and park and ride lots, and other nonvehicular capital 
     improvements that the Secretary may decide would result in 
     increased public transportation usage in the corridor.
       ``(c) Grant Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not approve a grant 
     for a project under this section unless the Secretary 
     determines that--
       ``(A) the project is part of an approved transportation 
     plan and program of projects required under sections 5303, 
     5304, and 5306; and
       ``(B) the applicant has, or will have--
       ``(i) the legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry 
     out the project, including safety and security aspects of the 
     project;
       ``(ii) satisfactory continuing control over the use of the 
     equipment or facilities; and
       ``(iii) the capability and willingness to maintain the 
     equipment or facilities.
       ``(2) Certification.--An applicant that has submitted the 
     certifications required under subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), 
     and (H) of section 5307(d)(1) shall be deemed to have 
     provided sufficient information upon which the Secretary may 
     make the determinations required under this subsection.
       ``(3) Grantee requirements.--The Secretary shall require 
     that any grant awarded under this section to a recipient be 
     subject to all terms, conditions, requirements, and 
     provisions that the Secretary determines to be necessary or 
     appropriate for the purposes of this section, including 
     requirements for the disposition of net increases in the 
     value of real property resulting from the project assisted 
     under this section.
       ``(d) Major Capital Investment Grants of $75,000,000 or 
     More.--
       ``(1) Full funding grant agreement.--
       ``(A) In general.--A major new fixed guideway capital 
     project shall be carried out through a full funding grant 
     agreement.
       ``(B) Criteria.--The Secretary shall enter into a full 
     funding grant agreement, based on the evaluations and ratings 
     required under this subsection, with each grantee receiving 
     assistance for a major new fixed guideway capital project 
     that--
       ``(i) is authorized for final design and construction; and
       ``(ii) has been rated as medium, medium-high, or high, in 
     accordance with paragraph (5)(B).
       ``(2) Approval of grants.--The Secretary may approve a 
     grant under this section for a major new fixed guideway 
     capital project only if the Secretary, based upon evaluations 
     and considerations set forth in paragraph (3), determines 
     that the project is--
       ``(A) based on the results of an alternatives analysis and 
     preliminary engineering;
       ``(B) justified based on a comprehensive review of its 
     mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost 
     effectiveness, operating efficiencies, economic development 
     effects, and public transportation supportive land use 
     policies and future patterns; and
       ``(C) supported by an acceptable degree of local financial 
     commitment (including evidence of stable and dependable 
     financing sources) to construct, maintain, and operate the 
     system or extension, and maintain and operate the entire 
     public transportation system without requiring a reduction in 
     existing public transportation services or level of service 
     to operate the proposed project.
       ``(3) Evaluation of project justification.--In making the 
     determinations under paragraph (2)(B) for a major capital 
     investment grant, the Secretary shall analyze, evaluate, and 
     consider--
       ``(A) the results of the alternatives analysis and 
     preliminary engineering for the proposed project;
       ``(B) the reliability of the forecasting methods used to 
     estimate costs and utilization made by the recipient and the 
     contractors to the recipient;
       ``(C) the direct and indirect costs of relevant 
     alternatives;
       ``(D) factors such as--
       ``(i) congestion relief;
       ``(ii) improved mobility;
       ``(iii) air pollution;

[[Page 18641]]

       ``(iv) noise pollution;
       ``(v) energy consumption; and
       ``(vi) all associated ancillary and mitigation costs 
     necessary to carry out each alternative analyzed;
       ``(E) reductions in local infrastructure costs and other 
     benefits achieved through compact land use development, such 
     as positive impacts on the capacity, utilization, or 
     longevity of other surface transportation assets and 
     facilities;
       ``(F) the cost of suburban sprawl;
       ``(G) the degree to which the project increases the 
     mobility of the public transportation dependent population or 
     promotes economic development;
       ``(H) population density and current transit ridership in 
     the transportation corridor;
       ``(I) the technical capability of the grant recipient to 
     construct the project;
       ``(J) any adjustment to the project justification necessary 
     to reflect differences in local land, construction, and 
     operating costs; and
       ``(K) other factors that the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate to carry out this subsection.
       ``(4) Evaluation of local financial commitment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In evaluating a project under paragraph 
     (2)(C), the Secretary shall require that--
       ``(i) the proposed project plan provides for the 
     availability of contingency amounts that the Secretary 
     determines to be reasonable to cover unanticipated cost 
     increases;
       ``(ii) each proposed local source of capital and operating 
     financing is stable, reliable, and available within the 
     proposed project timetable; and
       ``(iii) local resources are available to recapitalize and 
     operate the overall proposed public transportation system, 
     including essential feeder bus and other services necessary 
     to achieve the projected ridership levels without requiring a 
     reduction in existing public transportation services or level 
     of service to operate the proposed project.
       ``(B) Evaluation criteria.--In assessing the stability, 
     reliability, and availability of proposed sources of local 
     financing under paragraph (2)(C), the Secretary shall 
     consider--
       ``(i) the reliability of the forecasting methods used to 
     estimate costs and utilization made by the recipient and the 
     contractors to the recipient;
       ``(ii) existing grant commitments;
       ``(iii) the degree to which financing sources are dedicated 
     to the proposed purposes;
       ``(iv) any debt obligation that exists, or is proposed by 
     the recipient, for the proposed project or other public 
     transportation purpose; and
       ``(v) the extent to which the project has a local financial 
     commitment that exceeds the required non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project.
       ``(C) Consideration of fiscal capacity of state and local 
     governments.--If the Secretary gives priority to financing 
     projects under this subsection that include more than the 
     non-Federal share required under subsection (h), the 
     Secretary shall give equal consideration to differences in 
     the fiscal capacity of State and local governments.
       ``(5) Project advancement and ratings.--
       ``(A) Project advancement.--A proposed project under this 
     subsection shall not advance from alternatives analysis to 
     preliminary engineering or from preliminary engineering to 
     final design and construction unless the Secretary determines 
     that the project meets the requirements of this section and 
     there is a reasonable likelihood that the project will 
     continue to meet such requirements.
       ``(B) Ratings.--In making a determination under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall evaluate and rate the 
     project on a 5-point scale (high, medium-high, medium, 
     medium-low, or low) based on the results of the alternatives 
     analysis, the project justification criteria, and the degree 
     of local financial commitment, as required under this 
     subsection. In rating the projects, the Secretary shall 
     provide, in addition to the overall project rating, 
     individual ratings for each of the criteria established by 
     regulation.
       ``(6) Policy guidance.--
       ``(A) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish policy 
     guidance regarding the new fixed guideway capital project 
     review and evaluation process and criteria--
       ``(i) not later than 120 days after the date of enactment 
     of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005; and
       ``(ii) each time significant changes are made by the 
     Secretary to the process and criteria, but not less 
     frequently than once every 2 years.
       ``(B) Public comment and response.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) invite public comment to the policy guidance 
     published under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) publish a response to the comments received under 
     clause (i).
       ``(e) Capital Investment Grants Less Than $75,000,000.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Applicability of requirements.--Except as provided by 
     subparagraph (B), a new fixed guideway capital project shall 
     be subject to the requirements of this subsection if the 
     Federal assistance provided or to be provided under this 
     section for the project is less than $75,000,000 and the 
     total estimated net capital cost of the project is less than 
     $250,000,000.
       ``(B) Projects receiving less than $25,000,000 in federal 
     assistance.--If the assistance provided under this section 
     with respect to a new fixed guideway capital project is less 
     than $25,000,000, the requirements of this subsection shall 
     not apply to the project until such date as the final 
     regulation to be issued under paragraph (9) takes effect.
       ``(2) Selection criteria.--The Secretary may provide 
     Federal assistance under this subsection with respect to a 
     proposed project only if the Secretary finds that the project 
     is--
       ``(A) based on the results of planning and alternatives 
     analysis;
       ``(B) justified based on a review of its public 
     transportation supportive land use policies, cost 
     effectiveness, and effect on local economic development; and
       ``(C) supported by an acceptable degree of local financial 
     commitment.
       ``(3) Planning and alternatives.--In evaluating a project 
     under paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall analyze and 
     consider the results of planning and alternatives analysis 
     for the project.
       ``(4) Project justification.--For purposes of making the 
     finding under paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) determine the degree to which the project is 
     consistent with local land use policies and is likely to 
     achieve local developmental goals;
       ``(B) determine the cost effectiveness of the project at 
     the time of the initiation of revenue service;
       ``(C) determine the degree to which the project will have a 
     positive effect on local economic development;
       ``(D) consider the reliability of the forecasting methods 
     used to estimate costs and ridership associated with the 
     project; and
       ``(E) consider other factors that the Secretary determines 
     appropriate to carry out this subsection.
       ``(5) Local financial commitment.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(C), the 
     Secretary shall require that each proposed local source of 
     capital and operating financing is stable, reliable, and 
     available within the proposed project timetable.
       ``(B) Consideration of fiscal capacity of state and local 
     governments.--If the Secretary gives priority to financing 
     projects under this subsection that include more than the 
     non-Federal share required under subsection (h), the 
     Secretary shall give equal consideration to differences in 
     the fiscal capacity of State and local governments.
       ``(6) Advancement of project to development and 
     construction.--
       ``(A) General rule.--A proposed project under this 
     subsection may advance from planning and alternatives 
     analysis to project development and construction only if the 
     Secretary finds that the project meets the requirements of 
     this subsection and there is a reasonable likelihood that the 
     project will continue to meet such requirements.
       ``(B) Evaluation.--In making the findings under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall evaluate and rate the 
     project as high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or low 
     based on the results of the analysis of the project 
     justification criteria and the degree of local financial 
     commitment, as required by this subsection.
       ``(7) Contents of project construction grant agreement.--A 
     project construction grant agreement under this subsection 
     shall specify the scope of the project to be constructed, the 
     estimated net project cost of the project, the schedule under 
     which the project shall be constructed, the maximum amount of 
     funding to be obtained under this subsection, the proposed 
     schedule for obligation of future Federal grants, and the 
     sources of funding from other than the Government. The 
     agreement may include a commitment on the part of the 
     Secretary to provide funding for the project in future fiscal 
     years.
       ``(8) Limitation on entry into construction grant 
     agreement.--The Secretary may enter into a project 
     construction grant agreement for a project under this 
     subsection only if the project is authorized for construction 
     and has been rated as high, medium-high, or medium under this 
     subsection.
       ``(9) Regulations.--Not later than 240 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 
     2005, the Secretary shall issue regulations establishing an 
     evaluation and rating process for proposed projects under 
     this subsection that is based on the results of project 
     justification and local financial commitment, as required 
     under this subsection.
       ``(10) Fixed guideway capital project.--In this subsection, 
     the term `fixed guideway capital project' includes a 
     corridor-based bus capital project if--
       ``(A) a substantial portion of the project operates in a 
     separate right-of-way dedicated for public transit use during 
     peak hour operations; or
       ``(B) the project represents a substantial investment in a 
     defined corridor as demonstrated by features such as park-
     and-ride lots, transit stations, bus arrival and departure 
     signage, intelligent transportation systems technology, 
     traffic signal priority, off-board fare collection, advanced 
     bus technology, and other features that support the long-term 
     corridor investment.
       ``(11) Impact report.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 
     2005, the Federal Transit Administration shall submit to the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives a report on the methodology 
     to be used in evaluating the land use and economic 
     development impacts of non-fixed guideway or partial fixed 
     guideway projects.

[[Page 18642]]

       ``(B) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) shall address any qualitative and quantitative 
     differences between fixed guideway and non-fixed guideway 
     projects with respect to land use and economic development 
     impacts.
       ``(f) Previously Issued Letter of Intent or Full Funding 
     Grant Agreement.--Subsections (d) and (e) do not apply to 
     projects for which the Secretary has issued a letter of 
     intent or entered into a full funding grant agreement before 
     the date of enactment of the Federal Public Transportation 
     Act of 2005. Subsection (e) also does not apply to projects 
     for which the Secretary has received an application for final 
     design before such date of enactment.
       ``(g) Letters of Intent, Full Funding Grant Agreements, and 
     Early Systems Work Agreements.--
       ``(1) Letters of intent.--
       ``(A) Amounts intended to be obligated.--The Secretary may 
     issue a letter of intent to an applicant announcing an 
     intention to obligate, for a capital project under this 
     section, an amount from future available budget authority 
     specified in law that is not more than the amount stipulated 
     as the financial participation of the Secretary in the 
     project. When a letter is issued for fixed guideway projects, 
     the amount shall be sufficient to complete at least an 
     operable segment.
       ``(B) Treatment.--The issuance of a letter under 
     subparagraph (A) is deemed not to be an obligation under 
     sections 1108(c), 1108(d), 1501, and 1502(a) of title 31 or 
     an administrative commitment.
       ``(2) Full funding grant agreements.--
       ``(A) Terms.--The Secretary may make a full funding grant 
     agreement with an applicant. The agreement shall--
       ``(i) establish the terms of participation by the 
     Government in a project under this section;
       ``(ii) establish the maximum amount of Government financial 
     assistance for the project;
       ``(iii) cover the period of time for completing the 
     project, including a period extending beyond the period of an 
     authorization; and
       ``(iv) make timely and efficient management of the project 
     easier according to the law of the United States.
       ``(B) Special financial rules.--
       ``(i) In general.--A full funding grant agreement under 
     this paragraph obligates an amount of available budget 
     authority specified in law and may include a commitment, 
     contingent on amounts to be specified in law in advance for 
     commitments under this paragraph, to obligate an additional 
     amount from future available budget authority specified in 
     law.
       ``(ii) Statement of contingent commitment.--The agreement 
     shall state that the contingent commitment is not an 
     obligation of the Government.
       ``(iii) Interest and other financing costs.--Interest and 
     other financing costs of efficiently carrying out a part of 
     the project within a reasonable time are a cost of carrying 
     out the project under a full funding grant agreement, except 
     that eligible costs may not be more than the cost of the most 
     favorable financing terms reasonably available for the 
     project at the time of borrowing. The applicant shall 
     certify, in a way satisfactory to the Secretary, that the 
     applicant has shown reasonable diligence in seeking the most 
     favorable financing terms.
       ``(iv) Completion of operable segment.--The amount 
     stipulated in an agreement under this paragraph for a fixed 
     guideway project shall be sufficient to complete at least an 
     operable segment.
       ``(C) Before and after study.--
       ``(i) In general.--A full funding grant agreement under 
     this paragraph shall require the applicant to conduct a study 
     that--

       ``(I) describes and analyzes the impacts of the new fixed 
     guideway capital project on transit services and transit 
     ridership;
       ``(II) evaluates the consistency of predicted and actual 
     project characteristics and performance; and

       ``(III) identifies sources of differences between predicted 
     and actual outcomes.

       ``(ii) Information collection and analysis plan.--

       ``(I) Submission of plan.--Applicants seeking an agreement 
     under this paragraph shall submit a complete plan for the 
     collection and analysis of information to identify the 
     impacts of the new fixed guideway capital project and the 
     accuracy of the forecasts prepared during the development of 
     the project. Preparation of this plan shall be included in 
     the full funding grant agreement as an eligible activity.
       ``(II) Contents of plan.--The plan submitted under 
     subclause (I) shall provide for--

       ``(aa) the collection of data on the current transit system 
     regarding transit service levels and ridership patterns, 
     including origins and destinations, access modes, trip 
     purposes, and rider characteristics;
       ``(bb) documentation of the predicted scope, service 
     levels, capital costs, operating costs, and ridership of the 
     project;
       ``(cc) collection of data on the transit system 2 years 
     after the opening of the new fixed guideway capital project, 
     including analogous information on transit service levels and 
     ridership patterns and information on the as-built scope and 
     capital costs of the project; and
       ``(dd) analysis of the consistency of predicted project 
     characteristics with the after data.
       ``(D) Collection of data on current system.--To be eligible 
     for a full funding grant agreement under this paragraph, 
     recipients shall have collected data on the current system, 
     according to the plan required, before the beginning of 
     construction of the proposed new start project. Collection of 
     this data shall be included in the full funding grant 
     agreement as an eligible activity.
       ``(3) Early system work agreements.--
       ``(A) Conditions.--The Secretary may make an early systems 
     work agreement with an applicant if a record of decision 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has been issued on the project and the 
     Secretary finds there is reason to believe--
       ``(i) a full funding grant agreement for the project will 
     be made; and
       ``(ii) the terms of the work agreement will promote 
     ultimate completion of the project more rapidly and at less 
     cost.
       ``(B) Contents.--
       ``(i) In general.--A work agreement under this paragraph 
     obligates an amount of available budget authority specified 
     in law and shall provide for reimbursement of preliminary 
     costs of carrying out the project, including land 
     acquisition, timely procurement of system elements for which 
     specifications are decided, and other activities the 
     Secretary decides are appropriate to make efficient, long-
     term project management easier.
       ``(ii) Period covered.--A work agreement under this 
     paragraph shall cover the period of time the Secretary 
     considers appropriate. The period may extend beyond the 
     period of current authorization.
       ``(iii) Interest and other financing costs.--Interest and 
     other financing costs of efficiently carrying out the work 
     agreement within a reasonable time are a cost of carrying out 
     the agreement, except that eligible costs may not be more 
     than the cost of the most favorable financing terms 
     reasonably available for the project at the time of 
     borrowing. The applicant shall certify, in a way satisfactory 
     to the Secretary, that the applicant has shown reasonable 
     diligence in seeking the most favorable financing terms.
       ``(iv) Failure to carry out project.--If an applicant does 
     not carry out the project for reasons within the control of 
     the applicant, the applicant shall repay all Government 
     payments made under the work agreement plus reasonable 
     interest and penalty charges the Secretary establishes in the 
     agreement.
       ``(4) Limitation on amounts.--
       ``(A) Major capital investment grants contingent commitment 
     authority.--The total estimated amount of future obligations 
     of the Government and contingent commitments to incur 
     obligations covered by all outstanding letters of intent, 
     full funding grant agreements, and early systems work 
     agreements under this subsection for major new fixed guideway 
     capital projects may be not more than the greater of the 
     amount authorized under sections 5338(a)(3) and 5338(c) for 
     such projects or an amount equivalent to the last 3 fiscal 
     years of funding allocated under subsections (m)(1)(A) and 
     (m)(2)(A)(ii) for such projects, less an amount the Secretary 
     reasonably estimates is necessary for grants under this 
     section for those of such projects that are not covered by a 
     letter or agreement. The total amount covered by new letters 
     and contingent commitments included in full funding grant 
     agreements and early systems work agreements for such 
     projects may be not more than a limitation specified in law.
       ``(B) Other contingent commitment authority.--The total 
     estimated amount of future obligations of the Government and 
     contingent commitments to incur obligations covered by all 
     project construction grant agreements and early system work 
     agreements under this subsection for small capital projects 
     described in subsection (e) may be not more than the greater 
     of the amount allocated under subsection (m)(2)(A)(i) for 
     such projects or an amount equivalent to the last fiscal year 
     of funding allocated under such subsection for such projects, 
     less an amount the Secretary reasonably estimates is 
     necessary for grants under this section for those of such 
     projects that are not covered by an agreement. The total 
     amount covered by new contingent commitments included in 
     project construction grant agreements and early systems work 
     agreements for such projects may be not more than a 
     limitation specified in law.
       ``(C) Inclusion of certain commitments.--Future obligations 
     of the Government and contingent commitments made against the 
     contingent commitment authority under section 3032(g)(2) of 
     the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (106 Stat. 2125) for the San Francisco BART to the Airport 
     project for fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 
     shall be charged against section 3032(g)(2) of that Act.
       ``(D) Appropriation required.--An obligation may be made 
     under this subsection only when amounts are appropriated for 
     the obligation.
       ``(5) Notification of congress.--At least 60 days before 
     issuing a letter of intent or entering into a full funding 
     grant agreement or project construction grant agreement under 
     this section, the Secretary shall notify, in writing, the 
     Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and 
     Appropriations of the Senate of the proposed letter or 
     agreement. The Secretary shall include with the notification 
     a copy of the proposed letter or agreement as well as the 
     evaluations and ratings for the project.
       ``(h) Government's Share of Net Project Cost.--
       ``(1) In general.--Based on engineering studies, studies of 
     economic feasibility, and information on the expected use of 
     equipment or facilities, the Secretary shall estimate the net 
     project cost. A grant for the project shall be for 80 percent 
     of the net capital project cost, unless the

[[Page 18643]]

     grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage.
       ``(2) Adjustment for completion under budget.--The 
     Secretary may adjust the final net project cost of a new 
     fixed guideway capital project evaluated under subsections 
     (d) and (e) to include the cost of eligible activities not 
     included in the originally defined project if the Secretary 
     determines that the originally defined project has been 
     completed at a cost that is significantly below the original 
     estimate.
       ``(3) Maximum government share.--The Secretary may provide 
     a higher grant percentage than requested by the grant 
     recipient if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the net project cost of 
     the project is not more than 10 percent higher than the net 
     project cost estimated at the time the project was approved 
     for advancement into preliminary engineering; and
       ``(B) the ridership estimated for the project is not less 
     than 90 percent of the ridership estimated for the project at 
     the time the project was approved for advancement into 
     preliminary engineering.
       ``(4) Remainder of net project cost.--The remainder of net 
     project costs shall be provided from an undistributed cash 
     surplus, a replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, 
     or new capital.
       ``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this section, including paragraph (1) and subsections 
     (d)(4)(B)(v) and (e)(5), shall be construed as authorizing 
     the Secretary to require a non-Federal financial commitment 
     for a project that is more than 20 percent of the net capital 
     project cost.
       ``(6) Special rule for rolling stock costs.--In addition to 
     amounts allowed pursuant to paragraph (1), a planned 
     extension to a fixed guideway system may include the cost of 
     rolling stock previously purchased if the applicant satisfies 
     the Secretary that only amounts other than amounts of the 
     Government were used and that the purchase was made for use 
     on the extension. A refund or reduction of the remainder may 
     be made only if a refund of a proportional amount of the 
     grant of the Government is made at the same time.
       ``(7) Limitation on applicability.--This subsection does 
     not apply to projects for which the Secretary has entered 
     into a full funding grant agreement before the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005.
       ``(i) Undertaking Projects in Advance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may pay the Government's 
     share of the net capital project cost to a State or local 
     governmental authority that carries out any part of a project 
     described in this section without the aid of amounts of the 
     Government and according to all applicable procedures and 
     requirements if--
       ``(A) the State or local governmental authority applies for 
     the payment;
       ``(B) the Secretary approves the payment; and
       ``(C) before carrying out the part of the project, the 
     Secretary approves the plans and specifications for the part 
     in the same way as other projects under this section.
       ``(2) Financing costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--The cost of carrying out part of a 
     project includes the amount of interest earned and payable on 
     bonds issued by the State or local governmental authority to 
     the extent proceeds of the bonds are expended in carrying out 
     the part.
       ``(B) Limitation on amount of interest.--The amount of 
     interest under this paragraph may not be more than the most 
     favorable interest terms reasonably available for the project 
     at the time of borrowing.
       ``(C) Certification.--The applicant shall certify, in a 
     manner satisfactory to the Secretary, that the applicant has 
     shown reasonable diligence in seeking the most favorable 
     financial terms.
       ``(j) Availability of Amounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--An amount made available or appropriated 
     under section 5338(a)(3)(C)(iii), 5338(a)(3)(C)(iv), 
     5338(b)(2)(E), or 5338(c) for replacement, rehabilitation, 
     and purchase of buses and related equipment and construction 
     of bus-related facilities or for new fixed guideway capital 
     projects shall remain available for 3 fiscal years, including 
     the fiscal year in which the amount is made available or 
     appropriated. Any of such amounts that are unobligated at the 
     end of the 3-fiscal-year period may be used by the Secretary 
     for any purpose under this section.
       ``(2) Use of deobligated amounts.--An amount available 
     under this section that is deobligated may be used for any 
     purpose under this section.
       ``(k) Reports on New Starts.--
       ``(1) Annual report on funding recommendations.--Not later 
     than the first Monday in February of each year, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs and Appropriations of the Senate a report that 
     includes--
       ``(A) a proposal of allocations of amounts to be available 
     to finance grants for new fixed guideway capital projects 
     among applicants for these amounts;
       ``(B) evaluations and ratings, as required under 
     subsections (d) and (e), for each such project that is 
     authorized by the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005; 
     and
       ``(C) recommendations of such projects for funding based on 
     the evaluations and ratings and on existing commitments and 
     anticipated funding levels for the next 3 fiscal years based 
     on information currently available to the Secretary.
       ``(2) Annual gao review.--The Comptroller General shall--
       ``(A) conduct an annual review of--
       ``(i) the processes and procedures for evaluating, rating, 
     and recommending new fixed guideway capital projects; and
       ``(ii) the Secretary's implementation of such processes and 
     procedures; and
       ``(B) report to Congress on the results of such review by 
     May 31 of each year.
       ``(l) Other Reports.--
       ``(1) Before and after study reports.--Not later than the 
     first Monday of August of each year, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the committees referred to in subsection (k)(1) a 
     report containing a summary of the results of the studies 
     conducted under subsection (g)(2)(C).
       ``(2) Contractor performance assessment report.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005, 
     and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     committees referred to in subsection (k)(1) a report 
     analyzing the consistency and accuracy of cost and ridership 
     estimates made by each contractor to public transportation 
     agencies developing new fixed guideway capital projects.
       ``(B) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) shall compare the cost and ridership estimates made at 
     the time projects are approved for entrance into preliminary 
     engineering with--
       ``(i) estimates made at the time projects are approved for 
     entrance into final design;
       ``(ii) costs and ridership when the project commences 
     revenue operation; and
       ``(iii) costs and ridership when the project has been in 
     operation for 2 years.
       ``(C) Considerations.--In making comparisons under 
     subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall consider factors having 
     an impact on costs and ridership not under the control of the 
     contractor. The Secretary shall also consider the role taken 
     by each contractor in the development of the project.
       ``(3) Contractor performance incentive report.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the enactment of the Federal Public 
     Transportation Act of 2005, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     committees referred to in subsection (k)(1) a report on the 
     suitability of allowing contractors to public transportation 
     agencies that undertake new fixed guideway capital projects 
     under this section to receive performance incentive awards if 
     a project is completed for less than the original estimated 
     cost.
       ``(m) Allocating Amounts.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2005.--Of the amounts made available or 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2005 under section 5338(a)(3)--
       ``(A) $1,437,829,600 shall be allocated for new fixed 
     capital projects under subsection (d);
       ``(B) $1,204,684,800 shall be allocated for capital 
     projects for fixed guideway modernization; and
       ``(C) $669,600,000 shall be allocated for capital projects 
     for buses and bus-related equipment and facilities.
       ``(2) Fiscal years 2006 through 2009.--The amounts made 
     available or appropriated for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 
     under sections 5338(b) and 5338(c) shall be allocated as 
     follows:
       ``(A) Major capital projects.--Of the amounts appropriated 
     under section 5338(c) for major capital projects--
       ``(i) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 
     2009 shall be allocated for projects for new fixed guideway 
     capital projects of less than $75,000,000 in accordance with 
     subsection (e); and
       ``(ii) the remainder shall be allocated for major new fixed 
     guideway capital projects in accordance with subsection (d).
       ``(B) Fixed guideway modernization.--The amounts made 
     available under section 5338(b)(2)(D) shall be allocated for 
     capital projects for fixed guideway modernization.
       ``(C) Buses and bus-related equipment and facilities.--The 
     amounts made available under section 5338(b)(2)(E) shall be 
     allocated for capital projects for buses and bus-related 
     equipment and facilities.
       ``(3) Fixed guideway modernization.--The amounts made 
     available for fixed guideway modernization under section 
     5338(b)(2)(D) for fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter shall be allocated in accordance with section 
     5337.
       ``(4) Preliminary engineering and alternatives analysis.--
     Not more that 8 percent of the allocation described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) may be expended on alternatives analysis and 
     preliminary engineering.
       ``(5) Preliminary engineering.--Not more than 8 percent of 
     the allocation described in paragraph (2)(A) may be expended 
     on preliminary engineering.
       ``(6) Funding for ferry boats.--Of the amounts described in 
     paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A)--
       ``(A) $10,400,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2005 
     for capital projects in Alaska and Hawaii for new fixed 
     guideway systems and extension projects utilizing ferry 
     boats, ferry boat terminals, or approaches to ferry boat 
     terminals;
       ``(B) $15,000,000 shall be available in each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009 for capital projects in Alaska and 
     Hawaii for new fixed guideway ferry systems and extension 
     projects utilizing ferry boats, ferry boat terminals, or 
     approaches to ferry boat terminals; and
       ``(C) $5,000,000 shall be available for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 though 2009 for payments to the Denali Commission 
     under the terms of section 307(e) of the Denali Commission 
     Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 3121 note) for docks, waterfront 
     development projects, and related transportation 
     infrastructure.

[[Page 18644]]

       ``(7) Bus and bus facility grants.--The amounts made 
     available under paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C) shall be 
     allocated as follows:
       ``(A) Ferry boat systems.--$10,000,000 shall be available 
     in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for ferry boats or 
     ferry terminal facilities. Of such funds, the following 
     amounts shall be set aside for each fiscal year:
       ``(i) $2,500,000 for the San Francisco Water Transit 
     Authority.
       ``(ii) $2,500,000 for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
     Authority Ferry System.
       ``(iii) $1,000,000 for the Camden, New Jersey Ferry System.
       ``(iv) $1,000,000 for the Governor's Island, New York Ferry 
     System
       ``(v) $1,000,000 for the Philadelphia Penn's Landing Ferry 
     Terminal.
       ``(vi) $1,000,000 for the Staten Island Ferry.
       ``(vii) $650,000 for the Maine State Ferry Service, 
     Rockland.
       ``(viii) $350,000 for the Swans Island, Maine Ferry 
     Service.
       ``(B) Fuel cell bus program.--The following amounts shall 
     be set aside for the national fuel cell bus technology 
     development program under section 3039 of the Federal Public 
     Transportation Act of 2005:
       ``(i) $11,250,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(ii) $11,500,000 for fiscal year 2007.
       ``(iii) $12,750,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       ``(iv) $13,500,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       ``(C) Projects not in urbanized areas.--Not less than 5.5 
     percent shall be available in each fiscal year for projects 
     that are not in urbanized areas.
       ``(D) Intermodal terminals.--Not less than $35,000,000 
     shall be available in each fiscal year for intermodal 
     terminal projects, including the intercity bus portion of 
     such projects.
       ``(E) Bus testing.--$3,000,000 shall be available in each 
     fiscal year for bus testing under section 5318.
       ``(8) Bus and bus facility grant considerations.--In making 
     grants under paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C), the Secretary 
     shall consider the age and condition of buses, bus fleets, 
     related equipment, and bus-related facilities.''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5309 and 
     inserting the following:

``5309. Capital investment grants.''.

       (c) Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish and 
     implement a pilot program to demonstrate the advantages and 
     disadvantages of public-private partnerships for certain new 
     fixed guideway capital projects.
       (2) Limitation on the number of facilities.--The Secretary 
     may permit the establishment of 3 public-private partnerships 
     for new fixed guideway capital projects.
       (3) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     public-private partnership program, a recipient shall submit 
     to the Secretary an application that contains, at a minimum, 
     the following:
       (A) An identification of the new fixed guideway capital 
     project that has not entered into a full funding grant 
     agreement or project construction grant agreement with the 
     Federal Transit Administration.
       (B) A schedule and finance plan for the construction of and 
     operation of the proposed project.
       (C) An analysis of the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of 
     the proposed public-private partnership agreement.
       (4) Selection criteria.--The Secretary may approve the 
     application of a recipient under this subsection if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       (A) State and local laws permit public-private agreements 
     for all phases of project development, construction, and 
     operation of the project;
       (B) the recipient is unable to advance the project due to 
     fiscal constraints; and
       (C) the plan implementing the public-private partnership is 
     justified.
       (5) Program term.--The Secretary may approve an application 
     of a recipient for a public-private partnership for fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009.
       (6) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing 
     an assessment of the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of a 
     public-private partnership program for new fixed guideway 
     capital projects.
       (d) Restrictions on Use of Bus Category Funds for Fixed 
     Guideway Projects.--Funds provided to grantees under the bus 
     and bus facility category for fixed guideway ferry and 
     gondola projects in the Department of Transportation and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Acts for any of fiscal years 
     1998 through 2005, or accompanying committee reports, that 
     remain available and unobligated may be used for new fixed 
     guideway capital projects under section 5309 of title 49, 
     United States Code. Funds made available to the same grantees 
     for similar projects under the bus and bus facility category 
     of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, in fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009 may be used for fixed guideway 
     projects under that section.
       (e) Miami Metrorail.--The Secretary shall credit funds 
     provided by the Florida department of transportation for the 
     extension of the Miami Metrorail System from Earlington 
     Heights to the Miami Intermodal Center to satisfy the 
     matching requirements of section 5309(h)(4) of title 49, 
     United Stated Code, for the Miami North Corridor and Miami 
     East-West Corridor projects.
       (f) Adjustments.--The adjustments made in the Federal 
     Transit Administrator's Dear Colleague letter of April 29, 
     2005, to require a ``medium'' for the cost-effectiveness 
     rating, in order for fixed guideway projects to be 
     recommended for funding by the Federal Transit 
     Administration, shall not apply to the following:
       (1) San Francisco Muni--Third Street LRT Phase I/II.
       (2) Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority--Silicon Valley 
     Rapid Transit Corridor.
       (3) Washington County, Oregon--Wilsonville to Beaverton 
     Commuter Rail.
       (4) Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project--Extension to Wiehle 
     Avenue.

     SEC. 3012. FORMULA GRANTS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS OF ELDERLY 
                   INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 5310 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 5310. Formula grants for special needs of elderly 
       individuals and individuals with disabilities

       ``(a) General Authority.--
       ``(1) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants to States and 
     local governmental authorities under this section for public 
     transportation capital projects planned, designed, and 
     carried out to meet the special needs of elderly individuals 
     and individuals with disabilities.
       ``(2) Subrecipients.--A State that receives a grant under 
     this section may allocate the amounts provided under the 
     grant to--
       ``(A) a private nonprofit organization, if the public 
     transportation service provided under paragraph (1) is 
     unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate; or
       ``(B) a governmental authority that--
       ``(i) is approved by the State to coordinate services for 
     elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities; or
       ``(ii) certifies that there are not any nonprofit 
     organizations readily available in the area to provide the 
     services described under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Acquiring public transportation services.--A public 
     transportation capital project under this section may include 
     acquisition of public transportation services as an eligible 
     capital expense.
       ``(4) Administrative expenses.--A State or local 
     governmental authority may use not more than 10 percent of 
     the amounts apportioned to the State under this section to 
     administer, plan, and provide technical assistance for a 
     project funded under this section.
       ``(b) Apportionment and Transfers.--
       ``(1) Formula.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts made 
     available to carry out this section under a formula the 
     Secretary administers that considers the number of elderly 
     individuals and individuals with disabilities in each State.
       ``(2) Transfer of funds.--Any funds apportioned to a State 
     under paragraph (1) may be transferred by the State to the 
     apportionments made under sections 5311(c) and 5336 if such 
     funds are only used for eligible projects selected under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Government's Share of Costs.--
       ``(1) Capital projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--A grant for a capital project under this 
     section shall be for 80 percent of the net capital costs of 
     the project, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Exception.--A State described in section 120(b) of 
     title 23 shall receive an increased Government share in 
     accordance with the formula under that section.
       ``(2) Remainder.--The remainder of the net project costs--
       ``(A) may be provided from an undistributed cash surplus, a 
     replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, a service 
     agreement with a State or local social service agency or a 
     private social service organization, or new capital;
       ``(B) may be derived from amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available to a department or agency of the Government 
     (other than the Department of Transportation) that are 
     eligible to be expended for transportation; and
       ``(C) notwithstanding subparagraph (B), may be derived from 
     amounts made available to carry out the Federal lands highway 
     program established by section 204 of title 23.
       ``(3) Use of certain funds.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2)(B), the prohibitions on the use of funds for matching 
     requirements under section 403(a)(5)(C)(vii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(vii)) shall not apply to 
     Federal or State funds to be used for transportation 
     purposes.
       ``(d) Grant Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--A grant under this section shall be 
     subject to all requirements of a grant under section 5307 to 
     the extent the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(2) Certification requirements.--
       ``(A) Fund transfers.--A grant recipient under this section 
     that transfers funds to a project funded under section 5336 
     in accordance with subsection (b)(2) shall certify that the 
     project for which the funds are requested has been 
     coordinated with private nonprofit providers of services 
     under this section.
       ``(B) Project selection and plan development.--Beginning in 
     fiscal year 2007, each grant recipient under this section 
     shall certify that--
       ``(i) the projects selected were derived from a locally 
     developed, coordinated public transit-human services 
     transportation plan; and
       ``(ii) the plan was developed through a process that 
     included representatives of public, private, and nonprofit 
     transportation and human

[[Page 18645]]

     services providers and participation by the public.
       ``(C) Allocations to subrecipients.--Each grant recipient 
     under this section shall certify that allocations of the 
     grant to subrecipients, if any, are distributed on a fair and 
     equitable basis.
       ``(e) State Program of Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts made available to carry out this 
     section may be used for transportation projects to assist in 
     providing transportation services for elderly individuals and 
     individuals with disabilities that are included in a State 
     program of projects.
       ``(2) Submission and approval.--A State shall submit to the 
     Secretary annually for approval a program of projects. The 
     program shall contain an assurance that the program provides 
     for maximum feasible coordination of transportation services 
     assisted under this section with transportation services 
     assisted by other Government sources.
       ``(f) Leasing Vehicles.--Vehicles acquired under this 
     section may be leased to local governmental authorities to 
     improve transportation services designed to meet the special 
     needs of elderly individuals and individuals with 
     disabilities.
       ``(g) Meal Delivery for Homebound Individuals.--Public 
     transportation service providers receiving assistance under 
     this section or section 5311(c) may coordinate and assist in 
     regularly providing meal delivery service for homebound 
     individuals if the delivery service does not conflict with 
     providing public transportation service or reduce service to 
     public transportation passengers.
       ``(h) Transfers of Facilities and Equipment.--With the 
     consent of the recipient in possession of a facility or 
     equipment acquired with a grant under this section, a State 
     may transfer the facility or equipment to any recipient 
     eligible to receive assistance under this chapter if the 
     facility or equipment will continue to be used as required 
     under this section.''.
       (b) Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities 
     Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--In fiscal year 2006, the Secretary shall 
     establish a pilot program that will allow Wisconsin, Alaska, 
     Minnesota, Oregon, and 3 other States selected by the 
     Secretary to use not more than 33 percent of the funds 
     apportioned to each State to carry out section 5310 of title 
     49, United States Code, for operating costs associated with 
     public transportation projects planned, designed, and carried 
     out to meet the special needs of elderly individuals and 
     individuals with disabilities under such section. The 
     Secretary may base the selection of participating States on a 
     State's exemplary coordination of public transit-human 
     services transportation. The Secretary may require 
     participants to collect data necessary to support the report 
     to Congress required by paragraph (7).
       (2) Planning coordination.--Recipients of funds made 
     available consistent with this subsection shall certify 
     that--
       (A) the projects selected were derived from a locally 
     developed, coordinated public transit-human services 
     transportation plan; and
       (B) the plan was developed through a process that included 
     representatives of public, private, and nonprofit 
     transportation and human services providers and participation 
     by the public.
       (3) Government's share of costs.--Operating assistance 
     under this subsection may not exceed 50 percent of the net 
     operating costs of the project, as determined by the 
     Secretary. The credit for any non-Federal share provided 
     under this subsection shall not reduce nor replace State 
     funds required to match Federal funds for formula grants for 
     the special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with 
     disabilities program authorized under section 5310 of title 
     49, United States Code.
       (4) Remainder.--The remainder of the net project costs--
       (A) may be provided from an undistributed cash surplus, a 
     replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, a service 
     agreement with a State or local social service agency or a 
     private social service organization, or new capital; and
       (B) may be derived from amounts appropriated to or made 
     available to a department or agency of the Government (other 
     than the Department of Transportation) that are eligible to 
     be expended for transportation.
       (5) Use of certain funds.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (4)(B), the prohibitions on the use of funds for matching 
     requirements under section 403(a)(5)(C)(vii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(vii)) shall not apply to 
     Federal or State funds to be used for transportation 
     purposes.
       (6) Eligible activities.--Projects eligible under the pilot 
     program may include the collection of data necessary to 
     support the report to Congress required by paragraph (7).
       (7) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the pilot program, 
     which may include--
       (A) the extent to which funds were used to subsidize 
     existing paratransit service provided in compliance with the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
       (B) whether States participating in the pilot program use 
     the funds to provide services to persons with disabilities 
     that exceed those services required by the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 differently than States not in the 
     pilot program;
       (C) whether States participating in this pilot program use 
     the funds to provide services to individuals with 
     disabilities that exceed those services required by the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to the detriment of 
     other eligible projects;
       (D) the percentage of funds used to assist elderly 
     individuals;
       (E) the percentage of funds used to assist individuals with 
     disabilities;
       (F) the extent to which States participating in this pilot 
     program serve a wider range of elderly, low income, and 
     persons with disabilities populations;
       (G) whether the pilot program improves services to elderly 
     individuals and individuals with disabilities;
       (H) the extent to which States participating in the pilot 
     program were able to expand the range of transportation 
     alternatives available to elderly individuals and individuals 
     with disabilities; and
       (I) whether the pilot program facilitates or discourages 
     coordination with or integration of other funding sources.
       (8) Sunset.--This subsection shall cease to be effective on 
     September 30, 2009.
       (c) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5310 and 
     inserting the following:

``5310. Formula grants for special needs of elderly individuals and 
              individuals with disabilities.''.

     SEC. 3013. FORMULA GRANTS FOR OTHER THAN URBANIZED AREAS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 5311(a) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Recipient.--The term `recipient' means a State or 
     Indian tribe that receives a Federal transit program grant 
     directly from the Federal Government.
       ``(2) Subrecipient.--The term `subrecipient' means a State 
     or local governmental authority, a nonprofit organization, or 
     an operator of public transportation or intercity bus service 
     that receives Federal transit program grant funds indirectly 
     through a recipient.''.
       (b) General Authority.--Section 5311(b) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(b) General Authority.--
       ``(1) Grants authorized.--Except as provided by paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary may award grants under this section to 
     recipients located in areas other than urbanized areas for--
       ``(A) public transportation capital projects;
       ``(B) operating costs of equipment and facilities for use 
     in public transportation; and
       ``(C) the acquisition of public transportation services, 
     including service agreements with private providers of public 
     transportation services.
       ``(2) State program.--
       ``(A) In general.--A project eligible for a grant under 
     this section shall be included in a State program for public 
     transportation service projects, including agreements with 
     private providers of public transportation service.
       ``(B) Submission to secretary.--Each State shall submit to 
     the Secretary annually the program described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(C) Approval.--The Secretary may not approve the program 
     unless the Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) the program provides a fair distribution of amounts 
     in the State, including Indian reservations; and
       ``(ii) the program provides the maximum feasible 
     coordination of public transportation service assisted under 
     this section with transportation service assisted by other 
     Federal sources.
       ``(3) Rural transportation assistance program.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a rural 
     transportation assistance program in other than urbanized 
     areas.
       ``(B) Grants and contracts.--In carrying out this 
     paragraph, the Secretary may use not more than 2 percent of 
     the amount made available to carry out this section to make 
     grants and contracts for transportation research, technical 
     assistance, training, and related support services in other 
     than urbanized areas.
       ``(C) Projects of a national scope.--Not more than 15 
     percent of the amounts available under subparagraph (B) may 
     be used by the Secretary to carry out projects of a national 
     scope, with the remaining balance provided to the States.
       ``(4) Data collection.--Each recipient under this section 
     shall submit an annual report to the Secretary containing 
     information on capital investment, operations, and service 
     provided with funds received under this section, including--
       ``(A) total annual revenue;
       ``(B) sources of revenue;
       ``(C) total annual operating costs;
       ``(D) total annual capital costs;
       ``(E) fleet size and type, and related facilities;
       ``(F) revenue vehicle miles; and
       ``(G) ridership.''.
       (c) Apportionments.--Section 5311(c) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Apportionments.--
       ``(1) Public transportation on indian reservations.--Of the 
     amounts made available or appropriated for each fiscal year 
     pursuant to subsections (a)(1)(C)(v) and (b)(2)(G) of section 
     5338, the following amounts shall be apportioned for grants 
     to Indian tribes for any purpose eligible under this section, 
     under such terms and conditions as may be established by the 
     Secretary:
       ``(A) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(B) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
       ``(C) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       ``(D) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       ``(2) Remaining amounts.--Of the amounts made available or 
     appropriated for each fiscal

[[Page 18646]]

     year pursuant to subsections (a)(1)(C)(v) and (b)(2)(G) of 
     section 5338 that are not apportioned under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) 20 percent shall be apportioned to the States in 
     accordance with paragraph (3); and
       ``(B) 80 percent shall be apportioned to the States in 
     accordance with paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Apportionments based on land area in nonurbanized 
     areas.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), each State 
     shall receive an amount that is equal to the amount 
     apportioned under paragraph (2)(A) multiplied by the ratio of 
     the land area in areas other than urbanized areas in that 
     State and divided by the land area in all areas other than 
     urbanized areas in the United States, as shown by the most 
     recent decennial census of population.
       ``(B) Maximum apportionment.--No State shall receive more 
     than 5 percent of the amount apportioned under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(4) Apportionments based on population in nonurbanized 
     areas.--Each State shall receive an amount equal to the 
     amount apportioned under paragraph (2)(B) multiplied by the 
     ratio of the population of areas other than urbanized areas 
     in that State divided by the population of all areas other 
     than urbanized areas in the United States, as shown by the 
     most recent decennial census of population.''.
       (d) Use for Administration, Planning, and Technical 
     Assistance.--Section 5311(e) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by inserting ``, Planning,'' 
     after ``Administration'';
       (2) by striking ``(1) The Secretary'' and inserting ``The 
     Secretary'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (4) by striking ``recipient'' and inserting 
     ``subrecipient''.
       (e) Intercity Bus Transportation.--Section 5311(f) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``(1) A State'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--A State'';
       (B) by striking ``after September 30, 1993,''; and
       (C) by moving subparagraphs (A) through (D) 2 ems to the 
     right; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``(2) A State'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Certification.--A State''; and
       (B) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary, after consultation with affected 
     intercity bus service providers,''.
       (f) Government Share of Costs.--Section 5311(g) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(g) Government Share of Costs.--
       ``(1) Capital projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided by subparagraph (B), 
     a grant awarded under this section for any purpose other than 
     operating assistance shall be for 80 percent of the net 
     capital costs of the project, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Exception.--A State described in section 120(b) of 
     title 23 shall receive a Government share of the net capital 
     costs in accordance with the formula under that section.
       ``(2) Operating assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided by subparagraph (B), 
     a grant made under this section for operating assistance may 
     not exceed 50 percent of the net operating costs of the 
     project, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Exception.--A State described in section 120(b) of 
     title 23 shall receive a Government share of the net 
     operating costs equal to 62.5 percent of the Government share 
     provided for under paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(3) Remainder.--The remainder of net project costs--
       ``(A) may be provided from an undistributed cash surplus, a 
     replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, a service 
     agreement with a State or local social service agency or a 
     private social service organization, or new capital;
       ``(B) may be derived from amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available to a department or agency of the Government 
     (other than the Department of Transportation) that are 
     eligible to be expended for transportation; and
       ``(C) notwithstanding subparagraph (B), may be derived from 
     amounts made available to carry out the Federal lands highway 
     program established by section 204 of title 23.
       ``(4) Use of certain funds.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (3)(B), the prohibitions on the use of funds for matching 
     requirements under section 403(a)(5)(C)(vii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(vii)) shall not apply to 
     Federal or State funds to be used for transportation 
     purposes.
       ``(5) Limitation on operating assistance.--A State carrying 
     out a program of operating assistance under this section may 
     not limit the level or extent of use of the Government grant 
     for the payment of operating expenses.''.
       (g) Relationship to Other Laws.--Section 5311 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (h); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as subsections 
     (h) and (i), respectively.
       (h) Waiver Condition.--Section 5311(j)(1) is amended by 
     striking ``but the Secretary of Labor may waive the 
     application of section 5333(b)'' and inserting ``if the 
     Secretary of Labor utilizes a special warranty that provides 
     a fair and equitable arrangement to protect the interests of 
     employees''.
       (i) Correction to Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for 
     chapter 53 is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 5311 and inserting the following:

``5311. Formula grants for other than urbanized areas.''.

     SEC. 3014. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND 
                   DEPLOYMENT PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5312(a) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment 
     Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, and other agreements 
     (including agreements with departments, agencies, and 
     instrumentalities of the United States Government) for 
     research, development, demonstration, and deployment 
     projects, and evaluation of technology of national 
     significance to public transportation, that the Secretary 
     determines will improve public transportation service or help 
     public transportation service meet the total transportation 
     needs at a minimum cost.
       ``(2) Information.--The Secretary may request and receive 
     appropriate information from any source.
       ``(3) Savings provision.--This subsection does not limit 
     the authority of the Secretary under any other law.''.
       (b) Joint Partnership Program for Deployment of 
     Innovation.--Section 5312 is amended by striking subsections 
     (b) and (c) and redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 
     subsections (b) and (c), respectively.
       (c) International Mass Transportation Program.--Section 
     5312(c)(2) (as redesignated by subsection (b) of this 
     section) is amended by striking ``public and private'' and 
     inserting ``public or private''.
       (d) Funding.--Section 5312(c)(3) (as redesignated by 
     subsection (b) of this section) is amended by striking 
     ``shall be accounted for separately within the Mass Transit 
     Account of the Highway Trust Fund and''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section heading.--Section 5312 is amended by striking 
     the section heading and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 5312. Research, development, demonstration, and 
       deployment projects''.

       (2) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5312 and 
     inserting the following:

``5312. Research, development, demonstration, and deployment 
              projects.''.

     SEC. 3015. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 5313 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b);
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``(1) The amounts made 
     available under paragraphs (1) and (2)(C)(ii) of section 
     5338(c) of this title'' and inserting ``The amounts made 
     available under subsections (a)(5)(C)(iii) and (d)(1) of 
     section 5338''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``(2) The Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) Federal Assistance.--The Secretary''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Government's Share.--If there would be a clear and 
     direct financial benefit to an entity under a grant or 
     contract financed under this section, the Secretary shall 
     establish a Government share consistent with that benefit.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section heading.--Section 5313 is amended by striking 
     the section heading and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 5313. Transit cooperative research program''.

       (2) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5313 and 
     inserting the following:

``5313. Transit cooperative research program.''.

     SEC. 3016. NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5314 is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 5314. National research programs'';

       (2) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``subsections (d) and (h)(7) of section 
     5338 of this title'' and inserting ``section 5338(d)'';
       (B) by striking ``and contracts'' and inserting ``, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, or other agreements'';
       (C) by striking ``5303-5306,''; and
       (D) by striking ``5317,'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``Of the amounts'' and 
     all that follows through ``$3,000,000 to'' and inserting 
     ``The Secretary shall'';
       (4) by striking subsection (a)(4)(B);
       (5) by redesignating subsection (a)(4)(C) as subsection 
     (a)(4)(B);
       (6) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
       ``(6) Medical transportation demonstration grants.--
       ``(A) Grants authorized.--The Secretary may award 
     demonstration grants, from funds made available under 
     paragraph (1), to eligible entities to provide transportation 
     services to individuals to access dialysis treatments and 
     other medical treatments for renal disease.
       ``(B) Eligible entities.--An entity shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under this paragraph if the entity--
       ``(i) meets the conditions described in section 501(c)(3) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(ii) is an agency of a State or unit of local government.

[[Page 18647]]

       ``(C) Use of funds.--Grant funds received under this 
     paragraph may be used to provide transportation services to 
     individuals to access dialysis treatments and other medical 
     treatments for renal disease.
       ``(D) Application.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this paragraph shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, at such place, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(ii) Selection of grantees.--In awarding grants under 
     this paragraph, the Secretary shall give preference to 
     eligible entities from communities with--

       ``(I) high incidence of renal disease; and
       ``(II) limited access to dialysis facilities.

       ``(E) Rulemaking.--The Secretary shall issue regulations to 
     implement and administer the grant program established under 
     this paragraph.
       ``(F) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report on the 
     results of the demonstration projects funded under this 
     paragraph to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.''.
       (7) in subsection (b) by striking ``or contract'' and all 
     that follows through ``section,'' and inserting ``, contract, 
     cooperative agreement, or other agreement under subsection 
     (a) or section 5312,''; and
       (b) National Technical Assistance Center for Senior 
     Transportation.--Section 5314 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(c) National Technical Assistance Center for Senior 
     Transportation.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall award grants to a 
     national not-for-profit organization for the establishment 
     and maintenance of a national technical assistance center.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--An organization shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under paragraph (1) if the organization--
       ``(A) focuses significantly on serving the needs of the 
     elderly;
       ``(B) has demonstrated knowledge and expertise in senior 
     transportation policy and planning issues;
       ``(C) has affiliates in a majority of the States;
       ``(D) has the capacity to convene local groups to consult 
     on operation and development of senior transportation 
     programs; and
       ``(E) has established close working relationships with the 
     Federal Transit Administration and the Administration on 
     Aging.
       ``(3) Use of funds.--The national technical assistance 
     center established under this section shall--
       ``(A) gather best practices from throughout the Nation and 
     provide such practices to local communities that are 
     implementing senior transportation programs;
       ``(B) work with teams from local communities to identify 
     how the communities are successfully meeting the 
     transportation needs of senior citizens and any gaps in 
     services in order to create a plan for an integrated senior 
     transportation program;
       ``(C) provide resources on ways to pay for senior 
     transportation services;
       ``(D) create a web site to publicize and circulate 
     information on senior transportation programs;
       ``(E) establish a clearinghouse for print, video, and audio 
     resources on senior mobility; and
       ``(F) administer the demonstration grant program 
     established under paragraph (4).
       ``(4) Grants authorized.--
       ``(A) In general.--The national technical assistance center 
     established under this section, in consultation with the 
     Federal Transit Administration, shall award senior 
     transportation demonstration grants to--
       ``(i) local transportation organizations;
       ``(ii) State agencies;
       ``(iii) units of local government; and
       ``(iv) nonprofit organizations.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--Grant funds received under this 
     paragraph may be used to--
       ``(i) evaluate the state of transportation services for 
     senior citizens;
       ``(ii) recognize barriers to mobility that senior citizens 
     encounter in their communities;
       ``(iii) establish partnerships and promote coordination 
     among community stakeholders, including public, not-for-
     profit, and for-profit providers of transportation services 
     for senior citizens;
       ``(iv) identify future transportation needs of senior 
     citizens within local communities; and
       ``(v) establish strategies to meet the unique needs of 
     healthy and frail senior citizens.
       ``(C) Selection of grantees.--The Secretary shall select 
     grantees under this paragraph based on a fair representation 
     of various geographical locations throughout the United 
     States.''.
       (c) Alternative Fuels Study.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the 
     actions necessary to facilitate the purchase of increased 
     volumes of alternative fuels (as defined in section 301 of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211)) for use in 
     public transit vehicles.
       (2) Scope of study.--The study conducted under this 
     subsection shall focus on the incentives necessary to 
     increase the use of alternative fuels in public transit 
     vehicles, including buses, fixed guideway vehicles, and 
     ferries.
       (3) Contents.--The study shall consider--
       (A) the environmental benefits of increased use of 
     alternative fuels in transit vehicles;
       (B) existing opportunities available to transit system 
     operators that encourage the purchase of alternative fuels 
     for transit vehicle operation;
       (C) existing barriers to transit system operators that 
     discourage the purchase of alternative fuels for transit 
     vehicle operation, including situations where alternative 
     fuels that do not require capital improvements to transit 
     vehicles are disadvantaged over fuels that do require such 
     improvements; and
       (D) the necessary levels and type of support necessary to 
     encourage additional use of alternative fuels for transit 
     vehicle operation.
       (4) Recommendations.--The study shall recommend regulatory 
     and legislative alternatives that will result in the 
     increased use of alternative fuels in transit vehicles.
       (5) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives a report containing the 
     results of the study completed under this subsection.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5314 and 
     inserting the following:

``5314. National research programs.''.

     SEC. 3017. NATIONAL TRANSIT INSTITUTE.

       (a) Establishment and Duties.--Section 5315 is amended by 
     striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall award grants to 
     Rutgers University to conduct a national transit institute.
       ``(b) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Federal Transit 
     Administration, State transportation departments, public 
     transportation authorities, and national and international 
     entities, the institute established under subsection (a) 
     shall develop and conduct training and educational programs 
     for Federal, State, and local transportation employees, 
     United States citizens, and foreign nationals engaged or to 
     be engaged in Government-aid public transportation work.
       ``(2) Training and educational programs.--The training and 
     educational programs developed under paragraph (1) may 
     include courses in recent developments, techniques, and 
     procedures related to--
       ``(A) intermodal and public transportation planning;
       ``(B) management;
       ``(C) environmental factors;
       ``(D) acquisition and joint use rights of way;
       ``(E) engineering and architectural design;
       ``(F) procurement strategies for public transportation 
     systems;
       ``(G) turnkey approaches to delivering public 
     transportation systems;
       ``(H) new technologies;
       ``(I) emission reduction technologies;
       ``(J) ways to make public transportation accessible to 
     individuals with disabilities;
       ``(K) construction, construction management, insurance, and 
     risk management;
       ``(L) maintenance;
       ``(M) contract administration;
       ``(N) inspection;
       ``(O) innovative finance;
       ``(P) workplace safety; and
       ``(Q) public transportation security.''.
       (b) Availability of Amounts.--Section 5315(d) is amended by 
     striking ``mass'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 3018. JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE FORMULA GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 53 is amended by inserting after 
     section 5315 the following:

     ``Sec. 5316. Job access and reverse commute formula grants

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Access to jobs project.--The term `access to jobs 
     project' means a project relating to the development and 
     maintenance of transportation services designed to transport 
     welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and 
     from jobs and activities related to their employment, 
     including--
       ``(A) transportation projects to finance planning, capital, 
     and operating costs of providing access to jobs under this 
     chapter;
       ``(B) promoting public transportation by low-income 
     workers, including the use of public transportation by 
     workers with nontraditional work schedules;
       ``(C) promoting the use of transit vouchers for welfare 
     recipients and eligible low-income individuals; and
       ``(D) promoting the use of employer-provided 
     transportation, including the transit pass benefit program 
     under section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Eligible low-income individual.--The term `eligible 
     low-income individual' means an individual whose family 
     income is at or below 150 percent of the poverty line (as 
     that term is defined in section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any 
     revision required by that section) for a family of the size 
     involved.
       ``(3) Recipient.--The term `recipient' means a designated 
     recipient (as defined in section 5307(a)(2)) and a State that 
     receives a grant under this section directly.
       ``(4) Reverse commute project.--The term `reverse commute 
     project' means a public transportation project designed to 
     transport residents of urbanized areas and other than 
     urbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities, 
     including any projects to--
       ``(A) subsidize the costs associated with adding reverse 
     commute bus, train, carpool, van routes, or service from 
     urbanized areas and other than urbanized areas to suburban 
     workplaces;

[[Page 18648]]

       ``(B) subsidize the purchase or lease by a nonprofit 
     organization or public agency of a van or bus dedicated to 
     shuttling employees from their residences to a suburban 
     workplace; or
       ``(C) otherwise facilitate the provision of public 
     transportation services to suburban employment opportunities.
       ``(5) Subrecipient.--The term `subrecipient' means a State 
     or local governmental authority, nonprofit organization, or 
     operator of public transportation services that receives a 
     grant under this section indirectly through a recipient.
       ``(6) Welfare recipient.--The term `welfare recipient' 
     means an individual who has received assistance under a State 
     or tribal program funded under part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act at any time during the 3-year period 
     before the date on which the applicant applies for a grant 
     under this section.
       ``(b) General Authority.--
       ``(1) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants under this 
     section to a recipient for access to jobs and reverse commute 
     projects carried out by the recipient or a subrecipient.
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--A recipient may use not 
     more than 10 percent of the amounts apportioned to the 
     recipient under this section to administer, plan, and provide 
     technical assistance for a project funded under this section.
       ``(c) Apportionments.--
       ``(1) Formula.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts made 
     available for a fiscal year to carry out this section as 
     follows:
       ``(A) 60 percent of the funds shall be apportioned among 
     designated recipients (as defined in section 5307(a)(2)) for 
     urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more in the 
     ratio that--
       ``(i) the number of eligible low-income individuals and 
     welfare recipients in each such urbanized area; bears to
       ``(ii) the number of eligible low-income individuals and 
     welfare recipients in all such urbanized areas.
       ``(B) 20 percent of the funds shall be apportioned among 
     the States in the ratio that--
       ``(i) the number of eligible low-income individuals and 
     welfare recipients in urbanized areas with a population of 
     less than 200,000 in each State; bears to
       ``(ii) the number of eligible low-income individuals and 
     welfare recipients in urbanized areas with a population of 
     less than 200,000 in all States.
       ``(C) 20 percent of the funds shall be apportioned among 
     the States in the ratio that--
       ``(i) the number of eligible low-income individuals and 
     welfare recipients in other than urbanized areas in each 
     State; bears to
       ``(ii) the number of eligible low-income individuals and 
     welfare recipients in other than urbanized areas in all 
     States.
       ``(2) Use of apportioned funds.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) funds apportioned under paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     used for projects serving urbanized areas with a population 
     of 200,000 or more;
       ``(B) funds apportioned under paragraph (1)(B) shall be 
     used for projects serving urbanized areas with a population 
     of less than 200,000; and
       ``(C) funds apportioned under paragraph (1)(C) shall be 
     used for projects serving other than urbanized areas.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--A State may use funds apportioned under 
     paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C)--
       ``(A) for projects serving areas other than the area 
     specified in paragraph (2)(B) or (2)(C), as the case may be, 
     if the Governor of the State certifies that all of the 
     objectives of this section are being met in the specified 
     area; or
       ``(B) for projects anywhere in the State if the State has 
     established a statewide program for meeting the objectives of 
     this section.
       ``(d) Competitive Process for Grants to Subrecipients.--
       ``(1) Areawide solicitations.--A recipient of funds 
     apportioned under subsection (c)(1)(A) shall conduct, in 
     cooperation with the appropriate metropolitan planning 
     organization, an areawide solicitation for applications for 
     grants to the recipient and subrecipients under this section.
       ``(2) Statewide solicitation.--A recipient of funds 
     apportioned under subsection (c)(1)(B) or (c)(1)(C) shall 
     conduct a statewide solicitation for applications for grants 
     to the recipient and subrecipients under this section.
       ``(3) Application.--Recipients and subrecipients seeking to 
     receive a grant from funds apportioned under subsection (c) 
     shall submit to the recipient an application in the form and 
     in accordance with such requirements as the recipient shall 
     establish.
       ``(4) Grant awards.--The recipient shall award grants under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) on a competitive basis.
       ``(e) Transfers.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may transfer any funds 
     apportioned to it under subsection (c)(1)(B) or (c)(1)(C), or 
     both, to an apportionment under section 5311(c) or 5336, or 
     both.
       ``(2) Limited to eligible projects.--Any apportionment 
     transferred under this subsection shall be made available 
     only for eligible job access and reverse commute projects as 
     described in this section.
       ``(3) Consultation.--A State may make a transfer of an 
     amount under this subsection only after consulting with 
     responsible local officials and publicly owned operators of 
     public transportation in each area for which the amount 
     originally was awarded under subsection (d)(4).
       ``(f) Grant Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--A grant under this section shall be 
     subject to the requirements of section 5307.
       ``(2) Fair and equitable distribution.--A recipient of a 
     grant under this section shall certify to the Secretary that 
     allocations of the grant to subrecipients are distributed on 
     a fair and equitable basis.
       ``(g) Coordination.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
     activities under this section with related activities under 
     programs of other Federal departments and agencies.
       ``(2) With nonprofit providers.--A State that transfers 
     funds to an apportionment under section 5336 pursuant to 
     subsection (e) shall certify to the Secretary that any 
     project for which the funds are requested under this section 
     has been coordinated with nonprofit providers of services.
       ``(3) Project selection and planning.--A recipient of funds 
     under this section shall certify to the Secretary that--
       ``(A) the projects selected were derived from a locally 
     developed, coordinated public transit-human services 
     transportation plan; and
       ``(B) the plan was developed through a process that 
     included representatives of public, private, and nonprofit 
     transportation and human services providers and participation 
     by the public.
       ``(h) Government's Share of Costs.--
       ``(1) Capital projects.--A grant for a capital project 
     under this section may not exceed 80 percent of the net 
     capital costs of the project, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Operating assistance.--A grant made under this 
     section for operating assistance may not exceed 50 percent of 
     the net operating costs of the project, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Remainder.--The remainder of the net project costs--
       ``(A) may be provided from an undistributed cash surplus, a 
     replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, a service 
     agreement with a State or local social service agency or a 
     private social service organization, or new capital; and
       ``(B) may be derived from amounts appropriated to or made 
     available to a department or agency of the Government (other 
     than the Department of Transportation) that are eligible to 
     be expended for transportation.
       ``(4) Use of certain funds.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (3)(B), the prohibitions on the use of funds for matching 
     requirements under section 403(a)(5)(C)(vii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(vii)) shall not apply to 
     Federal or State funds to be used for transportation 
     purposes.
       ``(5) Limitation on operating assistance.--A recipient 
     carrying out a program of operating assistance under this 
     section may not limit the level or extent of use of the 
     Government grant for the payment of operating expenses.
       ``(i) Program Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Comptroller general.--Beginning one year after the 
     date of enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 
     2005, and every 2 years thereafter, the Comptroller General 
     shall--
       ``(A) conduct a study to evaluate the grant program 
     authorized by this section; and
       ``(B) transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate a report describing the results of the study under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Department of transportation.--Not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of Federal Public Transportation 
     Act of 2005, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
     grant program authorized by this section and the 
     effectiveness of recipients making grants to subrecipients 
     under this section; and
       ``(B) transmit to the committees referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(B) a report describing the results of the study under 
     subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5315 
     the following:

``5316. Job access and reverse commute formula grants.''.

       (c) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2005, section 3037 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 
     5309 note; 112 Stat. 387) is repealed.

     SEC. 3019. NEW FREEDOM PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 53 is amended by inserting after 
     section 5316 the following:

     ``Sec. 5317. New freedom program

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Recipient.--The term `recipient' means a designated 
     recipient (as defined in section 5307(a)(2)) and a State that 
     receives a grant under this section directly.
       ``(2) Subrecipient.--The term `subrecipient' means a State 
     or local governmental authority, nonprofit organization, or 
     operator of public transportation services that receives a 
     grant under this section indirectly through a recipient.
       ``(b) General Authority.--
       ``(1) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants under this 
     section to a recipient for new public transportation services 
     and public transportation alternatives beyond those required 
     by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12101 et seq.) that assist individuals with disabilities with 
     transportation, including transportation to and from jobs and 
     employment support services.
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--A recipient may use not 
     more than 10 percent of the

[[Page 18649]]

     amounts apportioned to the recipient under this section to 
     administer, plan, and provide technical assistance for a 
     project funded under this section.
       ``(c) Apportionments.--
       ``(1) Formula.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts made 
     available to carry out this section as follows:
       ``(A) 60 percent of the funds shall be apportioned among 
     designated recipients (as defined in section 5307(a)(2)) for 
     urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more in the 
     ratio that--
       ``(i) the number of individuals with disabilities in each 
     such urbanized area; bears to
       ``(ii) the number of individuals with disabilities in all 
     such urbanized areas.
       ``(B) 20 percent of the funds shall be apportioned among 
     the States in the ratio that--
       ``(i) the number of individuals with disabilities in 
     urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000 in 
     each State; bears to
       ``(ii) the number of individuals with disabilities in 
     urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000 in all 
     States.
       ``(C) 20 percent of the funds shall be apportioned among 
     the States in the ratio that--
       ``(i) the number of individuals with disabilities in other 
     than urbanized areas in each State; bears to
       ``(ii) the number of individuals with disabilities in other 
     than urbanized areas in all States.
       ``(2) Use of apportioned funds.--Funds apportioned under 
     paragraph (1) shall be used for projects as follows:
       ``(A) Funds apportioned under paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     used for projects serving urbanized areas with a population 
     of 200,000 or more.
       ``(B) Funds apportioned under paragraph (1)(B) shall be 
     used for projects serving urbanized areas with a population 
     of less than 200,000.
       ``(C) Funds apportioned under paragraph (1)(C) shall be 
     used for projects serving other than urbanized areas.
       ``(3) Transfers.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State may transfer any funds 
     apportioned to it under paragraph (1)(B) or (1)(C), or both, 
     to an apportionment under section 5311(c) or 5336, or both.
       ``(B) Limited to eligible projects.--Any funds transferred 
     pursuant to this paragraph shall be made available only for 
     eligible projects selected under this section.
       ``(C) Consultation.--A State may make a transfer of an 
     amount under this subsection only after consulting with 
     responsible local officials and publicly owned operators of 
     public transportation in each area for which the amount 
     originally was awarded under subsection (d)(4).
       ``(d) Competitive Process for Grants to Subrecipients.--
       ``(1) Areawide solicitations.--A recipient of funds 
     apportioned under subsection (c)(1)(A) shall conduct, in 
     cooperation with the appropriate metropolitan planning 
     organization, an areawide solicitation for applications for 
     grants to the recipient and subrecipients under this section.
       ``(2) Statewide solicitation.--A recipient of funds 
     apportioned under subsection (c)(1)(B) or (c)(1)(C) shall 
     conduct a statewide solicitation for applications for grants 
     to the recipient and subrecipients under this section.
       ``(3) Application.--Recipients and subrecipients seeking to 
     receive a grant from funds apportioned under subsection (c) 
     shall submit to the recipient an application in the form and 
     in accordance with such requirements as the recipient shall 
     establish.
       ``(4) Grant awards.--The recipient shall award grants under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) on a competitive basis.
       ``(e) Grant Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--A grant under this section shall be 
     subject to all the requirements of section 5310 to the extent 
     the Secretary considers appropriate.
       ``(2) Fair and equitable distribution.--A recipient of a 
     grant under this section shall certify that allocations of 
     the grant to subrecipients are distributed on a fair and 
     equitable basis.
       ``(f) Coordination.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
     activities under this section with related activities under 
     programs of other Federal departments and agencies.
       ``(2) With nonprofit providers.--A recipient that transfers 
     funds to an apportionment under section 5336 pursuant to 
     subsection (c)(2) shall certify that the project for which 
     the funds are requested under this section has been 
     coordinated with nonprofit providers of services.
       ``(3) Project selection and planning.--Beginning in fiscal 
     year 2007, a recipient of funds under this section shall 
     certify that--
       ``(A) the projects selected were derived from a locally 
     developed, coordinated public transit-human services 
     transportation plan; and
       ``(B) the plan was developed through a process that 
     included representatives of public, private, and nonprofit 
     transportation and human services providers and participation 
     by the public.
       ``(g) Government's Share of Costs.--
       ``(1) Capital projects.--A grant for a capital project 
     under this section may not exceed 80 percent of the net 
     capital costs of the project, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Operating assistance.--A grant made under this 
     section for operating assistance may not exceed 50 percent of 
     the net operating costs of the project, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Remainder.--The remainder of the net project costs--
       ``(A) may be provided from an undistributed cash surplus, a 
     replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, a service 
     agreement with a State or local social service agency or a 
     private social service organization, or new capital; and
       ``(B) may be derived from amounts appropriated to or made 
     available to a department or agency of the Government (other 
     than the Department of Transportation) that are eligible to 
     be expended for transportation.
       ``(4) Use of certain funds.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (3)(B), the prohibitions on the use of funds for matching 
     requirements under section 403(a)(5)(C)(vii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(vii)) shall not apply to 
     Federal or State funds to be used for transportation 
     purposes.
       ``(5) Limitation on operating assistance.--A recipient 
     carrying out a program of operating assistance under this 
     section may not limit the level or extent of use of the 
     Government grant for the payment of operating expenses.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5316 
     the following:

``5317. New freedom program.''.

     SEC. 3020. BUS TESTING FACILITY.

       (a) Facility.--Section 5318(a) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Facility.--The Secretary shall maintain one facility 
     for testing a new bus model for maintainability, reliability, 
     safety, performance (including braking performance), 
     structural integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and noise.''.
       (b) Availability of Amounts to Pay for Testing.--Section 
     5318(d) is amended by striking ``under section 5309(m)(1)(C) 
     of this title'' and inserting ``to carry out this section''.
       (c) Acquiring New Bus Models.--Section 5318(e) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(e) Acquiring New Bus Models.--Amounts appropriated or 
     made available under this chapter may be obligated or 
     expended to acquire a new bus model only if a bus of that 
     model has been tested at the facility maintained by the 
     Secretary under subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 3021. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IN PARKS AND PUBLIC 
                   LANDS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 53 is amended by striking section 
     5320 and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 5320. Alternative transportation in parks and public 
       lands

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Authorization.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, may award a grant or enter into a 
     contract, cooperative agreement, interagency agreement, 
     intraagency agreement, or other agreement to carry out a 
     qualified project under this section to enhance the 
     protection of national parks and public lands and increase 
     the enjoyment of those visiting the parks and public lands 
     by--
       ``(i) ensuring access to all, including persons with 
     disabilities;
       ``(ii) improving conservation and park and public land 
     opportunities in urban areas through partnering with State 
     and local governments; and
       ``(iii) improving park and public land transportation 
     infrastructure.
       ``(B) Consultation with other agencies.--To the extent that 
     projects are proposed or funded in eligible areas that are 
     not within the jurisdiction of the Department of the 
     Interior, the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with 
     the heads of the relevant Federal land management agencies in 
     carrying out the responsibilities under this section.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--A grant, cooperative agreement, 
     interagency agreement, intraagency agreement, or other 
     agreement for a qualified project under this section shall be 
     available to finance the leasing of equipment and facilities 
     for use in public transportation, subject to any regulation 
     that the Secretary may prescribe limiting the grant or 
     agreement to leasing arrangements that are more cost-
     effective than purchase or construction.
       ``(3) Alternative transportation facilities and services.--
     Projects receiving assistance under this section shall 
     provide alternative transportation facilities and services 
     that complement and enhance existing transportation services 
     in national parks and public lands in a manner that is 
     consistent with Department of Interior and other public land 
     management policies regarding private automobile access to 
     and in such parks and lands.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Eligible area.--The term `eligible area' means any 
     federally owned or managed park, refuge, or recreational area 
     that is open to the general public, including--
       ``(A) a unit of the National Park System;
       ``(B) a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
       ``(C) a recreational area managed by the Bureau of Land 
     Management;
       ``(D) a recreation area managed by the Bureau of 
     Reclamation; and
       ``(E) a unit of the National Forest System.
       ``(2) Federal land management agency.--The term `Federal 
     land management agency' means a Federal agency that manages 
     an eligible area.
       ``(3) Alternative transportation.--The term `alternative 
     transportation' means transportation by bus, rail, or any 
     other publicly or privately owned conveyance that provides to 
     the public general or special service on a regular basis, 
     including sightseeing service. Such term also includes a 
     nonmotorized transportation system (including the provision 
     of facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and nonmotorized 
     watercraft).

[[Page 18650]]

       ``(4) Qualified participant.--The term `qualified 
     participant' means--
       ``(A) a Federal land management agency; or
       ``(B) a State, tribal, or local governmental authority with 
     jurisdiction over land in the vicinity of an eligible area 
     acting with the consent of the Federal land management 
     agency, alone or in partnership with a Federal land 
     management agency or other governmental or nongovernmental 
     participant.
       ``(5) Qualified project.--The term `qualified project' 
     means a planning or capital project in or in the vicinity of 
     an eligible area that--
       ``(A) is an activity described in section 5302(a)(1)(A), 
     5303, 5304, 5305, or 5309(b);
       ``(B) involves--
       ``(i) the purchase of rolling stock that incorporates clean 
     fuel technology or the replacement of buses of a type in use 
     on the date of enactment of the Federal Public Transportation 
     Act of 2005 with clean fuel vehicles; or
       ``(ii) the deployment of alternative transportation 
     vehicles that introduce innovative technologies or methods;
       ``(C) relates to the capital costs of coordinating the 
     Federal land management agency public transportation systems 
     with other public transportation systems;
       ``(D) provides a nonmotorized transportation system 
     (including the provision of facilities for pedestrians, 
     bicycles, and nonmotorized watercraft);
       ``(E) provides waterborne access within or in the vicinity 
     of an eligible area, as appropriate to and consistent with 
     this section; or
       ``(F) is any other alternative transportation project 
     that--
       ``(i) enhances the environment;
       ``(ii) prevents or mitigates an adverse impact on a natural 
     resource;
       ``(iii) improves Federal land management agency resource 
     management;
       ``(iv) improves visitor mobility and accessibility and the 
     visitor experience;
       ``(v) reduces congestion and pollution (including noise 
     pollution and visual pollution); or
       ``(vi) conserves a natural, historical, or cultural 
     resource (excluding rehabilitation or restoration of a non-
     transportation facility).
       ``(c) Federal Agency Cooperative Arrangements.--The 
     Secretary shall develop cooperative arrangements with the 
     Secretary of the Interior that provide for--
       ``(1) technical assistance in alternative transportation;
       ``(2) interagency and multidisciplinary teams to develop 
     Federal land management agency alternative transportation 
     policy, procedures, and coordination; and
       ``(3) the development of procedures and criteria relating 
     to the planning, selection, and funding of qualified projects 
     and the implementation and oversight of the program of 
     projects in accordance with this section.
       ``(d) Limitation on Use of Available Amounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, may use not more than 10 percent 
     of the amount made available for a fiscal year under section 
     5338(b)(2)(J) to carry out planning, research, and technical 
     assistance under this section, including the development of 
     technology appropriate for use in a qualified project.
       ``(2) Additional amounts.--Amounts made available under 
     this subsection are in addition to amounts otherwise 
     available to the Secretary to carry out planning, research, 
     and technical assistance under this chapter or any other 
     provision of law.
       ``(3) Maximum amount.--No qualified project shall receive 
     more than 25 percent of the total amount made available to 
     carry out this section under section 5338(b)(2)(J) for any 
     fiscal year.
       ``(e) Planning Process.--In undertaking a qualified project 
     under this section--
       ``(1) if the qualified participant is a Federal land 
     management agency--
       ``(A) the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     the Interior, shall develop transportation planning 
     procedures that are consistent with--
       ``(i) the metropolitan planning provisions under section 
     5303;
       ``(ii) the statewide planning provisions under section 
     5304; and
       ``(iii) the public participation requirements under section 
     5307(d); and
       ``(B) in the case of a qualified project that is at a unit 
     of the National Park System, the planning process shall be 
     consistent with the general management plans of the unit of 
     the National Park System; and
       ``(2) if the qualified participant is a State or local 
     governmental authority, or more than one State or local 
     governmental authority in more than one State, the qualified 
     participant shall--
       ``(A) comply with the metropolitan planning provisions 
     under section 5303;
       ``(B) comply with the statewide planning provisions under 
     section 5304;
       ``(C) comply with the public participation requirements 
     under section 5307(d); and
       ``(D) consult with the appropriate Federal land management 
     agency during the planning process.
       ``(f) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) Government's share.--The Secretary, in cooperation 
     with the Secretary of the Interior, shall establish the 
     Government's share of the net project cost to be provided to 
     a qualified participant under this section.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In establishing the Government's 
     share of the net project cost to be provided under this 
     section, the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) visitation levels and the revenue derived from user 
     fees in the eligible area in which the qualified project is 
     carried out;
       ``(B) the extent to which the qualified participant 
     coordinates with a public transportation authority or private 
     entity engaged in public transportation;
       ``(C) private investment in the qualified project, 
     including the provision of contract services, joint 
     development activities, and the use of innovative financing 
     mechanisms;
       ``(D) the clear and direct benefit to the qualified 
     participant; and
       ``(E) any other matters that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to carry out this section.
       ``(3) Special rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, funds appropriated to any Federal land management agency 
     may be counted toward the remainder of the net project cost.
       ``(g) Selection of Qualified Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior, after 
     consultation with and in cooperation with the Secretary, 
     shall determine the final selection and funding of an annual 
     program of qualified projects in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In determining whether to include a 
     project in the annual program of qualified projects, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall consider--
       ``(A) the justification for the qualified project, 
     including the extent to which the qualified project would 
     conserve resources, prevent or mitigate adverse impact, and 
     enhance the environment;
       ``(B) the location of the qualified project, to ensure that 
     the selected qualified projects--
       ``(i) are geographically diverse nationwide; and
       ``(ii) include qualified projects in eligible areas located 
     in both urban areas and rural areas;
       ``(C) the size of the qualified project, to ensure that 
     there is a balanced distribution;
       ``(D) the historical and cultural significance of a 
     qualified project;
       ``(E) safety;
       ``(F) the extent to which the qualified project would--
       ``(i) enhance livable communities;
       ``(ii) reduce pollution (including noise pollution, air 
     pollution, and visual pollution);
       ``(iii) reduce congestion; and
       ``(iv) improve the mobility of people in the most efficient 
     manner; and
       ``(G) any other matters that the Secretary of the Interior 
     considers appropriate to carry out this section, including--
       ``(i) visitation levels;
       ``(ii) the use of innovative financing or joint development 
     strategies; and
       ``(iii) coordination with gateway communities.
       ``(h) Qualified Projects Carried Out in Advance.--
       ``(1) In general.--When a qualified participant carries out 
     any part of a qualified project without assistance under this 
     section in accordance with all applicable procedures and 
     requirements, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, may pay the share of the net 
     capital project cost of a qualified project if--
       ``(A) the qualified participant applies for the payment;
       ``(B) the Secretary approves the payment; and
       ``(C) before carrying out that part of the qualified 
     project, the Secretary approves the plans and specifications 
     in the same manner as plans and specifications are approved 
     for other projects assisted under this section.
       ``(2) Financing costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--The cost of carrying out part of a 
     qualified project under paragraph (1) includes the amount of 
     interest earned and payable on bonds issued by a State or 
     local governmental authority, to the extent that proceeds of 
     the bond are expended in carrying out that part.
       ``(B) Limitation on amount of interest.--The rate of 
     interest under this paragraph may not exceed the most 
     favorable rate reasonably available for the qualified project 
     at the time of borrowing.
       ``(C) Certification.--The qualified participant shall 
     certify, in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary, that the 
     qualified participant has exercised reasonable diligence in 
     seeking the most favorable interest rate.
       ``(i) Relationship to Other Laws.--
       ``(1) Section 5307.--A qualified participant under this 
     section shall be subject to the requirements of sections 5307 
     and 5333(a) to the extent the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Other requirements.--A qualified participant under 
     this section shall be subject to any other requirements that 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate to carry out this 
     section, including requirements for the distribution of 
     proceeds on disposition of real property and equipment 
     resulting from a qualified project assisted under this 
     section.
       ``(3) Project management plan.--If the amount of assistance 
     anticipated to be required for a qualified project under this 
     section is not less than $25,000,000--
       ``(A) the qualified project shall, to the extent the 
     Secretary considers appropriate, be carried out through a 
     full funding grant agreement in accordance with section 
     5309(g); and
       ``(B) the qualified participant shall prepare a project 
     management plan in accordance with section 5327(a).
       ``(j) Asset Management.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of the Interior, may transfer the interest 
     of the Department of

[[Page 18651]]

     Transportation in, and control over, all facilities and 
     equipment acquired under this section to a qualified 
     participant for use and disposition in accordance with any 
     property management regulations that the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate.
       ``(k) Coordination of Research and Deployment of New 
     Technologies.--
       ``(1) Grants and other assistance.--The Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, may 
     undertake, or make grants, cooperative agreements, contracts 
     (including agreements with departments, agencies, and 
     instrumentalities of the Federal Government) or other 
     agreements for research, development, and deployment of new 
     technologies in eligible areas that will--
       ``(A) conserve resources;
       ``(B) prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impact;
       ``(C) improve visitor mobility, accessibility, and 
     enjoyment; and
       ``(D) reduce pollution (including noise pollution and 
     visual pollution).
       ``(2) Information.--The Secretary may request and receive 
     appropriate information from any source.
       ``(3) Funding.--Grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, 
     and other agreements under paragraph (1) shall be awarded 
     from amounts allocated under subsection (d)(1).
       ``(l) Innovative Financing.--A qualified project receiving 
     financial assistance under this section shall be eligible for 
     funding through a State infrastructure bank or other 
     innovative financing mechanism available to finance an 
     eligible project under this chapter.
       ``(m) Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, shall annually submit a report on 
     the allocation of amounts made available to assist qualified 
     projects under this section to--
       ``(A) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     of the Senate;
       ``(B) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       ``(C) the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate.
       ``(2) Annual reports.--The report required under paragraph 
     (1) shall be included in the report submitted under section 
     5309(k)(1).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5320 and 
     inserting the following:

``5320. Alternative transportation in parks and public lands.''.

     SEC. 3022. HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMS.

       Section 5322 is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fellowships.--
       ``(1) Authority to make grants.--The Secretary may make 
     grants to States, local governmental authorities, and 
     operators of public transportation systems to provide 
     fellowships to train personnel employed in managerial, 
     technical, and professional positions in the public 
     transportation field.
       ``(2) Terms.--
       ``(A) Period of training.--A fellowship under this 
     subsection may be for not more than one year of training in 
     an institution that offers a program applicable to the public 
     transportation industry.
       ``(B) Selection of individuals.--A recipient of a grant for 
     a fellowship under this subsection shall select an individual 
     on the basis of demonstrated ability and for the contribution 
     the individual reasonably can be expected to make to an 
     efficient public transportation operation.
       ``(C) Amount.--A grant for a fellowship under this 
     subsection may not be more than the lesser of $65,000 or 75 
     percent of the sum of--
       ``(i) tuition and other charges to the fellowship 
     recipient;
       ``(ii) additional costs incurred by the training 
     institution and billed to the grant recipient; and
       ``(iii) the regular salary of the fellowship recipient for 
     the period of the fellowship to the extent the salary is 
     actually paid or reimbursed by the grant recipient.''.

     SEC. 3023. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Interests in Property.--Section 5323(a) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Financial assistance provided under this 
     chapter to a State or a local governmental authority may be 
     used to acquire an interest in, or to buy property of, a 
     private company engaged in public transportation, for a 
     capital project for property acquired from a private company 
     engaged in public transportation after July 9, 1964, or to 
     operate a public transportation facility or equipment in 
     competition with, or in addition to, transportation service 
     provided by an existing public transportation company, only 
     if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that such financial 
     assistance is essential to a program of projects required 
     under sections 5303, 5304, and 5306;
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that the program provides 
     for the participation of private companies engaged in public 
     transportation to the maximum extent feasible; and
       ``(C) just compensation under State or local law will be 
     paid to the company for its franchise or property.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``(2) A governmental 
     authority'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Limitation.--A governmental authority''.
       (b) Notice and Public Hearing.--Section 5323(b) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Notice and Public Hearing.--
       ``(1) In general.--For a capital project that will 
     substantially affect a community, or the public 
     transportation service of a community, an applicant shall--
       ``(A) provide an adequate opportunity for public review and 
     comment on the project;
       ``(B) after providing notice, hold a public hearing on the 
     project if the project affects significant economic, social, 
     or environmental interests;
       ``(C) consider the economic, social, and environmental 
     effects of the project; and
       ``(D) find that the project is consistent with official 
     plans for developing the community.
       ``(2) Notice.--Notice of a hearing under this subsection--
       ``(A) shall include a concise description of the proposed 
     project; and
       ``(B) shall be published in a newspaper of general 
     circulation in the geographic area the project will serve.
       ``(3) Application requirements.--An application for a grant 
     under this chapter for a capital project described in 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) a certification that the applicant has complied with 
     the requirements of this subsection; and
       ``(B) in the environmental record for the project, evidence 
     that the applicant has complied with the requirements of this 
     subsection.''.
       (c) Fares not Required.--Section 5323(c) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(c) Fares not Required.--This chapter does not require 
     that elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities be 
     charged a fare.''.
       (d) Condition on Charter Bus Transportation Service.--
     Section 5323(d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) Financial assistance'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) Agreements.--Financial assistance''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Violations.--
       ``(A) Investigations.--On receiving a complaint about a 
     violation of the agreement required under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall investigate and decide whether a violation 
     has occurred.
       ``(B) Enforcement of agreements.--If the Secretary decides 
     that a violation has occurred, the Secretary shall correct 
     the violation under terms of the agreement.
       ``(C) Additional remedies.--In addition to any remedy 
     specified in the agreement, the Secretary shall bar a 
     recipient or an operator from receiving Federal transit 
     assistance in an amount the Secretary considers appropriate 
     if the Secretary finds a pattern of violations of the 
     agreement.''.
       (e) Bond Proceeds Eligible for Local Share.--Section 
     5323(e) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Bond Proceeds Eligible for Local Share.--
       ``(1) Use as local matching funds.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, a recipient of assistance under 
     section 5307 or 5309 may use the proceeds from the issuance 
     of revenue bonds as part of the local matching funds for a 
     capital project.
       ``(2) Maintenance of effort.--The Secretary shall approve 
     of the use of the proceeds from the issuance of revenue bonds 
     for the remainder of the net project cost only if the 
     Secretary finds that the aggregate amount of financial 
     support for public transportation in the urbanized area 
     provided by the State and affected local governmental 
     authorities during the next 3 fiscal years, as programmed in 
     the State transportation improvement program under section 
     5304, is not less than the aggregate amount provided by the 
     State and affected local governmental authorities in the 
     urbanized area during the preceding 3 fiscal years.
       ``(3) Debt service reserve.--The Secretary may reimburse an 
     eligible recipient for deposits of bond proceeds in a debt 
     service reserve that the recipient establishes pursuant to 
     section 5302(a)(1)(K) from amounts made available to the 
     recipient under section 5309.
       ``(4) Pilot program for urbanized areas.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a pilot 
     program to reimburse not to exceed 10 eligible recipients for 
     deposits of bond proceeds in a debt service reserve that the 
     recipient establishes pursuant to section 5302(a)(1)(K) from 
     amounts made available to the recipient under section 5307.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than July 31, 2008, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the status and effectiveness of the pilot program established 
     under subparagraph (A).''.
       (f) Schoolbus Transportation.--Section 5323(f) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) Financial assistance'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) Agreements.--Financial assistance'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by moving subparagraphs (A), (B), and 
     (C) 2 ems to the right; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Violations.--If the Secretary finds that an 
     applicant, governmental authority, or publicly owned operator 
     has violated the agreement required under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall bar a recipient or an operator from receiving 
     Federal transit assistance in an amount the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.''.

[[Page 18652]]

       (g) Buying Buses Under Other Laws.--Section 5323(g) is 
     amended by striking ``103(e)(4) and 142(a) or (c)'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``133 and 142''.
       (h) Government's Share of Costs for Certain Projects.--
     Section 5323(i) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Government'' 
     and inserting ``Government's'';
       (2) by striking ``A grant'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Equipment for ada and clean air act compliance.--A 
     grant'';
       (3) by inserting ``or facilities'' after ``equipment'' each 
     place it appears; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Certain state owned railroads.--The Government share 
     for financial assistance under this chapter to a State-owned 
     railroad (as defined in section 603 of the Rail Safety and 
     Service Improvement Act of 1982 (45 U.S.C. 1202)) shall be 
     the same as the Government share under section 120(b) of 
     title 23 for Federal-aid highway funds apportioned to the 
     State in which the railroad operates.''.
       (i) Buy America.--
       (1) Public interest waiver.--Section 5323(j) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (7) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (8), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Written justification for public interest waiver.--
     When issuing a waiver based on a public interest 
     determination under paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall 
     issue a detailed written justification as to why the waiver 
     is in the public interest. The Secretary shall publish such 
     justification in the Federal Register and provide the public 
     with a reasonable period of time for notice and comment.''.
       (2) Ineligibility for contracts.--Section 5323(j)(6) (as so 
     redesignated) is amended by striking ``Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240, 
     105 Stat. 1914)'' and inserting ``Federal Public 
     Transportation Act of 2005''.
       (3) Administrative review.--Section 5323(j) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Administrative review.--A party adversely affected by 
     an agency action under this subsection shall have the right 
     to seek review under section 702 of title 5.''.
       (4) Repeal of general waiver.--Subsections (b) and (c) of 
     Appendix A of section 661.7 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, shall cease to be in effect beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (5) Rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule 
     on implementation of the requirements of section 5323(j) of 
     title 49, United States Code (in this paragraph referred to 
     as the ``Buy America requirements''). The purposes of the 
     regulations shall be as follows:
       (A) Microprocessor waiver.--To clarify that any waiver from 
     the Buy America requirements issued under section 5323(j)(2) 
     of such title for a microprocessor, computer, or 
     microcomputer applies only to a device used solely for the 
     purpose of processing or storing data and does not extend to 
     a product containing a microprocessor, computer, or 
     microcomputer.
       (B) Definitions.--To define the terms ``end product'', 
     ``negotiated procurement'', and ``contractor'' for purposes 
     of part 661 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. In 
     defining the terms, the Secretary shall develop a list of 
     representative items that are subject to the Buy America 
     requirements, and shall address the procurement of systems 
     under the definition to ensure that major system procurements 
     are not used to circumvent the Buy America requirements.
       (C) Post-award waivers.--To permit a grantee to request a 
     non-availability waiver from the Buy America requirements 
     under section 661.7c of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, after contract award in any case in which the 
     contractor has made a certification of compliance with the 
     requirements in good faith.
       (D) Certification under negotiated procurement process.--In 
     any case in which a negotiated procurement process is used, 
     compliance with the Buy America requirements shall be 
     determined on the basis of the certification submitted with 
     the final offer.
       (j) Relationship to Other Laws.--Section 5323(l) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(l) Relationship to Other Laws.--Section 1001 of title 18 
     applies to a certificate, submission, or statement provided 
     under this chapter. The Secretary may terminate financial 
     assistance under this chapter and seek reimbursement 
     directly, or by offsetting amounts, available under this 
     chapter if the Secretary determines that a recipient of such 
     financial assistance has made a false or fraudulent statement 
     or related act in connection with a Federal transit 
     program.''.
       (k) Preaward and Postdelivery Review of Rolling Stock 
     Purchases.--Section 5323(m) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following: ``Rolling stock procurements of 20 vehicles or 
     fewer made for the purpose of serving other than urbanized 
     areas and urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or 
     fewer shall be subject to the same requirements as 
     established for procurements of 10 or fewer buses under the 
     post-delivery purchaser's requirements certification process 
     under section 663.37(c) of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.''.
       (l) Grant Requirements.--Section 5323(o) is amended by 
     striking ``the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 
     Innovation Act of 1998'' and inserting ``chapter 6 (other 
     than section 609) of title 23''.
       (m) Alternative Fueling Facilities.--Section 5323 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Alternative Fueling Facilities.--A recipient of 
     assistance under this chapter may allow the incidental use of 
     Federally funded alternative fueling facilities and equipment 
     by nontransit public entities and private entities if--
       ``(1) the incidental use does not interfere with the 
     recipient's public transportation operations;
       ``(2) all costs related to the incidental use are fully 
     recaptured by the recipient from the nontransit public entity 
     or private entity;
       ``(3) the recipient uses revenues received from the 
     incidental use in excess of costs for planning, capital, and 
     operating expenses that are incurred in providing public 
     transportation; and
       ``(4) private entities pay all applicable excise taxes on 
     fuel.''.

     SEC. 3024. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5324 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 5324. Special provisions for capital projects

       ``(a) Relocation and Real Property Requirements.--The 
     Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 
     Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) shall apply to 
     financial assistance for capital projects under this chapter.
       ``(b) Consideration of Economic, Social, and Environmental 
     Interests.--
       ``(1) Cooperation and consultation.--In carrying out the 
     policy of section 5301(e), the Secretary shall cooperate and 
     consult with the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on each 
     project that may have a substantial impact on the 
     environment.
       ``(2) Public participation in environmental reviews.--In 
     performing environmental reviews, the Secretary shall review 
     each transcript of a hearing submitted under section 5323(b) 
     to establish that an adequate opportunity to present views 
     was given to all parties having a significant economic, 
     social, or environmental interest in the project, and that 
     the project application includes a record of--
       ``(A) the environmental impact of the proposal;
       ``(B) adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided;
       ``(C) alternatives to the proposal; and
       ``(D) irreversible and irretrievable impacts on the 
     environment.
       ``(3) Approval of applications for assistance.--
       ``(A) Findings by the secretary.--The Secretary may approve 
     an application for financial assistance for a capital project 
     in accordance with this chapter only if the Secretary makes 
     written findings, after reviewing the application and the 
     transcript of any hearing held before a State or local 
     governmental authority under section 5323(b), that--
       ``(i) an adequate opportunity to present views was given to 
     all parties having a significant economic, social, or 
     environmental interest;
       ``(ii) the preservation and enhancement of the environment 
     and the interest of the community in which the project is 
     located were considered; and
       ``(iii) no adverse environmental effect is likely to result 
     from the project, or no feasible and prudent alternative to 
     the effect exists and all reasonable steps have been taken to 
     minimize the effect.
       ``(B) Hearing.--If a hearing has not been conducted or the 
     Secretary decides that the record of the hearing is 
     inadequate for making the findings required by this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall conduct a hearing on an 
     environmental issue raised by the application after giving 
     adequate notice to interested persons.
       ``(C) Availability of findings.--The Secretary's findings 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be made a matter of public 
     record.
       ``(c) Railroad Corridor Preservation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may assist an applicant to 
     acquire railroad right-of-way before the completion of the 
     environmental reviews for any project that may use the right-
     of-way if the acquisition is otherwise permitted under 
     Federal law. The Secretary may establish restrictions on such 
     an acquisition as the Secretary determines to be necessary 
     and appropriate.
       ``(2) Environmental reviews.--Railroad right-of-way 
     acquired under this subsection may not be developed in 
     anticipation of the project until all required environmental 
     reviews for the project have been completed.''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5324 and 
     inserting the following:

``5324. Special provisions for capital projects.''.

     SEC. 3025. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5325 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 5325. Contract requirements

       ``(a) Competition.--Recipients of assistance under this 
     chapter shall conduct all procurement transactions in a 
     manner that provides full and open competition as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Architectural, Engineering, and Design Contracts.--
       ``(1) Procedures for awarding contract.--A contract or 
     requirement for program management, architectural 
     engineering, construction management, a feasibility study, 
     and preliminary engineering, design, architectural, 
     engineering, surveying, mapping, or related services for a 
     project for which Federal assistance is provided under this 
     chapter shall be awarded in the

[[Page 18653]]

     same way as a contract for architectural and engineering 
     services is negotiated under chapter 11 of title 40 or an 
     equivalent qualifications-based requirement of a State.
       ``(2) Effect of state laws.--Paragraph (1) does not apply 
     to the extent a State has adopted by law, before the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005, 
     an equivalent State qualifications-based requirement for 
     contracting for architectural, engineering, and design 
     services.
       ``(3) Additional requirements.--When awarding a contract 
     described in paragraph (1), recipients of assistance under 
     this chapter shall comply with the following requirements:
       ``(A) Performance of audits.--Any contract or subcontract 
     awarded under this chapter shall be performed and audited in 
     compliance with cost principles contained in part 31 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations (commonly known as the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation).
       ``(B) Indirect cost rates.--A recipient of funds under a 
     contract or subcontract awarded under this chapter shall 
     accept indirect cost rates established in accordance with the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation for 1-year applicable 
     accounting periods by a cognizant Federal or State government 
     agency, if such rates are not currently under dispute.
       ``(C) Application of rates.--After a firm's indirect cost 
     rates are accepted under subparagraph (B), the recipient of 
     the funds shall apply such rates for the purposes of contract 
     estimation, negotiation, administration, reporting, and 
     contract payment, and shall not be limited by administrative 
     or de facto ceilings.
       ``(D) Prenotification; confidentiality of data.--A 
     recipient requesting or using the cost and rate data 
     described in subparagraph (C) shall notify any affected firm 
     before such request or use. Such data shall be confidential 
     and shall not be accessible or provided by the group of 
     agencies sharing cost data under this subparagraph, except by 
     written permission of the audited firm. If prohibited by law, 
     such cost and rate data shall not be disclosed under any 
     circumstances.
       ``(c) Efficient Procurement.--A recipient may award a 
     procurement contract under this chapter to other than the 
     lowest bidder if the award furthers an objective consistent 
     with the purposes of this chapter, including improved long-
     term operating efficiency and lower long-term costs.
       ``(d) Design-Build Projects.--
       ``(1) Term defined.--In this subsection, the term `design-
     build project'--
       ``(A) means a project under which a recipient enters into a 
     contract with a seller, firm, or consortium of firms to 
     design and build a public transportation system, or an 
     operable segment of such system, that meets specific 
     performance criteria; and
       ``(B) may include an option to finance, or operate for a 
     period of time, the system or segment or any combination of 
     designing, building, operating, or maintaining such system or 
     segment.
       ``(2) Financial assistance for capital costs.--Federal 
     financial assistance under this chapter may be provided for 
     the capital costs of a design-build project after the 
     recipient complies with Government requirements.
       ``(e) Multiyear Rolling Stock.--
       ``(1) Contracts.--A recipient procuring rolling stock with 
     Government financial assistance under this chapter may make a 
     multiyear contract to buy the rolling stock and replacement 
     parts under which the recipient has an option to buy 
     additional rolling stock or replacement parts for not more 
     than 5 years after the date of the original contract.
       ``(2) Cooperation among recipients.--The Secretary shall 
     allow at least 2 recipients to act on a cooperative basis to 
     procure rolling stock in compliance with this subsection and 
     other Government procurement requirements.
       ``(f) Acquiring Rolling Stock.--A recipient of financial 
     assistance under this chapter may enter into a contract to 
     expend that assistance to acquire rolling stock--
       ``(1) based on--
       ``(A) initial capital costs; or
       ``(B) performance, standardization, life cycle costs, and 
     other factors; or
       ``(2) with a party selected through a competitive 
     procurement process.
       ``(g) Examination of Records.--Upon request, the Secretary 
     and the Comptroller General, or any of their representatives, 
     shall have access to and the right to examine and inspect all 
     records, documents, and papers, including contracts, related 
     to a project for which a grant is made under this chapter.
       ``(h) Grant Prohibition.--A grant awarded under this 
     chapter or the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005 may 
     not be used to support a procurement that uses an 
     exclusionary or discriminatory specification.
       ``(i) Bus Dealer Requirements.--No State law requiring 
     buses to be purchased through in-State dealers shall apply to 
     vehicles purchased with a grant under this chapter.
       ``(j) Awards to Responsible Contractors.--
       ``(1) In general.--Federal financial assistance under this 
     chapter may be provided for contracts only if a recipient 
     awards such contracts to responsible contractors possessing 
     the ability to successfully perform under the terms and 
     conditions of a proposed procurement.
       ``(2) Criteria.--Before making an award to a contractor 
     under paragraph (1), a recipient shall consider--
       ``(A) the integrity of the contractor;
       ``(B) the contractor's compliance with public policy;
       ``(C) the contractor's past performance, including the 
     performance reported in the Contractor Performance Assessment 
     Reports required under section 5309(l)(2); and
       ``(D) the contractor's financial and technical 
     resources.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5326 and the item 
     relating to section 5326 in the analysis for chapter 53 are 
     repealed.

     SEC. 3026. PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW.

       (a) Project Management Plan Requirements.--Section 5327(a) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (12) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) safety and security management.''.
       (b) Limitations.--Section 5327(c) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Limitations on use of available amounts.--Of the 
     amounts made available to carry out this chapter for a fiscal 
     year, the Secretary may use not more than the following 
     amounts to make contracts for the activities described in 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(A) 0.5 percent of amounts made available to carry out 
     section 5305.
       ``(B) 0.75 percent of amounts made available to carry out 
     section 5307.
       ``(C) 1 percent of amounts made available to carry out 
     section 5309.
       ``(D) 0.5 percent of amounts made available to carry out 
     section 5310.
       ``(E) 0.5 percent of amounts made available to carry out 
     section 5311.
       ``(F) 0.5 percent of amounts made available to carry out 
     section 5320.
       ``(2) Activities.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to the 
     following:
       ``(A) Activities to oversee the construction of a major 
     project.
       ``(B) Activities to review and audit the safety and 
     security, procurement, management, and financial compliance 
     of a recipient or subrecipient of funds under sections 5305, 
     5307, 5309, 5310, 5311, and 5320.
       ``(C) Activities to provide technical assistance to correct 
     deficiencies identified in compliance reviews and audits 
     carried out under this section.
       ``(3) Limitations on applicability.--Subsections (a), (b), 
     and (e) do not apply to contracts under this section for 
     activities described in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C).
       ``(4) Government's share of costs.--The Government shall 
     pay the entire cost of carrying out a contract under this 
     subsection.
       ``(5) Availability of certain funds.--Beginning in fiscal 
     year 2006, funds available under paragraph (1)(C) shall be 
     made available to the Secretary before allocating the funds 
     appropriated to carry out any project under a full funding 
     grant agreement or project construction grant agreement.''.

     SEC. 3027. PROJECT REVIEW.

       Section 5328(a) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``(1) When the Secretary 
     of Transportation allows a new fixed guideway project to 
     advance into the alternatives analysis stage of project 
     review, the Secretary shall cooperate with the applicant in'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Alternatives analysis.--The Secretary shall cooperate 
     with an applicant undertaking an alternatives analysis 
     required by subsections (d) and (e) of section 5309 in the''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``(2) After'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Advancement to preliminary engineering stage.--
     After''; and
       (B) by striking ``is consistent with section 5309(e)'' and 
     inserting ``meets the requirements of subsection (d) or (e) 
     of section 5309'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``(3) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Record of decision.--The Secretary'';
       (B) by striking ``of construction''; and
       (C) by adding before the period at the end the following: 
     ``if the Secretary determines that the project meets the 
     requirements of subsection (d) or (e) of section 5309''; and
       (4) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Funding agreements.--The Secretary shall enter into a 
     full funding grant agreement or project construction grant 
     agreement, as appropriate, between the Government and the 
     project sponsor if the Secretary determines that the project 
     meets the requirements of subsection (d) or (e) of section 
     5309.''.

     SEC. 3028. INVESTIGATIONS OF SAFETY HAZARDS AND SECURITY 
                   RISKS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5329 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 5329. Investigations of safety hazards and security 
       risks

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct investigations 
     into safety hazards and security risks associated with a 
     condition in equipment, a facility, or an operation financed 
     under this chapter to establish the nature and extent of the 
     condition and how to eliminate, mitigate, or correct it.
       ``(b) Submission of Corrective Plan.--If the Secretary 
     establishes that a safety hazard or security risk warrants 
     further protective measures, the Secretary shall require the 
     local governmental authority receiving amounts under this 
     chapter to submit a plan for eliminating, mitigating, or 
     correcting it.
       ``(c) Withholding Financial Assistance.--Financial 
     assistance under this chapter, in an amount to be determined 
     by the Secretary, may

[[Page 18654]]

     be withheld until a plan is approved and carried out.''.
       (b) Public Transportation Security.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute an annex 
     to the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary and 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security, dated September 28, 2004, 
     to define and clarify the respective roles and 
     responsibilities of the Department of Transportation and the 
     Department of Homeland Security relating to public 
     transportation security.
       (2) Contents.--The annex to be executed under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) establish a process to develop security standards for 
     public transportation agencies;
       (B) create a method of direct coordination with public 
     transportation agencies on security matters;
       (C) address any other issues determined to be appropriate 
     by the Secretary and the Secretary of Homeland Security; and
       (D) include a formal and permanent mechanism to ensure 
     coordination and involvement by the Department of 
     Transportation, as appropriate, in public transportation 
     security.
       (c) Rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall issue jointly final regulations to 
     establish the characteristics of and requirements for public 
     transportation security grants, including funding priorities, 
     eligible activities, methods for awarding grants, and 
     limitations on administrative expenses.
       (d) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5329 and 
     inserting the following:

``5329. Investigations of safety hazards and security risks.''.

     SEC. 3029. STATE SAFETY OVERSIGHT.

       (a) In General.--Section 5330 is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through subsection (a) and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 5330. State safety oversight

       ``(a) Application.--This section shall only apply to--
       ``(1) States that have rail fixed guideway public 
     transportation systems that are not subject to regulation by 
     the Federal Railroad Administration; and
       ``(2) States that are designing rail fixed guideway public 
     transportation systems that will not be subject to regulation 
     by the Federal Railroad Administration.'';
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``may'' and inserting 
     ``shall ensure uniform safety standards and enforcement or 
     shall''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (f).
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5330 and 
     inserting the following:

``5330. State safety oversight.''.

     SEC. 3030. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL MISUSE TESTING.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 5331(a)(3) is amended by striking 
     the period at the end and inserting the following: ``or 
     section 2303a, 7101(i), or 7302(e) of title 46. The Secretary 
     may also decide that a form of public transportation is 
     covered adequately, for employee alcohol and controlled 
     substances testing purposes, under the alcohol and controlled 
     substance statutes or regulations of an agency within the 
     Department of Transportation or the Coast Guard.''.
       (b) Technical Corrections.--Subsections (b)(1) and (g) of 
     section 5331 are each amended by striking ``or section 
     103(e)(4) of title 23''.
       (c) Regulations.--Section 5331(f) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (3).

     SEC. 3031. EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE ARRANGEMENTS.

       Section 5333(b) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``5318(d), 5323(a)(1), 
     (b), (d), and (e), 5328, 5337, and 5338(b)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``5316, 5318, 5323(a)(1), 5323(b), 
     5323(d), 5328, 5337, and 5338(b)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Fair and equitable arrangements to protect the 
     interests of employees utilized by the Secretary of Labor for 
     assistance to purchase like-kind equipment or facilities, and 
     grant amendments which do not materially revise or amend 
     existing assistance agreements, shall be certified without 
     referral.
       ``(5) When the Secretary is called upon to issue fair and 
     equitable determinations involving assurances of employment 
     when one private transit bus service contractor replaces 
     another through competitive bidding, such decisions shall be 
     based on the principles set forth in the Department of 
     Labor's decision of September 21, 1994, as clarified by the 
     supplemental ruling of November 7, 1994, with respect to 
     grant NV-90-X021. This paragraph shall not serve as a basis 
     for objections under section 215.3(d) of title 29, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.''.

     SEC. 3032. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.

       Section 5334 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (9) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (10) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) issue regulations as necessary to carry out the 
     purposes of this chapter.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (i);
       (3) by redesignating subsections (b) through (h) as 
     subsections (c) through (i), respectively;
       (4) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Prohibitions Against Regulating Operations and 
     Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except for purposes of national defense 
     or in the event of a national or regional emergency, the 
     Secretary may not regulate the operation, routes, or 
     schedules of a public transportation system for which a grant 
     is made under this chapter, nor may the Secretary regulate 
     the rates, fares, tolls, rentals, or other charges prescribed 
     by any provider of public transportation.
       ``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to prevent the Secretary 
     from requiring a recipient of funds under this chapter to 
     comply with the terms and conditions of its Federal 
     assistance agreement.''; and
       (5) by striking subsection (c)(4) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (3) of this subsection) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(4) The Secretary of Transportation shall comply with 
     this section (except subsection (i)) and sections 5318(e), 
     5323(a)(2), 5325(a), 5325(b), and 5325(f) when proposing or 
     carrying out a regulation governing an activity under this 
     chapter, except for a routine matter or a matter with no 
     significant impact.''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Notification of Pending Discretionary Grants.--Not 
     less than 3 full business days before announcement of award 
     by the Secretary of any discretionary grant, letter of 
     intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 
     or more, the Secretary shall notify the Committees on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Appropriations of the 
     Senate and Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     and Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       ``(l) Agency Statements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Transit 
     Administration shall follow applicable rulemaking procedures 
     under section 553 of title 5 before the Federal Transit 
     Administration issues a statement that imposes a binding 
     obligation on recipients of Federal assistance under this 
     chapter.
       ``(2) Binding obligation defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `binding obligation' means a substantive policy 
     statement, rule, or guidance document issued by the Federal 
     Transit Administration that grants rights, imposes 
     obligations, produces significant effects on private 
     interests, or effects a significant change in existing 
     policy.''.

     SEC. 3033. NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE.

       (a) In General.--Section 5335 is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 5335. National transit database'';

       (2) by striking subsection (b); and
       (3) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) The Secretary may 
     make a grant under section 5307 of this title'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Reporting and Uniform Systems.--The Secretary may 
     award a grant under section 5307 or 5311''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5335 and 
     inserting the following:

``5335. National transit database.''.

     SEC. 3034. APPORTIONMENTS OF FORMULA GRANTS.

       (a) Apportionments.--Section 5336 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (d), (h), and (k);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), (i), and 
     (j) as subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h), respectively;
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Apportionments.--Of the amounts made available for 
     each fiscal year under subsections (a)(1)(C)(vi) and 
     (b)(2)(B) of section 5338--
       ``(1) one percent shall be apportioned, in fiscal year 2006 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, to certain urbanized areas 
     with populations of less than 200,000 in accordance with 
     subsection (j); and
       ``(2) any amount not apportioned under paragraph (1) shall 
     be apportioned to urbanized areas in accordance with 
     subsections (a) through (c).''; and
       (4) in subsection (a) by striking ``Of the amount made 
     available or appropriated under section 5338(a) of this 
     title'' and inserting ``Of the amount apportioned under 
     subsection (i)(2)''.
       (b) Small Transit Intensive Cities Formula.--Section 5336 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Small Transit Intensive Cities Formula.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Eligible area.--The term `eligible area' means an 
     urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000 that 
     meets or exceeds in one or more performance categories the 
     industry average for all urbanized areas with a population of 
     at least 200,000 but not more than 999,999, as determined by 
     the Secretary in accordance with subsection (c)(2).
       ``(B) Performance category.--The term `performance 
     category' means each of the following:
       ``(i) Passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue mile.
       ``(ii) Passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue hour.
       ``(iii) Vehicle revenue miles per capita.
       ``(iv) Vehicle revenue hours per capita.
       ``(v) Passenger miles traveled per capita.
       ``(vi) Passengers per capita.
       ``(2) Apportionment.--
       ``(A) Apportionment formula.--The amount to be apportioned 
     under subsection (i)(1) shall

[[Page 18655]]

     be apportioned among eligible areas in the ratio that--
       ``(i) the number of performance categories for which each 
     eligible area meets or exceeds the industry average in 
     urbanized areas with a population of at least 200,000 but not 
     more than 999,999; bears to
       ``(ii) the aggregate number of performance categories for 
     which all eligible areas meet or exceed the industry average 
     in urbanized areas with a population of at least 200,000 but 
     not more than 999,999.
       ``(B) Data used in formula.--The Secretary shall calculate 
     apportionments under this subsection for a fiscal year using 
     data from the national transit database used to calculate 
     apportionments for that fiscal year under this section.''.
       (c) Study on Incentives in Formula Programs.--Section 5336 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Study on Incentives in Formula Programs.--
       ``(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to assess 
     the feasibility and appropriateness of developing and 
     implementing an incentive funding system under sections 5307 
     and 5311 for operators of public transportation.
       ``(2) Report.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005, 
     the Secretary shall submit a report on the results of the 
     study conducted under paragraph (1) to the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives.
       ``(B) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) shall include--
       ``(i) an analysis of the availability of appropriate 
     measures to be used as a basis for the distribution of 
     incentive payments;
       ``(ii) the optimal number and size of any incentive 
     programs;
       ``(iii) what types of systems should compete for various 
     incentives;
       ``(iv) how incentives should be distributed; and
       ``(v) the likely effects of the incentive funding 
     system.''.
       (d) Technical Amendments.--Section 5336 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``of this title'' and 
     inserting ``to carry out section 5307'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, except that the amount apportioned to 
     the Anchorage urbanized area under subsection (b) shall be 
     available to the Alaska Railroad for any costs related to its 
     passenger operations'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1) by inserting ``and, beginning in 
     fiscal year 2006, 60 percent of the directional route miles 
     attributable to the Alaska Railroad passenger operations'' 
     after ``recipient''; and
       (4) in subsection (h) by striking ``a grant made under'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``a grant made with funds 
     apportioned under''.

     SEC. 3035. APPORTIONMENTS BASED ON FIXED GUIDEWAY FACTORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5337 is amended--
       (1) by striking the section designation and heading and 
     inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 5337. Apportionment based on fixed guideway factors''; 
       and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Adjustment.--For purposes of this section, an 
     urbanized area with a population of 55,997, according to the 
     most recent decennial census, shall be treated as an 
     urbanized area eligible for assistance under section 
     5336(b)(2)(A) to which amounts were apportioned under this 
     section for fiscal year 1997. For the purposes of paragraph 
     (e)(1), the number of fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles of 
     service and number of fixed guideway route miles for that 
     urbanized area as of the date of enactment of the Federal 
     Public Transportation Act of 2005 shall be considered to have 
     been used to determine apportionments for fiscal year 
     1997.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5337 and 
     inserting the following:

``5337. Apportionment based on fixed guideway factors.''.

     SEC. 3036. AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Section 5338 is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 5338. Authorizations

       ``(a) Fiscal Year 2005.--
       ``(1) Formula grants.--
       ``(A) Trust fund.--For fiscal year 2005, $3,499,927,776 
     shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the 
     Highway Trust Fund to carry out sections 5307, 5308, 5310, 
     and 5311 and section 3038 of the Transportation Equity Act 
     for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note).
       ``(B) General fund.--In addition to the amounts made 
     available under subparagraph (A), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $499,989,824 for fiscal year 2005 to carry out 
     sections 5307, 5308, 5310, and 5311 and section 3038 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 
     5310 note).
       ``(C) Allocation of funds.--Of the amounts made available 
     or appropriated under this paragraph--
       ``(i) $4,811,150 shall be available to the Alaska Railroad 
     for improvements to its passenger operations under section 
     5307;
       ``(ii) $5,208,000 shall be available to provide over-the-
     road bus accessibility grants under section 3038 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 
     5310 note) to operators of intercity, fixed-route over-the-
     road buses;
       ``(iii) $1,686,400 shall be available to provide over-the-
     road bus accessibility grants under section 3038 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 
     5310 note) to operators of over-the-road buses providing 
     other than intercity, fixed-route service;
       ``(iv) $94,526,689 shall be available to provide 
     transportation services to elderly individuals and 
     individuals with disabilities under section 5310;
       ``(v) $250,889,588 shall be available to provide financial 
     assistance for other than urbanized areas under section 5311;
       ``(vi) $3,593,195,773 shall be available to provide 
     financial assistance for urbanized areas under section 5307; 
     and
       ``(vii) $49,600,000 shall be available to carry out the 
     clean fuels program under section 5308.
       ``(2) Job access and reverse commute.--
       ``(A) Trust fund.--For fiscal year 2005, $108,500,000 shall 
     be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
     Trust Fund to carry out section 3037 of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5309 note).
       ``(B) General fund.--In addition to the amounts made 
     available under subparagraph (A), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $15,500,000 for fiscal year 2005 to carry out 
     section 3037 of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st 
     Century (49 U.S.C. 5309 note).
       ``(3) Capital program grants.--
       ``(A) Trust fund.--For fiscal year 2005, $2,898,100,224 
     shall be available from the Mass Transit Account of the 
     Highway Trust Fund to carry out section 5309.
       ``(B) General fund.--In addition to the amounts made 
     available under subparagraph (A), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $414,014,176 for fiscal year 2005 to carry out 
     sections 5308, 5309, and 5318 and section 3015(b) of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 
     361).
       ``(C) Allocation of funds.--Of the amounts made available 
     or appropriated under this paragraph--
       ``(i) $49,600,000 shall be available to carry out the clean 
     fuels program under section 5308;
       ``(ii) $669,600,000 shall be available for capital projects 
     to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase bus and related 
     equipment and to construct bus-related facilities under 
     section 5309;
       ``(iii) $1,204,684,800 shall be available for fixed 
     guideway modernization under section 5309;
       ``(iv) $1,437,829,600 shall be available for capital 
     projects for new fixed guideway systems and extensions to 
     existing fixed guideway systems under section 5309;
       ``(v) $10,213,632 shall be available for capital projects 
     in Alaska and Hawaii under section 5309;
       ``(vi) $2,976,000 shall be available to carry out bus 
     testing under section 5318; and
       ``(vii) $4,811,200 shall be available to carry out the fuel 
     cell bus and bus facilities program under section 3015(b) of 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 
     361).
       ``(4) Planning.--
       ``(A) Trust fund.--For fiscal year 2005, $63,364,000 shall 
     be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
     Trust Fund to carry out sections 5303, 5304, 5305, and 
     5313(b), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment 
     of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005.
       ``(B) General fund.--In addition to the amounts made 
     available under subparagraph (A), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $9,052,000 for fiscal year 2005 to carry out 
     sections 5303, 5304, 5305, and 5313(b), as in effect on the 
     day before the date of enactment of the Federal Public 
     Transportation Act of 2005.
       ``(C) Allocation of funds.--Of the amounts made available 
     or appropriated under this paragraph--
       ``(i) 82.72 percent shall be allocated for metropolitan 
     planning under section 5305; and
       ``(ii) 17.28 percent shall be allocated for State planning 
     under section 5305.
       ``(5) Research.--
       ``(A) Trust fund.--For fiscal year 2005, $47,740,000 shall 
     be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
     Trust Fund to carry out sections 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 
     5314, 5315, and 5322.
       ``(B) General fund.--In addition to the amounts made 
     available under subparagraph (A), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $6,820,000 for fiscal year 2005 to carry out 
     sections 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322.
       ``(C) Allocation of funds.--Of the funds made available or 
     appropriated under this paragraph--
       ``(i) not less than $3,968,000 shall be available to carry 
     out programs under the National Transit Institute under 
     section 5315, of which not more than $992,000 shall be 
     available to carry out section 5315(a)(16);
       ``(ii) not less than $5,208,000 shall be available to 
     provide rural transportation assistance under section 
     5311(b)(2);
       ``(iii) not less than $8,184,000 shall be available to 
     carry out transit cooperative research programs under section 
     5313(a);
       ``(iv) not less than $2,976,000 shall be available to carry 
     out Project Action under section 5312; and
       ``(v) the remainder shall be available to carry out 
     national research and technology programs under sections 
     5312, 5314, and 5322.
       ``(6) University transportation research.--
       ``(A) Trust fund.--For fiscal year 2005, $5,208,000 shall 
     be available from the Mass

[[Page 18656]]

     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out 
     sections 5505.
       ``(B) General fund.--In addition to amounts made available 
     under subparagraph (A), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $744,000 for fiscal year 2005 to carry out 
     sections 5505.
       ``(C) Allocation of funds.--Of the amounts made available 
     or appropriated under this paragraph--
       ``(i) $1,984,000 shall be available for grants under 
     section 5505(d) to the center identified in section 
     5505(j)(4)(A), as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005; 
     and
       ``(ii) $1,984,000 shall be available for grants under 
     section 5505(d) to the center identified in section 
     5505(j)(4)(F), as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005.
       ``(D) Special rule.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed to limit the transportation research conducted by 
     the centers receiving financial assistance under this 
     section.
       ``(7) Administration.--
       ``(A) Trust fund.--For fiscal year 2005, $67,704,000 shall 
     be available from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
     Trust Fund to carry out section 5334.
       ``(B) General fund.--In addition to amounts made available 
     under subparagraph (A), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $9,672,000 for fiscal year 2005 to carry out 
     section 5334.
       ``(8) Availability of amounts.--Amounts made available or 
     appropriated under paragraphs (1) through (6) shall remain 
     available until expended.
       ``(b) Formula and Bus Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be available from the Mass 
     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out 
     sections 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309, 5310, 5311, 5316, 5317, 
     5320, 5335, 5339, and 5340 and section 3038 of the Federal 
     Transit Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 387 et seq.)--
       ``(A) $6,979,931,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(B) $7,262,775,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(C) $7,872,893,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(D) $8,360,565,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       ``(2) Allocation of funds.--Of the amounts made available 
     under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) $95,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $99,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $107,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $113,500,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be available to carry 
     out section 5305;
       ``(B) $3,466,681,000 for fiscal year 2006, $3,606,175,000 
     for fiscal year 2007, $3,910,843,000 for fiscal year 2008, 
     and $4,160,365,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be allocated in 
     accordance with section 5336 to provide financial assistance 
     for urbanized areas under section 5307;
       ``(C) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $45,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $49,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $51,500,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be available to carry 
     out section 5308;
       ``(D) $1,391,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $1,448,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2007, $1,570,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, 
     and $1,666,500,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be allocated in 
     accordance with section 5337 to provide financial assistance 
     under section 5309(m)(2)(B); and
       ``(E) $822,250,000 for fiscal year 2006, $855,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $927,750,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $984,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be available to carry 
     out section 5309(m)(2)(C).
       ``(F) $112,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $117,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $127,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $133,500,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be available to 
     provide financial assistance for services for elderly persons 
     and persons with disabilities under section 5310;
       ``(G) $388,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $404,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $438,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $465,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be available to 
     provide financial assistance for other than urbanized areas 
     under section 5311;
       ``(H) $138,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $144,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $156,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $164,500,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be available to carry 
     out section 5316;
       ``(I) $78,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $81,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $87,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $92,500,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be available to carry 
     out section 5317;
       ``(J) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $23,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $26,900,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be available to carry 
     out section 5320;
       ``(K) $3,500,000 in fiscal year 2006; $3,500,000 in fiscal 
     year 2007; $3,500,000 in fiscal year 2008; and $3,500,000 in 
     fiscal year 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     5335;
       ``(L) $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2006; $25,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2007; $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2008; and 
     $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2009 shall be available to carry 
     out section 5339;
       ``(M) $388,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $404,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $438,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $465,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be allocated in 
     accordance with section 5340 to provide financial assistance 
     for urbanized areas under section 5307 and other than 
     urbanized areas under section 5311; and
       ``(N) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2006, $7,600,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $8,300,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $8,800,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be available to carry 
     out section 3038 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note).
       ``(c) Major Capital Investment Grants.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 
     5309(m)(2)(A)--
       ``(1) $1,503,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(2) $1,566,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(3) $1,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(4) $1,809,250,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       ``(d) Research and University Research Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out transit cooperative research programs under 
     section 5313, the National Transit Institute under section 
     5315, university research centers under section 5506, and 
     national research programs under sections 5312, 5313, 5314, 
     and 5322 $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $61,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $65,500,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $69,750,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which--
       ``(A) $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $9,300,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $9,600,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 shall be allocated to carry 
     out transit cooperative research programs under section 5313;
       ``(B) $4,300,000 shall be allocated for each fiscal year to 
     carry out programs under the National Transit Institute under 
     section 5315, of which not more than $1,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year shall be used to carry out section 5315(a)(16);
       ``(C) $7,000,000 shall be allocated for each fiscal year to 
     carry out the university centers program under section 5506;
       ``(D) $3,000,000 shall be allocated for each fiscal year to 
     carry out Project Action under section 5314(a)(2);
       ``(E) $1,000,000 shall be allocated for each fiscal year to 
     carry out the National Technical Assistance Center under 
     section 5314(c); and
       ``(F) any funds made available under this paragraph that 
     are not allocated under subparagraphs (A) through (E) shall 
     be allocated to carry out national research programs under 
     sections 5312, 5313, 5314, and 5322.
       ``(2) University centers program.--
       ``(A) Allocation.--Of the amounts allocated under paragraph 
     (1)(C), the following amounts shall be available to provide 
     transportation research, training, and curriculum 
     development:
       ``(i) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 
     for the University of Tennessee--Knoxville National 
     Transportation Research Center.
       ``(ii) $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2009 for Texas A&M University--Texas Transportation 
     Institute.
       ``(iii) $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2009 for Morgan State University.
       ``(iv) $400,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for 
     the Small Urban & Rural Transit Center at North Dakota State 
     University.
       ``(v) $550,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and 
     $650,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for the 
     University Transportation Center at the University of 
     Alabama.
       ``(vi) $450,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and 
     $550,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for the 
     Injury Control Research Center at the University of Alabama 
     Birmingham.
       ``(vii) $550,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and 
     $650,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for the 
     Jackson State University Intermodal Transportation Institute 
     at the Jackson State University.
       ``(viii) $550,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 
     and $650,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for the 
     University Transportation Center at the University of Denver/
     Mississippi State University.
       ``(B) Requirements.--The universities specified in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be considered to be university 
     transportation centers under section 5506 and shall be 
     subject to the requirements of subsections (b), (h), (i), 
     (k), (l), and (m) of such section.
       ``(e) Administration.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out section 5334--
       ``(1) $82,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(2) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(3) $92,500,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(4) $98,500,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       ``(f) Grants as Contractual Obligations.--
       ``(1) Grants financed from highway trust fund.--A grant or 
     contract that is approved by the Secretary and financed with 
     amounts made available from the Mass Transit Account of the 
     Highway Trust Fund pursuant to this section is a contractual 
     obligation of the Government to pay the Federal share of the 
     cost of the project.
       ``(2) Grants financed from general fund.--A grant or 
     contract that is approved by the Secretary and financed with 
     amounts appropriated in advance from the General Fund of the 
     Treasury pursuant to this section is a contractual obligation 
     of the Government to pay the Federal share of the cost of the 
     project only to the extent that amounts are appropriated for 
     such purpose by an Act of Congress.
       ``(g) Availability of Amounts.--Amounts made available by 
     or appropriated under subsections (b), (c), and (d) shall 
     remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 3037. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 5339 is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 5339. Alternatives analysis program

       ``(a) Grants and Agreements.--Under criteria established by 
     the Secretary, the Secretary may award grants to States, 
     authorities of the States, metropolitan planning 
     organizations, and local governmental authorities to develop 
     alternatives analyses as defined by section 5309(a)(1).
       ``(b) Government's Share of Costs.--The Government's share 
     of the cost of an activity funded using amounts made 
     available under this section may not exceed 80 percent of the 
     cost of the activity.
       ``(c) Availability of Funds.--An amount made available or 
     appropriated under section 5338(b)(2)(L) for this section 
     shall remain available for 3 fiscal years, including the 
     fiscal year in which the amount is made available or 
     appropriated. Any of such amounts that are unobligated at the 
     end of the 3-fiscal-year period

[[Page 18657]]

     may be used by the Secretary for any purpose under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5339 and 
     inserting the following:

``5339. Alternatives analysis program.''.

       (c) Projects.--For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, of 
     the funds authorized under this section, funds shall be made 
     available to the following projects in not less than the 
     amounts specified:
       (1) Minnesota Red Rock Corridor/Rush Line/Central Corridors 
     studies, $2,000,000.
       (2) Trans-Hudson Midtown corridor study, $1,500,000.
       (3) Lane County, Oregon Bus Rapid Transit Phase II corridor 
     study, $500,000.
       (4) Portland Streetcar, Oregon corridor study, $1,500,000.
       (5) San Gabriel Valley-Gold Line Foothill Extension 
     corridor study, $1,250,000.
       (6) Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex Counties, New Jersey corridor 
     study, $1,250,000.
       (7) Metra BNSF Naperville to Aurora corridor study, 
     $1,250,000.
       (8) Madison and Dane Counties, Wisconsin Transport 2020 
     corridor study, $750,000.
       (9) Sound Transit I-90 Long-Range Plan corridor studies, 
     $750,000.
       (10) Middle Rio Grande Coalition of governments, 
     Albuquerque to Santa Fe corridor study, $500,000.
       (11) Piedmont Authority Regional Transportation East-West 
     corridor study, $1,000,000.
       (12) Baltimore Red Line/Green Line Transit Project study, 
     $1,500,000.
       (13) Metra-West Line Extension, Elgin to Rockford study, 
     $1,000,000.
       (14) Madison-Ridgeland Transportation Commission, 
     Mississippi, Madison Light Rail Transportation Corridor 
     study, $350,000.
       (15) South Carolina Department of Transportation Light Rail 
     study, $300,000.
       (16) Provo Orem BRT study, $500,000.
       (17) Sevierville County Transportation Board, Sevier County 
     BRT study, $500,000.
       (18) New Jersey Transit Midtown Project study, $2,500,000.

     SEC. 3038. APPORTIONMENTS BASED ON GROWING STATES FORMULA 
                   FACTORS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 53 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 5340. Apportionments based on growing States and high 
       density States formula factors

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `State' shall 
     mean each of the 50 States of the United States.
       ``(b) Allocation.--Of the amounts made available for each 
     fiscal year under section 5338(b)(2)(M), the Secretary shall 
     apportion--
       ``(1) 50 percent to States and urbanized areas in 
     accordance with subsection (c); and
       ``(2) 50 percent to States and urbanized areas in 
     accordance with subsection (d).
       ``(c) Growing State Apportionments.--
       ``(1) Apportionment among states.--The amounts apportioned 
     under subsection (b)(1) shall provide each State with an 
     amount equal to the total amount apportioned multiplied by a 
     ratio equal to the population of that State forecast for the 
     year that is 15 years after the most recent decennial census, 
     divided by the total population of all States forecast for 
     the year that is 15 years after the most recent decennial 
     census. Such forecast shall be based on the population trend 
     for each State between the most recent decennial census and 
     the most recent estimate of population made by the Secretary 
     of Commerce.
       ``(2) Apportionments between urbanized areas and other than 
     urbanized areas in each state.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts to 
     each State under paragraph (1) so that urbanized areas in 
     that State receive an amount equal to the amount apportioned 
     to that State multiplied by a ratio equal to the sum of the 
     forecast population of all urbanized areas in that State 
     divided by the total forecast population of that State. In 
     making the apportionment under this subparagraph, the 
     Secretary shall utilize any available forecasts made by the 
     State. If no forecasts are available, the Secretary shall 
     utilize data on urbanized areas and total population from the 
     most recent decennial census.
       ``(B) Remaining amounts.--Amounts remaining for each State 
     after apportionment under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     apportioned to that State and added to the amount made 
     available for grants under section 5311.
       ``(3) Apportionments among urbanized areas in each state.--
     The Secretary shall apportion amounts made available to 
     urbanized areas in each State under paragraph (2)(A) so that 
     each urbanized area receives an amount equal to the amount 
     apportioned under paragraph (2)(A) multiplied by a ratio 
     equal to the population of each urbanized area divided by the 
     sum of populations of all urbanized areas in the State. 
     Amounts apportioned to each urbanized area shall be added to 
     amounts apportioned to that urbanized area under section 
     5336, and made available for grants under section 5307.
       ``(d) High Density State Apportionments.--Amounts to be 
     apportioned under subsection (b)(2) shall be apportioned as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Eligible states.--The Secretary shall designate as 
     eligible for an apportionment under this subsection all 
     States with a population density in excess of 370 persons per 
     square mile.
       ``(2) State urbanized land factor.--For each State 
     qualifying for an apportionment under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall calculate an amount equal to--
       ``(A) the total land area of the State (in square miles); 
     multiplied by
       ``(B) 370; multiplied by
       ``(C)(i) the population of the State in urbanized areas; 
     divided by
       ``(ii) the total population of the State.
       ``(3) State apportionment factor.--For each State 
     qualifying for an apportionment under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall calculate an amount equal to the difference 
     between the total population of the State less the amount 
     calculated in paragraph (2).
       ``(4) State apportionment.--Each State qualifying for an 
     apportionment under paragraph (1) shall receive an amount 
     equal to the amount to be apportioned under this subsection 
     multiplied by the amount calculated for the State under 
     paragraph (3) divided by the sum of the amounts calculated 
     under paragraph (3) for all States qualifying for an 
     apportionment under paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Apportionments among urbanized areas in each state.--
     The Secretary shall apportion amounts made available to each 
     State under paragraph (4) so that each urbanized area 
     receives an amount equal to the amount apportioned under 
     paragraph (4) multiplied by a ratio equal to the population 
     of each urbanized area divided by the sum of populations of 
     all urbanized areas in the State. Amounts apportioned to each 
     urbanized area shall be added to amounts apportioned to that 
     urbanized area under section 5336, and made available for 
     grants under section 5307.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 53 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``5340. Apportionments based on growing States and high density States 
              formula factors.''.

     SEC. 3039. OVER-THE-ROAD BUS ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 3038 of the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note; 112 Stat. 392) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 3038. OVER-THE-ROAD BUS ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM.'';

       (2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Federal Share of Costs.--The Federal share of costs 
     under this section shall be provided from funds made 
     available to carry out this section and shall be determined 
     in accordance with section 5323(i) of title 49, United States 
     Code.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Funding.--
       ``(1) Intercity, fixed route over-the-road bus service.--Of 
     the amounts made available to carry out this section in each 
     fiscal year, 75 percent shall be available for operators of 
     over-the-road buses used substantially or exclusively in 
     intercity, fixed-route over-the-road bus service to finance 
     the incremental capital and training costs of the Department 
     of Transportation's final rule regarding accessibility of 
     over-the-road buses. Such amounts shall remain available 
     until expended.
       ``(2) Other over-the-road bus service.--Of the amounts made 
     available to carry out this section in each fiscal year, 25 
     percent shall be available for operators of other over-the-
     road bus service to finance the incremental capital and 
     training costs of the Department of Transportation's final 
     rule regarding accessibility of over-the-road buses. Such 
     amounts shall remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The table of contents contained 
     in section 1(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century (112 Stat. 107) is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 3038 and inserting the following:

``3038. Over-the-road bus accessibility program.''.

     SEC. 3040. OBLIGATION CEILING.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the total of 
     all obligations from amounts made available from the Mass 
     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund by, and amounts 
     appropriated under, subsections (a) through (f) of section 
     5338 of title 49, United States Code, shall not exceed--
       (1) $7,646,336,000 for fiscal year 2005, of which not more 
     than $6,690,544,000 shall be from the Mass Transit Account;
       (2) $8,622,931,000 for fiscal year 2006, of which not more 
     than $6,979,931,000 shall be from the Mass Transit Account;
       (3) $8,974,775,000 for fiscal year 2007, of which not more 
     than $7,262,775,000 shall be from the Mass Transit Account;
       (4) $9,730,893,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which not more 
     than $7,871,895,000 shall be from the Mass Transit Account; 
     and
       (5) $10,338,065,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which not more 
     than $8,360,565,000 shall be from the Mass Transit Account.

     SEC. 3041. ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall ensure that the total apportionments 
     and allocations made for fiscal year 2005 to each grant 
     recipient under the Federal Transit Administration programs 
     shall not exceed the amount made available under section 5338 
     of title 49, United States Code, as amended by this title, 
     for fiscal year 2005 plus prior year balances.
       (b) Fixed Guideway Modernization Adjustment.--In making the 
     apportionments described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall adjust the

[[Page 18658]]

     amount apportioned for fiscal year 2005 to each urbanized 
     area for fixed guideway modernization to reflect the 
     apportionment method set forth in section 5337(a) of title 
     49, United States Code.
       (c) Reconciliation.--Funds authorized by or made available 
     under section 5338, as amended by this title, for fiscal year 
     2005--
       (1) shall not be subject to the across-the-board 
     rescissions in section 122 of division J of Public Law 108-
     477;
       (2) shall be transferred or made available for the purposes 
     as indicated in division H of Public Law 108-477, as amended 
     by Public Law 109-13; and
       (3) shall be administered consistent with the applicable 
     formula authorized under Public Law 105-178, as amended.

     SEC. 3042. TERRORIST ATTACKS AND OTHER ACTS OF VIOLENCE 
                   AGAINST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1993 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``mass'' and 
     inserting ``public'';
       (2) by striking ``mass'' each place the term appears and 
     inserting ``public'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(5) by inserting ``controlling,'' 
     after ``operating,''; and
       (4) in subsection (c)(5) by striking ``5302(a)(7) of title 
     49, United States Code,'' and inserting ``5302(a) of title 
     49,''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 97 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 1993 and inserting the following:

``1993. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against public 
              transportation systems.''.

     SEC. 3043. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS FOR NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY 
                   CAPITAL PROJECTS.

       (a) Existing Full Funding Grant Agreements.--The following 
     projects are authorized for final design and construction for 
     existing full funding grant agreements in not less than the 
     amount specified for each fiscal year:
       (1) Atlanta--North Springs Extension $263,287 for fiscal 
     year 2005.
       (2) Baltimore--Central LRT Double Tracking $28,777,920 for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $12,655,664 for fiscal year 2006.
       (3) Charlotte--South Corridor LRT $29,760,000 for fiscal 
     year 2005, $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $69,405,565 
     for fiscal year 2007.
       (4) Chicago--Chicago Transit Authority Douglas Branch 
     Reconstruction $84,320,000 for fiscal year 2005 and 
     $45,825,190 for fiscal year 2006.
       (5) Chicago--Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood Expansion 
     Project $39,680,000 for fiscal year 2005, $40,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, 
     $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and $65,152,615 for fiscal 
     year 2009.
       (6) Cleveland--Euclid Corridor Transportation Project 
     $24,800,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $24,774,513 for fiscal 
     year 2006.
       (7) Denver Southeast Corridor LRT $79,360,000 for fiscal 
     year 2005, $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $80,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2007, and $77,192,758 for fiscal year 2008.
       (8) Fort Lauderdale--Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Upgrade 
     $11,210,695 for fiscal year 2005.
       (9) Los Angeles--Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension 
     $59,520,000 for fiscal year 2005, $80,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $80,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008, and $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (10) Los Angeles--North Hollywood MOS-3 $663,339 in fiscal 
     year 2005. 
       (11) Metra North Central Corridor Commuter Rail $24,084,000 
     for fiscal year 2005 and $16,529,452 for fiscal year 2006.
       (12) Metra South West Corridor Commuter Rail $15,500,000 
     for fiscal year 2005 and $11,781,395 for fiscal year 2006.
       (13) Metra Union Pacific West Line Extension $12,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2005 and $14,285,749 for fiscal year 2006.
       (14) Minneapolis--Hiawatha Corridor LRT $33,111,257 for 
     fiscal year 2005.
       (15) New Jersey Urban Core--Hudson-Bergen LRT $313,896.
       (16) New Jersey Urban Core--Hudson-Bergen LRT MOS-2 
     $99,200,000 for fiscal year 2005, $100,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2006, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, and $53,202,995 
     for fiscal year 2008.
       (17) New Jersey Urban Core--Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link MOS-
     1 $1,342,076 for fiscal year 2005.
       (18) New Orleans MOS-1 Canal Street $16,455,206 for fiscal 
     year 2005.
       (19) Phoenix--Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT $74,400,000 
     for fiscal year 2005, $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $90,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2008, and $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (20) Pittsburgh--North Shore LRT Connector $54,560,000 in 
     fiscal year 2005, $55,000,000 in fiscal year 2006, 
     $55,000,000 in fiscal year 2007, and $14,421,944 in fiscal 
     year 2008.
       (21) Pittsburgh--Stage II LRT Reconstruction $1,120,854 for 
     fiscal year 2005.
       (22) Portland--Interstate MAX LRT Extension $23,292,160 
     fiscal year 2005 and $18,292,550 for fiscal year 2006.
       (23) St. Louis--Metrolink Extension St. Clair County, IL 
     $53,383 for fiscal year 2005.
       (24) Salt Lake City--CBD to University LRT $1,127,405 for 
     fiscal year 2005.
       (25) Salt Lake City--Medical Center $8,682,141 for fiscal 
     year 2005.
       (26) San Diego--Mission Valley East LRT Extension 
     $80,986,880 for fiscal year 2005 and $8,353,424 for fiscal 
     year 2006.
       (27) San Diego--Oceanside Escondido Rail Corridor 
     $54,560,000 fiscal year 2005 and $12,651,061 for fiscal year 
     2006.
       (28) San Francisco--BART Extension to San Francisco Airport 
     $99,200,000 fiscal year 2005 and $82,655,680 for fiscal year 
     2006.
       (29) San Juan--Tren Urbano $44,263,040 fiscal year 2005 and 
     $10,555,900 for fiscal year 2006.
       (30) Seattle--Central Link Initial Segment LRT $79,360,000 
     for fiscal year 2005, $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $70,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2008, and $24,028,149 for fiscal year 2009.
       (31) Washington DC/MD--Largo Metrorail Extension 
     $75,432,887 for fiscal year 2005.
       (b) Final Design and Construction.--The following projects 
     are authorized for final design and construction for fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009 under paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of 
     section 5309(m) of title 49, United States Code:
       (1) Baltimore--MARC Commuter Rail Improvements.
       (2) Boston--Silver Line BRT Phase III.
       (3) Central Florida Commuter Rail System.
       (4) Charlotte--South Corridor LRT.
       (5) Dallas Area Rapid Transit--Northwest-Southeast LRT 
     Extension.
       (6) Delaware--Wilmington-Newark Commuter Rail Improvements.
       (7) Denver--West Corridor LRT.
       (8) El Paso--Rapid Transit (SMART) Starter Line.
       (9) Harrisburg--Corridor One Commuter Rail (MOS-1).
       (10) Houston Advanced Transit Program Light Rail.
       (11) Kansas City, Missouri--Southtown BRT.
       (12) Las Vegas--Resort Corridor Downtown Extension Project.
       (13) Los Angeles MTA--Exposition LRT.
       (14) Miami-Dade Transit--North Corridor.
       (15) Minneapolis--North Star Corridor.
       (16) Nashua--Commuter Rail.
       (17) Nashville, Tennessee Commuter Rail.
       (18) New Britain-Hartford Busway Project.
       (19) New Orleans--Desire Corridor Streetcar.
       (20) New York--Long Island Railroad East Side Access 
     Project.
       (21) New York--Second Avenue Subway.
       (22) Norfolk Light Rail.
       (23) Northern Virginia--Dulles Corridor Extension to Wiehle 
     Avenue (Phase 1).
       (24) Orange County, California--Rapid Transit Project.
       (25) Philadelphia--Schuylkill Valley MetroRail.
       (26) Pittsburgh--North Shore Connector.
       (27) Portland, Oregon--South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall 
     LRT.
       (28) Providence--South County Commuter Rail.
       (29) Sacramento--South Corridor LRT Extension (Phase 2), 
     Meadowview to Consumnes River College.
       (30) Salt Lake City--Weber County to Salt Lake City 
     Commuter Rail.
       (31) San Diego--Mid-Coast Extension.
       (32) San Francisco Muni--Third Street LRT-Phase I/II.
       (33) San Gabriel Valley--Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 
     I/PhaseII, Los Angeles to Montclair.
       (34) Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority--Silicon Valley 
     Rapid Transit Corridor.
       (35) Tampa Bay--Regional Rail.
       (36) Triangle Transit Authority, North Carolina--Regional 
     Rail Project.
       (37) Washington County, Oregon--Wilsonville to Beaverton 
     Commuter Rail.
       (38) Wasilla-Girdwood, Alaska--Commuter Rail.
       (c) Preliminary Engineering.--The following projects are 
     authorized for preliminary engineering for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 under paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of section 
     5309(m) of title 49, United States Code:
       (1) Alameda, California--Fixed Guideway Corridor Project.
       (2) Alameda, California--Transit Improvements and 
     Multimodal Center.
       (3) Albuquerque--High Capacity Corridor.
       (4) Ann Arbor/Downtown Detroit--Transit Improvement 
     Project.
       (5) Atlanta--East Line 1-20 Corridor Project.
       (6) Atlanta--MARTA Memorial Drive Bus Rapid Transit.
       (7) Atlanta--GRTA I-75 Corridor, Downtown Atlanta--Cherokee 
     County.
       (8) Atlanta--Interstate 285 Transit Corridor.
       (9) Atlanta--Georgia 400 North Line Corridor Project.
       (10) Atlanta--Belt Line C-Loop.
       (11) Atlanta--I-20 East Line I-20 Corridor Project.
       (12) Atlanta--West Line I-20 Corridor Project.
       (13) Austin--San Antonio I-35 Commuter Rail.
       (14) Austin--Rapid Bus Project.
       (15) Austin--Urban Commuter Rail.
       (16) Baltimore Red Line/Green Line Transit Project.
       (17) Baton Rouge--Bus Rapid Transit.
       (18) Bayonne, New Jersey--Hudson Bergen LRT Extension to NY 
     Harbor.
       (19) Bernalillo-Santa Fe--New Mexico Commuter Rail.
       (20) Birmingham, Alabama--Transit Corridor.
       (21) Boise--Downtown Circulator.
       (22) Boise, Idaho--Valley Regional Transit Rail Corridor 
     Preservation.
       (23) Boston--Assembly Square Orange Line Station.
       (24) Boston--Lechmere Transit Improvement to Somerville and 
     Medford.
       (25) Boston--North Shore Corridor and Blue Line Extension.

[[Page 18659]]

       (26) Boston--North/South Rail Link.
       (27) Boston--Urban Ring BRT.
       (28) Bridgeport, Connecticut--Bridgeport Intermodal 
     Facility.
       (29) Broward County, Florida--Bus Rapid Transit.
       (30) Camden, New Jersey--North Ferry Terminal.
       (31) Carrollton, Texas--Regional Intermodal Passenger Rail 
     Facility Project.
       (32) Cedar Rapids, Iowa--River Rail Project.
       (33) Central Phoenix--East Valley Corridor LRT Extensions.
       (34) Charlotte--Charlotte Multimodal Station.
       (35) Charlotte--North Corridor Project.
       (36) Charlotte--Northeast Corridor Project.
       (37) Charlotte--South Corridor LRT extension to Rock Hill, 
     South Carolina.
       (38) Charlotte--Southeast Corridor Project.
       (39) Charlotte--West Corridor Project.
       (40) Charlotte--Center City Streetcar Project.
       (41) Chicago--Cermack Road BRT.
       (42) Chicago CTA--Red Line Extension.
       (43) Chicago CTA--Chicago Transit Hub (Circle Line-Ogden 
     Streetcar).
       (44) Chicago CTA--Orange Line Extension (Midway Airport to 
     Ford City).
       (45) Chicago CTA--Yellow Line Extension (Dempster-Old 
     Orchard).
       (46) Chicago--Ogden Avenue Corridor.
       (47) Chicago--Pace Golf Road Bus Rapid Transit.
       (48) Chula Vista, California--Bus Rapid Transit.
       (49) Clark County, Washington--MAX Extension.
       (50) Cleveland-Akron-Canton (Northeast Ohio) Commuter Rail.
       (51) Columbia, South Carolina--Light Rail.
       (52) Columbus--North Corridor LRT Project.
       (53) Contra-Costa--BART Extension.
       (54) Corpus Christi--Downtown Rail Trolley.
       (55) Dallas Area Rapid Transit--Dallas Central Business 
     District.
       (56) Dallas Area Rapid Transit--Rowlett LRT Extension.
       (57) Dallas Area Rapid Transit--Beltline to DFW Airport.
       (58) Dayton--Aviation Heritage Corridor Streetcar Project.
       (59) Dayton--Aviation Heritage Corridor Streetcar Project 
     Phase I.
       (60) Denton County Transportation Authority, Texas--Fixed 
     Guideway Project.
       (61) Denver--Gold Line Extension to Arvada.
       (62) Denver--RR Right of Way Acquisition.
       (63) Denver--United States Route 36 Transit Corridor.
       (64) Denver--North Metro Corridor to Thornton.
       (65) Denver--East Corridor to DIA Airport.
       (66) Denver--I-225 Transit Corridor.
       (67) Denver--Southeast Corridor Extension to Lone-Tree/
     Ridgegate.
       (68) Denver--Southwest Corridor Extension to C470/Lucent 
     Boulevard.
       (69) Detroit--Center City Loop.
       (70) Detroit--Woodward Corridor.
       (71) District of Columbia--Light Rail Starter Line.
       (72) Erie, Pennsylvania--Ferry Acquisition.
       (73) Fitchburg, Massachusetts--Commuter Rail Extensions and 
     Improvements.
       (74) Florence-Myrtle Beach, South Carolina--Transit 
     Corridor.
       (75) Fort Lauderdale--Downtown Rail Link.
       (76) Fort Lauderdale--Transit Project from NW 215th and 
     79th Streets.
       (77) Fort Worth--Cottonbelt Commuter Rail to DFW.
       (78) Fort Worth--Trinity Railway Express Commuter Rail 
     Extensions.
       (79) Galveston--Rail Trolley Extension.
       (80) Glendale, California--Downtown Streetcar.
       (81) Grand Rapids--Fixed Guideway Corridor Project.
       (82) Guam--Tumon Bay-Airport Light Rail.
       (83) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania--Corridor One MOS-2 (East 
     Mechanicsburg to Carlisle).
       (84) Harrison County, Mississippi--Canal Road Intermodal 
     Connector.
       (85) Henderson-Las Vegas-North Las Vegas--Regional Fixed 
     Guideway Project.
       (86) Honolulu--Rapid Transit Project.
       (87) Houston--Commuter Rail Service in Harris & Fort Bend 
     Counties.
       (88) Houston--Advanced Transportation Technology System.
       (89) Indianapolis--System of Metropolitan Area Rapid 
     Transit.
       (90) Jacksonville--East-Southwest BRT.
       (91) Jacksonville--North-Southeast BRT.
       (92) Kansas City, Missouri-Lawrence, Kansas--Commuter Rail.
       (93) Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Metra Commuter Rail Extension 
     (Wisconsin).
       (94) Kenosha, Wisconsin Streetcar Expansion Project.
       (95) King County, Washington--I-405 Corridor Bus Rapid 
     Transit.
       (96) Lake Tahoe--Passenger Ferry Service.
       (97) Lakeville, Minnesota--Cedar Avenue Corridor Bus Rapid 
     Transit.
       (98) Lane County, Oregon--Bus Rapid Transit, Phase 2.
       (99) Las Vegas--Boulder Highway MAX Bus Rapid Transit.
       (100) Little Rock--River Rail Streetcar Extensions.
       (101) Little Rock--West Little Rock Commuter Rail.
       (102) Livermore, California--BART Rail Extension to 
     Livermore.
       (103) Long Island Railroad--Nassau Hub.
       (104) Lorain-Cleveland Commuter Rail.
       (105) LOSSAN Del Mar-San Diego--Rail Corridor Improvements.
       (106) Lovejoy to Griffin, Georgia Commuter Rail.
       (107) Madison, Wisconsin--Madison Streetcar.
       (108) Madison, Wisconsin--Light Rail Transportation.
       (109) Madison and Dane Counties, Wisconsin--Transport 2020 
     Commuter Rail.
       (110) Maryland--I-270 Corridor Cities Transitway.
       (111) Maryland--Route 5 Corridor to Waldorf.
       (112) Maryland--Silver Spring Capacity Improvements.
       (113) Massachusetts--Commuter Rail Extensions to Worcester 
     and New Bedford.
       (114) Memphis--Downtown Airport Corridor.
       (115) Memphis--Intermodal Terminal.
       (116) Memphis Regional Rail Plan.
       (117) Metra BNSF Naperville to Aurora Corridor Extension 
     and Improvements.
       (118) Metra South Suburban Airport Commuter Rail Extension.
       (119) Metra SouthEast Service Line Commuter Rail.
       (120) Metra STAR Line Inter-Suburban Commuter Rail.
       (121) Metra UP Northwest Line Core Capacity Upgrades.
       (122) Metra UP West Line Core Capacity Upgrades.
       (123) Metra-West Line Extension, Elgin to Rockford.
       (124) Miami-Dade Transit--Douglas Road Extension.
       (125) Miami-Dade Transit--East-West Corridor.
       (126) Miami-Dade Transit--Kendall Corridor.
       (127) Miami-Dade Transit--Northeast Corridor.
       (128) Miami-Dade Transit--South Dade Corridor.
       (129) Miami-Dade Transit--Miami Intermodal Center to 
     Earlington Heights.
       (130) Miami--Downtown Streetcar Project.
       (131) Middletown-South Fallsburg, New York, Passenger Rail.
       (132) Milwaukee--Downtown Dedicated Guideway Transit 
     Connector.
       (133) Minneapolis--Northwest Corridor Busway.
       (134) Minneapolis-St. Paul--Central Corridor Transit 
     Project.
       (135) Minneapolis-St. Paul-Hinckley, Minnesota--Rush Line 
     Corridor.
       (136) Missouri/Kansas--Interstate 35 Transit Corridor.
       (137) Monterey County, California--Commuter Rail.
       (138) Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland--
     Bi-County Transitway (Purple Line).
       (139) Nashua-Manchester--Commuter Rail Extension.
       (140) Nashville--Area Transit Corridors.
       (141) Nashville--Southeast Rail Corridor.
       (142) Nashville Tennessee Commuter Rail.
       (143) Nassau and Queens Counties, New York--LIRR Main Line 
     Third Track Project.
       (144) New Bedford-Fall River, Massachusetts--Commuter Rail 
     Extension.
       (145) New Haven, Connecticut-Hartford, Connecticut-
     Springfield, Massachusetts Commuter Line.
       (146) New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor.
       (147) New Jersey Transit--Northeast Corridor Trans-Hudson 
     Commuter Rail Improvements.
       (148) New Jersey Transit--Morris/Essex/Boonton Trans-Hudson 
     Commuter Rail Improvements.
       (149) New Jersey Transit--New York Susquehanna and Western 
     RR Commuter Extension.
       (150) New Jersey Transit--Phillipsburg Extension.
       (151) New Jersey Transit--West Trenton Line Commuter Line 
     Service Extension.
       (152) New Jersey-Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cutoff Rail 
     Restoration.
       (153) New Jersey Urban Core.
       (154) New Orleans--Airport-CBD Commuter Rail.
       (155) New Orleans--Riverfront Streetcar Downriver 
     Extension.
       (156) New Orleans--Riverfront Streetcar Upriver Extension.
       (157) New York--Governors Island Transportation Access.
       (158) New York--Long Island Sound (Long Island) Ferry 
     Service.
       (159) New York--Long Island Sound (Westchester) Ferry 
     Service.
       (160) New York--NYC Bus Rapid Transit.
       (161) New York--NYC Highline.
       (162) New York--Penn Station Access Project.
       (163) New York--Rockaway-Brooklyn Army Terminal-Manhattan 
     Ferry Service.
       (164) New York--Staten Island to Manhattan High-Speed Ferry 
     Service Extension.
       (165) New York--Stewart Airport Rail Access.
       (166) New York--Tappan Zee I-287 Corridor.
       (167) New York--West Harlem Waterfront Ferry Improvements.
       (168) Newburg, New York--LRT System.
       (169) Northern Indiana--Commuter District Line.
       (170) Northern Indiana--West Lake Commuter Rail Link (South 
     Shore Commuter Rail).
       (171) Norfolk--Naval Station Corridor.
       (172) Norfolk-Petersburg--United States Route 460 Commuter 
     Rail Project.
       (173) Northern Virginia--Crystal City Potomac Yards 
     Transit.
       (174) Northern Virginia--Columbia Pike Rapid Transit 
     Project.
       (175) Northern Virginia--Dulles Corridor Extension, Phase 
     2.
       (176) Northern Virginia--Richmond Highway (Route 1) Rapid 
     Transit Project.

[[Page 18660]]

       (177) Oakland--Telegraph Avenue/International Blvd/East 
     14th Street BRT.
       (178) Ogden--Intermodal-Weber State University Transit 
     Connection.
       (179) Orange County, California--Bus Rapid Transit.
       (180) Orlando-Orange County, Florida--Light Rail Project.
       (181) Ottawa, Illinois--Illinois Valley Commuter Rail 
     Extension.
       (182) Pawtucket, Rhode Island--Commuter Rail Station.
       (183) Philadelphia--Elwyn to Wawa Train Service 
     Restoration.
       (184) Philadelphia--Navy Yard Transit Extension.
       (185) Philadelphia--52nd Street City Connector Project.
       (186) Philadelphia--Route 100 Rapid Trolley Extension.
       (187) Philadelphia--Broad Street Subway Line Extension.
       (188) Piedmont Authority Regional Transportation--East-West 
     Rail Transit Corridor Project.
       (189) Pinellas Mobility Initiative Bus Rapid Transit.
       (190) Pittsburgh--Keystone West Passenger Rail Corridor in 
     Blair, Cambria, West Moreland, and Allegheny Counties.
       (191) Pittsburgh--East-West Corridor Rapid Transit.
       (192) Pittsburgh--Martin Luther King, Jr. Busway Extension.
       (193) Pittsburgh--Oakland Technology Corridor.
       (194) Portland Streetcar Extensions.
       (195) Portland-Yarmouth-Brunswick-Lewiston/Auburn Passenger 
     Rail.
       (196) Providence--South County Commuter Rail Phase II.
       (197) Provo-Orem Utah--Bus Rapid Transit.
       (198) Quakertown-Stoney Creek, Pennsylvania--Rail 
     Restoration.
       (199) Raritan Valley, New Jersey--Commuter Rail.
       (200) Reno, Nevada--Virginia Street Bus Rapid Transit 
     Project.
       (201) Riverside County, California--Perris Valley Line 
     Metrolink Extension.
       (202) Roaring Fork Valley, Colorado--Bus Rapid Transit.
       (203) Rock Island, Illinois--Quad Cities Rapid Transit 
     System.
       (204) Sacramento--Downtown Streetcar Project.
       (205) Sacramento--Regional Rail, Auburn to Oakland.
       (206) Sacramento--Downtown/Natomas Airport Transit 
     Corridor.
       (207) Salt Lake City--Airport to University LRT.
       (208) Salt Lake City--Delta Center to Gateway Intermodal 
     Center LRT Extension.
       (209) Salt Lake City--Draper to Sandy LRT Extension.
       (210) Salt Lake-Provo--Commuter Rail Extension.
       (211) Salt Lake City--TRAX Capacity Improvements.
       (212) Salt Lake City--West Valley City LRT Extension.
       (213) Salt Lake City--West Valley City 3500 South BRT.
       (214) Salt Lake City--West Jordan LRT extension.
       (215) Salt Lake City to South Davis Transit Connection.
       (216) San Antonio--Bus Rapid Transit.
       (217) San Diego--First Bus Rapid Transit.
       (218) San Diego--San Diego Imperial County Mag-Lev Rail 
     Airport Corridor Project.
       (219) San Diego--Sprinter Rail Line Extension Project.
       (220) San Francisco--BART Extension to Livermore.
       (221) San Francisco--BART Extension to Oakland 
     International Airport.
       (222) San Francisco--MUNI Geary Boulevard Bus Rapid 
     Transit.
       (223) San Francisco--Oyster Point Ferry Terminal.
       (224) San Francisco--Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown 
     Extension Project.
       (225) San Joaquin, California--Regional Rail Commission 
     Central Valley Rail Service.
       (226) San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Commuter Rail 
     (Altamont Commuter Express).
       (227) San Juan Tren Urbano--Extension from Rio Piedras to 
     Carolina.
       (228) San Juan--Tren Urbano Minillas Extension.
       (229) Santa Fe--El Dorado Rail Link.
       (230) Seattle--Monorail Project Post--Green Line 
     Extensions.
       (231) Seattle--Link LRT Extensions.
       (232) Seattle--Sound Transit Commuter Rail.
       (233) Seattle--Sound Transit Regional Express Bus.
       (234) Sevierville to Pigeon Ford, Tennessee--Bus Rapid 
     Transit.
       (235) Sonoma/Marin (SMART) Commuter Rail, California.
       (236) Southern California High Speed Regional Transit.
       (237) Southern New Jersey to Philadelphia Transit Project.
       (238) St. Louis Metro Link--Scott AFB to Mid America 
     Airport.
       (239) St. Louis--East/West Gateway.
       (240) St. Louis--Metro Link Northside Daniel Boone Project.
       (241) St. Louis--Metro South Corridor.
       (242) St. Louis--University Downtown Trolley.
       (243) St. Paul--Red Rock Corridor Commuter Rail Project.
       (244) Stamford, Connecticut--Boston Post Road Intermodal 
     Center and Capacity Expansion Project.
       (245) Stamford, Connecticut--Urban Transitway Phase II.
       (246) Tampa--Bus Rapid Transit Improvements.
       (247) Tampa--Streetcar Extension to Downtown Tampa.
       (248) Toledo, Ohio--CBD to Zoo.
       (249) Toledo, Ohio--University Corridor.
       (250) Trenton Trolley.
       (251) Tri-Rail Dolphin Extension.
       (252) Tri-Rail Florida East Coast Commuter Rail Extension.
       (253) Tri-Rail Jupiter Extension.
       (254) Tri-Rail Scripps Corridor Extension Project.
       (255) Tucson--Old Pueblo Trolley Expansion.
       (256) Vancouver--Interstate MAX Extension to Clark County, 
     Washington.
       (257) Virginia Beach--Bus Rapid Transit.
       (258) Virginia Railway Express Capacity Improvements.
       (259) Washington, D.C.--Woodrow Wilson Bridge Transit 
     Projects.
       (260) Washington State Ferries and Ferry Facilities.
       (261) Washington State--Issaquah Valley Trolley Project.
       (262) Williamsburg-Newport News--Peninsula Rail Transit.
       (263) Wilmington, Delaware--Commuter Rail to Middletown.
       (264) Winston-Salem--Downtown Streetcar System.
       (d) Project Authorizations.--Subject to the requirements of 
     sections 5309(d) and 5309(e) of title 49, United States Code, 
     the following projects are authorized for the following 
     amounts:
       (1) Ann Arbor/Downtown Detroit Transit Improvement Project, 
     $100,000,000.
       (2) Baltimore Red Line/Green Line Transit Project, 
     $102,300,000.
       (3) Bernalillo-Santa Fe-New Mexico Commuter Rail, 
     $75,000,000.
       (4) Birmingham-Jefferson Transit Authority--I-65 South BRT, 
     $100,000,000.
       (5) Boston--Assembly Square Orange Line Station, 
     $25,000,000.
       (6) Boston--Silver Line BRT Phase II, $20,000,000.
       (7) Bridgeport, Connecticut--Bridgeport Intermodal Transit 
     Center, $28,000,000.
       (8) Dallas Area Rapid Transit--NW/SW Light Rail Transit 
     Minimal Operable Segment, $260,000,000.
       (9) Delaware--Wilmington-Newark Commuter Rail Improvements, 
     $14,000,000.
       (10) Denver Regional Transit District--West Corridor, 
     $270,000,000.
       (11) Grand Rapids--Fixed Guideway Corridor Project, 
     $14,400,000.
       (12) Harrison County, Mississippi HOV/BRT Canal Road 
     Intermodal Connector, $70,000,000.
       (13) Henderson-Las Vegas-North Las Vegas--Regional Fixed 
     Guideway Project, $32,000,000.
       (14) Houston--Advanced Transportation Technology System in 
     Harris County, $245,000,000.
       (15) Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Metra Commuter Rail Extension 
     (Wisconsin), $80,000,000.
       (16) Lake Tahoe--Passenger Ferry Service, $8,000,000.
       (17) Lane County, Oregon--Bus Rapid Transit, Phase 2, 
     $31,000,000.
       (18) Las Vegas--Boulder Highway MAX Bus Rapid Transit, 
     $12,000,000.
       (19) Las Vegas--Resort Corridor Downtown Extension Project, 
     $16,000,000.
       (20) Long Island Railroad--Nassau Hub, $10,000,000.
       (21) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 
     Authority (LACMTA): Mid-City/Exposition Light Rail Transit 
     Project, $11,000,000.
       (22) Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction 
     Authority: Gold Line Foothill Light Rail Transit Project, 
     $6,000,000.
       (23) Miami--Downtown Streetcar Project, $50,000,000.
       (24) Minneapolis--North Star Corridor, $80,000,000.
       (25) Mississippi--I-69 HOV/BRT, $70,000,000.
       (26) Nashville--Commuter Rail, $6,200,000.
       (27) New Bedford-Fall River, Massachusetts--Commuter Rail 
     Extension, $10,000,000.
       (28) New Britain-Hartford Busway Project, $55,000,000.
       (29) New Jersey Transit--Northeast Corridor Trans-Hudson 
     Commuter Rail Improvements, $80,000,000.
       (30) New Orleans--Airport-CBD Commuter Rail, $5,000,000.
       (31) New Orleans--Desire Corridor Streetcar, $69,700,000.
       (32) New York--Penn Station Access Project, $15,000,000.
       (33) New York--Stewart Airport Rail Access, $40,000,000.
       (34) Providence--South County Commuter Rail, Phase II, 
     $60,000,000.
       (35) Providence--South County Commuter Rail, $36,000,000.
       (36) Pennsylvania--New Jersey Lackawanna Cutoff Rail 
     Restoration, $120,000,000.
       (37) Philadelphia--Schuylkill Valley Metro, $250,000,000.
       (38) Reno, Nevada--Virginia Street Bus Rapid Transit, 
     $12,000,000.
       (39) Sacramento--South Corridor LRT Extension (Phase 2), 
     Meadowview to Consumnes River College, $11,000,000.
       (40) Sacramento Regional Transit District: Downtown Natoma 
     Airport Transit Corridor, $5,000,000.
       (41) San Diego--Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit Extension, 
     $11,000,000.

[[Page 18661]]

       (42) San Francisco Muni Third St. Light Rail Transit-Phase 
     I/II, $15,000,000
       (43) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority--Silicon 
     Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project, $11,000,000.
       (44) Santa Fe-El Dorado Rail Link, $5,400,000.
       (45) Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Project, 
     $5,000,000.
       (46) St. Louis--Metro South Corridor Metrolink Light Rail 
     Extension, $135,000,000.
       (47) St. Louis--North Side and Daniel Boone Corridors 
     Metrolink Light Rail Extensions, $275,000,000.
       (48) Stamford, Connecticut Urban Transitway Phase II, 
     $22,800,000.
       (49) Tampa--Streetcar Extension to Downtown Tampa, 
     $3,000,000.
       (50) Utah--Regional Commuter Rail, $200,000,000.
       (51) Washington State Ferries, $25,000,000.
       (52) Wilmington, Delaware--Commuter Rail to Middletown, 
     $24,900,000.
       (e) Rules Relating to Funding.--
       (1) Subsection (a) projects.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to expend 
     funds made available under section 5309(m) of title 49, 
     United States Code, for final design and construction of 
     projects authorized by subsection (a) as existing full 
     funding grant agreements.
       (B) Minimum funding levels.--The Secretary shall make 
     available not less than the following amounts for projects 
     authorized by subsection (a): $1,157,400,426 for fiscal year 
     2005, $838,360,578 for fiscal year 2006, $614,405,565 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $424,817,697 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $259,180,764 for fiscal year 2009.
       (2) Subsection (b) projects.--
       (A) In general.--Projects authorized by subsection (b) for 
     final design and construction are also authorized for 
     alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering.
       (B) Minimum funding levels.--The Secretary shall make 
     available not less than the following amounts for projects 
     authorized by subsection (b): $165,402,806 for fiscal year 
     2005, $544,399,422 for fiscal year 2006, $826,314,435 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $1,139,182,303 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $1,405,329,236 for fiscal year 2009.
       (C) Priority.--In making funds available under subparagraph 
     (B), the Secretary shall first make such funds available for 
     any full funding grant agreement executed by the Secretary in 
     fiscal year 2005 after the date of enactment of this Act and 
     for any full funding grant agreement executed by the 
     Secretary in the amount indicated in fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 in the amount indicated in the ``Schedule of 
     Federal Funds for the Project'' included in such agreement.
       (3) Subsection (c) projects.--
       (A) In general.--Effective October 1, 2007, projects 
     authorized by subsection (c) for preliminary engineering are 
     also authorized for final design and construction.
       (B) Maximum funding levels.--The Secretary shall make 
     available not more than the following amounts for projects 
     authorized by subsection (c): $115,026,368 for fiscal year 
     2005, $120,240,000 for fiscal year 2006, and $125,280,000 in 
     fiscal year 2007.
       (C) Maximum funding levels for preliminary engineering.--In 
     fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the Secretary shall make 
     available not more than the following amounts for projects 
     authorized by subsection (b), and projects authorized by 
     subsection (c), to conduct preliminary engineering 
     activities: $136,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 and $144,740,000 
     in fiscal year 2009.
       (f) New Jersey Urban Core Project.--Section 3031(d) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (112 
     Stat. 380; 105 Stat. 2122) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``associated components to and at the 
     contiguous New Jersey Meadowlands Sports Complex),'' and 
     inserting ``to and at the contiguous New Jersey Meadowlands 
     Sports Complex), including a connection to the Hudson River 
     Waterfront Transportation System, the Lackawanna Cutoff,''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``in Lakewood to Freehold to Matawan or 
     Jamesburg, New Jersey, as described in section 3035(p) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
     Stat. 2131)'' and inserting ``from Lakehurst to the Northeast 
     Corridor or the New Jersey Coast Line''.
       (g) New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor.--Not later 
     than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall permit New Jersey Transit to enter into 
     preliminary engineering on the New Jersey Trans-Hudson 
     Midtown Corridor project. When evaluating the local share of 
     such project in the new starts rating process, the Secretary 
     shall give consideration to project elements of the New 
     Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor advanced with 100 
     percent non-Federal funds, including the purchase of bi-level 
     rail equipment and the New Jersey Transit Light Rail River 
     Line. Based upon the project's evaluations and ratings 
     required under section 5309(d) of title 49, United States 
     Code, the Secretary shall give strong consideration to the 
     project for a full funding grant agreement.
       (h) Houston Metro.--
       (1) Local share.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for the purpose of calculating the non-Federal share of 
     the net project cost of any new fixed guideway capital 
     project currently included in the Advanced Transit Program 
     (``Metro Solutions Plan'') sponsored by the Metropolitan 
     Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, the Secretary 
     shall include $324,000,000 in State and local funds expended 
     for the design and construction of the Red Line Light Rail 
     Transit system that operates in Harris County, Texas.
       (2) Special rule.--No provision of this Act shall be 
     construed to override or nullify the will of the voters who 
     approved the Metro Solutions Plan as described on the ballot 
     and in the accompanying Board resolutions, nor shall any 
     provision of this Act be construed to override or nullify the 
     terms and conditions of Metro Board Resolution No. 2003-77 or 
     any applicable provision of State law or the charter of the 
     city of Houston as in effect as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (3) Amendment.--Section 178 of Public Law 108-447, division 
     H (118 Stat. 3230), is amended by striking ``49 USC 
     5309(e)(1)(A), 23 CFR 771.123, and 49 CFR 611.7.'' and 
     inserting ``49 U.S.C. 5309 and 49 C.F.R. 611.7: Provided, 
     That such projects shall retain their status in preliminary 
     engineering should bus rapid transit be chosen as the locally 
     preferred alternative during that phase.''.
       (i) Exemption.--The Metra BNSF Naperville to Aurora 
     Extension Project authorized under subsection (c) shall be 
     exempted from all requirements related to criteria for grants 
     for new fixed guideway capital projects under section 5309(d) 
     of title 49, United States Code, and from regulations 
     required under that section.
       (j) Rail Cars.--The project authorized by subsection 
     (a)(31) includes an additional 52 rapid rail cars and project 
     scope changes from amounts authorized by the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century.

     SEC. 3044. PROJECTS FOR BUS AND BUS-RELATED FACILITIES AND 
                   CLEAN FUELS GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Projects.--Of the amounts made available to carry out 
     section 5309(m)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, for 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the Secretary shall 
     make funds available for the following projects in not less 
     than the amounts specified for the fiscal year:

[[Page 18662]]

TH28JY7.225



[[Page 18663]]

TH28JY7.226



[[Page 18664]]

TH28JY7.227



[[Page 18665]]

TH28JY7.228



[[Page 18666]]

TH28JY7.229



[[Page 18667]]

TH28JY7.230



[[Page 18668]]

TH28JY7.231



[[Page 18669]]

TH28JY7.232



[[Page 18670]]

TH28JY7.233



[[Page 18671]]

TH28JY7.234



[[Page 18672]]

TH28JY7.235



[[Page 18673]]

TH28JY7.236



[[Page 18674]]

TH28JY7.237



[[Page 18675]]

TH28JY7.238



[[Page 18676]]

TH28JY7.239



[[Page 18677]]

TH28JY7.240



[[Page 18678]]

TH28JY7.241



[[Page 18679]]

TH28JY7.242



[[Page 18680]]

TH28JY7.243



[[Page 18681]]

TH28JY7.244



[[Page 18682]]

TH28JY7.245



[[Page 18683]]

TH28JY7.246



[[Page 18684]]

TH28JY7.247



[[Page 18685]]

TH28JY7.248



[[Page 18686]]

TH28JY7.249



[[Page 18687]]

TH28JY7.250



[[Page 18688]]

TH28JY7.251



[[Page 18689]]

TH28JY7.252



[[Page 18690]]

TH28JY7.253



[[Page 18691]]

TH28JY7.254



[[Page 18692]]

TH28JY7.255



[[Page 18693]]

TH28JY7.256

 

[[Page 18694]]

       (b) Clean Fuels Grants Program Projects.--
       (1) Funding.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall make funds available for the projects listed in item 
     numbers 497, 517, 519, 557, 575, 578, 605, 611, 612, 614, 
     631, 638, 640, 641, 648, and 659 in the table contained in 
     subsection (a), in the amounts specified, from amounts made 
     available to carry out section 5308 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Purchase of buses under supplemental environmental 
     project.--With respect to the project numbered 605, purchases 
     of buses procured under a supplemental environmental project 
     executed by the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency are eligible for assistance 
     under section 5308 of such title.
       (c) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall pay the Federal share of the net 
     project cost to a State or local governmental authority that 
     carries out or has carried out any part of the bus and bus-
     related facilities projects numbered 258 and 347 under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 3045. NATIONAL FUEL CELL BUS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     national fuel cell bus technology development program (in 
     this section referred to as the ``program'') to facilitate 
     the development of commercially viable fuel cell bus 
     technology and related infrastructure.
       (b) General Authority.--The Secretary may enter into 
     grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with no more 
     than 3 geographically diverse nonprofit organizations and 
     recipients under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, 
     to conduct fuel cell bus technology and infrastructure 
     projects under the program.
       (c) Grant Criteria.--In selecting applicants for grants 
     under the program, the Secretary shall consider the 
     applicant's--
       (1) ability to contribute significantly to furthering fuel 
     cell technology as it relates to transit bus operations, 
     including hydrogen production, energy storage, fuel cell 
     technologies, vehicle systems integration, and power 
     electronics technologies;
       (2) financing plan and cost share potential;
       (3) fuel cell technology to ensure that the program 
     advances different fuel cell technologies, including 
     hydrogen-fueled and methanol-powered liquid-fueled fuel cell 
     technologies, that may be viable for public transportation 
     systems; and
       (4) other criteria that the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to carry out the program.
       (d) Competitive Grant Selection.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct a national solicitation for applications for grants 
     under the program. Grant recipients shall be selected on a 
     competitive basis. The Secretary shall give priority 
     consideration to applicants that have successfully managed 
     advanced transportation technology projects, including 
     projects related to hydrogen and fuel cell public 
     transportation operations for a period of not less than 5 
     years.
       (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of costs of the 
     program shall be provided from funds made available to carry 
     out this section. The Federal share of the cost of a project 
     carried out under the program shall not exceed 50 percent of 
     such cost. The cost of a project carried out under the 
     program shall not include the cost of a fuel cell power unit.
       (f) Grant Requirements.--A grant under this section shall 
     be subject to--
       (1) all terms and conditions applicable to a grant made 
     under section 5309 of title 49, United States Code; and
       (2) such other terms and conditions as are determined by 
     the Secretary.

     SEC. 3046. ALLOCATIONS FOR NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to section 
     5338(d) of title 49, United States Code, for national 
     research and technology programs under sections 5312, 5314, 
     and 5322 of such title shall be allocated by the Secretary as 
     follows:
       (1) Public transportation national security study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
     study and evaluation of the value major public transportation 
     systems in the United States serving the 38 urbanized areas 
     that have a population of more than 1,000,000 individuals 
     provide to the Nation's security and the ability of such 
     systems to accommodate the evacuation, egress or ingress of 
     people to or from critical locations in times of emergency.
       (B) Alternative routes.--For each system described in 
     subparagraph (A) the study shall identify--
       (i) potential alternative routes for evacuation using other 
     transportation modes such as highway, air, marine, and 
     pedestrian activities; and
       (ii) transit routes that, if disrupted, do not have 
     sufficient transit alternatives available.
       (C) Report.--Not later than 24 months after the date of 
     entry into the agreement, the Academy shall submit to the 
     Secretary and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate 
     a final report on the results of the study and evaluation, 
     together with such recommendations as the Academy considers 
     appropriate.
       (D) Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 
     $250,000 shall be available to carry out this paragraph.
       (2) Center for transit-oriented development.--For each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009, not less than $1,000,000 
     shall be made available by the Secretary for establishment 
     and operation of the Center for Transit-Oriented 
     Development--
       (A) to develop standards and definitions for transit-
     oriented development adjacent to public transportation 
     facilities;
       (B) to develop system planning guidance, performance 
     criteria, and modeling techniques for metropolitan planning 
     agencies and public transportation agencies to maximize 
     ridership through land use planning and adjacent development; 
     and
       (C) to provide research support and technical assistance to 
     public transportation agencies, metropolitan planning 
     agencies, and other persons regarding transit-oriented 
     development.
       (3) Transportation equity research program.--For each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009, not less than $1,000,000 
     shall be made available by the Secretary for research and 
     demonstration activities that focus on the impacts that 
     transportation planning, investment, and operations have on 
     low-income and minority populations that are transit 
     dependent. Such activities shall include the development of 
     strategies to advance economic and community development in 
     low-income and minority communities and the development of 
     training programs that promote the employment of low-income 
     and minority community residents on Federal-aid 
     transportation projects constructed in their communities.
       (4) Cognitive impairment study.--For fiscal year 2006, 
     $1,000,000 shall be made available by the Secretary for 
     research and demonstration activities that focus on the 
     capacity and resources of Oregon public transportation 
     systems to address the needs, barriers, and desires for 
     travel of people with cognitive impairments.
       (5) Transit career ladder training program.--For each 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009, not less than $1,000,000 
     shall be available for a nationwide career ladder job 
     training partnership program for public transportation 
     employees to respond to technological changes in the public 
     transportation industry, especially in the area of 
     maintenance. Such program shall be carried out by the 
     Secretary through a contract with a national nonprofit 
     organization with a demonstrated capacity to develop and 
     provide such programs.
       (6) Pilot program for remote infrared audible signs.--
       (A) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2009, not less than $500,000 shall be made available by the 
     Secretary to carry out a pilot program to determine the 
     benefits of remote infrared audible signage technology for 
     provision of wayfinding and information to people who are 
     visually, cognitively, or learning disabled.
       (B) Report.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2009, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate a report on the pilot program carried out under this 
     section.
       (ii) Contents.--The report--

       (I) shall include--

       (aa) an evaluation of the effect of the pilot program on 
     multimodal accessibility in public transportation;
       (bb) an evaluation of the effect of the program on 
     operators of public transportation and their passengers;
       (cc) an evaluation of the effect of making public 
     transportation accessible to people with visual, cognitive, 
     and learning disabilities on ridership of public 
     transportation and use of paratransit; and
       (dd) an evaluation of the effect of the program on the 
     education, community integration, work life, and general 
     quality of life of the targeted populations.
       (7) Hydrogen fuel cell shuttle deployment demonstration 
     project.--To demonstrate the utility of hydrogen fuel cell 
     vehicles in daily shuttle service, $800,000 in each of fiscal 
     years 2006 and 2007 shall be provided for hydrogen fuel cell 
     employee shuttle vans, related equipment, operations, public 
     education and outreach in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
       (8) Wisconsin supplemental transportation rural assistance 
     program (strap).--
       (A) In general.--For capital projects, operations, purchase 
     or lease of vehicles, and integration, planning and 
     coordination of public transportation services in the State 
     of Wisconsin that will supplement and expand existing rural 
     and special public transportation services in that State, 
     $2,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 
     shall be provided to the State of Wisconsin Department of 
     Transportation.
       (B) Purpose.--Funds received under this program may be used 
     to supplement public transportation programs for rural 
     populations for activities authorized under sections 5310, 
     5311, and 5316 of title 49, United States Code. Funds made 
     available under this program are subject to the requirements 
     of section 5311 of title 49, United States Code, except that 
     funds may be made available for up to 80 percent of net 
     operating costs. In awarding grants made available under this 
     program, the State shall consider--
       (i) rural population in the area to be served by the 
     applicant;
       (ii) extent to which the applicant demonstrates 
     coordination of existing transportation services or proposed 
     public transportation services;

[[Page 18695]]

       (iii) need for additional services in the area being 
     serviced by the applicant and the extent to which the 
     proposed services will address those needs and provide 
     accessibility for non-ambulatory recipients;
       (iv) extent to which the applicant demonstrates an 
     innovative approach that is responsive to the identified 
     service needs of the rural population; and
       (v) extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the 
     communities being served have been consulted in the planning 
     process.
       (9) Human services transportation coordination.--
       (A) In general.--For the management of a program to improve 
     and enhance the coordination of Federal resources for human 
     services transportation with those of the Department of 
     Transportation, $1,600,000 in each of fiscal years 2006, 
     2007, 2008, and 2009 shall be provided to a national non-
     profit organization that is competitively selected by the 
     Secretary. Such organization shall have demonstrated 
     expertise in issues of transportation coordination and in 
     providing technical assistance to local transportation 
     organizations.
       (B) Eligible activities.--Under this program, the 
     organization selected by the Secretary shall--
       (i) establish an advisory panel consisting of federal, 
     state and local officials and organizations;
       (ii) prepare an inventory of human service transportation 
     agencies operating in the United States;
       (iii) prepare an inventory of Federal transportation 
     spending;
       (iv) develop a program of technical assistance and training 
     for human services transportation organizations that shall 
     include on-site technical assistance, a resource 
     clearinghouse, and preparation of technical manuals;
       (v) prepare an annual report for the Secretary on 
     activities under this program and make recommendations for 
     improving coordination.
       (10) Portland, oregon streetcar prototype purchase and 
     deployment.--Not less than $1,000,000 shall be made available 
     in each of fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 by the 
     Secretary to TriMet for the purchase and deployment of a 
     domestically manufactured streetcar.
       (11) Public transportation participation pilot program.--
       (A) In general.--Of the funds allocated under this section 
     for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, $1,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year shall be made available by the Secretary to 
     establish a pilot program to support planning and public 
     participation activities related to public transportation 
     projects.
       (B) Eligible activities.--Activities eligible to be carried 
     out under the pilot program may include the following:
       (i) Improving data collection analysis and transportation 
     access for all users of the public transportation systems.
       (ii) Supporting public participation through the project 
     development phases.
       (iii) Using innovative techniques to improve the 
     coordination of transportation alternatives.
       (iv) Enhancing the coordination of public transportation 
     benefits and services.
       (v) Contracting with stakeholders to focus on the delivery 
     of transportation plans and programs.
       (vi) Measuring and reporting on the annual performance of 
     the transportation systems.
       (12) Transportation hybrid electric vehicle and fuel cell 
     research.--$500,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 
     for a transportation hybrid electric vehicle and fuel cell 
     research program at the University of Alabama.
       (13) Trauma care system research and development.--$500,000 
     in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for trauma care 
     system research and development at the University of Alabama 
     in Birmingham.
       (14) Transportation infrastructure and logistics 
     research.--$500,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 
     for transportation infrastructure and logistics research at 
     the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
       (15) National bus rapid transit institute.--$1,750,000 in 
     each of fiscal years 2006 though 2009 for the National Bus 
     Rapid Transit Institute at the University of South Florida.
       (16) Application of information technology to 
     transportation logistics and security.--$400,000 in each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for research on the 
     application of information technology to transportation 
     logistics and security at the Northern Kentucky University.
       (17) Intelligent transportation system pilot project.--
     $465,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for an 
     intelligent transportation system pilot project with the 
     National Consortium on Remote Sensing in Transportation Flows 
     at the Ohio State University.
       (18) Regional public safety training center.--$500,000 in 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for a regional public 
     safety training center at the Lehigh-Carbon Community 
     College.
       (19) Transit security training facility.--$750,000 in each 
     of fiscal years 2006 though 2009 for a transit security 
     training facility at the Chester County Community College.
       (20) Small urban and rural transit center.--$800,000 in 
     fiscal year 2006, $800,000 in fiscal year 2007, $1,200,000 in 
     fiscal year 2008, and $1,200,000 in fiscal year 2009 for the 
     Small Urban and Rural Transit Center at North Dakota State 
     University.
       (21) Advanced technology bus rapid transit project.-- 
     $500,000 in fiscal year 2006, $540,000 in fiscal year 2007, 
     $550,000 in fiscal year 2008, and $625,000 in fiscal year 
     2009 for the Southeastern Connecticut Advanced Technology Bus 
     Rapid Transit Project.
       (22) Greater new haven transit district fuel cell-powered 
     bus research.--$500,000 in fiscal year 2006, $540,000 in 
     fiscal year 2007, $550,000 in fiscal year 2008, and $625,000 
     in fiscal year 2009 for the Greater New Haven Transit 
     District Fuel Cell-Powered Bus Research.
       (23) Center for advanced transportation initiatives.--
     $500,000 in fiscal year 2006, $540,000 in fiscal year 2007, 
     $540,000 in fiscal year 2008, and $625,000 in fiscal year 
     2009 for the Rutgers Center for Advanced Transportation 
     Initiatives (CAIT).
       (24) Institute of technology's transportation, economic, 
     and land use system.--$500,000 in fiscal year 2006, $540,000 
     in fiscal year 2007, $540,000 in fiscal year 2008, and 
     $625,000 in fiscal year 2009 for the New Jersey Institute of 
     Technology's Transportation, Economic, and Land Use System 
     program (TELUS).
       (25) Regional transit training consortium pilot program.--
     $270,000 in fiscal year 2006, $380,000 in fiscal year 2007, 
     $380,000 in fiscal year 2008, and $450,000 in fiscal year 
     2009 for the Southern California Regional Transit Training 
     Consortium Pilot Program.
       (b) Remainder.--After making allocations under subsection 
     (a), the remainder of funds made available by section 5338(d) 
     of title 49, United States Code, for national research and 
     technology programs under sections 5312, 5314, and 5322 for a 
     fiscal year shall be allocated at the discretion of the 
     Secretary to other transit research, development, 
     demonstration and deployment projects authorized by sections 
     5312, 5314, and 5322 of such title.

     SEC. 3047. FORGIVENESS OF GRANT AGREEMENT.

       (a) Lane County Transit District.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law (including any regulation), any 
     outstanding balances on the following grant agreements made 
     to the Lane County Transit District, Oregon, do not have to 
     be repaid:
       (1) Federal Contract Number OR-03-0087.
       (2) Federal Contract Number OR-90-X094.
       (b) Pee Dee Regional Transit Authority.--The debt 
     identified in the 2000 Triennial Review of the Pee Dee 
     Regional Transit Authority as owed to the Federal Transit 
     Administration by the Pee Dee Regional Transit Authority does 
     not have to be repaid.

     SEC. 3048. COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT.

       Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall undertake a 30-day review of efforts 
     to use cooperative procurement to determine whether benefits 
     are sufficient to formally incorporate cooperative 
     procurement into the mass transit program. In particular, the 
     Secretary shall review the progress made under the pilot 
     program authorized under section 166 of division F of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (49 U.S.C. 5397 note; 
     118 Stat. 309), based on experience to date in the pilot 
     program and any available reports to Congress submitted under 
     such section 166. The Secretary shall also consider 
     information gathered from grantees about cooperative 
     procurement, whether or not related to the pilot program.

     SEC. 3049. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFITS.

       (a) Transit Pass Transportation Fringe Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Effective as of the first day of the next 
     fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, each covered agency shall implement a program under 
     which all qualified Federal employees serving in or under 
     such agency shall be offered transit pass transportation 
     fringe benefits, as described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Benefits described.--The benefits described in this 
     paragraph are the transit pass transportation fringe benefits 
     which, under section 2 of Executive Order 13150, are required 
     to be offered by Federal agencies in the National Capital 
     Region on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       (A) the term ``covered agency'' means any agency, to the 
     extent of its facilities in the National Capital Region;
       (B) the term ``agency'' means any agency (as defined by 
     7905(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code), the Postal Rate 
     Commission, and the Smithsonian Institution;
       (C) the term ``National Capital Region'' includes the 
     District of Columbia and every county or other geographic 
     area covered by section 2 of Executive Order 13150;
       (D) the term ``Executive Order 13150'' refers to Executive 
     Order 13150 (5 U.S.C. 7905 note);
       (E) the term ``Federal agency'' is used in the same way as 
     under section 2 of Executive Order 13150; and
       (F) any determination as to whether or not one is a 
     ``qualified Federal employee'' shall be made applying the 
     same criteria as would apply under section 2 of Executive 
     Order 13150.
       (4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be considered to require that a covered agency--
       (A) terminate any program or benefits in existence on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, or postpone any plans to 
     implement (before the effective date referred to in paragraph 
     (1)) any program or benefits permitted or required under any 
     other provision of law; or
       (B) discontinue (on or after the effective date referred to 
     in paragraph (1)) any program or benefits referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), so long as such program or benefits satisfy 
     the requirements of paragraphs (1) through (3).
       (b) Authority to Transport Federal Employees Between Their 
     Place of Employment and Mass Transit Facilities.--

[[Page 18696]]

       (1) In general.--Section 1344 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections 
     (h) and (i), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g)(1) If and to the extent that the head of a Federal 
     agency, in his or her sole discretion, deems it appropriate, 
     a passenger carrier may be used to transport an officer or 
     employee of a Federal agency between the officer's or 
     employee's place of employment and a mass transit facility 
     (whether or not publicly owned) in accordance with succeeding 
     provisions of this subsection.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding section 1343, a Federal agency that 
     provides transportation services under this subsection 
     (including by passenger carrier) may absorb the costs of such 
     services using any funds available to such agency, whether by 
     appropriation or otherwise.
       ``(3) In carrying out this subsection, a Federal agency, to 
     the maximum extent practicable and consistent with sound 
     budget policy, should--
       ``(A) use alternative fuel vehicles for the provision of 
     transportation services;
       ``(B) to the extent consistent with the purposes of this 
     subsection, provide transportation services in a manner that 
     does not result in additional gross income for Federal income 
     tax purposes; and
       ``(C) coordinate with other Federal agencies to share, and 
     otherwise avoid duplication of, transportation services 
     provided under this subsection.
       ``(4) For purposes of any determination under chapter 81 of 
     title 5 or chapter 171 of title 28, an individual shall not 
     be considered to be in the `performance of duty' or `acting 
     within the scope of his or her office or employment' by 
     virtue of the fact that such individual is receiving 
     transportation services under this subsection. Nor shall any 
     time during which an individual uses such services be 
     considered when calculating the hours of work or employment 
     for that individual for purposes of title 5 of the United 
     States Code, including chapter 55 of that title.
       ``(5)(A) The Administrator of General Services, after 
     consultation with the appropriate agencies, shall prescribe 
     any regulations necessary to carry out this subsection.
       ``(B) Transportation services under this subsection shall 
     be subject neither to the last sentence of subsection (d)(3) 
     nor to any regulations under the last sentence of subsection 
     (e)(1).
       ``(6) In this subsection, the term `passenger carrier' 
     means a passenger motor vehicle or similar means of 
     transportation that is owned, leased, or provided pursuant to 
     contract by the United States Government.''.
       (2) Funds for maintenance, repair, etc.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 1344 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the transportation of 
     an individual between such individual's place of employment 
     and a mass transit facility pursuant to subsection (g) is 
     transportation for an official purpose.''.
       (3) Coordination.--The authority to provide transportation 
     services under section 1344(g) of title 31, United States 
     Code (as amended by paragraph (1)) shall be in addition to 
     any authority otherwise available to the agency involved.

     SEC. 3050. COMMUTER RAIL.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Transit Administration shall 
     approve final design for the projects authorized under 
     section 3030(c)(1)(A)(xliv) of the Federal Transit Act of 
     1998 and section 1214(g) of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (16 U.S.C. 668dd note) in the absence of an 
     access agreement with the owner of the railroad right of way.
       (b) Timely Resolution of Issues.--The Secretary shall 
     timely resolve any issues delaying the completion of the 
     projects authorized under section 1214(g) of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (16 U.S.C. 
     668dd note) and section 3030(c)(1)(A)(xliv) of the Federal 
     Transit Act of 1998.

     SEC. 3051. PARATRANSIT SERVICE IN ILLINOIS.

       In the State of Illinois, a regional or State agency, or 
     another transit agency, may be responsible for providing the 
     complementary paratransit services that would otherwise be 
     provided by a transit agency under the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990. Where a regional or State agency, 
     or another transit agency, undertakes to provide such 
     services, either by agreement or pursuant to State 
     legislation, the Secretary may audit the paratransit services 
     provided, make recommendations, and take appropriate 
     enforcement action directed to such regional, State, or 
     transit agency providing the services, to ensure that the 
     requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     are met. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to conflict 
     with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
     of 1990 and its implementing regulations.
                     TITLE IV--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

     SECTION 4001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Motor Carrier Safety 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005''.
              Subtitle A--Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety

     SEC. 4101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Motor Carrier Safety Grants.--Section 31104(a) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (f), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) to carry out section 
     31102--
       ``(1) $188,480,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(2) $188,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(3) $197,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(4) $202,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(5) $209,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.''.
       (b) Administrative Expenses.--Section 31104 of such title 
     is amended by adding the following at the end:
       ``(i) Administrative Expenses.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) for the Secretary of 
     Transportation to pay administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration--
       ``(A) $254,849,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(B) $213,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(C) $223,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(D) $228,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(E) $234,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--The funds authorized by this 
     subsection shall be used for personnel costs; administrative 
     infrastructure; rent; information technology; programs for 
     research and technology, information management, regulatory 
     development, the administration of the performance and 
     registration information system management, and outreach and 
     education; other operating expenses; and such other expenses 
     as may from time to time become necessary to implement 
     statutory mandates of the Administration not funded from 
     other sources.
       ``(j) Availability of Funds; Contract Authority.--
       ``(1) Period of availability.--The amounts made available 
     under this section shall remain available until expended.
       ``(2) Initial date of availability.--Authorizations from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     by this section shall be available for obligation on the date 
     of their apportionment or allocation or on October 1 of the 
     fiscal year for which they are authorized, whichever occurs 
     first.
       ``(3) Contract authority.--Approval by the Secretary of a 
     grant with funds made available under this section imposes 
     upon the United States a contractual obligation for payment 
     of the Government's share of costs incurred in carrying out 
     the objectives of the grant.''.
       (c) Grant Programs.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
     Transit Account) the following sums for the following Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration programs:
       (1) Commercial driver's license program improvement 
     grants.--For commercial driver's license program improvement 
     grants under section 31313 of title 49, United States Code 
     $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
       (2) Border enforcement grants.--For border enforcement 
     grants under section 31107 of such title $32,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
       (3) Performance and registration information system 
     management grant program.--For the performance and 
     registration information system management grant program 
     under section 31109 of such title $5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
       (4) Commercial vehicle information systems and networks 
     deployment.--For carrying out the commercial vehicle 
     information systems and networks deployment program under 
     section 4126 of this Act, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009.
       (5) Safety data improvement grants.--For safety data 
     improvement grants under section 4128 of this Act $2,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2006 and $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2007 through 2009.
       (d) Period of Availability.--The amounts made available 
     under subsection (b) of this section shall remain available 
     until expended.
       (e) Initial Date of Availability.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
     Transit Account) by subsection (b) shall be available for 
     obligation on the date of their apportionment or allocation 
     or on October 1 of the fiscal year for which they are 
     authorized, whichever occurs first.
       (f) Contract Authority.--Approval by the Secretary of a 
     grant with funds made available under subsection (b) imposes 
     upon the United States a contractual obligation for payment 
     of the Government's share of costs incurred in carrying out 
     the objectives of the grant.

     SEC. 4102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR OUT-OF-SERVICE VIOLATIONS 
                   AND FALSE RECORDS.

       (a) Recordkeeping and Reporting Violations.--Section 
     521(b)(2)(B) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in clause (i) by striking ``$500'' and inserting 
     ``$1,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``$5,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$10,000''.
       (b) Violations of Out-of-Service Orders.--Section 
     31310(i)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Not later than December 18, 1992, the'' 
     and inserting ``The'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``90 days'' and inserting ``180 days''; and
       (B) by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$2,500'';
       (3) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``2 years''; and
       (B) by striking ``$1,000; and'' and inserting ``$5,000;'';
       (4) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``$10,000.'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000; and''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) an employer that knowingly and willfully allows or 
     requires an employee to operate

[[Page 18697]]

     a commercial motor vehicle in violation of an out-of-service 
     order shall, upon conviction, be subject for each offense to 
     imprisonment for a term not to exceed one year or a fine 
     under title 18, or both.''.

     SEC. 4103. PENALTY FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS TO RECORDS.

       Section 521(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b)(1)(A) If the Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) Violations Relating to Commercial Motor Vehicle 
     Safety Regulation and Operators.--
       ``(1) Notice.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(E) Copying of records and access to equipment, lands, 
     and buildings.--A person subject to chapter 51 or a motor 
     carrier, broker, freight forwarder, or owner or operator of a 
     commercial motor vehicle subject to part B of subtitle VI who 
     fails to allow promptly, upon demand, the Secretary (or an 
     employee designated by the Secretary) to inspect and copy any 
     record or inspect and examine equipment, lands, buildings and 
     other property in accordance with sections 504(c), 5121(c), 
     and 14122(b) shall be liable to the United States for a civil 
     penalty not to exceed $1,000 for each offense. Each day the 
     Secretary is denied the right to inspect and copy any record 
     or inspect and examine equipment, lands, buildings and other 
     property shall constitute a separate offense, except that the 
     total of all civil penalties against any violator for all 
     offenses related to a single violation shall not exceed 
     $10,000. It shall be a defense to such penalty that the 
     records did not exist at the time of the Secretary's request 
     or could not be timely produced without unreasonable expense 
     or effort. Nothing in this subparagraph amends or supersedes 
     any remedy available to the Secretary under section 502(d), 
     section 507(c), or any other provision of this title.''.

     SEC. 4104. REVOCATION OF OPERATING AUTHORITY.

       Section 13905(e) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Protection of safety.--Notwithstanding subchapter II 
     of chapter 5 of title 5, the Secretary--
       ``(A) may suspend the registration of a motor carrier, a 
     freight forwarder, or a broker for failure to comply with 
     requirements of the Secretary pursuant to section 13904(c) or 
     13906 or an order or regulation of the Secretary prescribed 
     under those sections; and
       ``(B) shall revoke the registration of a motor carrier that 
     has been prohibited from operating in interstate commerce for 
     failure to comply with the safety fitness requirements of 
     section 31144.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``may suspend a 
     registration'' and inserting ``shall revoke the 
     registration''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Notice; period of suspension.--The Secretary may 
     suspend or revoke under this subsection the registration only 
     after giving notice of the suspension or revocation to the 
     registrant. A suspension remains in effect until the 
     registrant complies with the applicable sections or, in the 
     case of a suspension under paragraph (2), until the Secretary 
     revokes the suspension.''.

     SEC. 4105. STATE LAWS RELATING TO VEHICLE TOWING.

       (a) State Laws Relating to Vehicle Towing.--Section 
     14501(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed to prevent a State from 
     requiring that, in the case of a motor vehicle to be towed 
     from private property without the consent of the owner or 
     operator of the vehicle, the person towing the vehicle have 
     prior written authorization from the property owner or lessee 
     (or an employee or agent thereof) or that such owner or 
     lessee (or an employee or agent thereof) be present at the 
     time the vehicle is towed from the property, or both.''.
       (b) Predatory Tow Truck Operations.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study--
       (A) to identify issues related to the protection of the 
     rights of individuals whose motor vehicles are towed;
       (B) to establish the scope and geographic reach of any 
     issues so identified, and
       (C) to identify potential remedies for those issues.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives a report on the results of 
     the study.

     SEC. 4106. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS.

       (a) State Plan Contents.--Section 31102(b)(1) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) implements performance-based activities, including 
     deployment of technology to enhance the efficiency and 
     effectiveness of commercial motor vehicle safety programs;'';
       (2) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) provides that the total expenditure of amounts of the 
     State and its political subdivisions (not including amounts 
     of the Government) for commercial motor vehicle safety 
     programs for enforcement of commercial motor vehicle size and 
     weight limitations, drug interdiction, and State traffic 
     safety laws and regulations under subsection (c) of this 
     section will be maintained at a level at least equal to the 
     average level of that expenditure for the 3 full fiscal years 
     beginning after October 1 of the year 5 years prior to the 
     beginning of each Government fiscal year.'';
       (3) by striking subparagraph (Q) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(Q) provides that the State has established a program to 
     ensure that--
       ``(i) accurate, complete, and timely motor carrier safety 
     data is collected and reported to the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) the State will participate in a national motor 
     carrier safety data correction system prescribed by the 
     Secretary;'';
       (4) by aligning subparagraph (R) with subparagraph (S);
       (5) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (S);
       (6) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (T) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(U) provides that the State will include in the training 
     manual for the licensing examination to drive a noncommercial 
     motor vehicle and a commercial motor vehicle, information on 
     best practices for driving safely in the vicinity of 
     noncommercial and commercial motor vehicles;
       ``(V) provides that the State will enforce the registration 
     requirements of section 13902 by prohibiting the operation of 
     any vehicle discovered to be operated by a motor carrier 
     without a registration issued under such section or to 
     operate beyond the scope of such registration;
       ``(W) provides that the State will conduct comprehensive 
     and highly visible traffic enforcement and commercial motor 
     vehicle safety inspection programs in high-risk locations and 
     corridors; and
       ``(X) except in the case of an imminent or obvious safety 
     hazard, ensures that an inspection of a vehicle transporting 
     passengers for a motor carrier of passengers is conducted at 
     a station, terminal, border crossing, maintenance facility, 
     destination, or other location where a motor carrier may make 
     a planned stop.''.
       (b) Use of Grants to Enforce Other Laws.--Section 31102 of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Use of Grants to Enforce Other Laws.--A State may use 
     amounts received under a grant under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) for the following activities if the activities are 
     carried out in conjunction with an appropriate inspection of 
     the commercial motor vehicle to enforce Government or State 
     commercial motor vehicle safety regulations:
       ``(A) enforcement of commercial motor vehicle size and 
     weight limitations at locations other than fixed weight 
     facilities, at specific locations such as steep grades or 
     mountainous terrains where the weight of a commercial motor 
     vehicle can significantly affect the safe operation of the 
     vehicle, or at ports where intermodal shipping containers 
     enter and leave the United States; and
       ``(B) detection of the unlawful presence of a controlled 
     substance (as defined under section 102 of the Comprehensive 
     Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 
     802)) in a commercial motor vehicle or on the person of any 
     occupant (including the operator) of the vehicle; and
       ``(2) for documented enforcement of State traffic laws and 
     regulations designed to promote the safe operation of 
     commercial motor vehicles, including documented enforcement 
     of such laws and regulations relating to noncommercial motor 
     vehicles when necessary to promote the safe operation of 
     commercial motor vehicles if the number of motor carrier 
     safety activities (including roadside safety inspections) 
     conducted in the State is maintained at a level at least 
     equal to the average level of such activities conducted in 
     the State in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005; except that 
     the State may not use more than 5 percent of the basic amount 
     the State receives under the grant under subsection (a) for 
     enforcement activities relating to noncommercial motor 
     vehicles described in this paragraph unless the Secretary 
     determines a higher percentage will result in significant 
     increases in commercial motor vehicle safety.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science and 
     Transportation of the Senate an annual report that--
       ``(1) analyzes commercial motor vehicle safety trends among 
     the States and documents the most effective commercial motor 
     vehicle safety programs implemented with grants under this 
     section; and
       ``(2) describes the effect of activities carried out with 
     grants made under this section on commercial motor vehicle 
     safety.''.

     SEC. 4107. HIGH PRIORITY ACTIVITIES AND NEW ENTRANTS AUDITS.

       (a) High Priority Activities.--Section 31104 of title 49, 
     United States Code (as amended by section 4101 of this Act), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) High-Priority Activities.--
       ``(1) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish safety 
     performance criteria to be used to distribute high priority 
     program funds under this subsection.

[[Page 18698]]

       ``(2) Set aside.--The Secretary may set aside from amounts 
     made available by subsection (a) up to $15,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for States, local 
     governments, and organizations representing government 
     agencies or officials described in paragraph (3) for carrying 
     out high priority activities and projects that improve 
     commercial motor vehicle safety and compliance with 
     commercial motor vehicle safety regulations (including 
     activities and projects that are national in scope), increase 
     public awareness and education, demonstrate new technologies, 
     and reduce the number and rate of accidents involving 
     commercial motor vehicles.
       ``(3) Description of recipients.--Amounts set aside under 
     this subsection shall be allocated by the Secretary only to 
     State agencies, local governments, and organizations 
     representing government agencies or officials that use and 
     train qualified officers and employees in coordination with 
     State motor vehicle safety agencies.
       ``(4) Limitation.--At least 90 percent of the amounts set 
     aside for a fiscal year under this subsection shall be 
     awarded in grants to State agencies and local government 
     agencies.''.
       (b) New Entrant Audits.--Section 31104 of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second subsection as subsection 
     (f); and
       (2) by adding at the end of such subsection the following:
       ``(5) New entrant audits.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants to States and 
     local governments for new entrant motor carrier audits under 
     this subsection without requiring a matching contribution 
     from such States and local governments.
       ``(B) Set aside.--The Secretary shall set aside from 
     amounts made available by section 31104(a) up to $29,000,000 
     per fiscal year for audits of new entrant motor carriers 
     conducted pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(C) Determination.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     State or local government is not able to use government 
     employees to conduct new entrant motor carrier audits, the 
     Secretary may use the funds set aside under this paragraph to 
     conduct audits for such States or local governments.''.

     SEC. 4108. DATA QUALITY IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 31106(a)(3) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) ensure, to the maximum extent practical, all the data 
     is complete, timely, and accurate across all information 
     systems and initiatives; and
       ``(G) establish and implement a national motor carrier 
     safety data correction system.''.
       (b) Report on Status of Safety Fitness Rating System 
     Revision.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives a report on the status of revision of the 
     safety fitness rating system of motor carriers.

     SEC. 4109. PERFORMANCE AND REGISTRATION INFORMATION SYSTEM 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Design and Conditions for Participation.--Section 
     31106(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Design.--The program shall link Federal motor carrier 
     safety information systems with State commercial vehicle 
     registration and licensing systems and shall be designed to 
     enable a State to--
       ``(A) determine the safety fitness of a motor carrier or 
     registrant when licensing or registering the registrant or 
     motor carrier or while the license or registration is in 
     effect; and
       ``(B) deny, suspend, or revoke the commercial motor vehicle 
     registrations of a motor carrier or registrant that has been 
     issued an operations out-of-service order by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Conditions for participation.--The Secretary shall 
     require States, as a condition of participation in the 
     program, to--
       ``(A) comply with the uniform policies, procedures, and 
     technical and operational standards prescribed by the 
     Secretary under subsection (a)(4);
       ``(B) possess or seek the authority to possess for a time 
     period no longer than determined reasonable by the Secretary, 
     to impose sanctions relating to commercial motor vehicle 
     registration on the basis of a Federal safety fitness 
     determination; and
       ``(C) establish and implement a process to cancel the motor 
     vehicle registration and seize the registration plates of a 
     vehicle when an employer is found liable under section 
     31310(i)(2)(C) for knowingly allowing or requiring an 
     employee to operate such a commercial motor vehicle in 
     violation of an out-of-service order.
       ``(4) Grants.--From the funds authorized by section 
     31104(i), the Secretary may make a grant in a fiscal year to 
     a State to implement the performance and registration 
     information system management requirements of this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Performance and Registration Information System 
     Management Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 31109. Performance and registration information System 
       management

       ``The Secretary of Transportation may make a grant to a 
     State to implement the performance and registration 
     information system management requirements of section 
     31106(b).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``31109. Performance and registration information system management.''.

     SEC. 4110. BORDER ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 311 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading for subchapter I and inserting 
     the following:

       ``SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL AUTHORITY AND STATE GRANTS''; and

       (2) by striking section 31107 and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 31107. Border enforcement grants

       ``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may make a grant in a fiscal year to an entity or State that 
     shares a land border with another country for carrying out 
     border commercial motor vehicle safety programs and related 
     enforcement activities and projects.
       ``(b) Maintenance of Expenditures.--The Secretary may make 
     a grant to a State under this section only if the State 
     agrees that the total expenditure of amounts of the State and 
     political subdivisions of the State, exclusive of amounts 
     from the United States, for carrying out border commercial 
     motor vehicle safety programs and related enforcement 
     activities and projects will be maintained at a level at 
     least equal to the average level of that expenditure by the 
     State and political subdivisions of the State for the last 2 
     fiscal years of the State or the Federal Government ending 
     before October 1, 2005, whichever the State designates.
       ``(c) Governments Share of Costs.--The Secretary shall 
     reimburse a State under a grant made under this section an 
     amount that is not more than 100 percent of the costs 
     incurred by the State in a fiscal year for carrying out 
     border commercial motor vehicle safety programs and related 
     enforcement activities and projects.
       ``(d) Availability and Reallocation of Amounts.--
     Allocations to a State remain available for expenditure in 
     the State for the fiscal year in which they are allocated and 
     for the next fiscal year. Amounts not expended by a State 
     during those 2 fiscal years are available to the Secretary 
     for reallocation under this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Item relating to subchapter I.--The analysis for such 
     chapter is amended by striking the item relating to 
     subchapter I and inserting the following:

         ``SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL AUTHORITY AND STATE GRANTS''.

       (2) Item relating to section 31107.--The analysis for such 
     chapter is amended by striking the item relating to section 
     31107 and inserting the following:

``31107. Border enforcement grants.''.

     SEC. 4111. MOTOR CARRIER RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 31108 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 31108. Motor carrier research and technology program

       ``(a) Research, Technology, and Technology Transfer 
     Activities.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish and carry out a motor carrier and motor coach 
     research and technology program.
       ``(2) Multiyear plan.--The program must include a multi-
     year research plan that focuses on nonredundant innovative 
     research and shall be coordinated with other research 
     programs or projects ongoing or planned within the Department 
     of Transportation, as appropriate.
       ``(3) Research, development, and technology transfer 
     activities.--The Secretary may carry out under the program 
     research, development, technology, and technology transfer 
     activities with respect to--
       ``(A) the causes of accidents, injuries, and fatalities 
     involving commercial motor vehicles;
       ``(B) means of reducing the number and severity of 
     accidents, injuries, and fatalities involving commercial 
     motor vehicles;
       ``(C) improving the safety and efficiency of commercial 
     motor vehicles through technological innovation and 
     improvement;
       ``(D) improving technology used by enforcement officers 
     when conducting roadside inspections and compliance reviews 
     to increase efficiency and information transfers; and
       ``(E) increasing the safety and security of hazardous 
     materials transportation.
       ``(4) Tests and development.--The Secretary may test, 
     develop, or assist in testing and developing any material, 
     invention, patented article, or process related to the 
     research and technology program.
       ``(5) Training.--The Secretary may use the funds made 
     available to carry out this section for training or education 
     of commercial motor vehicle safety personnel, including 
     training in accident reconstruction and detection of 
     controlled substances or other contraband and stolen cargo or 
     vehicles.
       ``(6) Procedures.--The Secretary may carry out this 
     section--
       ``(A) independently;
       ``(B) in cooperation with other Federal departments, 
     agencies, and instrumentalities and Federal laboratories; or
       ``(C) by making grants to, or entering into contracts and 
     cooperative agreements with, any

[[Page 18699]]

     Federal laboratory, State agency, authority, association, 
     institution, for-profit or nonprofit corporation, 
     organization, foreign country, or person.
       ``(7) Development and promotion of use of products.--The 
     Secretary shall use funds made available to carry out this 
     section to develop, administer, communicate, and promote the 
     use of products of research, technology, and technology 
     transfer programs under this section.
       ``(b) Collaborative Research and Development.--
       ``(1) In general.--To advance innovative solutions to 
     problems involving commercial motor vehicle and motor carrier 
     safety, security, and efficiency, and to stimulate the 
     deployment of emerging technology, the Secretary may carry 
     out, on a cost-shared basis, collaborative research and 
     development with--
       ``(A) non-Federal entities, including State and local 
     governments, foreign governments, colleges and universities, 
     corporations, institutions, partnerships, and sole 
     proprietorships that are incorporated or established under 
     the laws of any State; and
       ``(B) Federal laboratories.
       ``(2) Cooperative agreements.--In carrying out this 
     subsection, the Secretary may enter into cooperative research 
     and development agreements (as defined in section 12 of the 
     Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
     3710a)).
       ``(3) Cost sharing.--
       ``(A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under a cooperative research and 
     development agreement entered into under this subsection 
     shall not exceed 50 percent; except that, if there is 
     substantial public interest or benefit associated with any 
     such activity, the Secretary may approve a greater Federal 
     share.
       ``(B) Treatment of directly incurred non-federal costs.--
     All costs directly incurred by the non-Federal partners, 
     including personnel, travel, and hardware or software 
     development costs, shall be credited toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the activities described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(4) Use of technology.--The research, development, or use 
     of a technology under a cooperative research and development 
     agreement entered into under this subsection, including the 
     terms under which the technology may be licensed and the 
     resulting royalties may be distributed, shall be subject to 
     the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 
     U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 311 of 
     such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 31108 and inserting the following:

``31108. Motor carrier research and technology program.''.

     SEC. 4112. NEBRASKA CUSTOM HARVESTERS LENGTH EXEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 31112(c) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Nebraska may allow the operation of a truck tractor 
     and 2 trailers or semitrailers not in actual lawful operation 
     on a regular or periodic basis on June 1, 1991, if the length 
     of the property-carrying units does not exceed 81 feet 6 
     inches and such combination is used only to transport 
     equipment utilized by custom harvesters under contract to 
     agricultural producers to harvest one or more of wheat, 
     soybeans, and milo during the harvest months for such crops, 
     as defined by the State of Nebraska.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Such section 31112(c) is amended 
     by striking the subsection designation and heading and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Special Rules for Wyoming, Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, and 
     Nebraska.--''.

     SEC. 4113. PATTERN OF SAFETY VIOLATIONS BY MOTOR CARRIER 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Duties of Employers and Employees.--Section 31135 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Each''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Pattern of Noncompliance.--If the Secretary finds 
     that an officer of a motor carrier engages or has engaged in 
     a pattern or practice of avoiding compliance, or masking or 
     otherwise concealing noncompliance, with regulations on 
     commercial motor vehicle safety prescribed under this 
     subchapter, while serving as an officer of any motor carrier, 
     the Secretary may suspend, amend, or revoke any part of the 
     motor carrier's registration under section 13905.
       ``(c) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall by 
     regulation establish standards to implement subsection (b).
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Motor carrier.--The term `motor carrier' has the 
     meaning such term has under section 13102.
       ``(2) Officer.--The term `officer' means an owner, 
     director, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, 
     chief financial officer, safety director, vehicle maintenance 
     supervisor, and driver supervisor of a motor carrier, 
     regardless of the title attached to those functions, and any 
     person, however designated, exercising controlling influence 
     over the operations of a motor carrier.''.
       (b) Cross Reference.--Section 13902(a)(1)(B) of such title 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B)(i) any safety regulations imposed by the Secretary;
       ``(ii) the duties of employers and employees established by 
     the Secretary under section 31135; and
       ``(iii) the safety fitness requirements established by the 
     Secretary under section 31144; and''.

     SEC. 4114. INTRASTATE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE MOTOR 
                   CARRIERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 31144(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) determine whether an owner or operator is fit to 
     operate safely commercial motor vehicles, utilizing among 
     other things the accident record of an owner or operator 
     operating in interstate commerce and the accident record and 
     safety inspection record of such owner or operator--
       ``(A) in operations that affect interstate commerce within 
     the United States; and
       ``(B) in operations in Canada and Mexico if the owner or 
     operator also conducts operations within the United States;
       ``(2) periodically update such safety fitness 
     determinations;
       ``(3) make such final safety fitness determinations readily 
     available to the public; and
       ``(4) prescribe by regulation penalties for violations of 
     this section consistent with section 521.''.
       (b) Prohibited Transportation.--The first subsection (c) of 
     section 31144 of such title is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(5) Transportation affecting interstate commerce.--Owners 
     or operators of commercial motor vehicles prohibited from 
     operating in interstate commerce pursuant to paragraphs (1) 
     through (3) of this section may not operate any commercial 
     motor vehicle that affects interstate commerce until the 
     Secretary determines that such owner or operator is fit.''.
       (c) Determination of Unfitness by State.--Section 31144 of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and the second 
     subsection (c) as subsections (e), (f), and (g), 
     respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Determination of Unfitness by State.--If a State that 
     receives motor carrier safety assistance program funds under 
     section 31102 determines, by applying the standards 
     prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (b), that an 
     owner or operator of a commercial motor vehicle that has its 
     principal place of business in that State and operates in 
     intrastate commerce is unfit under such standards and 
     prohibits the owner or operator from operating such vehicle 
     in the State, the Secretary shall prohibit the owner or 
     operator from operating such vehicle in interstate commerce 
     until the State determines that the owner or operator is 
     fit.''.

     SEC. 4115. TRANSFER PROVISION.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Motor Carrier Safety 
     Improvement Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1748-1773) is amended by 
     inserting after section 228--
       (1) the following:

     ``SEC. 229. CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.''; AND

       (2) the text of section 345 of the National Highway System 
     Designation Act of 1995 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note).
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such Act 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     228 the following:

``Sec. 229. Certain exemptions.''.

       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 229 of such Act (as 
     added by this section) is amended by striking subsection (f).
       (d) Conforming Repeal.--Section 345 of the National Highway 
     System Designation Act of 1995 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note; 109 
     Stat. 613) is repealed.

     SEC. 4116. MEDICAL PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 31149. Medical program

       ``(a) Medical Review Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment and function.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall establish a Medical Review Board to 
     provide the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration with 
     medical advice and recommendations on medical standards and 
     guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of 
     commercial motor vehicles, medical examiner education, and 
     medical research.
       ``(2) Composition.--The Medical Review Board shall be 
     appointed by the Secretary and shall consist of 5 members 
     selected from medical institutions and private practice. The 
     membership shall reflect expertise in a variety of medical 
     specialties relevant to the driver fitness requirements of 
     the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
       ``(b) Chief Medical Examiner.--The Secretary shall appoint 
     a chief medical examiner who shall be an employee of the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and who shall 
     hold a position under section 3104 of title 5, United States 
     Code, relating to employment of specially qualified 
     scientific and professional personnel, and shall be paid 
     under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code, relating 
     to pay for certain senior-level positions.
       ``(c) Medical Standards and Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, with the advice of the 
     Medical Review Board and the chief medical examiner, shall--
       ``(A) establish, review, and revise--
       ``(i) medical standards for operators of commercial motor 
     vehicles that will ensure that the physical condition of 
     operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable 
     them to operate the vehicles safely;

[[Page 18700]]

       ``(ii) requirements for periodic physical examinations of 
     such operators performed by medical examiners who have, at a 
     minimum, self-certified that they have completed training in 
     physical and medical examination standards and are listed on 
     a national registry maintained by the Department of 
     Transportation; and
       ``(B) require each such operator to have a current valid 
     medical certificate;
       ``(C) conduct periodic reviews of a select number of 
     medical examiners on the national registry to ensure that 
     proper examinations of such operators are being conducted;
       ``(D) develop, as appropriate, specific courses and 
     materials for medical examiners listed in the national 
     registry established under this section, and require those 
     medical examiners to, at a minimum, self-certify that they 
     have completed specific training, including refresher 
     courses, to be listed in the registry;
       ``(E) require medical examiners to transmit the name of the 
     applicant and numerical identifier, as determined by the 
     Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration, for any completed medical examination report 
     required under section 391.43 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, electronically to the chief medical examiner on 
     monthly basis; and
       ``(F) periodically review a representative sample of the 
     medical examination reports associated with the name and 
     numerical identifiers of applicants transmitted under 
     subparagraph (E) for errors, omissions, or other indications 
     of improper certification.
       ``(2) Monitoring performance.--The Secretary shall 
     investigate patterns of errors or improper certification by a 
     medical examiner. If the Secretary finds that a medical 
     examiner has issued a medical certificate to an operator of a 
     commercial motor vehicle who fails to meet the applicable 
     standards at the time of the examination or that a medical 
     examiner has falsely claimed to have completed training in 
     physical and medical examination standards as required by 
     this section, the Secretary may remove such medical examiner 
     from the registry and may void the medical certificate of the 
     applicant or holder.
       ``(d) National Registry of Medical Examiners.--The 
     Secretary, acting through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration--
       ``(1) shall establish and maintain a current national 
     registry of medical examiners who are qualified to perform 
     examinations and issue medical certificates;
       ``(2) shall remove from the registry the name of any 
     medical examiner that fails to meet or maintain the 
     qualifications established by the Secretary for being listed 
     in the registry or otherwise does not meet the requirements 
     of this section or regulation issued under this section;
       ``(3) shall accept as valid only medical certificates 
     issued by persons on the national registry of medical 
     examiners; and
       ``(4) may make participation of medical examiners in the 
     national registry voluntary if such a change will enhance the 
     safety of operators of commercial motor vehicles.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary such regulations as may 
     be necessary to carry out this section.''.
       (b) Medical Examiners.--Section 31136(a)(3) of such title 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) the physical condition of operators of commercial 
     motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the 
     vehicles safely and the periodic physical examinations 
     required of such operators are performed by medical examiners 
     who have received training in physical and medical 
     examination standards and, after the national registry 
     maintained by the Department of Transportation under section 
     31149(d) is established, are listed on such registry; and''.
       (c) Definition of Medical Examiner.--Section 31132 of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (11), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) `medical examiner' means an individual licensed, 
     certified, or registered in accordance with regulations 
     issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration as 
     a medical examiner.''.
       (d) Funding.--Amounts made available pursuant to section 
     31104(i) of title 49, United States Code, shall be used by 
     the Secretary to carry out section 31149 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (e) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     31148 the following:

``31149. Medical program.''.

       (f) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the 365th day following the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4117. SAFETY PERFORMANCE HISTORY SCREENING.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49, 
     United States Code (as amended by section 4116 of this Act), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 31150. Safety performance history screening

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     provide persons conducting preemployment screening services 
     for the motor carrier industry electronic access to the 
     following reports contained in the Motor Carrier Management 
     Information System:
       ``(1) Commercial motor vehicle accident reports.
       ``(2) Inspection reports that contain no driver-related 
     safety violations.
       ``(3) Serious driver-related safety violation inspection 
     reports.
       ``(b) Conditions on Providing Access.--Before providing a 
     person access to the Motor Carrier Management Information 
     System under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) ensure that any information that is released to such 
     person will be in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) and all other applicable Federal 
     law;
       ``(2) ensure that such person will not conduct a screening 
     without the operator-applicant's written consent;
       ``(3) ensure that any information that is released to such 
     person will not be released to any person or entity, other 
     than the motor carrier requesting the screening services or 
     the operator-applicant, unless expressly authorized or 
     required by law; and
       ``(4) provide a procedure for the operator-applicant to 
     correct inaccurate information in the System in a timely 
     manner.
       ``(c) Design.--The process for providing access to the 
     Motor Carrier Management Information System under subsection 
     (a) shall be designed to assist the motor carrier industry in 
     assessing an individual operator's crash and serious safety 
     violation inspection history as a preemployment condition. 
     Use of the process shall not be mandatory and may only be 
     used during the preemployment assessment of an operator-
     applicant.
       ``(d) Serious Driver-Related Safety Violation Defined.--In 
     this section, the term `serious driver-related violation' 
     means a violation by an operator of a commercial motor 
     vehicle that the Secretary determines will result in the 
     operator being prohibited from continuing to operate a 
     commercial motor vehicle until the violation is corrected.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     (as amended by section 4116 of this Act) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

``31150. Safety performance history screening.''.

     SEC. 4118. ROADABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49, 
     United States Code (as amended by sections 4116 and 4117 of 
     this Act) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 31151. Roadability

       ``(a) Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance of Intermodal 
     Equipment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary of Transportation, 
     after providing notice and opportunity for comment, shall 
     issue regulations establishing a program to ensure that 
     intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal containers 
     is safe and systematically maintained.
       ``(2) Intermodal equipment safety regulations.--The 
     Secretary shall issue the regulations under this section as a 
     subpart of the Federal motor carry safety regulations.
       ``(3) Contents.--The regulations issued under this section 
     shall include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) a requirement to identify intermodal equipment 
     providers responsible for the inspection and maintenance of 
     intermodal equipment that is interchanged or intended for 
     interchange to motor carriers in intermodal transportation;
       ``(B) a requirement to match intermodal equipment readily 
     to an intermodal equipment provider through a unique 
     identifying number;
       ``(C) a requirement that an intermodal equipment provider 
     identified under subparagraph (A) systematically inspect, 
     repair, and maintain, or cause to be systematically 
     inspected, repaired, and maintained, intermodal equipment 
     described in subparagraph (A) that is intended for 
     interchange with a motor carrier;
       ``(D) a requirement to ensure that each intermodal 
     equipment provider identified under subparagraph (A) 
     maintains a system of maintenance and repair records for such 
     equipment;
       ``(E) requirements that--
       ``(i) a specific list of intermodal equipment components or 
     items be identified for the visual or audible inspection of 
     which a driver is responsible before operating the equipment 
     over the road; and
       ``(ii) the inspection under clause (i) be conducted as part 
     of the Federal requirement in effect on the date of enactment 
     of this Act that a driver be satisfied that the intermodal 
     equipment components are in good working order before the 
     equipment is operated over the road;
       ``(F) a requirement that a facility at which an intermodal 
     equipment provider regularly makes intermodal equipment 
     available for interchange have an operational process and 
     space readily available for a motor carrier to have an 
     equipment defect identified pursuant to subparagraph (E) 
     repaired or the equipment replaced prior to departure;
       ``(G) a program for the evaluation and audit of compliance 
     by intermodal equipment providers with applicable Federal 
     motor carrier safety regulations;
       ``(H) a civil penalty structure consistent with section 
     521(b) of title 49, United States Code, for intermodal 
     equipment providers that fail to attain satisfactory 
     compliance with applicable Federal motor carrier safety 
     regulations; and
       ``(I) a prohibition on intermodal equipment providers from 
     placing intermodal equipment in service on the public 
     highways to the extent such providers or their equipment are 
     found to pose an imminent hazard;
       ``(J) a process by which motor carriers and agents of motor 
     carriers shall be able to request the Federal Motor Carrier 
     Safety Administration to undertake an investigation of an 
     intermodal equipment provider identified under subparagraph 
     (A) that is alleged to be not in compliance with the 
     regulations under this section;
       ``(K) a process by which equipment providers and agents of 
     equipment providers shall be able

[[Page 18701]]

     to request the Administration to undertake an investigation 
     of a motor carrier that is alleged to be not in compliance 
     with the regulations issued under this section;
       ``(L) a process by which a driver or motor carrier 
     transporting intermodal equipment is required to report to 
     the intermodal equipment provider or the provider's 
     designated agent any actual damage or defect in the 
     intermodal equipment of which the driver or motor carrier is 
     aware at the time the intermodal equipment is returned to the 
     intermodal equipment provider or the provider's designated 
     agent;
       ``(M) a requirement that any actual damage or defect 
     identified in the process established under subparagraph (L) 
     be repaired before the equipment is made available for 
     interchange to a motor carrier and that repairs of equipment 
     made pursuant to the requirements of this subparagraph and 
     reports made pursuant to the subparagraph (L) process be 
     documented in the maintenance records for such equipment; and
       ``(N) a procedure under which motor carriers, drivers and 
     intermodal equipment providers may seek correction of their 
     motor carrier safety records through the deletion from those 
     records of violations of safety regulations attributable to 
     deficiencies in the intermodal chassis or trailer for which 
     they should not have been held responsible.
       ``(4) Deadline for rulemaking proceeding.--Not later than 
     120 days after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding for issuance 
     of the regulations under this section.
       ``(b) Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance of Intermodal 
     Equipment.--The Secretary or an employee of the Department of 
     Transportation designated by the Secretary may inspect 
     intermodal equipment, and copy related maintenance and repair 
     records for such equipment, on demand and display of proper 
     credentials.
       ``(c) Out-of-Service Until Repair.--Any intermodal 
     equipment that is determined under this section to fail to 
     comply with applicable Federal safety regulations may be 
     placed out of service by the Secretary or a Federal, State, 
     or government official designated by the Secretary and may 
     not be used on a public highway until the repairs necessary 
     to bring such equipment into compliance have been completed. 
     Repairs of equipment taken out of service shall be documented 
     in the maintenance records for such equipment.
       ``(d) Preemption Generally.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (e), a law, regulation, order, or other 
     requirement of a State, a political subdivision of a State, 
     or a tribal organization relating to commercial motor vehicle 
     safety is preempted if such law, regulation, order, or other 
     requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with a requirement 
     imposed under or pursuant to this section.
       ``(e) Pre-Existing State Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     State requirement for the periodic inspection of intermodal 
     chassis by intermodal equipment providers that was in effect 
     on January 1, 2005, shall remain in effect only until the 
     date on which requirements prescribed under this section take 
     effect.
       ``(2) Nonpreemption determinations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (d), a State 
     requirement described in paragraph (1) is not preempted by a 
     Federal requirement prescribed under this section if the 
     Secretary determines that the State requirement is as 
     effective as the Federal requirement and does not unduly 
     burden interstate commerce.
       ``(B) Application required.--Subparagraph (A) applies to a 
     State requirement only if the State applies to the Secretary 
     for a determination under this paragraph with respect to the 
     requirement before the date on which the regulations issued 
     under this section take effect. The Secretary shall make a 
     determination with respect to any such application within 6 
     months after the date on which the Secretary receives the 
     application.
       ``(C) Amended state requirements.--Any amendment to a State 
     requirement not preempted under this subsection because of a 
     determination by the Secretary under subparagraph (A) may not 
     take effect unless--
       ``(i) it is submitted to the Secretary before the effective 
     date of the amendment; and
       ``(ii) the Secretary determines that the amendment would 
     not cause the State requirement to be less effective than the 
     Federal requirement and would not unduly burden interstate 
     commerce.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Intermodal equipment.--The term `intermodal 
     equipment' means trailing equipment that is used in the 
     intermodal transportation of containers over public highways 
     in interstate commerce, including trailers and chassis.
       ``(2) Intermodal equipment interchange agreement.--The term 
     `intermodal equipment interchange agreement' means the 
     Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access 
     Agreement or any other written document executed by an 
     intermodal equipment provider or its agent and a motor 
     carrier or its agent, the primary purpose of which is to 
     establish the responsibilities and liabilities of both 
     parties with respect to the interchange of the intermodal 
     equipment.
       ``(3) Intermodal equipment provider.--The term `intermodal 
     equipment provider' means any person that interchanges 
     intermodal equipment with a motor carrier pursuant to a 
     written interchange agreement or has a contractual 
     responsibility for the maintenance of the intermodal 
     equipment.
       ``(4) Interchange.--The term `interchange'--
       ``(A) means the act of providing intermodal equipment to a 
     motor carrier pursuant to an intermodal equipment interchange 
     agreement for the purpose of transporting the equipment for 
     loading or unloading by any person or repositioning the 
     equipment for the benefit of the equipment provider; but
       ``(B) does not include the leasing of equipment to a motor 
     carrier for primary use in the motor carrier's freight 
     hauling operations.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     (as amended by sections 4116 and 4117 of this Act) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

``31151. Roadability.''.

     SEC. 4119. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 311 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

                     ``SUBCHAPTER IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     ``Sec. 31161. International cooperation

       ``The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to use 
     funds made available by section 31104(i) to participate and 
     cooperate in international activities to enhance motor 
     carrier, commercial motor vehicle, driver, and highway safety 
     by such means as exchanging information, conducting research, 
     and examining needs, best practices, and new technology.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

                     ``SUBCHAPTER IV--MISCELLANEOUS

``31161. International cooperation.''.

     SEC. 4120. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRIVATE MOTOR 
                   CARRIERS.

       (a) Transportation of Passengers.--
       (1) General requirement.--Section 31138(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``for compensation''; and
       (B) by inserting ``commercial'' before ``motor vehicle''.
       (2) Other persons.--Section 31138(c) of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Other persons.--The Secretary may require a person, 
     other than a motor carrier (as defined in section 13102), 
     transporting passengers by commercial motor vehicle to file 
     with the Secretary the evidence of financial responsibility 
     specified in subsection (c)(1) in an amount not less than the 
     greater of the amount required by subsection (b)(1) or the 
     amount required for such person to transport passengers under 
     the laws of the State or States in which the person is 
     operating; except that the amount of the financial 
     responsibility must be sufficient to pay not more than the 
     amount of the financial responsibility for each final 
     judgment against the person for bodily injury to, or death 
     of, an individual resulting from the negligent operation, 
     maintenance, or use of the commercial motor vehicle, or for 
     loss or damage to property, or both.''.
       (b) Transportation of Property.--Section 31139 of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``for compensation''; and
       (B) by inserting ``commercial'' before ``motor vehicle'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) through (g) as 
     subsections (d) through (h), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Filing of Evidence of Financial Responsibility.--The 
     Secretary may require a motor private carrier (as defined in 
     section 13102) to file with the Secretary the evidence of 
     financial responsibility specified in subsection (b) in an 
     amount not less than the greater of the minimum amount 
     required by this section or the amount required for such 
     motor private carrier to transport property under the laws of 
     the State or States in which the motor private carrier is 
     operating; except that the amount of the financial 
     responsibility must be sufficient to pay not more than the 
     amount of the financial responsibility for each final 
     judgment against the motor private carrier for bodily injury 
     to, or death of, an individual resulting from negligent 
     operation, maintenance, or use of the commercial motor 
     vehicle, or for loss or damage to property, or both.''.

     SEC. 4121. DEPOSIT OF CERTAIN CIVIL PENALTIES INTO HIGHWAY 
                   TRUST FUND.

       Sections 31138(d)(5) and 31139(f)(5) of title 49, United 
     States Code, are each amended by striking ``Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts'' and inserting ``Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account)''.

     SEC. 4122. CDL LEARNER'S PERMIT PROGRAM.

       Chapter 313 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 31302 by inserting ``and may have only 1 
     learner's permit at any time'' after ``time'';
       (2) in section 31308--
       (A) by inserting after ``license'' the first place it 
     appears ``and learner's permits'' ;
       (B) by striking ``licenses.'' and inserting ``licenses and 
     permits.'';
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) before a commercial driver's license learner's permit 
     may be issued to an individual, the individual must pass a 
     written test, that complies with the minimum standards 
     prescribed by the Secretary under section 31305(a), on the 
     operation of the commercial motor vehicle that the individual 
     will be operating under the permit;''; and

[[Page 18702]]

       (E) in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 31308 (as so 
     redesignated) and in section 31309 (b) by inserting after 
     ``license'' each place it appears ``or learner's permit''.

     SEC. 4123. COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM 
                   MODERNIZATION.

       (a) Modernization Plan.--Section 31309 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Modernization Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall develop 
     and publish a comprehensive national plan to modernize the 
     information system under this section that--
       ``(A) complies with applicable Federal information 
     technology security standards;
       ``(B) provides for the electronic exchange of all 
     information including the posting of convictions;
       ``(C) contains self auditing features to ensure that data 
     is being posted correctly and consistently by the States;
       ``(D) integrates the commercial driver's license and the 
     medical certificate; and
       ``(E) provides a schedule for modernization of the system.
       ``(2) Consultation.--The plan shall be developed in 
     consultation with representatives of the motor carrier 
     industry, State safety enforcement agencies, and State 
     licensing agencies designated by the Secretary.
       ``(3) State funding of future efforts.--The plan shall 
     specify that States will fund future efforts to modernize the 
     commercial driver's information system.
       ``(4) Deadline for state participation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish in the 
     plan a date by which all States must be operating commercial 
     driver's license information systems that are compatible with 
     the modernized information system under this section.
       ``(B) Factors to consider.--In establishing the date under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consider the following:
       ``(i) Availability and cost of technology and equipment 
     needed to comply with subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Time necessary to install, and test the operation 
     of, such technology and equipment.
       ``(5) Implementation.--The Secretary shall implement the 
     plan developed under subsection (a) and modernize the 
     information system under this section to meet the 
     requirements of the plan.
       ``(f) Funding.--At the Secretary's discretion, a State may 
     use the funds made available to the State under section 31318 
     to modernize its commercial driver's license information 
     system to be compatible with the modernized information 
     system under this section.''.
       (b) State Participations.--Section 31311(a) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (15) by striking ``(g)(1)(A), and (g)(2)'' 
     and inserting ``(i)(1)(A) and (i)(2)'';
       (2) in paragraph (17) by striking ``section 31310(h)'' and 
     inserting ``as 31310(j)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) By the date established by the Secretary under 
     section 31309(e)(4), the State shall be operating a 
     commercial driver's license information system that is 
     compatible with the modernized commercial driver's license 
     information system under section 31309.''.
       (c) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant to a State 
     or organization representing agencies and officials of a 
     State in a fiscal year to modernize the commercial driver's 
     license information system of the State to be compatible with 
     the modernized commercial driver's license information system 
     under section 31309 of title 49, United States Code, if the 
     State is in substantial compliance with the requirements of 
     section 31311 of such title and this section, as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       (2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish criteria for 
     the distribution of grants and notify each State annually of 
     such criteria.
       (3) Use of grant.--A State may use a grant under this 
     subsection only to implement improvements that are consistent 
     with the modernization plan developed by the Secretary.
       (4) Government share.--A grant under this subsection to a 
     State or organization may not be for more than 80 percent of 
     the costs incurred by the State or organization in a fiscal 
     year in modernizing the commercial driver's license 
     information system of the State to be compatible with the 
     modernized commercial driver's license information system 
     under section 31309 of title 49, United States Code. In 
     determining these costs, the Secretary shall include in-kind 
     contributions of the State.
       (d) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) 
     to carry out this section--
       (1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (4) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (e) Contract Authority and Availability.--
       (1) Period of availability.--The amounts made available 
     under subsection (d) shall remain available until expended.
       (2) Initial date of availability.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass 
     Transit Account) by subsection (d) shall be available for 
     obligation on the date of their apportionment or allocation 
     or on October 1 of the fiscal year for which they are 
     authorized, whichever occurs first.
       (3) Contract authority.--Approval by the Secretary of a 
     grant with funds made available under subsection (d) imposes 
     upon the United States a contractual obligation for payment 
     of the Government's share of costs incurred in carrying out 
     the objectives of the grant.
       (f) Baseline Audit.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, 
     shall perform a baseline audit of the information system 
     maintained under section 31309 of title 49, United States 
     Code. The audit shall include--
       (1) an assessment of the validity of data in the 
     information system on a State-by-State basis;
       (2) an assessment of the extent to which convictions are 
     validly posted on a driver's record;
       (3) recommendations to the Secretary on how to update the 
     baseline audit annually to ensure that any shortcomings in 
     the information system are addressed, and a methodology for 
     conducting the update;
       (4) identification, on a State-by-State basis, of any 
     actions that the Inspector General finds necessary to improve 
     the integrity of data collected by the system and to ensure 
     the proper posting of convictions; and
       (5) an analysis of amounts and use of the revenues derived 
     from fees charged for use of the commercial driver's license 
     information system.

     SEC. 4124. COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) State Grants.--Chapter 313 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 31312 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 31313. Grants for commercial driver's license program 
       improvements

       ``(a) Grants for Commercial Driver's License Program 
     Improvements.--
       ``(1) General authority.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may make a grant to a State in a fiscal year--
       ``(A) to comply with the requirements of section 31311; and
       ``(B) in the case of a State that is making a good faith 
     effort toward substantial compliance with the requirements of 
     section 31311 and this section, to improve its implementation 
     of its commercial driver's license program.
       ``(2) Purposes for which grants may be used.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State may use grants under paragraphs 
     (1)(A) and (1)(B) only for expenses directly related to its 
     compliance with section 31311; except that a grant under 
     paragraph (1)(B) may be used for improving implementation of 
     the State's commercial driver's license program, including 
     expenses for computer hardware and software, publications, 
     testing, personnel, training, and quality control. The grant 
     may not be used to rent, lease, or buy land or buildings.
       ``(B) Priority.--In making grants under paragraph (1)(B), 
     the Secretary shall give priority to States that will use 
     such grants to achieve compliance with the requirements of 
     the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, including 
     the amendments made by such Act.
       ``(3) Application.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     section, a State shall submit an application for such grant 
     that is in such form, and contains such information, as the 
     Secretary may require. The application shall include the 
     State's assessment of its commercial drivers license program.
       ``(4) Maintenance of expenditures.--The Secretary may make 
     a grant to a State under this subsection only if the State 
     agrees that the total expenditure of amounts of the State and 
     political subdivisions of the State, exclusive of amounts 
     from the United States, for the State's commercial driver's 
     license program will be maintained at a level at least equal 
     to the average level of that expenditure by the State and 
     political subdivisions of the State for the last 2 fiscal 
     years of the State ending before the date of enactment of the 
     this section.
       ``(5) Government share.--The Secretary shall reimburse a 
     State under a grant made under this subsection an amount that 
     is not more than 100 percent of the costs incurred by the 
     State in a fiscal year in complying with section 31311 and 
     improving its implementation of its commercial driver's 
     license program. In determining such costs, the Secretary 
     shall include in-kind contributions by the State. Amounts 
     required to be expended by the State under paragraph (4) may 
     not be included as part of the non-Federal share of such 
     costs.
       ``(b) High-Priority Activities.--
       ``(1) Grants for national concerns.--The Secretary may make 
     a grant to a State agency, local government, or other person 
     for 100 percent of the costs of research, development, 
     demonstration projects, public education, and other special 
     activities and projects relating to commercial driver 
     licensing and motor vehicle safety that are of benefit to all 
     jurisdictions of the United States or are designed to address 
     national safety concerns and circumstances.
       ``(2) Funding.--The Secretary may deduct up to 10 percent 
     of the amounts made available to carry out this section for a 
     fiscal year to make grants under this subsection.
       ``(c) Emerging Issues.--The Secretary may designate up to 
     10 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this 
     section for a fiscal year for allocation to a State agency, 
     local government, or other person at the discretion of the 
     Secretary to address emerging issues relating to commercial 
     driver's license improvements.
       ``(d) Apportionment.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     subsection (c), all amounts made available to carry out this 
     section for a fiscal year shall be apportioned to States 
     according to criteria prescribed by the Secretary.''.

[[Page 18703]]

       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 31312 
     the following:

``31313. Grants for commercial driver's license program 
              improvements.''.

       (c) Amounts Withheld.--Subsections (a) and (b) of section 
     31314 of such title are each amended by inserting ``up to'' 
     after ``withhold''.

     SEC. 4125. HOBBS ACT.

       (a) Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals Over Commercial Motor 
     Vehicle Safety Regulation and Operators and Motor Carrier 
     Safety.--Section 2342(3)(A) of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting before ``of title 49'' the following: 
     ``, subchapter III of chapter 311, chapter 313, or chapter 
     315''.
       (b) Judicial Review.--Section 351(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``Federal Highway 
     Administration'' and inserting ``Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration''.
       (c) Authority to Carry Out Certain Transferred Duties and 
     Powers.--Section 352 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``Federal Highway Administration'' and 
     inserting ``Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration''.

     SEC. 4126. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND 
                   NETWORKS DEPLOYMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a commercial 
     vehicle information systems and networks program to--
       (1) improve the safety and productivity of commercial 
     vehicles and drivers; and
       (2) reduce costs associated with commercial vehicle 
     operations and Federal and State commercial vehicle 
     regulatory requirements.
       (b) Purpose.--The program shall advance the technological 
     capability and promote the deployment of intelligent 
     transportation system applications for commercial vehicle 
     operations, including commercial vehicle, commercial driver, 
     and carrier-specific information systems and networks.
       (c) Core Deployment Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     eligible States for the core deployment of commercial vehicle 
     information systems and networks.
       (2) Amount of grants.--The maximum aggregate amount the 
     Secretary may grant to a State for the core deployment of 
     commercial vehicle information systems and networks under 
     this subsection and sections 5001(a)(5) and 5001(a)(6) of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 
     420) may not exceed $2,500,000.
       (3) Use of funds.--Funds from a grant under this subsection 
     may only be used for the core deployment of commercial 
     vehicle information systems and networks. An eligible State 
     that has either completed the core deployment of commercial 
     vehicle information systems and networks or completed such 
     deployment before grant funds are expended under this 
     subsection may use the grant funds for the expanded 
     deployment of commercial vehicle information systems and 
     networks in the State.
       (d) Expanded Deployment Grants.--
       (1) In general.--For each fiscal year, from the funds 
     remaining after the Secretary has made grants under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary may make grants to each 
     eligible State, upon request, for the expanded deployment of 
     commercial vehicle information systems and networks.
       (2) Eligibility.--Each State that has completed the core 
     deployment of commercial vehicle information systems and 
     networks in such State is eligible for an expanded deployment 
     grant under this subsection.
       (3) Amount of grants.--Each fiscal year, the Secretary may 
     distribute funds available for expanded deployment grants 
     equally among the eligible States, but not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 per State.
       (4) Use of funds.--A State may use funds from a grant under 
     this subsection only for the expanded deployment of 
     commercial vehicle information systems and networks.
       (e) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     section, a State--
       (1) shall have a commercial vehicle information systems and 
     networks program plan approved by the Secretary that 
     describes the various systems and networks at the State level 
     that need to be refined, revised, upgraded, or built to 
     accomplish deployment of core capabilities;
       (2) shall certify to the Secretary that its commercial 
     vehicle information systems and networks deployment 
     activities, including hardware procurement, software and 
     system development, and infrastructure modifications--
       (A) are consistent with the national intelligent 
     transportation systems and commercial vehicle information 
     systems and networks architectures and available standards; 
     and
       (B) promote interoperability and efficiency to the extent 
     practicable; and
       (3) shall agree to execute interoperability tests developed 
     by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to verify 
     that its systems conform with the national intelligent 
     transportation systems architecture, applicable standards, 
     and protocols for commercial vehicle information systems and 
     networks.
       (f) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project payable from funds made available to carry out this 
     section shall not exceed 50 percent. The total Federal share 
     of the cost of a project payable from all eligible Federal 
     sources shall not exceed 80 percent.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Commercial vehicle information systems and networks.--
     The term ``commercial vehicle information systems and 
     networks'' means the information systems and communications 
     networks that provide the capability to--
       (A) improve the safety of commercial motor vehicle 
     operations;
       (B) increase the efficiency of regulatory inspection 
     processes to reduce administrative burdens by advancing 
     technology to facilitate inspections and increase the 
     effectiveness of enforcement efforts;
       (C) advance electronic processing of registration 
     information, driver licensing information, fuel tax 
     information, inspection and crash data, and other safety 
     information;
       (D) enhance the safe passage of commercial motor vehicles 
     across the United States and across international borders; 
     and
       (E) promote the communication of information among the 
     States and encourage multistate cooperation and corridor 
     development.
       (2) Commercial motor vehicle operations.--The term 
     ``commercial motor vehicle operations''--
       (A) means motor carrier operations and motor vehicle 
     regulatory activities associated with the commercial motor 
     vehicle movement of goods, including hazardous materials, and 
     passengers; and
       (B) with respect to the public sector, includes the 
     issuance of operating credentials, the administration of 
     motor vehicle and fuel taxes, and roadside safety and border 
     crossing inspection and regulatory compliance operations.
       (3) Core deployment.--The term ``core deployment'' means 
     the deployment of systems in a State necessary to provide the 
     State with the following capabilities:
       (A) Safety information exchange to--
       (i) electronically collect and transmit commercial motor 
     vehicle and driver inspection data at a majority of 
     inspection sites in the State;
       (ii) connect to the safety and fitness electronic records 
     system for access to interstate carrier and commercial motor 
     vehicle data, summaries of past safety performance, and 
     commercial motor vehicle credentials information; and
       (iii) exchange carrier data and commercial motor vehicle 
     safety and credentials information within the State and 
     connect to such system for access to interstate carrier and 
     commercial motor vehicle data.
       (B) Interstate credentials administration to--
       (i) perform end-to-end processing, including carrier 
     application, jurisdiction application processing, and 
     credential issuance, of at least the international 
     registration plan and international fuel tax agreement 
     credentials and extend this processing to other credentials, 
     including intrastate registration, vehicle titling, oversize 
     vehicle permits, overweight vehicle permits, carrier 
     registration, and hazardous materials permits;
       (ii) connect to such plan and agreement clearinghouses; and
       (iii) have at least 10 percent of the credentialing 
     transaction volume in the State handled electronically and 
     have the capability to add more carriers and to extend to 
     branch offices where applicable.
       (C) Roadside electronic screening to electronically screen 
     transponder-equipped commercial vehicles at a minimum of one 
     fixed or mobile inspection site in the State and to replicate 
     this screening at other sites in the State.
       (4) Expanded deployment.--The term ``expanded deployment'' 
     means the deployment of systems in a State that exceed the 
     requirements of a core deployment of commercial vehicle 
     information systems and networks, improve safety and the 
     productivity of commercial motor vehicle operations, and 
     enhance transportation security.

     SEC. 4127. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct, through any 
     combination of grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, 
     an outreach and education program to be administered by the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National 
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
       (b) Program Elements.--The program shall include, at a 
     minimum, the following:
       (1) A program to promote a more comprehensive and national 
     effort to educate commercial motor vehicle drivers and 
     passenger vehicle drivers about how commercial motor vehicle 
     drivers and passenger vehicle drivers can more safely share 
     the road with each other.
       (2) A program to promote enhanced traffic enforcement 
     efforts aimed at reducing the incidence of the most common 
     unsafe driving behaviors that cause or contribute to crashes 
     involving commercial motor vehicles and passenger vehicles.
       (3) A program to establish a public-private partnership to 
     provide resources and expertise for the development and 
     dissemination of information relating to sharing the road 
     referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) to each partner's 
     constituents and to the general public through the use of 
     brochures, videos, paid and public advertisements, the 
     Internet, and other media.
       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of a program or 
     activity for which a grant is made under this section shall 
     be 100 percent of the cost of such program or activity.
       (d) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall prepare and 
     transmit to Congress an annual report on the programs and 
     activities carried out under this section. The final annual 
     report shall be submitted not later than September 30, 2009.
       (e) Funding.--From amounts made available under section 
     31104(i) of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary shall 
     make available $1,000,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

[[Page 18704]]

     Administration, and $3,000,000 to the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration, for each of fiscal years 2006, 
     2007, 2008, and 2009 to carry out this section (other than 
     subsection (f)).
       (f) Study.--The Comptroller General shall update the 
     Government Accountability Office's evaluation of the ``Share 
     the Road Safely'' program to determine if it has achieved 
     reductions in the number and severity of commercial motor 
     vehicle crashes, including reductions in the number of deaths 
     and the severity of injuries sustained in these crashes and 
     shall report its updated evaluation to Congress no later than 
     June 30, 2006.

     SEC. 4128. SAFETY DATA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to States 
     for projects and activities to improve the accuracy, 
     timeliness, and completeness of commercial motor vehicle 
     safety data reported to the Secretary.
       (b) Eligibility.--A State shall be eligible for a grant 
     under this section in a fiscal year if the Secretary 
     determines that the State has--
       (1) conducted a comprehensive audit of its commercial motor 
     vehicle safety data system within the preceding 2 years;
       (2) developed a plan that identifies and prioritizes its 
     commercial motor vehicle safety data needs and goals; and
       (3) identified performance-based measures to determine 
     progress toward those goals.
       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of a grant under this 
     section shall be 80 percent of the cost of the activities for 
     which the grant is made.
       (d) Biennial Report.--Not later 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the 
     activities and results of the program carried out under this 
     section, together with any recommendations the Secretary 
     determines appropriate.

     SEC. 4129. OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES BY 
                   INDIVIDUALS WHO USE INSULIN TO TREAT DIABETES 
                   MELLITUS.

       (a) Revision of Final Rule.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     begin revising the final rule published in the Federal 
     Register on September 3, 2003, relating to persons with 
     diabetes, to allow individuals who use insulin to treat their 
     diabetes to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate 
     commerce. The revised final rule shall provide for the 
     individual assessment of applicants who use insulin to treat 
     their diabetes and who are, except for their use of insulin, 
     otherwise qualified under the Federal motor carrier safety 
     regulations. The revised final rule shall be consistent with 
     the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305 note) and 
     shall conclude the rulemaking process in the Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Administration docket relating to 
     qualifications of drivers with diabetes.
       (b) No Period of Commercial Driving While Using Insulin 
     Required for Qualification.--After the earlier of the date of 
     issuance of the revised final rule under subsection (a) or 
     the 90th day following the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary may not require individuals with insulin-treated 
     diabetes mellitus who are applying for an exemption from the 
     physical qualification standards to have experience operating 
     commercial motor vehicles while using insulin in order to be 
     exempted from the physical qualification standards to operate 
     a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce.
       (c) Minimum Period of Insulin Use.--Subject to subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall require individuals with insulin-
     treated diabetes mellitus to have a minimum period of insulin 
     use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before 
     operating a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce. 
     Such demonstration shall be consistent with the findings 
     reported in July 2000, by the expert medical panel 
     established by the Secretary, in ``A Report to Congress on 
     the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with 
     Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate Commercial Motor 
     Vehicles in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century''. For 
     individuals who have been newly diagnosed with type 1 
     diabetes, the minimum period of insulin use may not exceed 2 
     months, unless directed by the treating physician. For 
     individuals who have type 2 diabetes and are converting to 
     insulin use, the minimum period of insulin use may not exceed 
     1 month, unless directed by the treating physician.
       (d) Limitations.--Insulin-treated individuals may not be 
     held by the Secretary to a higher standard of physical 
     qualification in order to operate a commercial motor vehicle 
     in interstate commerce than other individuals applying to 
     operate, or operating, a commercial motor vehicle in 
     interstate commerce; except to the extent that limited 
     operating, monitoring, and medical requirements are deemed 
     medically necessary under regulations issued by the 
     Secretary.

     SEC. 4130. OPERATORS OF VEHICLES TRANSPORTING AGRICULTURAL 
                   COMMODITIES AND FARM SUPPLIES.

       (a) Agricultural Exemption.--Section 229(a)(1) of the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (as 
     added by section 4115 of this Act), is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Transportation of agricultural commodities and farm 
     supplies.--Regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 
     sections 31136 and 31502 regarding maximum driving and on-
     duty time for drivers used by motor carriers shall not apply 
     during planting and harvest periods, as determined by each 
     State, to drivers transporting agricultural commodities or 
     farm supplies for agricultural purposes in a State if such 
     transportation is limited to an area within a 100 air mile 
     radius from the source of the commodities or the distribution 
     point for the farm supplies.''.
       (b) Review by the Secretary.--Section 229(c) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1), (2), or (4)''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 229(e) of such Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Agricultural commodity.--The term `agricultural 
     commodity' means any agricultural commodity, non-processed 
     food, feed, fiber, or livestock (including livestock as 
     defined in section 602 of the Emergency Livestock Feed 
     Assistance Act of 1988 (7 U.S.C. 1471) and insects).
       ``(8) Farm supplies for agricultural purposes.--The term 
     `farm supplies for agricultural purposes' means products 
     directly related to the growing or harvesting of agricultural 
     commodities during the planting and harvesting seasons within 
     each State, as determined by the State, and livestock feed at 
     any time of the year.''.

     SEC. 4131. MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR OPERATORS OF GROUND 
                   WATER WELL DRILLING RIGS.

       Section 229(a)(2) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement 
     Act of 1999 (as added by section 4115 of this Act), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``Except as 
     required in section 395.3 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, as in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     sentence, no additional off-duty time shall be required in 
     order to operate such vehicle.''.

     SEC. 4132. HOURS OF SERVICE FOR OPERATORS OF UTILITY SERVICE 
                   VEHICLES.

       Section 229 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Improvements Act of 1999 (as added by section 4115 of this 
     Act), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4) Operators of utility service vehicles.--
       ``(A) Inapplicability of federal regulations.--Such 
     regulations shall not apply to a driver of a utility service 
     vehicle.
       ``(B) Prohibition on state regulations.--A State, a 
     political subdivision of a State, an interstate agency, or 
     other entity consisting of 2 or more States, shall not enact 
     or enforce any law, rule, regulation, or standard that 
     imposes requirements on a driver of a utility service vehicle 
     that are similar to the requirements contained in such 
     regulations.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``Nothing'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in subsection (a)(4), nothing''.

     SEC. 4133. HOURS OF SERVICE RULES FOR OPERATORS PROVIDING 
                   TRANSPORTATION TO MOVIE PRODUCTION SITES .

       Notwithstanding sections 31136 and 31502 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and any other provision of law, the 
     maximum daily hours of service for an operator of a 
     commercial motor vehicle providing transportation of property 
     or passengers to or from a theatrical or television motion 
     picture production site located within a 100 air mile radius 
     of the work reporting location of such operator shall be 
     those in effect under the regulations in effect under such 
     sections on April 27, 2003.

     SEC. 4134. GRANT PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
                   OPERATORS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a grant 
     program for persons to train operators of commercial motor 
     vehicles (as defined in section 31301 of title 49, United 
     States Code). The purpose of the program shall be to train 
     operators and future operators in the safe use of such 
     vehicles.
       (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost for which 
     a grant is made under this section shall be 80 percent.
       (c) Funding.--From amounts made available under section 
     31104(i) of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary shall 
     make available $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 4135. CDL TASK FORCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall convene a task force 
     to study and address current impediments and foreseeable 
     challenges to the commercial driver's license program's 
     effectiveness and measures needed to realize the full safety 
     potential of the commercial driver's license program, 
     including such issues as--
       (1) State enforcement practices;
       (2) operational procedures to detect and deter fraud;
       (3) needed improvements for seamless information sharing 
     between States;
       (4) effective methods for accurately sharing electronic 
     data between States;
       (5) adequate proof of citizenship;
       (6) updated technology; and
       (7) timely notification from judicial bodies concerning 
     traffic and criminal convictions of commercial drivers 
     license holders.
       (b) Membership.--Members of the task force should include 
     State motor vehicle administrators, organizations 
     representing government agencies or officials, members of the 
     Judicial Conference, representatives of the trucking 
     industry, representatives of labor organizations, safety 
     advocates, and other significant stakeholders.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, on behalf of the task 
     force, shall complete a report of the task forces findings 
     and recommendations for legislative, regulatory, and 
     enforcement changes to improve the commercial drivers license 
     program and submit such the report to the

[[Page 18705]]

     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (d) Funding.--From the funds amounts made available by 
     section 4101(c)(1), $200,000 shall be available for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 4136. INTERSTATE VAN OPERATIONS.

       The Federal motor carrier safety regulations that apply to 
     interstate operations of commercial motor vehicles designed 
     to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the 
     driver) shall apply to all interstate operations of such 
     carriers regardless of the distance traveled.

     SEC. 4137. DECALS.

       The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance may not restrict the 
     sale of any inspection decal to the Federal Motor Carrier 
     Safety Administration unless the Administration fails to meet 
     its responsibilities under its memorandum of understanding 
     with the Alliance (other than a failure due to the 
     Administration's compliance with Federal law).

     SEC. 4138. HIGH RISK CARRIER COMPLIANCE REVIEWS.

       From the funds authorized by section 31104(i) of title 49, 
     United States Code, the Secretary shall ensure that 
     compliance reviews are completed on motor carriers that have 
     demonstrated through performance data that they pose the 
     highest safety risk. At a minimum, a compliance review shall 
     be conducted whenever a motor carrier is rated as category A 
     or B for 2 consecutive months.

     SEC. 4139. FOREIGN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES.

       (a) Operating Authority Enforcement Assistance for 
     States.--
       (1) Training and outreach.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shall conduct 
     outreach and provide training as necessary to State personnel 
     engaged in the enforcement of Federal motor carrier safety 
     regulations to ensure their awareness of the process to be 
     used for verification of the operating authority of motor 
     carriers, including motor carriers of passengers, and to 
     ensure proper enforcement when motor carriers are found to be 
     in violation of operating authority requirements.
       (2) Assessment.--The Inspector General of the Department of 
     Transportation may periodically assess the implementation and 
     effectiveness of the training and outreach program.
       (b) Study of Foreign Commercial Motor Vehicles.--
       (1) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall conduct a 
     review to determine the degree to which Canadian and Mexican 
     commercial motor vehicles, including motor carriers of 
     passengers, currently operating or expected to operate in the 
     United States comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety 
     standards.
       (2) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment, the Adminstrator shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives containing the findings and 
     conclusions of the review. Not later than 4 months after the 
     date on which the report is submitted to the Committees, the 
     Inspector General of the Department shall provide comments 
     and observations to the Committees on the scope and 
     methodology of the review.

     SEC. 4140. SCHOOL BUS DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS AND ENDORSEMENT 
                   KNOWLEDGE TEST.

       (a) Recognition of Test.--The Secretary shall recognize any 
     driver who passes a test approved by the Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Administration as meeting the knowledge test 
     requirement for a school bus endorsement under section 
     383.123 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (b) Driver Qualifications.-- Section 383.123 of such title 
     (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act) shall not 
     be in effect during the period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2006.

     SEC. 4141. DRIVEAWAY SADDLEMOUNT VEHICLES.

       (a) Definition.--Section 31111(a) of tile 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:
       ``(4) Drive-away saddlemount with fullmount vehicle 
     transporter combination.--The term `drive-away saddlemount 
     with fullmount vehicle transporter combination' means a 
     vehicle combination designed and specifically used to tow up 
     to 3 trucks or truck tractors, each connected by a saddle to 
     the frame or fifth-wheel of the forward vehicle of the truck 
     or truck tractor in front of it.''.
       (b) General Limitations.--Section 31111(b)(1) of such title 
     is amended
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) imposes a vehicle length limitation of not less than 
     or more than 97 feet on a driveaway saddlemount with 
     fullmount vehicle transporter combinations;''.

     SEC. 4142. REGISTRATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS AND FREIGHT 
                   FORWARDERS.

       (a) Definitions Relating to Motor Carriers.--Paragraphs 
     (6), (7), (12), and (13) of section 13102 of title 49, United 
     States Code, are each amended by striking ``motor vehicle'' 
     and inserting ``commercial motor vehicle (as defined in 
     section 31132)''.
       (b) Freight Forwarders.--Section 13903(a) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Household goods.--The Secretary'';
       (2) by inserting ``of household goods'' after ``freight 
     forwarder''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Others.--The Secretary may register a person to 
     provide service subject to jurisdiction under subchapter III 
     of chapter 135 as a freight forwarder (other than a freight 
     forwarder of household goods) if the Secretary finds that 
     such registration is needed for the protection of shippers 
     and that the person is fit, willing, and able to provide the 
     service and to comply with this part and applicable 
     regulations of the Secretary and Board.''.
       (c) Brokers.--Section 13904(a) of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Household Goods.--The Secretary'';
       (2) by inserting ``of household goods'' after ``broker''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Others.--The Secretary may register a person to 
     provide service subject to jurisdiction under subchapter III 
     of chapter 135 as a broker (other than a broker of household 
     goods) if the Secretary finds that such registration is 
     needed for the protection of shippers and that the person is 
     fit, willing, and able to provide the service and to comply 
     with this part and applicable regulations of the Secretary 
     and Board.''.

     SEC. 4143. AUTHORITY TO STOP COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 39. Commercial motor vehicles required to stop for 
       inspections

       ``(a) A driver of a commercial motor vehicle (as defined in 
     section 31132 of title 49) shall stop and submit to 
     inspection of the vehicle, driver, cargo, and required 
     records when directed to do so by an authorized employee of 
     the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration of the 
     Department of Transportation, at or in the vicinity of an 
     inspection site. The driver shall not leave the inspection 
     site until authorized to do so by an authorized employee.
       ``(b) A driver of a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in 
     subsection (a), who knowingly fails to stop for inspection 
     when directed to do so by an authorized employee of the 
     Administration at or in the vicinity of an inspection site, 
     or leaves the inspection site without authorization, shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or 
     both.''.
       (b) Authority of FMCSA.--Chapter 203 of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3064. Powers of Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
       Administration

       ``Authorized employees of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration may direct a driver of a commercial motor 
     vehicle (as defined in section 31132 of title 49) to stop for 
     inspection of the vehicle, driver, cargo, and required 
     records at or in the vicinity of an inspection site.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The analysis for chapter 2 of such title is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 38 the 
     following:

       ``39. Commercial motor vehicles required to stop for 
           inspections.''.

       (2) The analysis for chapter 203 of such title is amended 
     by inserting after the item relating to section 3063 the 
     following:

       ``3064. Powers of Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
           Administration.''.

     SEC. 4144. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment and Duties.--The Secretary shall 
     establish in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
     a motor carrier safety advisory committee. The committee 
     shall--
       (1) provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator 
     of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration about 
     needs, objectives, plans, approaches, content, and 
     accomplishments of the motor carrier safety programs carried 
     out by the Administration; and
       (2) provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator 
     on motor carrier safety regulations.
       (b) Members, Chairman, Pay, and Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--The committee shall be composed of not 
     more than 20 members appointed by the Administrator from 
     among individuals who are not employees of the Administration 
     and who are specially qualified to serve on the committee 
     because of their education, training, or experience. The 
     members shall include representatives of the motor carrier 
     industry, safety advocates, and safety enforcement officials. 
     Representatives of a single enumerated interest group may not 
     constitute a majority of the members of the advisory 
     committee.
       (2) Chairman.--The Administrator shall designate the 
     chairman of the committee.
       (3) Pay.--A member of the committee shall serve without 
     pay; except that the Administrator may allow a member, when 
     attending meetings of the committee or a subcommittee of the 
     committee, expenses authorized under section 5703 of title 5, 
     relating to per diem, travel, and transportation expenses.
       (c) Support Staff, Information, and Services.--The 
     Administrator shall provide support staff for the committee. 
     On request of the committee, the Administrator shall provide 
     information, administrative services, and supplies that the 
     Administrator considers necessary for the committee to carry 
     out its duties and powers.

[[Page 18706]]

       (d) Termination Date.--Notwithstanding the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the advisory committee shall 
     terminate on September 30, 2010.

     SEC. 4145. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Intermodal Transportation Advisory Board.--Section 
     5502(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.''.
       (b) Reference to Agency.--Section 31502(e) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``Regional Director of the 
     Federal Highway Administration'' and inserting ``Field 
     Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Regional Director'' and 
     inserting ``Field Administrator''.

     SEC. 4146. EXEMPTION DURING HARVEST PERIODS.

       Regulations issued by the Secretary under sections 31136 
     and 31502 of title 49, United States Code, regarding maximum 
     driving and on-duty time for a driver used by a motor 
     carrier, shall not apply, beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act and ending at the end of fiscal year 2009, for 
     the transportation of grapes west of Interstate 81 in the 
     State of New York if such transportation--
       (1) is during a harvesting period, as determined by the 
     State; and
       (2) is limited to a 150-air mile radius from where the 
     grapes are picked or distributed.

     SEC. 4147. EMERGENCY CONDITION REQUIRING IMMEDIATE RESPONSE.

       Section 229 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
     1999 (as added and amended by section 4115 of this Act) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Emergency Condition Requiring Immediate Response.--
       ``(1) Propane or pipeline emergency.--A regulation 
     prescribed under section 31136 or 31502 of title 49, United 
     States Code, shall not apply to a driver of a commercial 
     motor vehicle which is used primarily in the transportation 
     of propane winter heating fuel or a driver of a motor vehicle 
     used to respond to a pipeline emergency if such regulations 
     would prevent the driver from responding to an emergency 
     condition requiring immediate response.
       ``(2) Definition.--An emergency condition requiring 
     immediate response is any condition that, if left unattended, 
     is reasonably likely to result in immediate serious bodily 
     harm, death, or substantial damage to property. In the case 
     of propane such conditions shall include (but are not limited 
     to) the detection of gas odor, the activation of carbon 
     monoxide alarms, the detection of carbon monoxide poisoning, 
     and any real or suspected damage to a propane gas system 
     following a severe storm or flooding. An `emergency condition 
     requiring an immediate response' does not include requests to 
     re-fill empty gas tanks. In the case of pipelines such 
     conditions include (but are not limited to) indication of an 
     abnormal pressure event, leak, release or rupture.''.

     SEC. 4148. SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROFESSIONALS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a rulemaking to permit a State 
     licensed or certified marriage and family therapist, to act 
     as a substance abuse professional under subpart O of part 40 
     of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.

     SEC. 4149. OFFICE OF INTERMODALISM.

       Section 5503 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e) by inserting ``Amounts reserved under 
     section 5504(d) not awarded to States as grants may be used 
     by the Director to provide technical assistance under this 
     subsection.'' after ``organizations.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (h); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) National Intermodal System Improvement Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director, in consultation with the 
     advisory board established under section 5502 and other 
     public and private transportation interests, shall develop a 
     plan to improve the national intermodal transportation 
     system. The plan shall include--
       ``(A) an assessment and forecast of the national intermodal 
     transportation system's impact on mobility, safety, energy 
     consumption, the environment, technology, international 
     trade, economic activity, and quality of life in the United 
     States;
       ``(B) an assessment of the operational and economic 
     attributes of each passenger and freight mode of 
     transportation and the optimal role of each mode in the 
     national intermodal transportation system;
       ``(C) a description of recommended intermodal and multi-
     modal research and development projects;
       ``(D) a description of emerging trends that have an impact 
     on the national intermodal transportation system;
       ``(E) recommendations for improving intermodal policy, 
     transportation decision-making, and financing to maximize 
     mobility and the return on investment of Federal spending on 
     transportation;
       ``(F) an estimate of the impact of current Federal and 
     State transportation policy on the national intermodal 
     transportation system; and
       ``(G) specific near and long-term goals for the national 
     intermodal transportation system.
       ``(2) Progress reports.--The Director shall submit an 
     initial report on the plan to improve the national intermodal 
     transportation system 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     the Surface Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2005, 
     and a follow-up report 2 years after that, to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives. The progress report shall--
       ``(A) describe progress made toward achieving the plan's 
     goals;
       ``(B) describe challenges and obstacles to achieving the 
     plan's goals;
       ``(C) update the plan to reflect changed circumstances or 
     new developments; and
       ``(D) make policy and legislative recommendations the 
     Director believes are necessary and appropriate to achieve 
     the goals of the plan.
       ``(3) Plan development funding.--Such sums as may be 
     necessary from the administrative expenses of the Research 
     and Innovative Technology Administration shall be reserved by 
     the Secretary of Transportation each year for the purpose of 
     completing and updating the plan to improve the national 
     intermodal transportation plan.
       ``(g) Impact Measurement Methodology; Impact Review.--The 
     Director and the Director of the Bureau of Transportation 
     Statistics shall jointly--
       ``(1) develop, in consultation with the modal 
     administrations, and State and local planning organizations, 
     common measures to compare transportation investment 
     decisions across the various modes of transportation; and
       ``(2) formulate a methodology for measuring the impact of 
     intermodal transportation on--
       ``(A) the environment;
       ``(B) public health and welfare;
       ``(C) energy consumption;
       ``(D) the operation and efficiency of the transportation 
     system;
       ``(E) congestion, including congestion at the Nation's 
     ports; and
       ``(F) the economy and employment.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 
     to carry out this chapter.''.
               Subtitle B--Household Goods Transportation

     SEC. 4201. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Househood Goods Mover 
     Oversight Enforcement and Reform Act of 2005''

     SEC. 4202. DEFINITIONS; APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS.

       (a) Terms Used in This Chapter.--In this subtitle, the 
     terms ``carrier'', ``household goods'', ``motor carrier'', 
     ``Secretary'', and ``transportation'' have the meaning given 
     to such terms in section 13102 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (b) Household Goods Motor Carrier and Individual Shipper in 
     Part B of Subtitle IV of Title 49.--Section 13102 of title 
     49, United States Code (as amended by section 4141 of this 
     Act) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (24) 
     as paragraphs (14) through (26) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) Household goods motor carrier.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `household goods motor carrier' 
     means a motor carrier that, in the ordinary course of its 
     business of providing transportation of household goods, 
     offers some or all of the following additional services:
       ``(i) Binding and nonbinding estimates.
       ``(ii) Inventorying.
       ``(iii) Protective packing and unpacking of individual 
     items at personal residences.
       ``(iv) Loading and unloading at personal residences.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term includes any person that is 
     considered to be a household goods motor carrier under 
     regulations, determinations, and decisions of the Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration that are in effect on the 
     date of enactment of the Household Goods Mover Oversight 
     Enforcement and Reform Act of 2005.
       ``(C) Limited service exclusion.--The term does not include 
     a motor carrier when the motor carrier provides 
     transportation of household goods in containers or trailers 
     that are entirely loaded and unloaded by an individual (other 
     than an employee or agent of the motor carrier).
       ``(13) Individual shipper.--The term `individual shipper' 
     means any person who--
       ``(A) is the shipper, consignor, or consignee of a 
     household goods shipment;
       ``(B) is identified as the shipper, consignor, or consignee 
     on the face of the bill of lading;
       ``(C) owns the goods being transported; and
       ``(D) pays his or her own tariff transportation charges.''.
       (c) Application of Certain Provisions of Law.--The 
     provisions of title 49, United States Code, and this subtitle 
     (including any amendments made by this subtitle), that relate 
     to the transportation of household goods apply only to a 
     household goods motor carrier (as defined in section 13102 of 
     title 49, United States Code).

     SEC. 4203. PAYMENT OF RATES.

       Section 13707(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Shipments of household goods.--
       ``(A) In general.--A carrier providing transportation of a 
     shipment of household goods shall give up possession of the 
     household goods being transported at the destination upon 
     payment of--
       ``(i) 100 percent of the charges contained in a binding 
     estimate provided by the carrier;
       ``(ii) not more than 110 percent of the charges contained 
     in a nonbinding estimate provided by the carrier; or

[[Page 18707]]

       ``(iii) in the case of a partial delivery of the shipment, 
     the prorated percentage of the charges calculated in 
     accordance with subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Calculation of prorated charges.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), the prorated percentage of the charges 
     shall be the percentage of the total charges due to the 
     carrier as described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph 
     (A) that is equal to the percentage of the weight of that 
     portion of the shipment delivered to the total weight of the 
     shipment.
       ``(C) Post-contract services.--Subparagraph (A) does not 
     apply to additional services requested by a shipper after the 
     contract of service is executed that were not included in the 
     estimate.
       ``(D) Impracticable operations.--Subparagraph (A) does not 
     apply to impracticable operations, as defined by the 
     applicable carrier tariff, except that the charges collected 
     at delivery for such operations shall not exceed 15 percent 
     of all other charges due at delivery. Any remaining charges 
     due shall be paid within 30 days after the carrier presents 
     its freight bill.''.

     SEC. 4204. ADDITIONAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTOR 
                   CARRIERS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

       Section 13902(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5);
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Additional registration requirements for household 
     goods motor carriers.--In addition to meeting the 
     requirements of paragraph (1), the Secretary may register a 
     person to provide transportation of household goods as a 
     household goods motor carrier only after that person--
       ``(A) provides evidence of participation in an arbitration 
     program and provides a copy of the notice of the arbitration 
     program as required by section 14708(b)(2);
       ``(B) identifies its tariff and provides a copy of the 
     notice of the availability of that tariff for inspection as 
     required by section 13702(c);
       ``(C) provides evidence that it has access to, has read, is 
     familiar with, and will observe all applicable Federal laws 
     relating to consumer protection, estimating, consumers' 
     rights and responsibilities, and options for limitations of 
     liability for loss and damage; and
       ``(D) discloses any relationship involving common stock, 
     common ownership, common management, or common familial 
     relationships between that person and any other motor 
     carrier, freight forwarder, or broker of household goods 
     within 3 years of the proposed date of registration.
       ``(3) Consideration of evidence; findings.--The Secretary 
     shall consider, and, to the extent applicable, make findings 
     on any evidence demonstrating that the registrant is unable 
     to comply with any applicable requirement of paragraph (1) 
     or, in the case of a registrant to which paragraph (2) 
     applies, paragraph (1) or (2).
       ``(4) Withholding.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     registrant under this section does not meet, or is not able 
     to meet, any requirement of paragraph (1) or, in the case of 
     a registrant to which paragraph (2) applies, paragraph (1) or 
     (2), the Secretary shall withhold registration.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end of paragraph (5) (as redesignated 
     by paragraph (2) of this section) ``In the case of a 
     registration for the transportation of household goods as a 
     household goods motor carrier, the Secretary may also hear a 
     complaint on the ground that the registrant fails or will 
     fail to comply with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 4205. HOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIER OPERATIONS.

       Section 14104(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Required to be in writing.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, every motor carrier providing transportation of 
     household goods described in section 13102(10)(A) as a 
     household goods motor carrier and subject to jurisdiction 
     under subchapter I of chapter 135 shall conduct a physical 
     survey of the household goods to be transported on behalf of 
     a prospective individual shipper and shall provide the 
     shipper with a written estimate of charges for the 
     transportation and all related services.
       ``(B) Waiver.--A shipper may elect to waive a physical 
     survey under this paragraph by written agreement signed by 
     the shipper before the shipment is loaded. A copy of the 
     waiver agreement must be retained as an addendum to the bill 
     of lading and shall be subject to the same record inspection 
     and preservation requirements of the Secretary as are 
     applicable to bills of lading.
       ``(C) Estimate.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding a waiver under 
     subparagraph (B), a carrier's statement of charges for 
     transportation must be submitted to the shipper in writing 
     and must indicate whether it is binding or nonbinding. The 
     written estimate shall be based on a physical survey of the 
     household goods if the household goods are located within a 
     50-mile radius of the location of the carrier's household 
     goods agent preparing the estimate.
       ``(ii) Binding.--A binding estimate under this paragraph 
     must indicate that the carrier and shipper are bound by such 
     charges. The carrier may impose a charge for providing a 
     written binding estimate.
       ``(iii) Nonbinding.--A nonbinding estimate under this 
     paragraph must indicate that the actual charges will be based 
     upon the actual weight of the individual shipper's shipment 
     and the carrier's lawful tariff charges. The carrier may not 
     impose a charge for providing a nonbinding estimate.
       ``(2) Other information.--At the time that a motor carrier 
     provides the written estimate required by paragraph (1), the 
     motor carrier shall provide the shipper a copy of the 
     Department of Transportation publication FMCSA-ESA-03-005 (or 
     its successor publication) entitled `Ready to Move?'. Before 
     the execution of a contract for service, the motor carrier 
     shall provide the shipper copy of the Department of 
     Transportation publication OCE 100, entitled `Your Rights and 
     Responsibilities When You Move' required by section 375.213 
     of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor 
     regulation). ''.

     SEC. 4206. ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS RELATED TO 
                   TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

       (a) Nonpreemption of Intrastate Transportation of Household 
     Goods.--Section 14501(c)(2)(B) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``intrastate'' before 
     ``transportation''.
       (b) Enforcement of Federal Law With Respect to Interstate 
     Household Goods Carriers.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 147 of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 14710. Enforcement of Federal laws and regulations 
       with respect to transportation of household goods

       ``(a) Enforcement by States.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this title, a State authority may enforce the 
     consumer protection provisions of this title that apply to 
     individual shippers, as determined by the Secretary, and are 
     related to the delivery and transportation of household goods 
     in interstate commerce. Any fine or penalty imposed on a 
     carrier in a proceeding under this subsection shall be paid, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, to and retained 
     by the State.
       ``(b) Notice.--The State shall serve written notice to the 
     Secretary or the Board, as the case may be, of any civil 
     action under subsection (a) prior to initiating such civil 
     action. The notice shall include a copy of the complaint to 
     be filed to initiate such civil action, except that if it is 
     not feasible for the State to provide such prior notice, the 
     State shall provide the notice immediately upon instituting 
     such civil action.
       ``(c) Enforcement Assistance Outreach Plan.--The Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration shall implement an 
     outreach plan to enhance the coordination and effective 
     enforcement of Federal laws and regulations with respect to 
     transportation of household goods between and among Federal 
     and State law enforcement and consumer protection 
     authorities. The outreach shall include, as appropriate, 
     local law enforcement and consumer protection authorities.
       ``(d) State Authority Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `State authority' means an agency of a State that has 
     authority under the laws of the State to regulate the 
     intrastate movement of household goods.

     ``Sec. 14711. Enforcement by State attorneys general

       ``(a) In General.--A State, as parens patriae, may bring a 
     civil action on behalf of its residents in an appropriate 
     district court of the United States to enforce the consumer 
     protection provisions of this title that apply to individual 
     shippers, as determined by the Secretary, and are related to 
     the delivery and transportation of household goods by a 
     household goods motor carrier subject to jurisdiction under 
     subchapter I of chapter 135 or regulations or orders of the 
     Secretary or the Board issued under such provisions or to 
     impose the civil penalties authorized by this part or such 
     regulations or orders, whenever the attorney general of the 
     State has reason to believe that the interests of the 
     residents of the State have been or are being threatened or 
     adversely affected by a carrier or broker providing 
     transportation subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I or 
     III of chapter 135 or a foreign motor carrier providing 
     transportation that is registered under section 13902 and is 
     engaged in household goods transportation that violates this 
     part or a regulation or order of the Secretary or Board, as 
     applicable, issued under this part.
       ``(b) Notice and Consent.--
       ``(1) In general.--The State shall serve written notice to 
     the Secretary or the Board, as the case may be, of any civil 
     action under subsection (a) prior to initiating such civil 
     action. The notice shall include a copy of the complaint to 
     be filed to initiate such civil action.
       ``(2) Conditions.--The Secretary or the Board--
       ``(A) shall review the initiation of a civil action under 
     this section by a State if--
       ``(i) the carrier or broker that is the subject of the 
     action is not registered with the Department of 
     Transportation;
       ``(ii) the license of the carrier or broker for failure to 
     file proof of required bodily injury or cargo liability 
     insurance is pending, or the license has been revoked for any 
     other reason by the Department;
       ``(iii) the carrier is not rated or has received a 
     conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating by the 
     Department; or
       ``(iv) the carrier or broker has been licensed with the 
     Department for less than 5 years; and

[[Page 18708]]

       ``(B) may review if the carrier or broker fails to meet 
     criteria developed by the Secretary that are consistent with 
     this section.
       ``(3) Congressional notification.--The Secretary shall 
     notify the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation, of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representativesof any criteria developed by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(4) 60-day deadline.--The Secretary or the Board shall be 
     considered to have consented to any civil action of a State 
     under this section if the Secretary or the Board has taken no 
     action with respect to the notice within 60 calendar days 
     after the date on which the Secretary or the Board received 
     notice under paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Authority to Intervene.--Upon receiving the notice 
     required by subsection (b), the Secretary or board may 
     intervene in a civil action of a State under this section and 
     upon intervening--
       ``(1) be heard on all matters arising in such civil action; 
     and
       ``(2) file petitions for appeal of a decision in such civil 
     actions.
       ``(d) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under subsection (a), nothing in this section shall--
       ``(1) convey a right to initiate or maintain a class action 
     lawsuit in the enforcement of a Federal law or regulation; or
       ``(2) prevent the attorney general of a State from 
     exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by 
     the laws of such State to conduct investigations or to 
     administer oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance 
     of witnesses or the production of documentary and other 
     evidence.
       ``(e) Venue; Service of Process.--In a civil action brought 
     under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) the venue shall be a Federal judicial district in 
     which--
       ``(A) the carrier, foreign motor carrier, or broker 
     operates;
       ``(B) the carrier, foreign motor carrier, or broker was 
     authorized to provide transportation at the time the 
     complaint arose; or
       ``(C) where the defendant in the civil action is found;
       ``(2) process may be served without regard to the 
     territorial limits of the district or of the State in which 
     the civil action is instituted; and
       ``(3) a person who participated with a carrier or broker in 
     an alleged violation that is being litigated in the civil 
     action may be joined in the civil action without regard to 
     the residence of the person.
       ``(f) Enforcement of State Law.--Nothing contained in this 
     section shall prohibit an authorized State official from 
     proceeding in State court to enforce a criminal statute of 
     such State.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter 147 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     14709 the following:

``14710. Enforcement of Federal laws and regulations with respect to 
              transportation of household goods.
``14711. Enforcement by State attorneys general.''.

     SEC. 4207. LIABILITY OF CARRIERS UNDER RECEIPTS AND BILLS OF 
                   LADING.

       Section 14706(f) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``A carrier'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--A carrier''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Full value protection obligation.--Unless the carrier 
     receives a waiver in writing under paragraph (3), a carrier's 
     maximum liability for household goods that are lost, damaged, 
     destroyed, or otherwise not delivered to the final 
     destination is an amount equal to the replacement value of 
     such goods, subject to a maximum amount equal to the declared 
     value of the shipment and to rules issued by the Surface 
     Transportation Board and applicable tariffs.
       ``(3) Application of rates.--The released rates established 
     by the Board under paragraph (1) (commonly known as `released 
     rates') shall not apply to the transportation of household 
     goods by a carrier unless the liability of the carrier for 
     the full value of such household goods under paragraph (2) is 
     waived, in writing, by the shipper.''.

     SEC. 4208. ARBITRATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Offering Shippers Arbitration.--Section 14708(a) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting before 
     the period at the end the following: ``and to determine 
     whether carrier charges, in addition to those collected at 
     delivery, must be paid by shippers for transportation and 
     services related to transportation of household goods''.
       (b) Threshold for Binding Arbitration.--Section 14708(b)(6) 
     of such title is amended by striking ``$5,000'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``$10,000''.
       (c) Deadline for Decision.--Section 14708(b)(8) of such 
     title is amended in last sentence--
       (1) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``for damages'' the following: ``, 
     and an order requiring the payment of additional carrier 
     charges''.
       (d) Attorney's Fees to Shippers.--Section 14708(d)(3) of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (2) by striking ``(3)(A) a decision resolving the dispute 
     was not'' and inserting the following:
       ``(3)(A) the shipper was not advised by the carrier during 
     the claim settlement process that a dispute settlement 
     program was available to resolve the dispute;
       ``(B) a decision resolving the dispute was not''.

     SEC. 4209. CIVIL PENALTIES RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD GOODS 
                   BROKERS AND UNAUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION.

       Section 14901(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``If a carrier'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--If a carrier''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Estimate of broker without carrier agreement.--If a 
     broker for transportation of household goods subject to 
     jurisdiction under subchapter I of chapter 135 makes an 
     estimate of the cost of transporting any such goods before 
     entering into an agreement with a carrier to provide 
     transportation of household goods subject to such 
     jurisdiction, the broker is liable to the United States for a 
     civil penalty of not less than $10,000 for each violation.
       ``(3) Unauthorized transportation.--If a person provides 
     transportation of household goods subject to jurisdiction 
     under subchapter I of chapter 135 or provides broker services 
     for such transportation without being registered under 
     chapter 139 to provide such transportation or services as a 
     motor carrier or broker, as the case may be, such person is 
     liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not less 
     than $25,000 for each violation.''.

     SEC. 4210. PENALTIES FOR HOLDING HOUSEHOLD GOODS HOSTAGE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 149 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 14915. Penalties for failure to give up possession of 
       household goods

       ``(a) Civil Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever is found holding a household 
     goods shipment hostage is liable to the United States for a 
     civil penalty of not less than $10,000 for each violation.
       ``(2) Each day, a separate violation.--Each day a carrier 
     is found to have failed to give up possession of household 
     goods may constitute a separate violation.
       ``(3) Suspension.--If the person found holding a shipment 
     hostage is a carrier or broker, the Secretary may suspend for 
     a period of not less than 12 months nor more than 36 months 
     the registration of such carrier or broker under chapter 139. 
     The force and effect of such suspension of a carrier or 
     broker shall extend to and include any carrier or broker 
     having the same ownership or operational control as the 
     suspended carrier or broker.
       ``(b) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever has been convicted of 
     having failed to give up possession of household goods shall 
     be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 2 
     years, or both.
       ``(c) Failure to Give Up Possession of Household Goods 
     Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term `failed to 
     give up possession of household goods' means the knowing and 
     willful failure, in violation of a contract, to deliver to, 
     or unload at, the destination of a shipment of household 
     goods that is subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I or 
     III of chapter 135 of this title, for which charges have been 
     estimated by the motor carrier providing transportation of 
     such goods, and for which the shipper has tendered a payment 
     described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 
     13707(b)(3)(A).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``14915. Penalties for failure to give up possession of household 
              goods.''.

     SEC. 4211. CONSUMER HANDBOOK ON DOT WEB SITE.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary 
     to ensure that publication ESA 03005 of the Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Administration entitled ``Your Rights and 
     Responsibilities When You Move'', is prominently displayed, 
     and available in language that is readily understandable by 
     the general public, on the Web site of the Department of 
     Transportation.

     SEC. 4212. RELEASE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS BROKER INFORMATION.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall modify the regulations contained in 
     part 375 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require 
     a broker that is subject to such regulations to provide 
     shippers with the following information whenever they have 
     contact with a shipper or potential shipper:
       (1) The Department of Transportation number of the broker.
       (2) The ESA 03005 publication referred to in section 4211 
     of this Act.
       (3) A list of all motor carriers providing transportation 
     of household goods used by the broker and a statement that 
     the broker is not a motor carrier providing transportation of 
     household goods.

     SEC. 4213. WORKING GROUP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PRACTICES AND 
                   PROCEDURES TO ENHANCE FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     working group of State attorneys general, State consumer 
     protection administrators, and Federal and local law 
     enforcement officials for the purpose of developing practices 
     and procedures to enhance the Federal-State partnership in 
     enforcement efforts, exchange of information, and 
     coordination of enforcement efforts with respect to 
     interstate

[[Page 18709]]

     transportation of household goods and of making legislative 
     and regulatory recommendations to the Secretary concerning 
     such enforcement efforts.
       (b) Consultation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     working group shall consult with industries involved in the 
     transportation of household goods, the public, and other 
     interested parties.
       (c) Federal Advisory Committee Act Exemption.--The Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the 
     working group established under subsection (a).
       (d) Termination Date.--The working group shall remain in 
     effect until September 30, 2009.

     SEC. 4214. CONSUMER COMPLAINT INFORMATION.

       (a) Establishment of System.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (1) establish (A) a system for filing and logging consumer 
     complaints relating to household goods motor carriers for the 
     purpose of compiling or linking complaint information 
     gathered by the Department of Transportation and the States 
     with regard to such carriers, (B) a database of the 
     complaints, and (C) a procedure for the public to have 
     access, subject to section 552(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, to aggregated information and for carriers to challenge 
     duplicate or fraudulent information in the database;
       (2) issue regulations requiring each motor carrier of 
     household goods to submit on a quarterly basis a report 
     summarizing--
       (A) the number of shipments that originate and are 
     delivered for individual shippers during the reporting period 
     by the carrier;
       (B) the number and general category of complaints lodged by 
     consumers with the carrier;
       (C) the number of claims filed with the carrier for loss 
     and damage in excess of $500;
       (D) the number of such claims resolved during the reporting 
     period;
       (E) the number of such claims declined in the reporting 
     period; and
       (F) the number of such claims that are pending at the close 
     of the reporting period; and
       (3) develop a procedure to forward a complaint, including 
     the motor carrier bill of lading number, if known, related to 
     the complaint to a motor carrier named in such complaint and 
     to an appropriate State authority (as defined in section 
     14710(d) of title 49, United States Code) in the State in 
     which the complainant resides.
       (b) Use of Information.--The Secretary shall consider 
     information in the data base established under subsection (a) 
     in its household goods compliance and enforcement program.

     SEC. 4215. REVIEW OF LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

       (a) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Surface Transportation Board shall 
     complete a review of the current Federal regulations 
     regarding the level of liability protection provided by motor 
     carriers that provide transportation of household goods and 
     revise such regulations, if necessary, to provide enhanced 
     protection in the case of loss or damage.
       (b) Determinations.--The review required by subsection (a) 
     shall include a determination of--
       (1) whether the current regulations provide adequate 
     protection;
       (2) the benefits of purchase by a shipper of insurance to 
     supplement the carrier's limitations on liability; and
       (3) whether there are abuses of the current regulations 
     that leave the shipper unprotected in the event of loss and 
     damage to a shipment of household goods.

     SEC. 4216. APPLICATION OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS TO 
                   CERTAIN HOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIERS.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on the current consumer protection authorities and actions of 
     the Department of Transportation and the impact on shippers 
     and carriers of household goods involved in interstate 
     transportation of allowing State attorneys general to apply 
     State consumer protection laws to such transportation.
       (b) Matters to Be Considered.--In conducting the study, the 
     Comptroller General shall consider, at a minimum--
       (1) the level of consumer protection being provided to 
     consumers through Federal household goods regulations and how 
     household goods regulations relating to consumer protection 
     compare to regulations relating to consumer protection for 
     other modes of transportation regulated by the Department of 
     Transportation;
       (2) the history and background of State enforcement of 
     State consumer protection laws on household goods carriers 
     providing intrastate transportation and what effects such 
     laws have on the ability of intrastate household goods 
     carriers to operate;
       (3) what operational impacts, if any, would result on 
     household goods carriers engaged in interstate commerce being 
     subject to the State consumer protection laws; and
       (4) the potential for States to regulate rates or other 
     business operations if State consumer protection laws applied 
     to interstate household goods movements.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Comptroller 
     General shall consult with the Secretary, State attorneys 
     general, consumer protection agencies, and the household 
     goods industry.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit 
     to the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science and Transportation of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the study.
          Subtitle C--Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005

     SEC. 4301. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Unified Carrier 
     Registration Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 4302. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

       Except as provided in section 14504 of title 49, United 
     States Code, and sections 14504a and 14506 of title 49, 
     United States Code, as added by this subtitle, this subtitle 
     is not intended to prohibit any State or any political 
     subdivision of any State from enacting, imposing, or 
     enforcing any law or regulation with respect to a motor 
     carrier, motor private carrier, broker, freight forwarder, or 
     leasing company that is not otherwise prohibited by law.

     SEC. 4303. INCLUSION OF MOTOR PRIVATE AND EXEMPT CARRIERS.

       (a) Persons Registered to Provide Transportation or Service 
     as a Motor Carrier or Motor Private Carrier.--Section 13905 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Person Registered With Secretary.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     person having registered with the Secretary to provide 
     transportation or service as a motor carrier or motor private 
     carrier under this title, as in effect on January 1, 2005, 
     but not having registered pursuant to section 13902(a), shall 
     be treated, for purposes of this part, to be registered to 
     provide such transportation or service for purposes of 
     sections 13908 and 14504a.
       ``(2) Exclusively intrastate operators.--Paragraph (1) does 
     not apply to a motor carrier or motor private carrier 
     (including a transporter of waste or recyclable materials) 
     engaged exclusively in intrastate transportation 
     operations.''.
       (b) Security Requirement.--Section 13906(a) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Security requirement.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of the Unified Carrier Registration Act 
     of 2005, any person, other than a motor private carrier, 
     registered with the Secretary to provide transportation or 
     service as a motor carrier under section 13905(b) shall file 
     with the Secretary a bond, insurance policy, or other type of 
     security approved by the Secretary, in an amount not less 
     than required by sections 31138 and 31139.''.
       (c) Termination of Transition Rule.--Section 13902 of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following:
       ``(3) Termination.--This subsection shall cease to be in 
     effect on the transition termination date.''; and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g), and 
     inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Modification of Carrier Registration.--
       ``(1) In general.--On and after the transition termination 
     date, the Secretary--
       ``(A) may not register a motor carrier under this section 
     as a motor common carrier or a motor contract carrier;
       ``(B) shall register applicants under this section as motor 
     carriers; and
       ``(C) shall issue any motor carrier registered under this 
     section after that date a motor carrier certificate of 
     registration that specifies whether the holder of the 
     certificate may provide transportation of persons, household 
     goods, other property, or any combination thereof.
       ``(2) Pre-existing certificates and permits.--The Secretary 
     shall redesignate any motor carrier certificate or permit 
     issued before the transition termination date as a motor 
     carrier certificate of registration. On and after the 
     transition termination date, any person holding a motor 
     carrier certificate of registration redesignated under this 
     paragraph may provide both contract carriage (as defined in 
     section 13102(4)(B)) and transportation under terms and 
     conditions meeting the requirements of section 13710(a)(1). 
     The Secretary may not, pursuant to any regulation or form 
     issued before or after the transition termination date, make 
     any distinction among holders of motor carrier certificates 
     of registration on the basis of whether the holder would have 
     been classified as a common carrier or as a contract carrier 
     under--
       ``(A) subsection (d) of this section, as that section was 
     in effect before the transition termination date; or
       ``(B) any other provision of this title that was in effect 
     before the transition termination date.
       ``(3) Transition termination date defined.--In this 
     section, the term `transition termination date' means the 
     first day of January occurring more than 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of the Unified Carrier Registration Act of 
     2005.''.
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Heading for section 13906.--Section 13906 of such title 
     is amended by striking the section designation and heading 
     and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 13906. Security of motor carriers, motor private 
       carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders''.

       (2) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for chapter 139 of such 
     title is amended by striking the item relating to section 
     13906 and inserting the following:

``13906. Security of motor carriers, motor private carriers, brokers, 
              and freight forwarders.''.

[[Page 18710]]



     SEC. 4304. UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION SYSTEM.

       Section 13908 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 13908. Registration and other reforms

       ``(a) Establishment of Unified Carrier Registration 
     System.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the States, 
     representatives of the motor carrier, motor private carrier, 
     freight forwarder, and broker industries and after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment, shall issue within 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of the Unified Carrier 
     Registration Act of 2005 regulations to establish an online 
     Federal registration system, to be named the `Unified Carrier 
     Registration System', to replace--
       ``(1) the current Department of Transportation 
     identification number system, the single state registration 
     system under section 14504;
       ``(2) the registration system contained in this chapter and 
     the financial responsibility information system under section 
     13906; and
       ``(3) the service of process agent systems under sections 
     503 and 13304.
       ``(b) Role as Clearinghouse and Depository of 
     Information.--The Unified Carrier Registration System shall 
     serve as a clearinghouse and depository of information on, 
     and identification of, all foreign and domestic motor 
     carriers, motor private carriers, brokers, freight 
     forwarders, and others required to register with the 
     Department of Transportation, including information with 
     respect to a carrier's safety rating, compliance with 
     required levels of financial responsibility, and compliance 
     with the provisions of section 14504a. The Secretary shall 
     ensure that Federal agencies, States, representatives of the 
     motor carrier industry, and the public have access to the 
     Unified Carrier Registration System, including the records 
     and information contained in the System.
       ``(c) Procedures for Correcting Information.--Not later 
     than 60 days after the effective date of this section, the 
     Secretary shall prescribe regulations establishing procedures 
     that enable a motor carrier to correct erroneous information 
     contained in any part of the Unified Carrier Registration 
     System.
       ``(d) Fee System.--The Secretary shall establish, under 
     section 9701 of title 31, a fee system for the Unified 
     Carrier Registration System according to the following 
     guidelines:
       ``(1) Registration and filing evidence of financial 
     responsibility.--The fee for new registrants shall as nearly 
     as possible cover the costs of processing the registration 
     but shall not exceed $300.
       ``(2) Evidence of financial responsibility.--The fee for 
     filing evidence of financial responsibility pursuant to this 
     section shall not exceed $10 per filing. No fee shall be 
     charged for a filing for purposes of designating an agent for 
     service of process or the filing of other information 
     relating to financial responsibility.
       ``(3) Access and retrieval fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the fee system shall include a nominal fee for the access to 
     or retrieval of information from the Unified Carrier 
     Registration System to cover the costs of operating and 
     upgrading the System, including the personnel costs incurred 
     by the Department and the costs of administration of the 
     unified carrier registration agreement.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--There shall be no fee charged under this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) to any agency of the Federal Government or a State 
     government or any political subdivision of any such 
     government for the access to or retrieval of information and 
     data from the Unified Carrier Registration System for its own 
     use; or
       ``(ii) to any representative of a motor carrier, motor 
     private carrier, leasing company, broker, or freight 
     forwarder (as each is defined in section 14504a) for the 
     access to or retrieval of the individual information related 
     to such entity from the Unified Carrier Registration System 
     for the individual use of such entity.
       ``(e) Application to Certain Intrastate Operations.--
     Nothing in this section requires the registration of a motor 
     carrier, a motor private carrier of property, or a 
     transporter of waste or recyclable materials operating 
     exclusively in intrastate transportation not otherwise 
     required to register with the Secretary under another 
     provision of this title.''.

     SEC. 4305. REGISTRATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS BY STATES.

       (a) Termination of Registration Provisions.--Section 14504, 
     and the item relating to such section in the analysis for 
     chapter 145, of title 49, United States Code, are repealed 
     effective on the first January 1st occurring more than 12 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Unified Carrier Registration System Plan and 
     Agreement.--Chapter 145 of title 49, United States Code is 
     amended by inserting after section 14504 the following:

     ``Sec. 14504a. Unified Carrier Registration System plan and 
       agreement

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section and section 14506, the 
     following definitions apply :
       ``(1) Commercial motor vehicle.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `commercial motor vehicle' has the meaning such term 
     has under section 31101.
       ``(B) Exception.--With respect to a motor carrier required 
     to make any filing or pay any fee to a State with respect to 
     the motor carrier's authority or insurance related to 
     operation within such State, the motor carrier shall have the 
     option to include, in addition to commercial motor vehicles 
     as defined in subparagraph (A), any self-propelled vehicle 
     used on the highway in commerce to transport passengers or 
     property for compensation regardless of the gross vehicle 
     weight rating of the vehicle or the number of passengers 
     transported by such vehicle.
       ``(2) Base-state.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     `base-State' means, with respect to a unified carrier 
     registration agreement, a State--
       ``(i) that is in compliance with the requirements of 
     subsection (e); and
       ``(ii) in which the motor carrier, motor private carrier, 
     broker, freight forwarder, or leasing company to which the 
     agreement applies maintains its principal place of business.
       ``(B) Designation of base-state.--A motor carrier, motor 
     private carrier, broker, freight forwarder, or leasing 
     company may designate another State in which it maintains an 
     office or operating facility to be its base-State in the 
     event that--
       ``(i) the State in which the motor carrier, motor private 
     carrier, broker, freight forwarder, or leasing company 
     maintains its principal place of business is not in 
     compliance with the requirements of subsection (e); or
       ``(ii) the motor carrier, motor private carrier, broker, 
     freight forwarder, or leasing company does not have a 
     principal place of business in the United States.
       ``(3) Intrastate fee.--The term `intrastate fee' means any 
     fee, tax, or other type of assessment, including per vehicle 
     fees and gross receipts taxes, imposed on a motor carrier or 
     motor private carrier for the renewal of the intrastate 
     authority or insurance filings of such carrier with a State.
       ``(4) Leasing company.--The term `leasing company' means a 
     lessor that is engaged in the business of leasing or renting 
     for compensation motor vehicles without drivers to a motor 
     carrier, motor private carrier, or freight forwarder.
       ``(5) Motor carrier.--The term `motor carrier' includes all 
     carriers that are otherwise exempt from this part under 
     subchapter I of chapter 135 or exemption actions by the 
     former Interstate Commerce Commission under this title.
       ``(6) Participating state.--The term `participating State' 
     means a State that has complied with the requirements of 
     subsection (e).
       ``(7) SSRS.--The term `SSRS' means the single state 
     registration system in effect on the date of enactment this 
     section.
       ``(8) Unified carrier registration agreement.--The terms 
     `unified carrier registration agreement' and `UCR agreement' 
     mean the interstate agreement developed under the unified 
     carrier registration plan governing the collection and 
     distribution of registration and financial responsibility 
     information provided and fees paid by motor carriers, motor 
     private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing 
     companies pursuant to this section.
       ``(9) Unified carrier registration plan.--The terms 
     `unified carrier registration plan' and `UCR plan' mean the 
     organization of State, Federal, and industry representatives 
     responsible for developing, implementing, and administering 
     the unified carrier registration agreement.
       ``(10) Vehicle registration.--The term `vehicle 
     registration' means the registration of any commercial motor 
     vehicle under the International Registration Plan (as defined 
     in section 31701) or any other registration law or regulation 
     of a jurisdiction.
       ``(b) Applicability of Provisions to Freight Forwarders.--A 
     freight forwarder that operates commercial motor vehicles and 
     is not required to register as a carrier pursuant to section 
     13903(b) shall be subject to the provisions of this section 
     as if the freight forwarder is a motor carrier.
       ``(c) Unreasonable Burden.--For purposes of this section, 
     it shall be considered an unreasonable burden upon interstate 
     commerce for any State or any political subdivision of a 
     State, or any political authority of 2 or more States--
       ``(1) to enact, impose, or enforce any requirement or 
     standards with respect to, or levy any fee or charge on, any 
     motor carrier or motor private carrier providing 
     transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under 
     subchapter I of chapter 135 (in this section referred to as 
     an `interstate motor carrier' and an `interstate motor 
     private carrier', respectively) in connection with--
       ``(A) the registration with the State of the interstate 
     operations of the motor carrier or motor private carrier;
       ``(B) the filing with the State of information relating to 
     the financial responsibility of the a motor carrier or motor 
     private carrier pursuant to sections 31138 or 31139;
       ``(C) the filing with the State of the name of the local 
     agent for service of process of the motor carrier or motor 
     private carrier pursuant to sections 503 or 13304; or
       ``(D) the annual renewal of the intrastate authority, or 
     the insurance filings, of the motor carrier or motor private 
     carrier, or other intrastate filing requirement necessary to 
     operate within the State if the motor carrier or motor 
     private carrier is--
       ``(i) registered under section 13902 or section 13905(b); 
     and
       ``(ii) in compliance with the laws and regulations of the 
     State authorizing the carrier to operate in the State in 
     accordance with section 14501(c)(2)(A); except with respect 
     to--

       ``(I) intrastate service provided by motor carriers of 
     passengers that is not subject to the preemption provisions 
     of section 14501(a);
       ``(II) motor carriers of property, motor private carriers, 
     brokers, or freight forwarders, or their services or 
     operations, that are described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) 
     of section 14501(c)(2).

[[Page 18711]]

       ``(III) the intrastate transportation of waste or 
     recyclable materials by any carrier; or

       ``(2) to require any interstate motor carrier or motor 
     private carrier that also performs intrastate operations to 
     pay any fee or tax which a carrier engaged exclusively in 
     interstate operations is exempt.
       ``(d) Unified Carrier Registration Plan.--
       ``(1) Board of directors.--
       ``(A) Governance of plan; establishment.--The unified 
     carrier registration plan shall have a board of directors 
     consisting of representatives of the Department of 
     Transportation, participating States, and the motor carrier 
     industry. The Secretary shall establish the board.
       ``(B) Composition.--The board shall consist of 15 directors 
     appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       ``(i) Federal motor carrier safety administration.--One 
     director from each of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration's 4 service areas (as those areas were defined 
     by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration on January 
     1, 2005) from among the chief administrative officers of the 
     State agencies responsible for overseeing the administration 
     of the UCR agreement.
       ``(ii) State agencies.--Five directors from the 
     professional staffs of State agencies responsible for 
     overseeing the administration of the UCR agreement in their 
     respective States. Nominees for these 5 directorships shall 
     be submitted to the Secretary by the national association of 
     professional employees of the State agencies responsible for 
     overseeing the administration of the UCR agreement in their 
     respective States.
       ``(iii) Motor carrier industry.--Five directors from the 
     motor carrier industry. At least 1 of the appointees under 
     this clause shall be a representative of a national trade 
     association representing the general motor carrier of 
     property industry. At least 1 of the appointees under this 
     clause shall represent a motor carrier that falls within the 
     smallest fleet fee bracket.
       ``(iv) Department of transportation.--The Deputy 
     Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration, or such other presidential appointee from the 
     Department, as the Secretary may appoint.
       ``(C) Chairperson and vice-chairperson.--The Secretary 
     shall designate 1 director as chairperson and 1 director as 
     vice-chairperson of the board. The chairperson and vice-
     chairperson shall serve in such capacity for the term of 
     their appointment as directors.
       ``(D) Terms.--
       ``(i) Initial terms.--In appointing the initial board, the 
     Secretary shall designate 5 of the appointed directors for 
     initial terms of 3 years, 5 of the appointed directors for 
     initial terms of 2 years, and 5 of the appointed directors 
     for initial terms of 1 year.
       ``(ii) Thereafter.--After the initial term, all directors 
     shall be appointed for terms of 3 years; except that the term 
     of the Deputy Administrator or other individual designated by 
     the Secretary under subparagraph (B)(iv) shall be at the 
     discretion of the Secretary.
       ``(iii) Succession.--A director may be appointed to succeed 
     himself or herself.
       ``(iv) End of service.--A director may continue to serve on 
     the board until his or her successor is appointed.
       ``(2) Rules and regulations governing the ucr agreement.--
     The board of directors shall issue rules and regulations to 
     govern the UCR agreement. The rules and regulations shall--
       ``(A) prescribe uniform forms and formats, for--
       ``(i) the annual submission of the information required by 
     a base-State of a motor carrier, motor private carrier, 
     leasing company, broker, or freight forwarder;
       ``(ii) the transmission of information by a participating 
     State to the Unified Carrier Registration System;
       ``(iii) the payment of excess fees by a State to the 
     designated depository and the distribution of fees by the 
     depository to those States so entitled; and
       ``(iv) the providing of notice by a motor carrier, motor 
     private carrier, broker, freight forwarder, or leasing 
     company to the board of the intent of such entity to change 
     its base-State, and the procedures for a State to object to 
     such a change under subparagraph (C);
       ``(B) provide for the administration of the unified carrier 
     registration agreement, including procedures for amending the 
     agreement and obtaining clarification of any provision of the 
     Agreement;
       ``(C) provide procedures for dispute resolution under the 
     agreement that provide due process for all involved parties; 
     and
       ``(D) designate a depository.
       ``(3) Compensation and expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except for the representative of the 
     Department appointed under paragraph (1)(B)(iv), no director 
     shall receive any compensation or other benefits from the 
     Federal Government for serving on the board or be considered 
     a Federal employee as a result of such service.
       ``(B) Expenses.--All directors shall be reimbursed for 
     expenses they incur attending meetings of the board. In 
     addition, the board may approve the reimbursement of expenses 
     incurred by members of any subcommittee or task force 
     appointed under paragraph (5) for carrying out the duties of 
     the subcommittee or task force. The reimbursement of expenses 
     to directors and subcommittee and task force members shall be 
     under subchapter II of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, governing reimbursement of expenses for travel by 
     Federal employees.
       ``(4) Meetings.--
       ``(A) In general.--The board shall meet at least once per 
     year. Additional meetings may be called, as needed, by the 
     chairperson of the board, a majority of the directors, or the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Quorum.--A majority of directors shall constitute a 
     quorum.
       ``(C) Voting.--Approval of any matter before the board 
     shall require the approval of a majority of all directors 
     present at the meeting.
       ``(D) Open meetings.--Meetings of the board and any 
     subcommittees or task forces appointed under paragraph (5) 
     shall be subject to the provisions of section 552b of title 
     5.
       ``(5) Subcommittees.--
       ``(A) Industry advisory subcommittee.--The chairperson 
     shall appoint an industry advisory subcommittee. The industry 
     advisory subcommittee shall consider any matter before the 
     board and make recommendations to the board.
       ``(B) Other subcommittees.--The chairperson shall appoint 
     an audit subcommittee, a dispute resolution subcommittee, and 
     any additional subcommittees and task forces that the board 
     determines to be necessary.
       ``(C) Membership.--The chairperson of each subcommittee 
     shall be a director. The other members of subcommittees and 
     task forces may be directors or nondirectors.
       ``(D) Representation on subcommittees.--Except for the 
     industry advisory subcommittee (the membership of which shall 
     consist solely of representatives of entities subject to the 
     fee requirements of subsection (f)), each subcommittee and 
     task force shall include representatives of the participating 
     States and the motor carrier industry.
       ``(6) Delegation of authority.--The board may contract with 
     any person or any agency of a State to perform administrative 
     functions required under the unified carrier registration 
     agreement, but may not delegate its decision or policy-making 
     responsibilities.
       ``(7) Determination of fees.--
       ``(A) Recommendation by board.--The board shall recommend 
     to the Secretary the initial annual fees to be assessed 
     carriers, leasing companies, brokers, and freight forwarders 
     under the unified carrier registration agreement. In making 
     its recommendation to the Secretary for the level of fees to 
     be assessed in any agreement year, and in setting the fee 
     level, the board and the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(i) the administrative costs associated with the unified 
     carrier registration plan and the agreement;
       ``(ii) whether the revenues generated in the previous year 
     and any surplus or shortage from that or prior years enable 
     the participating States to achieve the revenue levels set by 
     the board; and
       ``(iii) the provisions governing fees under in subsection 
     (f)(1).
       ``(B) Setting fees.--The Secretary shall set the initial 
     annual fees for the next agreement year and any subsequent 
     adjustment of those fees--
       ``(i) within 90 days after receiving the board's 
     recommendation under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) after notice and opportunity for public comment.
       ``(8) Liability protections for directors.--No individual 
     appointed to serve on the board shall be liable to any other 
     director or to any other party for harm, either economic or 
     non-economic, caused by an act or omission of the individual 
     arising from the individual's service on the board if--
       ``(A) the individual was acting within the scope of his or 
     her responsibilities as a director; and
       ``(B) the harm was not caused by willful or criminal 
     misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a 
     conscious, flagrant indifference to the right or safety of 
     the party harmed by the individual.
       ``(9) Inapplicability of federal advisory committee act.--
     The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the unified carrier registration plan, the board, or 
     its committees.
       ``(10) Certain fees not affected.--This section does not 
     limit the amount of money a State may charge for vehicle 
     registration or the amount of any fuel use tax a State may 
     impose pursuant to the International Fuel Tax Agreement (as 
     defined in section 31701).
       ``(e) State Participation.--
       ``(1) State plan.--No State shall be eligible to 
     participate in the unified carrier registration plan or to 
     receive any revenues derived under the UCR agreement, unless 
     the State submits to the Secretary, not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of the Unified Carrier 
     Registration Act of 2005, a plan--
       ``(A) identifying the State agency that has or will have 
     the legal authority, resources, and qualified personnel 
     necessary to administer the agreement in accordance with the 
     rules and regulations promulgated by the board of directors; 
     and
       ``(B) demonstrating that an amount at least equal to the 
     revenue derived by the State from the unified carrier 
     registration agreement shall be used for motor carrier safety 
     programs, enforcement, or the administration of the UCR plan 
     and UCR agreement.
       ``(2) Amended plans.--A State that submits a plan under 
     this subsection may change the agency designated in the plan 
     by filing an amended plan with the Secretary and the 
     chairperson of the board of directors.
       ``(3) Withdrawal of plan.--If a State withdraws, or 
     notifies the Secretary that it is withdrawing, the plan it 
     submitted under this subsection, the State may no longer 
     participate in the unified carrier registration agreement or 
     receive any portion of the revenues derived under

[[Page 18712]]

     the agreement. The Secretary shall notify the chairperson 
     upon receiving notice from a State that it is withdrawing its 
     plan or withdrawing from the agreement, or both.
       ``(4) Termination of eligibility.--If a State fails to 
     submit a plan to the Secretary in accordance with paragraph 
     (1) or withdraws its plan under paragraph (3), the State may 
     not submit or resubmit a plan or participate in the 
     agreement.
       ``(5) Provision of plan to chairperson.--The Secretary 
     shall provide a copy of each plan submitted under this 
     subsection to the chairperson of the board of directors not 
     later than 10 days after date of submission of the plan.
       ``(f) Contents of Unified Carrier Registration Agreement.--
     The unified carrier registration agreement shall provide the 
     following:
       ``(1) Fees.--(A) Fees charged--
       ``(i) to a motor carrier, motor private carrier, or freight 
     forwarder in connection with the filing of proof of financial 
     responsibility under the UCR agreement shall be based on the 
     number of commercial motor vehicles owned or operated by the 
     motor carrier, motor private carrier, or freight forwarder; 
     and
       ``(ii) to a broker or leasing company in connection with 
     such a filing shall be equal to the smallest fee charged to a 
     motor carrier, motor private carrier, and freight forwarder 
     or under this paragraph.
       ``(B) The fees shall be determined by the Secretary based 
     upon the recommendation of the board under subsection (d)(7).
       ``(C) The board shall develop for purposes of charging fees 
     no more than 6 and no less than 4 brackets of carriers 
     (including motor private carriers) based on the size of 
     fleet.
       ``(D) The fee scale shall be progressive in the amount of 
     the fee.
       ``(E) The board may ask the Secretary to adjust the fees 
     within a reasonable range on an annual basis if the revenues 
     derived from the fees--
       ``(i) are insufficient to provide the revenues to which the 
     States are entitled under this section; or
       ``(ii) exceed those revenues.
       ``(2) Determination of ownership or operation.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, a commercial motor vehicle is 
     owned or operated by a motor carrier, motor private carrier, 
     or freight forwarder if the vehicle is registered under 
     Federal law or State law, or both, in the name of the motor 
     carrier, motor private carrier, or freight forwarder or is 
     controlled by the motor carrier, motor private carrier, or 
     freight forwarder under a long term lease during a vehicle 
     registration year.
       ``(3) Calculation of number of commercial motor vehicles 
     owned or operated.--The number of commercial motor vehicles 
     owned or operated by a motor carrier, motor private carrier, 
     or freight forwarder for purposes of paragraph (1) shall be 
     based either on the number of commercial motor vehicles the 
     motor carrier, motor private carrier, or freight forwarder 
     has indicated it operates on its most recently filed MCS-150 
     or the total number of such vehicles it owned or operated for 
     the 12-month period ending on June 30 of the year immediately 
     prior to the registration year of the Unified Carrier 
     Registration System. A motor carrier may include in the 
     calculation of its fleet size for purposes of paragraph (1) 
     any commercial motor vehicle. Motor carriers and motor 
     private carriers in the calculation of their fleet size for 
     purposes of paragraph (1) may elect not to include commercial 
     motor vehicle used exclusively in the intrastate 
     transportation of property, waste, or recyclable material.
       ``(4) Payment of fees.--Motor carriers, motor private 
     carriers, leasing companies, brokers, and freight forwarders 
     shall pay all fees required under this section to their base-
     State pursuant to the UCR Agreement.
       ``(g) Payment of Fees.--Revenues derived under the UCR 
     Agreement shall be allocated to participating States as 
     follows:
       ``(1) A State that participated in the SSRS in the last 
     registration year under the SSRS ending before the date of 
     enactment of the Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005 and 
     complies with subsection (e) is entitled to receive under 
     this section a portion of the revenues generated under the 
     UCR agreement equivalent to the revenues it received under 
     the SSRS in such last registration year, as long as the State 
     continues to comply with subsection (e).
       ``(2) A State that collected intrastate registration fees 
     from interstate motor carriers, interstate motor private 
     carriers, or interstate exempt carriers and complies with 
     subsection (e) is entitled to receive under this section an 
     additional portion of the revenues generated under the UCR 
     agreement equivalent to the revenues it received from such 
     carriers in the last calendar year ending before the date of 
     enactment of the Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005, as 
     long as the State continues to comply with subsection (e).
       ``(3) States that comply with subsection (e) but did not 
     participate in SSRS during such last registration year shall 
     be entitled under this section to an annual allotment not to 
     exceed $500,000 from the revenues generated under the UCR 
     agreement, as long as the State continues to comply with the 
     provisions of subsection (e).
       ``(4) The amount of revenues generated under the UCR 
     agreement to which a State is entitled under this section 
     shall be calculated by the board and approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(h) Distribution of UCR Agreement Revenues.--
       ``(1) Eligibility.--Each State that is in compliance with 
     subsection (e) shall be entitled under this section to a 
     portion of the revenues derived from the UCR Agreement in 
     accordance with subsection (g).
       ``(2) Entitlement to revenues.--A State that is in 
     compliance with subsection (e) may retain an amount of the 
     gross revenues it collects from motor carriers, motor private 
     carriers, brokers, freight forwarders and leasing companies 
     under the UCR agreement equivalent to the portion of revenues 
     to which the State is entitled under subsection (g). All 
     revenues a participating State collects in excess of the 
     amount to which the State is so entitled shall be forwarded 
     to the depository designated by the board under subsection 
     (d)(2)(D).
       ``(3) Distribution of funds from depository.--The excess 
     funds deposited in the depository shall be distributed by the 
     board of directors as follows:
       ``(A) On a pro rata basis to each participating State that 
     did not collect revenues under the UCR agreement equivalent 
     to the amount such State is entitled under subsection (g), 
     except that the sum of the gross revenues collected under the 
     UCR agreement by a participating State and the amount 
     distributed to it from the depository shall not exceed the 
     amount to which the State is entitled under subsection (g).
       ``(B) After all distributions under subparagraph (A) have 
     been made, to pay the administrative costs of the UCR plan 
     and the UCR agreement.
       ``(4) Retention of certain excess funds.--Any excess funds 
     held by the depository after distributions and payments under 
     paragraphs (3)(A) and (3)(B) shall be retained in the 
     depository, and the fees charged under the UCR agreement to 
     motor carriers, motor private carriers, leasing companies, 
     freight forwarders, and brokers for the next fee year shall 
     be reduced by the Secretary accordingly.
       ``(i) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Civil actions.--Upon request by the Secretary, the 
     Attorney General may bring a civil action in the United 
     States district court described in paragraph (2) to enforce 
     an order issued to require compliance with this section and 
     with the terms of the UCR agreement.
       ``(2) Venue.--An action under this section may be brought 
     only in a United States district court in the State in which 
     compliance with the order is required.
       ``(3) Relief.--Subject to section 1341 of title 28, the 
     court, on a proper showing shall issue a temporary 
     restraining order or a preliminary or permanent injunction 
     requiring that the State or any person comply with this 
     section.
       ``(4) Enforcement by states.--Nothing in this section--
       ``(A) prohibits a participating State from issuing 
     citations and imposing reasonable fines and penalties 
     pursuant to the applicable laws and regulations of the State 
     on any motor carrier, motor private carrier, freight 
     forwarder, broker, or leasing company for failure to--
       ``(i) submit information documents as required under 
     subsection (d)(2); or
       ``(ii) pay the fees required under subsection (f); or
       ``(B) authorizes a State to require a motor carrier, motor 
     private carrier, or freight forwarder to display as evidence 
     of compliance any form of identification in excess of those 
     permitted under section 14506 on or in a commercial motor 
     vehicle.
       ``(j) Application to Intrastate Carriers.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this section, a State may elect to 
     apply the provisions of the UCR agreement to motor carriers 
     and motor private carriers and freight forwarders subject to 
     its jurisdiction that operate solely in intrastate commerce 
     within the borders of the State.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 14504 
     the following:

``14504a. Unified Carrier Registration System plan and agreement.''.

     SEC. 4306. IDENTIFICATION OF VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 145 of title 49, United States 
     Code; is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 14506. Identification of vehicles

       ``(a) Restriction on Requirements.--No State, political 
     subdivision of a State, interstate agency, or other political 
     agency of 2 or more States may enact or enforce any law, 
     rule, regulation standard, or other provision having the 
     force and effect of law that requires a motor carrier, motor 
     private carrier, freight forwarder, or leasing company to 
     display any form of identification on or in a commercial 
     motor vehicle (as defined in section 14504a), other than 
     forms of identification required by the Secretary of 
     Transportation under section 390.21 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       ``(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a State 
     may continue to require display of credentials that are 
     required--
       ``(1) under the International Registration Plan under 
     section 31704;
       ``(2) under the International Fuel Tax Agreement under 
     section 31705;
       ``(3) under a State law regarding motor vehicle license 
     plates or other displays that the Secretary determines are 
     appropriate;
       ``(4) in connection with Federal requirements for hazardous 
     materials transportation under section 5103; or
       ``(5) in connection with the Federal vehicle inspection 
     standards under section 31136.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 14505 
     the following:

``14506. Identification of vehicles.''.

[[Page 18713]]



     SEC. 4307. USE OF UCR AGREEMENT REVENUES AS MATCHING FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 31103(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``31102(b)(1)(D)'' inserting 
     ``31102(b)(1)(E)''; and
       (2) by inserting ``Amounts generated under the unified 
     carrier registration agreement under section 14504a and 
     received by a State and used for motor carrier safety 
     purposes may be included as part of the State's share not 
     provided by the United States.'' after ``United States 
     Government.''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Sections 31102(b)(3) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``paragraph (1)(D)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)(E)''.

     SEC. 4308. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary may issue such regulations as the Secretary 
     determines are necessary to carry out this subtitle and the 
     amendments made by this subtitle.
                  Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 4401. TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section the following 
     definitions:
       (1) The term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     General Services.
       (2) The term ``donee'' means the corporation to which the 
     Administrator donated the vessel.
       (3) The term ``vessel'' means the vessel with Unit 
     Identification number 13862.
       (b) Transfer.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the donee shall transfer all of the 
     rights, title, and interest of the donee in and to the vessel 
     to the Administrator.
       (c) Future Conveyance.--Within 30 days after the transfer 
     of the vessel under subsection (b), the Administrator shall 
     remove the vessel to a Federal facility. Within 60 days after 
     the date of the transfer of the vessel under subsection (b), 
     the Administrator shall sell the vessel for fair market 
     value. The Administrator shall require as a condition of any 
     conveyance of the vessel that the vessel shall not be used 
     within the United States, as defined in section 2101(44) of 
     title 46, United States Code, or within the territorial sea 
     of the United States as described in Presidential 
     Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988. The donee shall 
     not be required to pay any amounts for removing the vessel to 
     a Federal facility under this subsection.
       (d) Effect on Pending Lawsuits.--Nothing in this section 
     shall have any effect on any lawsuit relating to transfer or 
     use of the vessel.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary $4,000,000 for a grant to 
     the donee. The Secretary shall transfer any funds 
     appropriated under this subsection to the Secretary of the 
     Interior, who shall obligate such funds through instruments 
     and procedures that are equivalent to the instruments and 
     procedures required to be used by the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs pursuant to title IV of the Indian Self-Determination 
     and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458aa et seq.). 
     Amounts paid to the donee under this section shall be treated 
     as revenues originating from the Alaska Native Fund for 
     purposes of section 21(a) of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(a)).

     SEC. 4402. TRANSFER.

       Section 407(b) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 
     (112 Stat. 3430) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``made--'' and all that follows through 
     ``(1) subject'' and inserting ``made subject''; and
       (2) by striking ``; and'' and all that follows and 
     inserting a period.

     SEC. 4403. EXTENSION OF ASSISTANCE.

       Section 206(c) of Public Law 89-702 (16 U.S.C. 1166(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``for fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 
     and 2005'' the first place it it appears; and
       (2) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``, for fiscal years 
     2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007'' after 
     ``subsection (a)''.

     SEC. 4404. DESIGNATIONS.

       (a) Designation.--In the States of Alaska and Hawaii, 
     members of the State legislature may serve on the policy 
     board of a metropolitan planning organization designated 
     under section 134 of title 23, United States Code, if such 
     service is allowed by State law.
       (b) Redesignation.--In the States of Alaska and Hawaii, a 
     metropolitan planning organization designated under section 
     134 of title 23, United Sates Code, may be redesignated as a 
     result of changes in State law that define new requirements 
     for the metropolitan planning organization policy board.

     SEC. 4405. LIMITED EXCEPTION.

        Section 44704(a) of title 49, United States Code is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``The'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``Issuance, investigations, and 
     tests.--The'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Specifications.--The'';
       (3) in paragraph (3) by striking ``If'' and inserting 
     ``Special rules for new aircraft and appliances.--Except as 
     provided in paragraph (4), if'';
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Limitation for aircraft manufactured before august 5, 
     2004.--Paragraph (3) shall not apply to a person who began 
     the manufacture of an aircraft before August 5, 2004, and who 
     demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that 
     such manufacture began before August 5, 2004, if the name of 
     the holder of the type certificate for the aircraft does not 
     appear on the airworthiness certificate or identification 
     plate of the aircraft. The holder of the type certificate for 
     the aircraft shall not be responsible for the continued 
     airworthiness of the aircraft. A person may invoke the 
     exception provided by this paragraph with regard to the 
     manufacture of only one aircraft.'';
       (5) by indenting paragraph (1); and
       (6) by aligning the left margin of paragraphs (1), (2), and 
     (3) with the left margin of paragraph (4) (as added by 
     paragraph (4) of this section.)

     SEC. 4406. AIRPORT LAND AMENDMENT.

       (a) Release of Reverter Condition.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior shall execute such instruments as are necessary to 
     release the condition on a portion of land situated adjacent 
     to the community of Beaver, Alaska, conveyed pursuant to 
     Patent No. 50-69-0130 and dated August 23, 1968, requiring 
     that such land reverts to the United States if the land is 
     not used for airport purposes. The Secretary shall ensure 
     that the release executed pursuant to this subsection--
       (1) applies only to approximately 33 acres of land 
     identified as tracts II through VI of the Beaver Airport, a 
     part of U.S. Survey No. 3798, Alaska (referred to in this 
     section as the ``community expansion land'');
       (2) is without any requirement for receipt of fair market 
     value for the release and conveyance of the conditions 
     otherwise applicable to the community expansion land; and
       (3) is contingent on the conveyance by the State of Alaska 
     of the community expansion land to the Beaver Kwit'chin 
     Corporation, the Village Corporation of the village of 
     Beaver, Alaska.
       (b) Reconveyance.--The Beaver Kwit'chin Corporation--
       (1) shall reconvey to any individual who currently occupies 
     a portion of the land referred to in subsection (a) or 
     successor in interest to such an individual, all right, 
     title, and interest of the Kwit'chin Corporation in and to 
     such land as is currently occupied;
       (2) may subsequently--
       (A) convey the remaining land to other individuals or 
     persons for community expansion purposes; or
       (B) retain the remaining land in whole or in part for 
     community uses.

     SEC. 4407. RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the reciprocal 
     rights-of-way and easements identified on the map numbered 
     92337 and dated June 15, 2005, are hereby enacted into law.

     SEC. 4408. RIALTO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Rialto Municipal Airport/Art Scholl Memorial Airport 
     (Rialto Municipal Airport) is a general aviation airport 
     located within a 20-mile radius of 10 other general aviation 
     airports;
       (2) Rialto Municipal Airport is located approximately 8.5 
     nautical miles from the former Norton Air Force Base which 
     was selected for closure by the Base Realignment and Closure 
     Commission in 1988 and was closed in 1994;
       (3) there has been a significant decline in based aircraft 
     and aviation operations at Rialto Municipal Airport due to 
     the unexpected impact of increased capacity in the immediate 
     vicinity of the airport;
       (4) the transfer of Rialto Municipal Airport's operations, 
     assets and liabilities is supported by the general aviation 
     operators at the airport and will not compromise service or 
     safety; and
       (5) the closure of Rialto Municipal Airport shall be in 
     compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations.
       (b) In General.--Notwithstanding any law, regulation or 
     grant assurance, but subject to the requirements of this 
     section, the United States shall release all restrictions, 
     conditions, and limitations on the use, encumbrance, 
     conveyance, or closure of the Rialto Municipal Airport, in 
     Rialto, California, to the extent such restrictions, 
     conditions, and limitations are enforceable by the United 
     States.
       (c) Conditions.--A release under subsection (b) shall be 
     subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Upon conveyance of the land or transfer of any interest 
     or rights of use or occupancy of the land--
       (A) the city of Rialto will pay the United States 45 
     percent of the current fair market value of the property, and 
     this amount shall be used for projects eligible under chapter 
     471 of title 49, United States Code, at a commercial 
     airport--
       (i) for which a certificate is issued under part 139 of 
     title 14, Code of Federal Regulations;
       (ii) that is located within 10 nautical miles of Rialto 
     Municipal Airport; and
       (iii) that was included on the Department of Defense base 
     closure list of 1988;
       (B) the remaining 55 percent of the fair market value 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be retained by the city 
     of Rialto;
       (C) the city shall pay to the United States 90 percent of 
     the unamortized portion of any Federal development grant for 
     airport facilities other than land, amortized over a 20-year 
     term, with interest. These funds shall be payable over a 
     period of 5 years and deposited into the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund and available for projects eligible under chapter 
     471 of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) The United States will not be responsible for any 
     environmental cleanup of any land with respect to which such 
     release is made.
       (3) All airport and aviation-related equipment located at 
     Rialto Municipal Airport and owned by the city of Rialto 
     before the date of the release will be transferred to a 
     commercial airport referred to in paragraph (1)(A).

     SEC. 4409. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 218 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--

[[Page 18714]]

       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``prior to the date of 
     the enactment of the reauthorization of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `Alaska Marine 
     Highway System' includes all existing or planned 
     transportation facilities and equipment in Alaska, including 
     the lease, purchase, or construction of vessels, terminals, 
     docks, floats, ramps, staging areas, parking lots, bridges 
     and approaches thereto, and necessary roads.''.

     SEC. 4410. RALPH M. BARTHOLOMEW VETERANS' MEMORIAL BRIDGE.

       (a) Designation.--The bridge joining the Island of Gravina 
     to the community of Ketchican, Alaska, constructed pursuant 
     to section 144(g)(1)(E) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     designated as the ``Ralph M. Bartholomew Veterans' Memorial 
     Bridge''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     bridge referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the ``Ralph M. Bartholomew Veterans' Memorial 
     Bridge''.

     SEC. 4411. DON YOUNG'S WAY.

       (a) Designation.--The Knik Arm bridge in Alaska to be 
     planned, designed, and constructed pursuant to section 117 of 
     title 23, United States Code, as high priority project number 
     2465 under section 1702 of this Act, is designated as ``Don 
     Young's Way''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     bridge referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to ``Don Young's Way''.

     SEC. 4412. QUALITY BANK ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Definition of TAPS Quality Bank Adjustments.--In this 
     section, the term ``TAPS quality bank adjustments'' means 
     monetary adjustments paid by or to a shipper of oil on the 
     Trans Alaska Pipeline System through the operation of a 
     quality bank to compensate for the value of the oil of the 
     shipper that is commingled in the Pipeline.
       (b) Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--In a proceeding commenced before the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission may not order retroactive changes in TAPS quality 
     bank adjustments for any period before February 1, 2000.
       (2) Proceedings commenced after the date of enactment.--In 
     a proceeding commenced after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Commission may not order retroactive changes in TAPS 
     quality bank adjustments for any period that exceeds the 15-
     month period immediately preceding the earliest date of the 
     first order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     imposing quality bank adjustments in the proceeding.
       (c) Deadline for Claims.--
       (1) In general.--A claim relating to a quality bank under 
     this section shall be filed with the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission not later than 2 years after the date 
     on which the claim arose.
       (2) Final order.--Not later than 15 months after the date 
     on which a claim is filed under paragraph (1), the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission shall issue a final order with 
     respect to the claim.

     SEC. 4413. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       Section 5006(d) of Public Law 101-380 is amended by 
     inserting ``annual'' before ``amount''.
                           TITLE V--RESEARCH
                          Subtitle A--Funding

     SEC. 5101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following sums are authorized to be 
     appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account):
       (1) Surface transportation research, development, and 
     deployment program.--To carry out sections 502, 503, 506, 
     507, 509, and 510 of title 23, United States Code, and 
     sections 5201, 5203, 5204, 5309, 5501, 5502, 5503, 5504, 
     5506, 5511, 5512, 5513 of this title $196,400,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009 shall be available.
       (2) Training and education.--To carry out section 504 of 
     title 23, United States Code, and section 5502 of this Act 
     $26,700,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (3) Bureau of transportation statistics.--For the Bureau of 
     Transportation Statistics to carry out section 111 of title 
     49, United States Code, $27,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009.
       (4) University transportation research.--To carry out 
     sections 5505 and 5506 of title 49, United States Code, 
     $69,700,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (5) Intelligent transportation systems (its) research.--To 
     carry out subtitle C of this title, and section 511 of title 
     23, United States Code, $110,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009.
       (6) ITS deployment.--To carry out sections 5208 and 5209 of 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 
     458; 112 Stat. 460), $122,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       (b) Applicability of Title 23, United States Code.--Funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) shall be 
     available for obligation in the same manner as if such funds 
     were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code; except that the Federal share of the cost of a project 
     or activity carried out using such funds shall be 50 percent, 
     unless otherwise expressly provided by this Act (including 
     the amendments made by this Act) or otherwise determined by 
     the Secretary, and such funds shall remain available until 
     expended and shall not be transferable.

     SEC. 5102. OBLIGATION CEILING.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the total of 
     all obligations from amounts made available from the Highway 
     Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) by section 
     5101(a) of this Act shall be $410,888,888 for each of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009.

     SEC. 5103. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Research and development are critical to developing and 
     maintaining a transportation system that meets the goals of 
     safety, mobility, economic vitality, efficiency, equity, and 
     environmental protection.
       (2) Federally sponsored surface transportation research and 
     development has produced many successes. The development of 
     rumble strips has increased safety; research on materials has 
     increased the lifespan of pavements, saving money and 
     reducing the disruption caused by construction; and 
     Geographic Information Systems have improved the management 
     and efficiency of transit fleets.
       (3) Despite these important successes, the Federal surface 
     transportation research and development investment represents 
     less than one percent of overall Government spending on 
     surface transportation.
       (4) While Congress increased funding for overall 
     transportation programs by about 40 percent in the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, funding for 
     transportation research and development remained relatively 
     flat.
       (5) The Federal investment in research and development 
     should be balanced between short-term applied and long-term 
     fundamental research and development. The investment should 
     also cover a wide range of research areas, including research 
     on materials and construction, research on operations, 
     research on transportation trends and human factors, and 
     research addressing the institutional barriers to deployment 
     of new technologies.
       (6) That it is in the United States interest to increase 
     the Federal investment in transportation research and 
     development, and to conduct research in critical research 
     gaps, in order to ensure that the transportation system meets 
     the goals of safety, mobility, economic vitality, efficiency, 
     equity, and environmental protection.
            Subtitle B--Research, Technology, and Education

     SEC. 5201. RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, AND EDUCATION.

       (a) Research, Technology, and Education.--Title 23, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the table of chapters by striking the item relating 
     to chapter 5 and inserting the following:

``5. Research, Technology, and Education..........................501''

     ; and
       (2) by striking the heading for chapter 5 and inserting the 
     following:

          ``CHAPTER 5--RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, AND EDUCATION''.

       (b) Statement of Principles Governing Research and 
     Technology Investments.--Section 502 of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (g) as 
     subsections (b) through (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(a) Basic Principles Governing Research and Technology 
     Investments.--
       ``(1) Coverage.--Surface transportation research and 
     technology development shall include all activities leading 
     to technology development and transfer, as well as the 
     introduction of new and innovative ideas, practices, and 
     approaches, through such mechanisms as field applications, 
     education and training, and technical support.
       ``(2) Federal responsibility.--Funding and conducting 
     surface transportation research and technology transfer 
     activities shall be considered a basic responsibility of the 
     Federal Government when the work--
       ``(A) is of national significance;
       ``(B) supports research in which there is a clear public 
     benefit and private sector investment is less than optimal;
       ``(C) supports a Federal stewardship role in assuring that 
     State and local governments use national resources 
     efficiently; or
       ``(D) presents the best means to support Federal policy 
     goals compared to other policy alternatives.
       ``(3) Role.--Consistent with these Federal 
     responsibilities, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) conduct research;
       ``(B) support and facilitate research and technology 
     transfer activities by State highway agencies;
       ``(C) share results of completed research; and
       ``(D) support and facilitate technology and innovation 
     deployment.
       ``(4) Program content.--A surface transportation research 
     program shall include--
       ``(A) fundamental, long-term highway research;
       ``(B) research aimed at significant highway research gaps 
     and emerging issues with national implications; and
       ``(C) research related to policy and planning.
       ``(5) Stakeholder input.--Federal surface transportation 
     research and development activities shall address the needs 
     of stakeholders.

[[Page 18715]]

     Stakeholders include States, metropolitan planning 
     organizations, local governments, the private sector, 
     researchers, research sponsors, and other affected parties, 
     including public interest groups.
       ``(6) Competition and peer review.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this chapter, the Secretary shall award, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, all grants, contracts, and 
     cooperative agreements for research and development under 
     this chapter based on open competition and peer review of 
     proposals.
       ``(7) Performance review and evaluation.--To the maximum 
     extent practicable, all surface transportation research and 
     development projects shall include a component of performance 
     measurement and evaluation. Performance measures shall be 
     established during the proposal stage of a research and 
     development project and shall, to the maximum extent 
     possible, be outcome-based. All evaluations shall be made 
     readily available to the public.
       ``(8) Technological innovation.--The programs and 
     activities carried out under this section shall be consistent 
     with the surface transportation research and technology 
     development strategic plan developed under section 508.''.
       (c) Procurement for Research, Development, and Technology 
     Transfer Activities.--Section 502(b)(3) of such title (as 
     redesignated by subsection (b) of this section) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(3) Cooperation, grants, and contracts.--The Secretary 
     may carry out research, development, and technology transfer 
     activities related to transportation--
       ``(A) independently;
       ``(B) in cooperation with other Federal departments, 
     agencies, and instrumentalities and Federal laboratories; or
       ``(C) by making grants to, or entering into contracts and 
     cooperative agreements with one or more of the following: the 
     National Academy of Sciences, the American Association of 
     State Highway and Transportation Officials, any Federal 
     laboratory, Federal agency, State agency, authority, 
     association, institution, for-profit or nonprofit 
     corporation, organization, foreign country, or any other 
     person.''.
       (d) Transportation Pooled Fund Program.--Section 502(b) of 
     such title (as redesignated by subsection (b) of this 
     section) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Pooled funding.--
       ``(A) Cooperation.--To promote effective utilization of 
     available resources, the Secretary may cooperate with a State 
     and an appropriate agency in funding research, development, 
     and technology transfer activities of mutual interest on a 
     pooled funds basis.
       ``(B) Secretary as agent.--The Secretary may enter into 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants as the agent 
     for all participating parties in carrying out such research, 
     development, or technology transfer activities.''.
       (e) Operations Elements in Research Activities.--Section 
     502 of such title is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(B) (as redesignated by subsection 
     (b) of this section) by inserting ``transportation system 
     management and operations,'' after ``operation,'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(5)(C) (as redesignated by subsection 
     (b) of this section) by inserting ``system management and'' 
     after ``transportation''; and
       (3) by inserting at the end of subsection (d) (as 
     redesignated by subsection (b) of this section) the 
     following:
       ``(12) Investigation and development of various operational 
     methodologies to reduce the occurrence and impact of 
     recurrent congestion and nonrecurrent congestion and increase 
     transportation system reliability.
       ``(13) Investigation of processes, procedures, and 
     technologies to secure container and hazardous material 
     transport, including the evaluation of regulations and the 
     impact of good security practices on commerce and 
     productivity.
       ``(14) Research, development, and technology transfer 
     related to asset management.''.
       (f) Facilitating Transportation Research and Technology 
     Deployment Partnerships.--Section 502(c)(2) of such title (as 
     redesignated by subsection (b) of this section) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) Cooperation, grants, contracts, and agreements.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may 
     directly initiate contracts, cooperative research and 
     development agreements (as defined in section 12 of the 
     Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
     3710a)) to fund, and accept funds from, the Transportation 
     Research Board of the National Research Council of the 
     National Academy of Sciences, State departments of 
     transportation, cities, counties, and their agents to conduct 
     joint transportation research and technology efforts.''.
       (g) Exploratory Advanced Research Program.--Section 502(e) 
     of such title (as redesignated by subsection (b) of this 
     section) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Exploratory Advanced Research.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     exploratory advanced research program, consistent with the 
     surface transportation research and technology development 
     strategic plan developed under section 508 that addresses 
     longer-term, higher-risk research with potentially dramatic 
     breakthroughs for improving the durability, efficiency, 
     environmental impact, productivity, and safety (including 
     bicycle and pedestrian safety) aspects of highway and 
     intermodal transportation systems. In carrying out the 
     program, the Secretary shall strive to develop partnerships 
     with public and private sector entities.
       ``(2) Research areas.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary may make grants and enter into cooperative 
     agreements and contracts in such areas of surface 
     transportation research and technology as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate, including the following:
       ``(A) Characterization of materials used in highway 
     infrastructure, including analytical techniques, 
     microstructure modeling, and the deterioration processes.
       ``(B) Assessment of the effects of transportation decisions 
     on human health.
       ``(C) Development of surrogate measures of safety.
       ``(D) Environmental research.
       ``(E) Data acquisition techniques for system condition and 
     performance monitoring.
       ``(F) System performance data and information processing 
     needed to assess the day-to-day operational performance of 
     the system in support of hour-to-hour operational 
     decisionmaking.''.
       (h) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a) of this Act, $14,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     502(e) of such title.
       (i) Long-Term Pavement Performance Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 502(f) of such title (as 
     redesignated by subsection (b) of this section) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(f) Long-Term Pavement Performance Program.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall continue to carry 
     out, through September 30, 2009, tests, monitoring, and data 
     analysis under the long-term pavement performance program.
       ``(2) Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.--Under 
     the program, the Secretary shall make grants and enter into 
     cooperative agreements and contracts to--
       ``(A) monitor, material-test, and evaluate highway test 
     sections in existence as of the date of the grant, agreement, 
     or contract;
       ``(B) analyze the data obtained under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) prepare products to fulfill program objectives and 
     meet future pavement technology needs.''.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $10,120,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     502(f) of such title.
       (j) Seismic Research.--
       (1) In general.--Section 502(g) of such title (as 
     redesignated by subsection (b) of this section) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(g) Seismic Research.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) in consultation and cooperation with Federal agencies 
     participating in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 
     Program established by section 5 of the Earthquake Hazards 
     Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7704), coordinate the 
     conduct of seismic research;
       ``(2) take such actions as are necessary to ensure that the 
     coordination of the research is consistent with--
       ``(A) planning and coordination activities of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology under section 5(b)(1) 
     of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7704(b)(1)); and
       ``(B) the plan developed by the Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology under section 8(b) of 
     that Act (42 U.S.C. 7705b(b)); and
       ``(3) in cooperation with the Center for Civil Engineering 
     Research at the University of Nevada, Reno, and the National 
     Center for Earthquake Engineering Research at the University 
     of Buffalo, carry out a seismic research program--
       ``(A) to study the vulnerability of the Federal-aid system 
     and other surface transportation systems to seismic activity;
       ``(B) to develop and implement cost-effective methods to 
     reduce the vulnerability; and
       ``(C) to conduct seismic research and upgrade earthquake 
     simulation facilities as necessary to carry out the 
     program.''.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     502(g) of such title.
       (k) Infrastructure Investment Needs Report.--Section 502 of 
     such title is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Infrastructure Investment Needs Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than July 31, 2006, and July 
     31 of every second year thereafter, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that 
     describes--
       ``(A) estimates of the future highway, transit, and bridge 
     needs of the United States; and
       ``(B) the backlog of current highway, transit, and bridge 
     needs.
       ``(2) Comparison with prior reports.--Each report under 
     paragraph (1) shall provide the means, including all 
     necessary information, to relate and compare the conditions 
     and service measures used in the previous biennial 
     reports.''.
       (l) Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.--Section 502 
     of such title is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall operate in the 
     Federal Highway Administration a Turner-Fairbank Highway 
     Research Center.

[[Page 18716]]

       ``(2) Uses of the center.--The Turner-Fairbank Highway 
     Research Center shall support--
       ``(A) the conduct of highway research and development 
     related to new highway technology;
       ``(B) the development of understandings, tools, and 
     techniques that provide solutions to complex technical 
     problems through the development of economical and 
     environmentally sensitive designs, efficient and quality-
     controlled construction practices, and durable materials; and
       ``(C) the development of innovative highway products and 
     practices.''.
       (m) Biobased Transportation Research.--Of the amounts made 
     available by section 5101(a)(1) of this Act, $12,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, equally divided and 
     available, shall be available to carry out biobased research 
     of national importance at the National Biodiesel Board and at 
     research centers identified in section 9011 of the Farm 
     Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8109).

     SEC. 5202. LONG-TERM BRIDGE PERFORMANCE PROGRAM; INNOVATIVE 
                   BRIDGE RESEARCH AND DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Long-Term Bridge Performance Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 502 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Long-Term Bridge Performance Program.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall establish a 20-year 
     long-term bridge performance program.
       ``(2) Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.--Under 
     the program, the Secretary shall make grants and enter into 
     cooperative agreements and contracts to--
       ``(A) monitor, material-test, and evaluate test bridges;
       ``(B) analyze the data obtained under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) prepare products to fulfill program objectives and 
     meet future bridge technology needs.''.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $7,750,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     502(j) of such title.
       (b) Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 503(b)(1) of such title is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a program to promote, demonstrate, evaluate, and document 
     the application of innovative designs, materials, and 
     construction methods in the construction, repair, and 
     rehabilitation of bridges and other highway structures.''.
       (2) Goals.--Section 503(b)(2) of such title is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) Goals.--The goals of the program shall include--
       ``(A) the development of new, cost-effective, innovative 
     highway bridge applications;
       ``(B) the development of construction techniques to 
     increase safety and reduce construction time and traffic 
     congestion;
       ``(C) the development of engineering design criteria for 
     innovative products, materials, and structural systems for 
     use in highway bridges and structures;
       ``(D) the reduction of maintenance costs and life-cycle 
     costs of bridges, including the costs of new construction, 
     replacement, or rehabilitation of deficient bridges;
       ``(E) the development of highway bridges and structures 
     that will withstand natural disasters;
       ``(F) the documentation and wide dissemination of objective 
     evaluations of the performance and benefits of these 
     innovative designs, materials, and construction methods;
       ``(G) the effective transfer of resulting information and 
     technology; and
       ``(H) the development of improved methods to detect bridge 
     scour and economical bridge foundation designs that will 
     withstand bridge scour.''.
       (3) Funding.--
       (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $13,100,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     503(b) of such title.
       (B) High performance concrete bridge technology research 
     and deployment.--The Secretary shall obligate $4,125,000 of 
     the amount described in subparagraph (A) for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009 to conduct research and deploy 
     technology related to high-performance concrete bridges.
       (c) High Performing Steel Bridge Research and Technology 
     Transfer.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to 
     demonstrate the application of high-performing steel in the 
     construction and rehabilitation of bridges.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $4,100,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (d) Steel Bridge Testing.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to 
     test steel bridges using a nondestructive technology that is 
     able to detect growing cracks, including subsurface flaws as 
     small as 0.010 inches in length or depth, in the bridges.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $1,250,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out in accordance with this subsection 
     shall be 80 percent.

     SEC. 5203. TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT.

       (a) Technology Deployment Program.--Section 503(a) of title 
     23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Initiatives and 
     Partnerships'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     administer a national technology deployment program.'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
       ``(7) Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--Under the program, the Secretary may 
     make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements and 
     contracts with, States, other Federal agencies, universities 
     and colleges, private sector entities, and nonprofit 
     organizations to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     research, development, and technology transfer activities 
     concerning innovative materials.
       ``(B) Applications.--To receive a grant under this 
     subsection, an entity described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary. The application shall 
     be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary 
     may require. The Secretary shall select and approve an 
     application based on whether the project that is the subject 
     of the grant meets the purpose of the program described in 
     paragraph (2).''; and
       (4) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
       ``(8) Technology and information transfer.--The Secretary 
     shall ensure that the information and technology resulting 
     from research conducted under paragraph (7) is made available 
     to State and local transportation departments and other 
     interested parties as specified by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Innovative Pavement Research and Deployment Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 503 of such title is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Innovative Pavement Research and Deployment 
     Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement a program to promote, demonstrate, support, and 
     document the application of innovative pavement technologies, 
     practices, performance, and benefits.
       ``(2) Goals.--The goals of the innovative pavement research 
     and deployment program shall include--
       ``(A) the deployment of new, cost-effective, innovative 
     designs, materials, recycled materials (including taconite 
     tailings and foundry sand), and practices to extend pavement 
     life and performance and to improve customer satisfaction;
       ``(B) the reduction of initial costs and life-cycle costs 
     of pavements, including the costs of new construction, 
     replacement, maintenance, and rehabilitation;
       ``(C) the deployment of accelerated construction techniques 
     to increase safety and reduce construction time and traffic 
     disruption and congestion;
       ``(D) the deployment of engineering design criteria and 
     specifications for innovative practices, products, and 
     materials for use in highway pavements;
       ``(E) the deployment of new nondestructive and real-time 
     pavement evaluation technologies and techniques;
       ``(F) the evaluation, refinement, and documentation of the 
     performance and benefits of innovative technologies deployed 
     to improve life, performance, cost effectiveness, safety, and 
     customer satisfaction;
       ``(G) effective technology transfer and information 
     dissemination to accelerate implementation of innovative 
     technologies and to improve life, performance, cost 
     effectiveness, safety, and customer satisfaction; and
       ``(H) the development of designs and materials to reduce 
     storm water runoff.
       ``(3) Research to improve nhs pavement.--The Secretary 
     shall obligate for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 
     from funds made available to carry out this subsection, 
     $4,100,000 to conduct research to improve asphalt pavement, 
     $4,100,000 to conduct research to improve concrete pavement, 
     $4,100,000 to conduct research to improve alternative 
     materials used in highways (including alternative materials 
     used in highway drainage applications), and $2,450,000 to 
     conduct research to improve aggregates used in highways on 
     the National Highway System.''.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $22,625,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     503(c) of such title.
       (c) Safety Innovation Deployment Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 503 of such title is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Safety Innovation Deployment Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement a program to demonstrate the application of 
     innovative technologies in highway safety.
       ``(2) Goals.--The goals of the program shall include--
       ``(A) the deployment and evaluation of safety technologies 
     and innovations at State and local levels; and
       ``(B) the deployment of best practices in training, 
     management, design, and planning.

[[Page 18717]]

       ``(3) Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--Under the program, the Secretary shall 
     make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements and 
     contracts with, States, other Federal agencies, universities 
     and colleges, private sector entities, and nonprofit 
     organizations for research, development, and technology 
     transfer for innovative safety technologies.
       ``(B) Applications.--To receive a grant under this 
     subsection, an entity described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     submit to the Secretary an application at such time and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require. The 
     Secretary shall select and approve an application based on 
     whether the project that is the subject of the application 
     meets the goals of the program described in paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Technology and information transfer.--The Secretary 
     shall take such action as is necessary to ensure that the 
     information and technology resulting from research conducted 
     under paragraph (3) is made available to State and local 
     transportation departments and other interested parties as 
     specified by the Secretary.''.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $12,750,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     503(d) of such title.
       (d) Authority to Purchase Promotional Items.--Section 503 
     of such title is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Promotional Authority.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated for necessary expenses for administration and 
     operation of the Federal Highway Administration shall be 
     available to purchase promotional items of nominal value for 
     use in the recruitment of individuals and to promote the 
     programs of the Federal Highway Administration.''.
       (e) Demonstration Projects and Studies.--
       (1) Wood composite materials demonstration project.--Of the 
     funds made available by section 5101(a)(1) of this Act, 
     $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 shall be 
     made available for conducting a demonstration at the 
     University of Maine of the durability and potential 
     effectiveness of wood composite materials in multimodal 
     transportation facilities.
       (2) Asphalt reclamation study.--Of the funds made available 
     by section 5101(a)(1) of this Act, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 
     2006 shall be available for asphalt and asphalt-related 
     reclamation research at the South Dakota School of Mines.
       (3) Alkali silica reactivity.--Of the funds made available 
     by section 5101(a)(1) of this Act, $2,450,000 shall be made 
     available by the Secretary for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009 for further development and deployment of 
     techniques to prevent and mitigate alkali silica reactivity.
       (4) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     projects--
       (A) under paragraph (1) shall be 100 percent; and
       (B) under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be the share 
     applicable under section 120(b) of such title unless 
     otherwise specified or determined by the Secretary.
       (f) Turner-Fairbank Facility.--Of the funds made available 
     by section 5101(a)(1) of this Act, $625,000 shall be 
     available for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to 
     provide for physical demonstrations of the ongoing work at 
     the Turner-Fairbank facility with respect to ultra-high 
     performance concrete with ductility.

     SEC. 5204. TRAINING AND EDUCATION.

       (a) National Highway Institute.--
       (1) Courses.--Section 504(a)(3) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Courses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Institute shall--
       ``(i) develop or update existing courses in asset 
     management, including courses that include such components 
     as--

       ``(I) the determination of life-cycle costs;
       ``(II) the valuation of assets;
       ``(III) benefit-to-cost ratio calculations; and
       ``(IV) objective decisionmaking processes for project 
     selection; and

       ``(ii) continually develop courses relating to the 
     application of emerging technologies for--

       ``(I) transportation infrastructure applications and asset 
     management;
       ``(II) intelligent transportation systems;
       ``(III) operations (including security operations);
       ``(IV) the collection and archiving of data;
       ``(V) expediting the planning and development of 
     transportation projects; and
       ``(VI) the intermodal movement of individuals and freight.

       ``(B) Additional courses.--In addition to the courses 
     developed under subparagraph (A), the Institute, in 
     consultation with State transportation departments, 
     metropolitan planning organizations, and the American 
     Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
     may develop courses relating to technology, methods, 
     techniques, engineering, construction, safety, maintenance, 
     environmental mitigation and compliance, regulations, 
     management, inspection, and finance.
       ``(C) Revision of courses offered.--The Institute shall 
     periodically--
       ``(i) review the course inventory of the Institute; and
       ``(ii) revise or cease to offer courses based on course 
     content, applicability, and need.''.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(2) of this Act, $9,600,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     504(a) of such title.
       (b) Local Technical Assistance Program.--Section 504(b) of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Local Technical Assistance Program.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall carry out a local 
     technical assistance program that will provide access to 
     surface transportation technology to--
       ``(A) highway and transportation agencies in urbanized and 
     rural areas;
       ``(B) contractors that perform work for the agencies; and
       ``(C) infrastructure security staff.
       ``(2) Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.--The 
     Secretary may make grants and enter into cooperative 
     agreements and contracts to provide education and training, 
     technical assistance, and related support services to--
       ``(A) assist rural, local transportation agencies and 
     tribal governments, and the consultants and construction 
     personnel working for the agencies and governments, to--
       ``(i) develop and expand expertise in road and 
     transportation areas (including pavement, bridge, concrete 
     structures, intermodal connections, safety management 
     systems, intelligent transportation systems, incident 
     response, operations, and traffic safety countermeasures);
       ``(ii) improve roads and bridges;
       ``(iii) enhance--

       ``(I) programs for the movement of passengers and freight; 
     and
       ``(II) intergovernmental transportation planning and 
     project selection; and

       ``(iv) deal effectively with special transportation-related 
     problems by preparing and providing training packages, 
     manuals, guidelines, and technical resource materials;
       ``(B) develop technical assistance for tourism and 
     recreational travel;
       ``(C) identify, package, and deliver transportation 
     technology and traffic safety information to local 
     jurisdictions to assist urban transportation agencies in 
     developing and expanding their ability to deal effectively 
     with transportation-related problems (particularly the 
     promotion of regional cooperation);
       ``(D) operate, in cooperation with State transportation 
     departments and universities--
       ``(i) local technical assistance program centers designated 
     to provide transportation technology transfer services to 
     rural areas and to urbanized areas; and
       ``(ii) local technical assistance program centers 
     designated to provide transportation technical assistance to 
     tribal governments; and
       ``(E) allow local transportation agencies and tribal 
     governments, in cooperation with the private sector, to 
     enhance new technology implementation.
       ``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out by the tribal technical assistance 
     centers under paragraph (2)(D)(ii) shall be 100 percent. ''.
       (c) Funding.--Of the funds made available by section 
     5101(a)(2) of this Act, $11,100,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     504(b) of such title.
       (d) Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation 
     Education Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 504 of such title, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation 
     Education Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish the 
     Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education 
     Program to improve the preparation of students, particularly 
     women and minorities, in science, technology, engineering, 
     and mathematics through curriculum development and other 
     activities related to transportation.
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--The Secretary shall award 
     grants under this subsection on the basis of competitive peer 
     review. Grants awarded under this subsection may be used for 
     enhancing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     at the elementary and secondary school level through such 
     means as--
       ``(A) internships that offer students experience in the 
     transportation field;
       ``(B) programs that allow students to spend time observing 
     scientists and engineers in the transportation field; and
       ``(C) developing relevant curriculum that uses examples and 
     problems related to transportation.
       ``(3) Application and review procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--An entity described in subparagraph (C) 
     seeking funding under this subsection shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 
     Such application, at a minimum, shall include a description 
     of how the funds will be used to serve the purposes described 
     in paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Priority.--In making awards under this subsection, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to applicants that will 
     encourage the participation of women and minorities.
       ``(C) Eligibility.--Local educational agencies and State 
     educational agencies, which may enter into a partnership 
     agreement with institutions of higher education, businesses, 
     or other entities, shall be eligible to apply for grants 
     under this subsection.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the

[[Page 18718]]

     meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
       ``(B) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       ``(C) State educational agency.--The term `State 
     educational agency' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).''.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(2) of this Act, $1,250,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     504(d) of such title.
       (3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out in accordance with this section 504(d) 
     of such title shall be 100 percent.
       (e) Surface Transportation Workforce Development, Training, 
     and Education.--Section 504 of such title is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Surface Transportation Workforce Development, 
     Training, and Education.--
       ``(1) Funding.--Subject to project approval by the 
     Secretary, a State may obligate funds apportioned to the 
     State under sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(2), 104(b)(3), 
     104(b)(4), and 144(e) for surface transportation workforce 
     development, training, and education, including--
       ``(A) tuition and direct educational expenses, excluding 
     salaries, in connection with the education and training of 
     employees of State and local transportation agencies;
       ``(B) employee professional development;
       ``(C) student internships;
       ``(D) university or community college support; and
       ``(E) education activities, including outreach, to develop 
     interest and promote participation in surface transportation 
     careers.
       ``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out in accordance with this subsection 
     shall be 100 percent.
       ``(3) Surface transportation workforce development, 
     training, and education defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `surface transportation workforce development, training, 
     and education' means activities associated with surface 
     transportation career awareness, student transportation 
     career preparation, and training and professional development 
     for surface transportation workers, including activities for 
     women and minorities.
       ``(f) Transportation Education Development Pilot Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     program to make grants to institutions of higher education 
     that, in partnership with industry or State departments of 
     transportation, will develop, test, and revise new curricula 
     and education programs to train individuals at all levels of 
     the transportation workforce.
       ``(2) Selection of grant recipients.--In selecting 
     applications for awards under this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall consider--
       ``(A) the degree to which the new curricula or education 
     program meets the specific needs of a segment of the 
     transportation industry, States, or regions;
       ``(B) providing for practical experience and on-the-job 
     training;
       ``(C) proposals oriented toward practitioners in the field 
     rather than the support and growth of the research community;
       ``(D) the degree to which the new curricula or program will 
     provide training in areas other than engineering, such as 
     business administration, economics, information technology, 
     environmental science, and law;
       ``(E) programs or curricula in nontraditional departments 
     that train professionals for work in the transportation 
     field, such as materials, information technology, 
     environmental science, urban planning, and industrial 
     technology; and
       ``(F) the commitment of industry or a State's department of 
     transportation to the program.
       ``(3) Limitations.--The amount of a grant under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $300,000 per year. After a 
     recipient has received 3 years of Federal funding under this 
     subsection, Federal funding may equal not more than 75 
     percent of a grantee's program costs.''.
       (f) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(2) of this Act, $1,875,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     504(f) of such title.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out in accordance with section 504(f) of 
     such title shall be 100 percent.
       (g) Transportation Technology Innovations.--
       (1) Fundamental properties of asphalts and modified 
     asphalts.--The Secretary shall continue to carry out section 
     5117(b)(5) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century (112 Stat. 450).
       (2) Transportation, economic, and land use system.--The 
     Secretary shall continue to carry out section 5117(b)(7) of 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 
     450).
       (3) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009 $4,200,000 shall be available to carry out paragraph (1) 
     and $1,000,000 shall be available to carry out paragraph (2).
       (h) Freight Planning Capacity Building.--
       (1) In general.--Section 504 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Freight Capacity Building Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     freight planning capacity building initiative to support 
     enhancements in freight transportation planning in order to--
       ``(A) better target investments in freight transportation 
     systems to maintain efficiency and productivity; and
       ``(B) strengthen the decisionmaking capacity of State 
     transportation departments and local transportation agencies 
     with respect to freight transportation planning and systems.
       ``(2) Agreements.--The Secretary shall enter into 
     agreements to support and carry out administrative and 
     management activities relating to the governance of the 
     freight planning capacity initiative.
       ``(3) Stakeholder involvement.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary shall consult with the Association of 
     Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the American Association 
     of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and other 
     freight planning stakeholders, including the other Federal 
     agencies, State transportation departments, local 
     governments, nonprofit entities, academia, and the private 
     sector.
       ``(4) Eligible activities.--The freight planning capacity 
     building initiative shall include research, training, and 
     education in the following areas:
       ``(A) The identification and dissemination of best 
     practices in freight transportation.
       ``(B) Providing opportunities for freight transportation 
     staff to engage in peer exchange.
       ``(C) Refinement of data and analysis tools used in 
     conjunction with assessing freight transportation needs.
       ``(D) Technical assistance to State transportation 
     departments and local transportation agencies reorganizing to 
     address freight transportation issues.
       ``(E) Facilitating relationship building between 
     governmental and private entities involved in freight 
     transportation.
       ``(F) Identifying ways to target the capacity of State 
     transportation departments and local transportation agencies 
     to address freight considerations in operations, security, 
     asset management, and environmental excellence in connection 
     with long-range multimodal transportation planning and 
     project implementation.
       ``(5) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity carried out under this section shall be up to 100 
     percent, and such funds shall remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(6) Use of funds.--Funds made available for the program 
     established under this subsection may be used for research, 
     program development, information collection and 
     dissemination, and technical assistance. The Secretary may 
     use such funds independently or make grants or to and enter 
     into contracts and cooperative agreements with a Federal 
     agency, State agency, local agency, federally recognized 
     Indian tribal government or tribal consortium, authority, 
     association, nonprofit or for-profit corporation, or 
     institution of higher education, to carry out the purposes of 
     this subsection.''.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(2) of this Act, $875,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 
     504(g) of such title.
       (i) Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Program.--Of the 
     amounts made available by section 5101(a)(2) of this Act, 
     $2,200,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 shall 
     be available to carry out section 504(c)(2) of such title.

     SEC. 5205. STATE PLANNING AND RESEARCH.

       Section 505 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the following--
       ``(7) The conduct of activities relating to the planning of 
     real-time monitoring elements.''; and
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``for the same'' and all 
     that follows through the period and inserting the following: 
     ``for the period described in section 118(b)(2).''.

     SEC. 5206. INTERNATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION OUTREACH 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 506 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 506. International highway transportation outreach 
       program

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish an 
     international highway transportation outreach program--
       ``(1) to inform the United States highway community of 
     technological innovations in foreign countries that could 
     significantly improve highway transportation in the United 
     States;
       ``(2) to promote United States highway transportation 
     expertise, goods, and services in foreign countries; and
       ``(3) to increase transfers of United States highway 
     transportation technology to foreign countries.
       ``(b) Activities.--Activities carried out under the program 
     may include--
       ``(1) the development, monitoring, assessment, and 
     dissemination in the United States of information about 
     highway transportation innovations in foreign countries that 
     could significantly improve highway transportation in the 
     United States;
       ``(2) research, development, demonstration, training, and 
     other forms of technology transfer and exchange;
       ``(3) the provision to foreign countries, through 
     participation in trade shows, seminars, expositions, and 
     other similar activities, of information relating to the 
     technical quality of United States highway transportation 
     goods and services;
       ``(4) the offering of technical services of the Federal 
     Highway Administration that cannot be

[[Page 18719]]

     readily obtained from private sector firms in the United 
     States for incorporation into the proposals of those firms 
     undertaking highway transportation projects outside the 
     United States, if the costs of the technical services will be 
     recovered under the terms of the project;
       ``(5) the conduct of studies to assess the need for, or 
     feasibility of, highway transportation improvements in 
     foreign countries; and
       ``(6) the gathering and dissemination of information on 
     foreign transportation markets and industries.
       ``(c) Cooperation.--The Secretary may carry out this 
     section in cooperation with any appropriate--
       ``(1) Federal, State, or local agency;
       ``(2) authority, association, institution, or organization;
       ``(3) for-profit or nonprofit corporation;
       ``(4) national or international entity;
       ``(5) foreign country; or
       ``(6) person.
       ``(d) Funds.--
       ``(1) Contributions.--Funds available to carry out this 
     section shall include funds deposited by any cooperating 
     organization or person into a special account of the Treasury 
     established for this purpose.
       ``(2) Eligible uses of funds.--The funds deposited into the 
     account, and other funds available to carry out this section, 
     shall be available to cover the cost of any activity eligible 
     under this section, including the cost of--
       ``(A) promotional materials;
       ``(B) travel;
       ``(C) reception and representation expenses; and
       ``(D) salaries and benefits.
       ``(3) Reimbursements for salaries and benefits.--
     Reimbursements for salaries and benefits of Department 
     employees providing services under this section shall be 
     credited to the account.
       ``(e) Report.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that 
     describes the destinations and individual trip costs of 
     international travel conducted in carrying out activities 
     described in this section.''.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $300,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 506 
     of such title.

     SEC. 5207. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 
                   COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 507 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 507. Surface transportation-environmental cooperative 
       research program

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a surface transportation-environmental cooperative 
     research program.
       ``(b) Contents.--The program carried out under this section 
     may include research--
       ``(1) to develop more accurate models for evaluating 
     transportation control measures and transportation system 
     designs that are appropriate for use by State and local 
     governments (including metropolitan planning organizations) 
     in designing implementation plans to meet Federal, State, and 
     local environmental requirements;
       ``(2) to improve understanding of the factors that 
     contribute to the demand for transportation;
       ``(3) to develop indicators of economic, social, and 
     environmental performance of transportation systems to 
     facilitate analysis of potential alternatives;
       ``(4) to meet additional priorities as determined by the 
     Secretary in the strategic planning process under section 
     508; and
       ``(5) to refine, through the conduct of workshops, 
     symposia, and panels, and in consultation with stakeholders 
     (including the Department of Energy, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, and other appropriate Federal and State 
     agencies and associations) the scope and research emphases of 
     the program.
       ``(c) Program Administration.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) administer the program established under this 
     section; and
       ``(2) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that--
       ``(A) the best projects and researchers are selected to 
     conduct research in the priority areas described in 
     subsection (b)--
       ``(i) on the basis of merit of each submitted proposal; and
       ``(ii) through the use of open solicitations and selection 
     by a panel of appropriate experts;
       ``(B) a qualified, permanent core staff with the ability 
     and expertise to manage a large multiyear budget is used;
       ``(C) the stakeholders are involved in the governance of 
     the program, at the executive, overall program, and technical 
     levels, through the use of expert panels and committees; and
       ``(D) there is no duplication of research effort between 
     the program established under this section and the new 
     strategic highway research program established under section 
     510.
       ``(d) National Academy of Sciences.--The Secretary may make 
     grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, the 
     National Academy of Sciences to carry out such activities 
     relating to the research, technology, and technology transfer 
     activities described in subsections (b) and (c) as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate.''.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $16,875,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 507 
     of such title.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 5 of 
     such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 507 and inserting the following:

       ``507. Surface transportation environment and planning 
           cooperative research program.''.

     SEC. 5208. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC 
                   PLANNING.

       (a) In General.--Section 508 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 508. Transportation research and development strategic 
       planning

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Development.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the Secretary shall develop a 5-
     year transportation research and development strategic plan 
     to guide Federal transportation research and development 
     activities. This plan shall be consistent with section 306 of 
     title 5, sections 1115 and 1116 of title 31, and any other 
     research and development plan within the Department of 
     Transportation.
       ``(2) Contents.--The strategic plan developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) describe the primary purposes of the transportation 
     research and development program, which shall include, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(i) reducing congestion and improving mobility;
       ``(ii) promoting safety;
       ``(iii) promoting security;
       ``(iv) protecting and enhancing the environment;
       ``(v) preserving the existing transportation system; and
       ``(vi) improving the durability and extending the life of 
     transportation infrastructure;
       ``(B) for each purpose, list the primary research and 
     development topics that the Department intends to pursue to 
     accomplish that purpose, which may include the fundamental 
     research in the physical and natural sciences, applied 
     research, technology development, and social science research 
     intended for each topic; and
       ``(C) for each research and development topic, describe--
       ``(i) the anticipated annual funding levels for the period 
     covered by the strategic plan; and
       ``(ii) the additional information the Department expects to 
     gain at the end of the period covered by the strategic plan 
     as a result of the research and development in that topic 
     area.
       ``(3) Considerations.--In developing the strategic plan, 
     the Secretary shall ensure that the plan--
       ``(A) reflects input from a wide range of stakeholders;
       ``(B) includes and integrates the research and development 
     programs of all the Department's operating administrations, 
     including aviation, transit, rail, and maritime; and
       ``(C) takes into account how research and development by 
     other Federal, State, private sector, and nonprofit 
     institutions contributes to the achievement of the purposes 
     identified under paragraph (2)(A), and avoids unnecessary 
     duplication with these efforts.
       ``(4) Performance plans and reports.--In reports submitted 
     under sections 1115 and 1116 of title 31, the Secretary shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a summary of the Federal transportation research and 
     development activities for the previous fiscal year in each 
     topic area;
       ``(B) the amount of funding spent in each topic area;
       ``(C) a description of the extent to which the research and 
     development is meeting the expectations set forth in 
     paragraph (2)(C)(ii); and
       ``(D) any amendments to the strategic plan.
       ``(b) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     appropriate committees of Congress an annual report, in 
     conjunction with the President's annual budget request as set 
     forth in section 1105 of title 31, describing the amount 
     spent in the last completed fiscal year on transportation 
     research and development and the amount proposed in the 
     current budget for transportation research and development.
       ``(c) National Research Council Review.--The Secretary 
     shall enter into an agreement for the review by the National 
     Research Council of the details of each--
       ``(1) strategic plan under this section;
       ``(2) performance plan required under section 1115 of title 
     31; and
       ``(3) program performance report required under section 
     1116 of title 31, with respect to transportation research and 
     development.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 5 of 
     such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 508 and inserting the following:

``508. Transportation research and development strategic planning.''.

     SEC. 5209. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION 
                   RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 509. National cooperative freight transportation 
       research program

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     support a national cooperative freight transportation 
     research program.
       ``(b) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the National Academy

[[Page 18720]]

     of Sciences to support and carry out administrative and 
     management activities relating to the governance of the 
     national cooperative freight transportation research program.
       ``(c) Advisory Committee.--The National Academy of Sciences 
     shall select an advisory committee consisting of a 
     representative cross-section of freight stakeholders, 
     including the Department of Transportation, other Federal 
     agencies, State transportation departments, local 
     governments, nonprofit entities, academia, and the private 
     sector.
       ``(d) Governance.--The national cooperative freight 
     transportation research program established under this 
     section shall include the following administrative and 
     management elements:
       ``(1) National research agenda.--The advisory committee, in 
     consultation with interested parties, shall recommend a 
     national research agenda for the program. The agenda shall 
     include a multiyear strategic plan.
       ``(2) Involvement.--Interested parties may--
       ``(A) submit research proposals to the advisory committee;
       ``(B) participate in merit reviews of research proposals 
     and peer reviews of research products; and
       ``(C) receive research results.
       ``(3) Open competition and peer review of research 
     proposals.--The National Academy of Sciences may award 
     research contracts and grants under the program through open 
     competition and merit review conducted on a regular basis.
       ``(4) Evaluation of research.--
       ``(A) Peer review.--Research contracts and grants under the 
     program may allow peer review of the research results.
       ``(B) Programmatic evaluations.--The National Academy of 
     Sciences may conduct periodic programmatic evaluations on a 
     regular basis of research contracts and grants.
       ``(5) Dissemination of research findings.--The National 
     Academy of Sciences shall disseminate research findings to 
     researchers, practitioners, and decisionmakers, through 
     conferences and seminars, field demonstrations, workshops, 
     training programs, presentations, testimony to government 
     officials, the World Wide Web, publications for the general 
     public, and other appropriate means.
       ``(e) Contents.--The national research agenda required 
     under subsection (d)(1) shall include research in the 
     following areas:
       ``(1) Techniques for estimating and quantifying public 
     benefits derived from freight transportation projects.
       ``(2) Alternative approaches to calculating the 
     contribution of truck and rail traffic to congestion on 
     specific highway segments.
       ``(3) The feasibility of consolidating origins and 
     destinations for freight movement.
       ``(4) Methods for incorporating estimates of international 
     trade into landside transportation planning.
       ``(5) The use of technology applications to increase 
     capacity of highway lanes dedicated to truck-only traffic.
       ``(6) Development of physical and policy alternatives for 
     separating car and truck traffic.
       ``(7) Ways to synchronize infrastructure improvements with 
     freight transportation demand.
       ``(8) The effect of changing patterns of freight movement 
     on transportation planning decisions relating to rest areas.
       ``(9) Other research areas to identify and address emerging 
     and future research needs related to freight transportation 
     by all modes.
       ``(f) Funding.--
       ``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity carried out under this section shall be up to 100 
     percent.
       ``(2) Use of non-federal funds.--In addition to using funds 
     authorized for this section, the National Academy of Sciences 
     may seek and accept additional funding sources from public 
     and private entities capable of accepting funding from the 
     Department of Transportation, States, local governments, 
     nonprofit foundations, and the private sector.
       ``(3) Period of availability.--Amounts made available to 
     carry out this section shall remain available until 
     expended.''.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $3,750,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 509 
     of such title.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

``509. National cooperative freight transportation research program.''.

     SEC. 5210. FUTURE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 510. Future strategic highway research program

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
     Officials, shall establish and carry out, acting through the 
     National Research Council of the National Academy of 
     Sciences, the future strategic highway research program.
       ``(b) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may make 
     grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, the 
     American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
     Officials and the National Academy of Sciences to carry out 
     such activities under this section as the Secretary 
     determines are appropriate.
       ``(c) Program Priorities.--
       ``(1) Program elements.--The program established under this 
     section shall be based on the National Research Council 
     Special Report 260, entitled `Strategic Highway Research: 
     Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life' 
     and the results of the detailed planning work subsequently 
     carried out in 2002 and 2003 to identify the research areas 
     through National Cooperative Research Program Project 20-58. 
     The research program shall include an analysis of the 
     following:
       ``(A) Renewal of aging highway infrastructure with minimal 
     impact to users of the facilities.
       ``(B) Driving behavior and likely crash causal factors to 
     support improved countermeasures.
       ``(C) Reducing highway congestion due to nonrecurring 
     congestion.
       ``(D) Planning and designing new road capacity to meet 
     mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs.
       ``(2) Dissemination of results.--The research results of 
     the program, expressed in terms of technologies, 
     methodologies, and other appropriate categorizations, shall 
     be disseminated to practicing engineers for their use, as 
     soon as practicable.
       ``(d) Program Administration.--In carrying out the program 
     under this section, the National Research Council shall 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that--
       ``(1) projects and researchers are selected to conduct 
     research for the program on the basis of merit and open 
     solicitation of proposals and review by panels of appropriate 
     experts;
       ``(2) State department of transportation officials and 
     other stakeholders, as appropriate, are involved in the 
     governance of the program at the overall program level and 
     technical level through the use of expert panels and 
     committees;
       ``(3) the Council acquires a qualified, permanent core 
     staff with the ability and expertise to manage the program 
     and multiyear budget; and
       ``(4) there is no duplication of research effort between 
     the program and any other research effort of the Department.
       ``(e) Report on Implementation of Results.--
       ``(1) Report.--The Transportation Research Board of the 
     National Research Council shall complete a report on the 
     strategies and administrative structure to be used for 
     implementation of the results of the future strategic highway 
     research program.
       ``(2) Components.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include with respect to the program--
       ``(A) an identification of the most promising results of 
     research under the program (including the persons most likely 
     to use the results);
       ``(B) a discussion of potential incentives for, impediments 
     to, and methods of, implementing those results;
       ``(C) an estimate of costs of implementation of those 
     results; and
       ``(D) recommendations on methods by which implementation of 
     those results should be conducted, coordinated, and supported 
     in future years, including a discussion of the administrative 
     structure and organization best suited to carry out those 
     recommendations.
       ``(3) Consultation.--In developing the report, the 
     Transportation Research Board shall consult with a wide 
     variety of stakeholders, including--
       ``(A) the Federal Highway Administration;
       ``(B) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 
     and
       ``(C) the American Association of State Highway and 
     Transportation Officials.
       ``(4) Submission.--Not later than February 1, 2009, the 
     report shall be submitted to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(f) Funding.--
       ``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity carried out using amounts made available under a 
     grant or cooperative agreement under this section shall be 
     100 percent, and such funds shall remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(2) Advance payments.--The Secretary may make advance 
     payments as necessary to carry out the program under this 
     section.
       ``(g) Limitation of Remedies.--
       ``(1) Same remedy as if united states.--The remedy against 
     the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of 
     title 28 for injury, loss of property, personal injury, or 
     death shall apply to any claim against the National Academy 
     of Sciences for money damages for injury, loss of property, 
     personal injury, or death caused by any negligent or wrongful 
     act or omission by employees and individuals described in 
     paragraph (3) arising from activities conducted under or in 
     connection with this section. Any such claim shall be subject 
     to the limitations and exceptions which would be applicable 
     to such claim if such claim were against the United States. 
     With respect to any such claim, the Secretary shall be 
     treated as the head of the appropriate Federal agency for 
     purposes of sections 2672 and 2675 of title 28.
       ``(2) Exclusiveness of remedy.--The remedy referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be exclusive of any other civil action or 
     proceeding for the purpose of determining liability arising 
     from any such act or omission without regard to when the act 
     or omission occurred.
       ``(3) Treatment.--Employees of the National Academy of 
     Sciences and other individuals appointed by the president of 
     the National Academy of Sciences and acting on its behalf in 
     connection with activities carried out under this section 
     shall be treated as if they are employees

[[Page 18721]]

     of the Federal Government under section 2671 of title 28 for 
     purposes of a civil action or proceeding with respect to a 
     claim described in paragraph (1). The civil action or 
     proceeding shall proceed in the same manner as any proceeding 
     under chapter 171 of title 28 or action against the United 
     States filed pursuant to section 1346(b) of title 28 and 
     shall be subject to the limitations and exceptions applicable 
     to such a proceeding or action.
       ``(4) Sources of payments.--Payment of any award, 
     compromise, or settlement of a civil action or proceeding 
     with respect to a claim described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     paid first out of insurance maintained by the National 
     Academy of Sciences, second from funds made available to 
     carry out this section, and then from sums made available 
     under section 1304 of title 31. For purposes of such section, 
     such an award, compromise, or settlement shall be deemed to 
     be a judgment, award, or settlement payable under section 
     2414 or 2672 of title 28. The Secretary may establish a 
     reserve of funds to carry out this section for making 
     payments under this paragraph.''.
       (b) Programmatic Evaluations.--Not later than 3 years after 
     the first research and development project grants, 
     cooperative agreements, or contracts are awarded under 
     section 510 of title 23, United States Code, the Comptroller 
     General shall review the program under such section and 
     recommend improvements to the program. The review shall 
     assess the degree to which projects funded under such section 
     have addressed the research and development topics identified 
     in the Transportation Research Board Special Report 260, 
     including identifying those topics that have not yet been 
     addressed.
       (c) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $51,250,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009, shall be available to carry out section 
     510 of such title.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 5 of 
     such title is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``510. Future strategic highway research program.''.

     SEC. 5211. MULTISTATE CORRIDOR OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 511. Multistate corridor operations and management

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall encourage multistate 
     cooperative agreements, coalitions, or other arrangements to 
     promote regional cooperation, planning, and shared project 
     implementation for programs and projects to improve 
     transportation system management and operations.
       ``(b) Interstate Route 95 Corridor Coalition Transportation 
     Systems Management and Operations.--The Secretary shall make 
     grants under this subsection to States to continue 
     intelligent transportation system management and operations 
     in the Interstate Route 95 corridor coalition region 
     initiated under the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240).''.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(5) of this Act $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 shall be available to carry out section 511 
     of such title.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

``511. Multistate corridor operations and management.''.
         Subtitle C--Intelligent Transportation System Research

     SEC. 5301. NATIONAL ITS PROGRAM PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 512. National ITS program plan

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Updates.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with interested stakeholders (including State transportation 
     departments) shall develop a 5-year National Intelligent 
     Transportation System (in this section referred to as `ITS') 
     program plan.
       ``(2) Scope.--The National ITS program plan shall--
       ``(A) specify the goals, objectives, and milestones for the 
     research and deployment of intelligent transportation systems 
     in the contexts of--
       ``(i) major metropolitan areas;
       ``(ii) smaller metropolitan and rural areas; and
       ``(iii) commercial vehicle operations;
       ``(B) specify the manner in which specific programs and 
     projects will achieve the goals, objectives, and milestones 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), including consideration of a 
     5-year timeframe for the goals and objectives;
       ``(C) identify activities that provide for the dynamic 
     development, testing, and necessary revision of standards and 
     protocols to promote and ensure interoperability in the 
     implementation of intelligent transportation system 
     technologies, including actions taken to establish standards; 
     and
       ``(D) establish a cooperative process with State and local 
     governments for--
       ``(i) determining desired surface transportation system 
     performance levels; and
       ``(ii) developing plans for accelerating the incorporation 
     of specific intelligent transportation system capabilities 
     into surface transportation systems.
       ``(b) Reporting.--The National ITS program plan shall be 
     submitted and biennially updated as part of the 
     transportation research and development strategic plan 
     developed under section 508.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

``512. National ITS Program Plan.''.

     SEC. 5302. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 513. Use of funds for ITS activities

       ``(a) In General.--For each fiscal year, not more than 
     $250,000 of the funds made available to carry out this 
     subtitle C of title V of the SAFETEA-LU shall be used for 
     intelligent transportation system outreach, public relations, 
     displays, tours, and brochures.
       ``(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     intelligent transportation system training, scholarships, or 
     the publication or distribution of research findings, 
     technical guidance, or similar documents.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

``513. Use of funds for ITS activities.''.

     SEC. 5303. GOALS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Goals.--The goals of the intelligent transportation 
     system program include--
       (1) enhancement of surface transportation efficiency and 
     facilitation of intermodalism and international trade to 
     enable existing facilities to meet a significant portion of 
     future transportation needs, including public access to 
     employment, goods, and services and to reduce regulatory, 
     financial, and other transaction costs to public agencies and 
     system users;
       (2) achievement of national transportation safety goals, 
     including the enhancement of safe operation of motor vehicles 
     and nonmotorized vehicles and improved emergency response to 
     a crash, with particular emphasis on decreasing the number 
     and severity of collisions;
       (3) protection and enhancement of the natural environment 
     and communities affected by surface transportation, with 
     particular emphasis on assisting State and local governments 
     to achieve national environmental goals;
       (4) accommodation of the needs of all users of surface 
     transportation systems, including operators of commercial 
     motor vehicles, passenger motor vehicles, motorcycles, 
     bicycles and pedestrians, including individuals with 
     disabilities; and
       (5) improvement of the Nation's ability to respond to 
     security-related or other manmade emergencies and natural 
     disasters and enhancement of national defense mobility.
       (b) Purposes.--The Secretary shall implement activities 
     under the intelligent system transportation program to, at a 
     minimum--
       (1) expedite, in both metropolitan and rural areas, 
     deployment and integration of intelligent transportation 
     systems for consumers of passenger and freight 
     transportation;
       (2) ensure that Federal, State, and local transportation 
     officials have adequate knowledge of intelligent 
     transportation systems for consideration in the 
     transportation planning process;
       (3) improve regional cooperation and operations planning 
     for effective intelligent transportation system deployment;
       (4) promote the innovative use of private resources;
       (5) facilitate, in cooperation with the motor vehicle 
     industry, the introduction of vehicle-based safety enhancing 
     systems;
       (6) support the application of intelligent transportation 
     systems that increase the safety and efficiency of commercial 
     motor vehicle operations;
       (7) develop a workforce capable of developing, operating, 
     and maintaining intelligent transportation systems; and
       (8) provide continuing support for operations and 
     maintenance of intelligent transportation systems.

     SEC. 5304. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.

       Funds made available to carry out this subtitle for 
     operational tests--
       (1) shall be used primarily for the development of 
     intelligent transportation system infrastructure; and
       (2) to the maximum extent practicable, shall not be used 
     for the construction of physical highway and public 
     transportation infrastructure unless the construction is 
     incidental and critically necessary to the implementation of 
     an intelligent transportation system project.

     SEC. 5305. GENERAL AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Scope.--Subject to the provisions of this subtitle, the 
     Secretary shall conduct an ongoing intelligent transportation 
     system program to research, develop, and operationally test 
     intelligent transportation systems and to provide technical 
     assistance in the nationwide application of those systems as 
     a component of the surface transportation systems of the 
     United States.
       (b) Policy.--Intelligent transportation system research 
     projects and operational tests funded pursuant to this 
     subtitle shall encourage and not displace public-private 
     partnerships or private sector investment in such tests and 
     projects.
       (c) Cooperation With Governmental, Private, and Educational 
     Entities.--The Secretary shall carry out the intelligent 
     transportation system program in cooperation with State

[[Page 18722]]

     and local governments and other public entities, the private 
     sector firms of the United States, the Federal laboratories, 
     and colleges and universities, including historically Black 
     colleges and universities and other minority institutions of 
     higher education.
       (d) Consultation With Federal Officials.--In carrying out 
     the intelligent transportation system program, the Secretary 
     shall consult with the heads of other Federal departments and 
     agencies, as appropriate.
       (e) Technical Assistance, Training, and Information.--The 
     Secretary may provide technical assistance, training, and 
     information to State and local governments seeking to 
     implement, operate, maintain, or evaluate intelligent 
     transportation system technologies and services.
       (f) Transportation Planning.--The Secretary may provide 
     funding to support adequate consideration of transportation 
     systems management and operations, including intelligent 
     transportation systems, within metropolitan and statewide 
     transportation planning processes.
       (g) Information Clearinghouse.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) maintain a repository for technical and safety data 
     collected as a result of federally sponsored projects carried 
     out under this subtitle (including the amendments made by 
     this subtitle); and
       (B) make, on request, that information (except for 
     proprietary information and data) readily available to all 
     users of the repository at an appropriate cost.
       (2) Agreement.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may enter into an agreement 
     with a third party for the maintenance of the repository for 
     technical and safety data under paragraph (1)(A).
       (B) Federal financial assistance.--If the Secretary enters 
     into an agreement with an entity for the maintenance of the 
     repository, the entity shall be eligible for Federal 
     financial assistance under this section.
       (3) Availability of information.--Information in the 
     repository shall not be subject to section 555 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (h) Advisory Committee.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an Advisory 
     Committee to advise the Secretary on carrying out this 
     subtitle.
       (2) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall have no more 
     than 20 members, be balanced between metropolitan and rural 
     interests, and include, at a minimum--
       (A) a representative from a State highway department;
       (B) a representative from a local highway department who is 
     not from a metropolitan planning organization;
       (C) a representative from a State, local, or regional 
     transit agency;
       (D) a representative from a metropolitan planning 
     organization;
       (E) a private sector user of intelligent transportation 
     system technologies;
       (F) an academic researcher with expertise in computer 
     science or another information science field related to 
     intelligent transportation systems, and who is not an expert 
     on transportation issues;
       (G) an academic researcher who is a civil engineer;
       (H) an academic researcher who is a social scientist with 
     expertise in transportation issues;
       (I) a representative from a nonprofit group representing 
     the intelligent transportation system industry;
       (J) a representative from a public interest group concerned 
     with safety;
       (K) a representative from a public interest group concerned 
     with the impact of the transportation system on land use and 
     residential patterns; and
       (L) members with expertise in planning, safety, and 
     operations.
       (3) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall, at a minimum, 
     perform the following duties:
       (A) Provide input into the development of the Intelligent 
     Transportation System aspects of the strategic plan under 
     section 508 of title 23, United States Code.
       (B) Review, at least annually, areas of intelligent 
     transportation systems research being considered for funding 
     by the Department, to determine--
       (i) whether these activities are likely to advance either 
     the state-of-the-practice or state-of-the-art in intelligent 
     transportation systems;
       (ii) whether the intelligent transportation system 
     technologies are likely to be deployed by users, and, if not, 
     to determine the barriers to deployment; and
       (iii) the appropriate roles for government and the private 
     sector in investing in the research and technologies being 
     considered.
       (4) Report.--Not later than February 1 of each year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     transmit to the Congress a report including--
       (A) all recommendations made by the Advisory Committee 
     during the preceding calendar year;
       (B) an explanation of how the Secretary has implemented 
     those recommendations; and
       (C) for recommendations not implemented, the reasons for 
     rejecting the recommendations.
       (5) Applicability of federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Advisory Committee shall be subject to the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (i) Reporting.--
       (1) Guidelines and requirements.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall issue guidelines and 
     requirements for the reporting and evaluation of operational 
     tests and deployment projects carried out under this 
     subtitle.
       (B) Objectivity and independence.--The guidelines and 
     requirements issued under subparagraph (A) shall include 
     provisions to ensure the objectivity and independence of the 
     reporting entity so as to avoid any real or apparent conflict 
     of interest or potential influence on the outcome by parties 
     to any such test or deployment project or by any other formal 
     evaluation carried out under this subtitle.
       (C) Funding.--The guidelines and requirements issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall establish reporting funding levels 
     based on the size and scope of each test or project that 
     ensure adequate reporting of the results of the test or 
     project.
       (2) Special rule.--Any survey, questionnaire, or interview 
     that the Secretary considers necessary to carry out the 
     reporting of any test, deployment project, or program 
     assessment activity under this subtitle shall not be subject 
     to chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code.

     SEC. 5306. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     comprehensive program of intelligent transportation system 
     research, development, and operational tests of intelligent 
     vehicles and intelligent infrastructure systems and other 
     similar activities that are necessary to carry out this 
     subtitle.
       (b) Priority Areas.--Under the program, the Secretary shall 
     give higher priority to funding projects that--
       (1) enhance mobility and productivity through improved 
     traffic management, incident management, transit management, 
     freight management, road weather management, toll collection, 
     traveler information, or highway operations systems and 
     remote sensing products;
       (2) utilize interdisciplinary approaches to develop traffic 
     management strategies and tools to address multiple impacts 
     of congestion concurrently;
       (3) address traffic management, incident management, 
     transit management, toll collection traveler information, or 
     highway operations systems with goals of--
       (A) reducing metropolitan congestion by not less than 5 
     percent by 2010;
       (B) ensuring that a national, interoperable 5-1-1 system, 
     along with a national traffic information system that 
     includes a user-friendly, comprehensive website, is fully 
     implemented for use by travelers throughout the United States 
     by September 30, 2010; and
       (C)(i) improving incident management response, particularly 
     in rural areas, so that rural emergency response times are 
     reduced by an average of 10 minutes; and
       (ii) improving communication between emergency care 
     providers and trauma centers;
       (4) incorporate research on the impact of environmental, 
     weather, and natural conditions on intelligent transportation 
     systems, including the effects of cold climates;
       (5) enhance intermodal use of intelligent transportation 
     systems for diverse groups, including for emergency and 
     health-related services;
       (6) enhance safety through improved crash avoidance and 
     protection, crash and other notification, commercial motor 
     vehicle operations, and infrastructure-based or cooperative 
     safety systems; and
       (7) facilitate the integration of intelligent 
     infrastructure, vehicle, and control technologies.
       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     operational tests and demonstrations under subsection (a) 
     shall not exceed 80.

     SEC. 5307. NATIONAL ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Development, implementation, and maintenance.--
     Consistent with section 12(d) of the National Technology 
     Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note; 110 
     Stat. 783), the Secretary shall develop, implement, and 
     maintain a national architecture and supporting standards and 
     protocols to promote the widespread use and evaluation of 
     intelligent transportation system technology as a component 
     of the surface transportation systems of the United States.
       (2) Interoperability and efficiency.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the national architecture shall promote 
     interoperability among, and efficiency of, intelligent 
     transportation system technologies implemented throughout the 
     United States.
       (3) Use of standards development organizations.--In 
     carrying out this section, the Secretary shall use the 
     services of such standards development organizations as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (4) Use of expert panel.--
       (A) Designation.--The Secretary shall designate a panel of 
     experts to recommend ways to expedite and streamline the 
     process for developing the standards and protocols to be 
     developed pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (B) Nonapplicability of advisory committee act.--The expert 
     panel shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (C) Deadline for recommendation.--Not later than September 
     30, 2007, the expert panel shall provide the Secretary with a 
     recommendation relating to such standards development.
       (b) Provisional Standards.--
       (1) In general.--If the Secretary finds that the 
     development or balloting of an intelligent transportation 
     system standard jeopardizes the timely achievement of the 
     objectives identified in subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     establish a provisional standard, after consultation with 
     affected parties, using, to the extent practicable, the work 
     product of appropriate standards development organizations.

[[Page 18723]]

       (2) Period of effectiveness.--A provisional standard 
     established under paragraph (1) shall be published in the 
     Federal Register and remain in effect until the appropriate 
     standards development organization adopts and publishes a 
     standard.
       (c) Conformity With National Architecture.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), the Secretary shall ensure that intelligent 
     transportation system projects carried out using funds made 
     available from the Highway Trust Fund, including funds made 
     available under this subtitle to deploy intelligent 
     transportation system technologies, conform to the national 
     architecture, applicable standards or provisional standards, 
     and protocols developed under subsection (a).
       (2) Secretary's discretion.--The Secretary may authorize 
     exceptions to paragraph (1) for--
       (A) projects designed to achieve specific research 
     objectives outlined in the national intelligent 
     transportation system program plan or the surface 
     transportation research and development strategic plan 
     developed under section 508 of title 23, United States Code; 
     or
       (B) the upgrade or expansion of an intelligent 
     transportation system in existence on the date of enactment 
     of this Act if the Secretary determines that the upgrade or 
     expansion--
       (i) would not adversely affect the goals or purposes of 
     this subtitle;
       (ii) is carried out before the end of the useful life of 
     such system; and
       (iii) is cost-effective as compared to alternatives that 
     would meet the conformity requirement of paragraph (1).
       (3) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to funds 
     used for operation or maintenance of an intelligent 
     transportation system in existence on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 5308. ROAD WEATHER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a road 
     weather research and development program to--
       (1) maximize use of available road weather information and 
     technologies;
       (2) expand road weather research and development efforts to 
     enhance roadway safety, capacity, and efficiency while 
     minimizing environmental impacts; and
       (3) promote technology transfer of effective road weather 
     scientific and technological advances.
       (b) Stakeholder Input.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall consult with the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, 
     the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
     Officials, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector.
       (c) Contents.--The program established under this section 
     shall solely carry out research and development called for in 
     the National Research Council's report entitled ``A Research 
     Agenda for Improving Road Weather Services''. Such research 
     and development includes--
       (1) integrating existing observational networks and data 
     management systems for road weather applications;
       (2) improving weather modeling capabilities and forecast 
     tools, such as the road surface and atmospheric interface;
       (3) enhancing mechanisms for communicating road weather 
     information to users, such as transportation officials and 
     the public; and
       (4) integrating road weather technologies into an 
     information infrastructure.
       (d) Activities.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) enable efficient technology transfer;
       (2) improve education and training of road weather 
     information users, such as State and local transportation 
     officials and private sector transportation contractors; and
       (3) coordinate with transportation weather research 
     programs in other modes, such as aviation.
       (e) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--In awarding funds under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give preference to applications with 
     significant matching funds from non-Federal sources.
       (2) Funds for road weather research and development.--Of 
     the amounts made available by section 5101(a)(5) of this Act, 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 shall 
     be available to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5309. CENTERS FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXCELLENCE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish 4 centers 
     for surface transportation excellence.
       (b) Goals.--The goals of the centers for surface 
     transportation excellence are to promote and support 
     strategic national surface transportation programs and 
     activities relating to the work of State departments of 
     transportation in the areas of environment, surface 
     transportation safety, rural safety, and project finance.
       (c) Role of Centers.--To achieve the goals set forth in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall establish the 4 centers 
     as follows:
       (1) Environmental excellence.--To provide technical 
     assistance, information sharing of best practices, and 
     training in the use of tools and decision-making processes 
     that can assist States in planning and delivering 
     environmentally sound surface transportation projects.
       (2) Surface transportation safety.--To develop and 
     disseminate advanced transportation safety techniques and 
     innovations in both rural areas and urban communities. The 
     center will use a controlled access highway with state of the 
     art features, to test safety devices and techniques that 
     enhance driver performance, examine advanced pavement and 
     lighting systems, and develop techniques to address older 
     driver and fatigue driver issues.
       (3) Rural safety.--To provide research, training, and 
     outreach on innovative uses of technology to enhance rural 
     safety and economic development, assess local community needs 
     to improve access to mobile emergency treatment, and develop 
     online and seminar training needs of rural transportation 
     practitioners and policy-makers.
       (4) Project finance.--To provide support to State 
     transportation departments in the development of finance 
     plans and project oversight tools and to develop and offer 
     training in state of the art financing methods to advance 
     projects and leverage funds.
       (d) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $3,750,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     section.
       (2) Allocation of funds.--Of the funds made available under 
     paragraph (1) the Secretary shall use such amounts as 
     follows:
       (A) $1,250,000 to establish the Center for Environmental 
     Excellence.
       (B) $750,000 to establish the Center for Excellence in 
     Surface Transportation Safety at the Virginia Tech 
     Transportation Institute.
       (C) $875,000 to establish the Center for Excellence in 
     Rural Safety at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, Minnesota.
       (D) $875,000 to establish the Center for Excellence in 
     Project Finance.
       (3) Applicability of title 23.--Funds authorized by this 
     section shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
     as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 
     23, United States Code, except that the Federal share shall 
     be 100 percent.
       (e) Program Administration.--
       (1) Competition.--A party entering into a contract, 
     cooperative agreement, or other transaction with the 
     Secretary, or receiving a grant to perform research or 
     provide technical assistance under subsections (d)(2)(A) and 
     (d)(2)(D) shall be selected on a competitive basis, to the 
     maximum extent practicable.
       (2) Strategic plan.--The Secretary shall require each 
     center to develop a multiyear strategic plan that describes--
       (A) the activities to be undertaken; and
       (B) how the work of the center is coordinated with the 
     activities of the Federal Highway Administration and the 
     various other research, development, and technology transfer 
     activities authorized by this title. Such plans shall be 
     submitted to the Secretary by January 1, 2006, and each year 
     thereafter.

     SEC. 5310. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Incident.--The term ``incident'' means a crash, a 
     natural disaster, workzone activity, special event, or other 
     emergency road user occurrence that adversely affects or 
     impedes the normal flow of traffic.
       (2) Intelligent transportation infrastructure.--The term 
     ``intelligent transportation infrastructure'' means fully 
     integrated public sector intelligent transportation system 
     components, as defined by the Secretary.
       (3) Intelligent transportation system.--The term 
     ``intelligent transportation system'' means electronics, 
     photonics, communications, or information processing used 
     singly or in combination to improve the efficiency or safety 
     of a surface transportation system.
       (4) National architecture.--The term ``national 
     architecture'' means the common framework for 
     interoperability that defines--
       (A) the functions associated with intelligent 
     transportation system user services;
       (B) the physical entities or subsystems within which the 
     functions reside;
       (C) the data interfaces and information flows between 
     physical subsystems; and
       (D) the communications requirements associated with the 
     information flows.
       (5) Project.--The term ``project'' means an undertaking to 
     research, develop, or operationally test intelligent 
     transportation systems or any other undertaking eligible for 
     assistance under this subtitle.
       (6) Standard.--The term ``standard'' means a document 
     that--
       (A) contains technical specifications or other precise 
     criteria for intelligent transportation systems that are to 
     be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions of 
     characteristics so as to ensure that materials, products, 
     processes, and services are fit for their purposes; and
       (B) may support the national architecture and promote--
       (i) the widespread use and adoption of intelligent 
     transportation system technology as a component of the 
     surface transportation systems of the United States; and
       (ii) interoperability among intelligent transportation 
     system technologies implemented throughout the States.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term under section 101 of title 23, United States Code.
       (8) Transportation systems management and operations.--The 
     term ``transportation systems management and operations'' has 
     the meaning given the term under section 101(a) of title 23, 
     United States Code.
      Subtitle D--University Transportation Research; Scholarship 
                             Opportunities

     SEC. 5401. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5505 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

[[Page 18724]]



     ``SEC. 5505. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTERS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Establishment and operation.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall make grants under this section to 
     eligible nonprofit institutions of higher learning to 
     establish and operate national university transportation 
     centers.
       ``(2) Role of centers.--The role of each center shall be to 
     advance significant transportation research on critical 
     national transportation issues and to expand the workforce of 
     transportation professionals.
       ``(b) Applicability of Requirements.--A grant received by 
     an eligible nonprofit institution of higher learning under 
     this section shall be available for the same purposes, and 
     shall be subject to the same terms and conditions, as a grant 
     made to a nonprofit institution of higher learning under 
     section 5506.
       ``(c) Eligible Nonprofit Institution of Higher Learning 
     Defined.--In this section, the term `eligible nonprofit 
     institution of higher learning' means each of the following:
       ``(1) University of Alaska.
       ``(2) Marshall University, West Virginia, on behalf of a 
     consortium of West Virginia colleges and universities.
       ``(3) University of Minnesota.
       ``(4) University of Missouri, Rolla.
       ``(5) Northwestern University.
       ``(6) Oklahoma Transportation Center.
       ``(7) Portland State University, in partnership with the 
     University of Oregon, Oregon State University, and the Oregon 
     Institute of Technology.
       ``(8) University of Vermont.
       ``(9) Western Transportation Institute at Montana State 
     University.
       ``(10) University of Wisconsin.
       ``(d) Grants.--The Secretary shall make a grant under this 
     section to each eligible nonprofit institution of higher 
     learning in an amount $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 and 
     $3,500,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to carry 
     out this section.''.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(4) of this Act, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and 
     $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 shall 
     be available to carry out section 5505 of such title.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 55 of such title is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 5505 and inserting the following:

``5505. National university transportation centers.''.

     SEC. 5402. UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--Section 5506 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 5506. UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     make grants under this section to nonprofit institutions of 
     higher learning to establish and operate university 
     transportation centers.
       ``(b) Objectives.--Grants received under this section shall 
     be used by nonprofit institutions of higher learning to 
     advance significantly the state-of-the-art in transportation 
     research and expand the workforce of transportation 
     professionals through the following programs and activities:
       ``(1) Research.--Basic and applied research, the products 
     of which are judged by peers or other experts in the field of 
     transportation to advance the body of knowledge in 
     transportation.
       ``(2) Education.--An education program relating to 
     transportation that includes multidisciplinary course work 
     and participation in research.
       ``(3) Technology transfer.--An ongoing program of 
     technology transfer that makes transportation research 
     results available to potential users in a form that can be 
     implemented, utilized, or otherwise applied.
       ``(c) Regional, Tier I, and Tier II Centers.--
       ``(1) Regional and tier i centers.--For each of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009, the Secretary shall make grants 
     under subsection (a) to nonprofit institutions of higher 
     learning to establish and operate--
       ``(A) 10 regional university transportation centers; and
       ``(B) 10 Tier I university transportation centers.
       ``(2) Tier ii centers.--
       ``(A) For each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the 
     Secretary shall make grants under subsection (a) to nonprofit 
     institutions of higher learning to establish and operate 22 
     Tier II university transportation centers.
       ``(B) The tier II centers consist of the following:
       ``(i) University of Arkansas, Mack-Blackwell Rural 
     Transportation Center.
       ``(ii) University of California, Davis.
       ``(iii) California State University, San Bernardino.
       ``(iv) Cleveland State University, Work Zone Safety 
     Institute.
       ``(v) University of Connecticut.
       ``(vi) University of Delaware in Newark.
       ``(vii) University of Detroit Mercy (including the 
     coalition partners of the university).
       ``(viii) George Mason University.
       ``(ix) Hampton University, Eastern Seaboard Intermodal 
     Transportation Applications Center (ESITAC).
       ``(x) Kansas State University.
       ``(xi) Louisiana State University, LTRC-TTEC.
       ``(xii) University of Massachusetts Amherst.
       ``(xiii) Michigan Technological University.
       ``(xiv) University of Nevada Las Vegas.
       ``(xv) North Carolina State University, Center for 
     Transportation and the Environment.
       ``(xvi) Northwestern University.
       ``(xvii) Ohio Higher Education Transportation Consortium-
     University of Akron.
       ``(xviii) University of Rhode Island.
       ``(xix) University of Toledo.
       ``(xx) Utah State University.
       ``(xxi) Youngstown State University.
       ``(xxii) University of Memphis.
       ``(3) Location of regional centers.--One regional 
     university transportation center shall be located in each of 
     the 10 United States Government regions that comprise the 
     Standard Federal Regional Boundary System.
       ``(4) Limitation.--A nonprofit institution of higher 
     learning may not directly receive a grant under this section 
     for a fiscal year for more than one university transportation 
     center.
       ``(d) Competitive Selection Process.--
       ``(1) Applications.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     grant under subsection (c)(1), a nonprofit institution of 
     higher learning shall submit to the Secretary an application 
     that is in such form and contains such information as the 
     Secretary may require.
       ``(2) General selection criteria.--Except as otherwise 
     provided by this section, the Secretary shall select each 
     recipient of a grant under subsection (c)(1) through a 
     competitive process on the basis of the following:
       ``(A) The demonstrated research and extension resources 
     available to the recipient to carry out this section.
       ``(B) The capability of the recipient to provide leadership 
     in making national and regional contributions to the solution 
     of immediate and long-range transportation problems.
       ``(C) The recipient's demonstrated commitment of at least 
     $400,000 each year in regularly budgeted institutional 
     amounts to support ongoing transportation research and 
     education programs.
       ``(D) The recipient's demonstrated ability to disseminate 
     results of transportation research and education programs 
     through a statewide or regionwide continuing education 
     program.
       ``(E) The strategic plan the recipient proposes to carry 
     out under the grant.
       ``(e) Regional University Transportation Centers.--
       ``(1) Competition.--Not later than March 31, 2006, and not 
     later than March 31st of every 4th year thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall complete a competition among nonprofit 
     institutions of higher learning for grants to establish and 
     operate the 10 regional university transportation centers 
     referred to in subsection (c)(1)(A).
       ``(2) Selection criteria.--In conducting a competition 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall select a nonprofit 
     institution of higher learning on the basis of--
       ``(A) the criteria described in subsection (d)(2);
       ``(B) the location of the center within the Federal region 
     to be served; and
       ``(C) whether or not the institution (or, in the case of a 
     consortium of institutions, the lead institution) 
     demonstrates that it has a well-established, nationally 
     recognized program in transportation research and education, 
     as evidenced by--
       ``(i) not less than $2,000,000 in highway or public 
     transportation research expenditures each year for each of 
     the preceding 5 years;
       ``(ii) not less than 10 graduate degrees awarded in 
     professional fields closely related to highways and public 
     transportation each year for each of the preceding 5 years; 
     and
       ``(iii) not less than 5 tenured or tenure-track faculty 
     members who specialize on a full-time basis in professional 
     fields closely related to highways and public transportation 
     who, as a group, have published a total at least 50 refereed 
     journal publications on highway or public transportation 
     research during the preceding 5 years.
       ``(3) Grant recipients.--After selecting a nonprofit 
     institution of higher learning as a grant recipient on the 
     basis of a competition conducted under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall make a grant to the recipient to establish 
     and operate a regional university transportation center in 
     each of the first 4 fiscal years beginning after the date of 
     the competition.
       ``(4) Special rule for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.--For 
     fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the Secretary shall make a grant 
     under this section to each of the 10 nonprofit institutions 
     of higher learning that were competitively selected for 
     grants by the Secretary under this section in July 1999 to 
     operate regional university transportation centers.
       ``(5) Amount of grants.--The Secretary shall make a grant 
     to a nonprofit institution of higher learning to establish 
     and operate a regional university transportation center of--
       ``(A) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(B) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2008; and
       ``(C) $2,225,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       ``(f) Tier I University Transportation Centers.--
       ``(1) Competition.--Not later than June 30, 2006, and not 
     later than June 30 of every 4th year thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall complete a competition among nonprofit 
     institutions of higher learning for grants to establish and 
     operate the 10 Tier I university transportation centers 
     referred to in subsection (c)(1)(B).
       ``(2) Selection criteria.--In conducting a competition 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall select a nonprofit 
     institution of higher learning on the basis of--
       ``(A) the criteria described in subsection (d)(2); and

[[Page 18725]]

       ``(B) whether or not the institution (or, in the case of a 
     consortium of institutions, the lead institution) can 
     demonstrate that it has an established, recognized program in 
     transportation research and education, as evidenced by--
       ``(i) not less than $1,000,000 in highway or public 
     transportation research expenditures each year for each of 
     the preceding 5 years or not less than $6,000,000 in such 
     expenditures during the 5 preceding years;
       ``(ii) not less than 5 graduate degrees awarded in 
     professional fields closely related to highways and public 
     transportation each year for each of the preceding 5 years; 
     and
       ``(iii) not less than 3 tenured or tenure-track faculty 
     members who specialize on a full-time basis in professional 
     fields closely related to highways and public transportation 
     who, as a group, have published a total at least 20 refereed 
     journal publications on highway or public transportation 
     research during the preceding 5 years.
       ``(3) Grant recipients.--After selecting a nonprofit 
     institution of higher learning as a grant recipient on the 
     basis of a competition conducted under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall make a grant to the recipient to establish 
     and operate a Tier I university transportation center in each 
     of the first 4 fiscal years beginning after the date of the 
     competition.
       ``(4) Special rule for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.--For 
     fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the Secretary shall make a grant 
     under this section to each of the 10 nonprofit institutions 
     of higher learning that were competitively selected for grant 
     awards by the Secretary under this section in May 2002 to 
     operate university transportation centers (other than 
     regional centers).
       ``(5) Amount of grants.--The Secretary shall make a grant 
     of $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to a 
     nonprofit institution of higher learning to establish and 
     operate a Tier I university transportation center.
       ``(g) Tier II University Transportation Centers.--
       ``(1) Selection.--The Secretary shall make grants to the 
     nonprofit institutions of higher learning to establish and 
     operate the 22 Tier II university transportation centers 
     referred to in subsection (c)(2)(B).
       ``(2) Amount of grants.--The Secretary shall make a grant 
     of $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to a 
     nonprofit institution of higher learning to establish and 
     operate a Tier II university transportation center.
       ``(h) Support of National Strategy for Surface 
     Transportation Research.--In order to be eligible to receive 
     a grant under this section, a nonprofit institution of higher 
     learning shall provide assurances satisfactory to the 
     Secretary that the research and education activities of its 
     university transportation center will support the national 
     strategy for surface transportation research, as identified 
     by--
       ``(1) the report of the National Highway Research and 
     Technology Partnership entitled `Highway Research and 
     Technology: The Need for Greater Investment', dated April 
     2002; and
       ``(2) the programs of the National Research and Technology 
     Program of the Federal Transit Administration.
       ``(i) Maintenance of Effort.--In order to be eligible to 
     receive a grant under this section, a nonprofit institution 
     of higher learning shall enter into an agreement with the 
     Secretary to ensure that the institution will maintain total 
     expenditures from all other sources to establish and operate 
     a university transportation center and related research 
     activities at a level at least equal to the average level of 
     such expenditures in its 2 fiscal years prior to award of a 
     grant under this section.
       ``(j) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the costs of 
     activities carried out using a grant made under this section 
     shall be 50 percent of such costs. The non-Federal share may 
     include funds provided to a recipient under section 503, 
     504(b), or 505 of title 23.
       ``(k) Program Coordination.--
       ``(1) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     research, education, and technology transfer activities that 
     grant recipients carry out under this section, disseminate 
     the results of the research, and establish and operate a 
     clearinghouse to disseminate the results of the research.
       ``(2) Annual review and evaluation.--At least annually, and 
     consistent with the plan developed under section 508 of title 
     23, the Secretary shall review and evaluate programs of grant 
     recipients.
       ``(3) Management and oversight.--The Secretary shall expend 
     not more than $400,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009 from amounts made available to carry out this section to 
     carry out management and oversight of the centers receiving 
     assistance under this section and section 5505.
       ``(l) Program Administration.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out this section acting through the Administrator of the 
     Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
       ``(m) Limitation on Availability of Funds.--Funds made 
     available to carry out this section shall remain available 
     for obligation by the Secretary for a period of 2 years after 
     the last day of the fiscal year for which such funds are 
     authorized.''.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(4) of this Act, the following amounts shall be 
     available to carry out section 5506 of such title.
       (1) $20,400,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       (2) $41,400,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
       (3) $43,900,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 55 of such title is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 5506 and inserting the following:

``5506. University transportation research.''.
                       Subtitle E--Other Programs

     SEC. 5501. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 
                   SYSTEM PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall fund and carry out a 
     project to further the development of a comprehensive 
     transportation safety information management system (in this 
     section referred to as ``TSIMS'').
       (b) Purposes.--The purpose of the TSIMS project is to 
     further the development of a software application to provide 
     for the collection, integration, management, and 
     dissemination of safety data from and for use among State and 
     local safety and transportation agencies, including driver 
     licensing, vehicle registration, emergency management system, 
     injury surveillance, roadway inventory, and motor carrier 
     databases.
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) Federal funding.--Of the amounts made available by 
     section 5101(a)(1) of this Act, $1,000,000 for fiscal years 
     2006 and 2007 shall be available to carry out the TSIMS 
     project under this section.
       (2) State contribution.--The sums authorized in paragraph 
     (1) are intended to supplement voluntary contributions to be 
     made by State departments of transportation and other State 
     safety and transportation agencies.

     SEC. 5502. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION RELIEF SOLUTIONS 
                   RESEARCH INITIATIVE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a surface 
     transportation congestion solutions research initiative 
     consisting of 2 independent research programs described in 
     subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) and designed to develop 
     information to assist State transportation departments and 
     metropolitan planning organizations measure and address 
     surface transportation congestion problems.
       (b) Surface Transportation Congestion Solutions Research 
     Program.--
       (1) Improved surface transportation congestion management 
     system measures.--The purposes of the first research program 
     established under this section shall be--
       (A) to examine the effectiveness of surface transportation 
     congestion management systems since enactment of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 102-240);
       (B) to identify best case examples of locally designed 
     reporting methods and incorporate such methods in research on 
     national models for developing and recommending improved 
     surface transportation congestion measurement and reporting; 
     and
       (C) to incorporate such methods in the development of 
     national models and methods to monitor, measure, and report 
     surface transportation congestion information.
       (2) Analytical techniques for action on surface 
     transportation congestion.--The purposes of the second 
     research program established under this section shall be--
       (A) to analyze the effectiveness of procedures used by 
     State transportation departments and metropolitan planning 
     organizations to assess surface transportation congestion 
     problems and communicate those problems to decisionmakers; 
     and
       (B) to identify methods to ensure that the results of 
     surface transportation congestion analyses lead to the 
     targeting of funding for programs, projects, or services with 
     demonstrated effectiveness in reducing travel delay, 
     congestion, and system unreliability.
       (c) Technical Assistance and Training.--In fiscal year 
     2006, the Secretary shall develop a technical assistance and 
     training program to disseminate the results of the surface 
     transportation congestion solutions research initiative for 
     the purpose of assisting State transportation departments and 
     local transportation agencies with improving their approaches 
     to surface transportation congestion measurement, analysis, 
     and project programming.
       (d) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $9,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out subsections 
     (a) and (b) of this section. Of the amounts made available by 
     section 5101(a)(2), $750,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009 shall be available to carry out subsection (c) 
     of this subsection.

     SEC. 5503. MOTOR CARRIER EFFICIENCY STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     motor carrier and wireless technology industry, shall conduct 
     a study to--
       (1) identify inefficiencies in the transportation of 
     freight;
       (2) evaluate the safety, productivity, and reduced cost 
     improvements that may be achieved through the use of wireless 
     technologies to address the inefficiencies identified in 
     paragraph (1); and
       (3) conduct, as appropriate, field tests demonstrating the 
     technologies identified in paragraph (2).
       (b) Program Elements.--The program shall include, at a 
     minimum, the following:
       (1) Fuel monitoring and management systems.
       (2) Radio frequency identification technology.
       (3) Electronic manifest systems.
       (4) Cargo theft prevention.
       (c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     study under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (d) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit 
     to Congress an annual report

[[Page 18726]]

     on the programs and activities carried out under this 
     section.
       (e) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, the Secretary shall make available 
     $1,250,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
     for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 5504. CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION ADVANCEMENT AND REGIONAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a Center 
     for Transportation Advancement and Regional Development 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Center'') to assist, 
     through training, education, and research, in the 
     comprehensive development of small metropolitan and rural 
     regional transportation systems that are responsive to the 
     needs of businesses and local communities.
       (b) Activities.--In carrying out this section, the Center 
     shall--
       (1) provide training, information, and professional 
     resources for small metropolitan and rural regions to pursue 
     innovative strategies to expand the capabilities, capacity, 
     and effectiveness of a region's transportation network, 
     including activities related to freight projects, transit 
     system upgrades, roadways and bridges, and intermodal 
     transfer facilities and operations;
       (2) assist local officials, rural transportation and 
     economic development planners, officials from State 
     departments of transportation and economic development, 
     business leaders, and other stakeholders in developing 
     public-private partnerships to enhance their transportation 
     systems; and
       (3) promote the leveraging of regional transportation 
     planning with regional economic and business development 
     planning to assure that appropriate transportation systems 
     are created.
       (c) Program Administration.--To carry out this section, the 
     Secretary shall make a grant to, or enter into a cooperative 
     agreement or contract with the National Association of 
     Development Organizations.
       (d) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $625,000 shall be available for each 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to carry out this section.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out in accordance with this subsection 
     shall be 100 percent.

     SEC. 5505. TRANSPORTATION SCHOLARSHIP OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Establishment of program.--The Secretary may establish 
     and implement a scholarship program for the purpose of 
     attracting qualified students for transportation-related 
     critical jobs.
       (2) Partnership.--The Secretary may establish the program 
     in partnership with appropriate nongovernmental institutions.
       (b) Participation.--An operating administration of the 
     Department and the Office of Inspector General may 
     participate in the scholarship program.
       (c) Funding.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary may use funds available to an operating 
     administration or from the Office of Inspector General of the 
     Department for the purpose of carrying out this section.

     SEC. 5506. COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING PRODUCTS AND SPATIAL 
                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and carry 
     out a program to validate commercial remote sensing products 
     and spatial information technologies for application to 
     national transportation infrastructure development and 
     construction.
       (b) Program.--
       (1) National policy.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     maintain a national policy for the use of commercial remote 
     sensing products and spatial information technologies in 
     national transportation infrastructure development and 
     construction.
       (2) Policy implementation.--The Secretary shall develop new 
     applications of commercial remote sensing products and 
     spatial information technologies for the implementation of 
     the national policy established and maintained under 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section in cooperation with a consortium of university 
     research centers.
       (d) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $7,750,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 5507. RURAL INTERSTATE CORRIDOR COMMUNICATIONS STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of Commerce, State departments of transportation, 
     and other appropriate State, regional, and local officials, 
     shall conduct a study on the feasibility of installing fiber 
     optic cabling and wireless communication infrastructure along 
     multistate Interstate System route corridors for improved 
     communications services to rural communities along such 
     corridors.
       (b) Contents of Study.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall identify--
       (1) impediments to installation of the infrastructure 
     described in subsection (a) along multistate Interstate 
     System route corridors and to connecting such infrastructure 
     to the rural communities along such corridors;
       (2) the effective geographic range of such infrastructure;
       (3) potential opportunities for the private sector to fund, 
     wholly or partially, the installation of such infrastructure;
       (4) potential benefits fiber optic cabling and wireless 
     communication infrastructure may provide to rural communities 
     along such corridors, including the effects of the 
     installation of such infrastructure on economic development, 
     deployment of intelligent transportation systems technologies 
     and applications, homeland security precaution and response, 
     and education and health systems in those communities;
       (5) rural broadband access points for such infrastructure;
       (6) areas of environmental conflict with such installation;
       (7) real estate ownership issues relating to such 
     installation;
       (8) preliminary design for placement of fiber optic cable 
     and wireless towers;
       (9) monetary value of the rights-of-way necessary for such 
     installation;
       (10) applicability and transferability of the benefits of 
     such installation to other rural corridors; and
       (11) safety and other operational issues associated with 
     the installation and maintenance of fiber optic cabling and 
     wire infrastructure within Interstate System rights-of-way 
     and other publicly owned rights-of-way.
       (c) Corridor Locations.--The study required under 
     subsection (a) shall be conducted for corridors along--
       (1) Interstate Route 90 through rural Wisconsin, southern 
     Minnesota, northern Iowa, and South Dakota;
       (2) Interstate Route 20 through Alabama, Mississippi, and 
     northern Louisiana;
       (3) Interstate Route 91 through Vermont, New Hampshire, and 
     Massachusetts; and
       (4) any other rural corridor the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than September 30, 2007, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     results of the study, including any recommendations of the 
     Secretary.
       (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     study shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(5) of this Act, $1,000,000 shall be available for 
     fiscal year 2006, and $2,000,000 shall be available for 
     fiscal year 2007 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5508. TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       Section 5117(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century (112 Stat 449; 112 Stat. 864; 115 Stat. 2330) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Intelligent transportation infrastructure.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Congested area.--The term `congested area' means a 
     metropolitan area that experiences significant traffic 
     congestion, as determined by the Secretary on an annual 
     basis, including the metropolitan areas of Albany, Atlanta, 
     Austin, Burlington, Charlotte, Columbus, Greensboro, 
     Hartford, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Louisville, Milwaukee, 
     Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nashville, New Orleans, Norfolk, 
     Raleigh, Richmond, Sacramento, San Jose, Tuscson, and Tulsa.
       ``(ii) Deployment area.--The term `deployment area' means 
     any of the metropolitan areas of Baltimore, Birmingham, 
     Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Denver, 
     Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, 
     Miami, New York/Northern New Jersey, Northern Kentucky/
     Cincinnati, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, 
     Pittsburgh, Portland, Providence, Salt Lake, San Diego, San 
     Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, Tampa, and Washington, 
     District of Columbia.
       ``(iii) Metropolitan area.--The term `metropolitan area', 
     including a major transportation corridor serving a 
     metropolitan area, means any area that--

       ``(I) has a population exceeding 300,000; and
       ``(II) meets criteria established by the Secretary in 
     conjunction with the intelligent vehicle highway systems 
     corridors program.

       ``(iv) Original contract.--The term `original contract' 
     means the Department of Transportation contract numbered DTTS 
     59-99-D-00445 T020013.
       ``(v) Program.--The term `program' means the 2-part 
     intelligent transportation infrastructure program carried out 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(vi) State transportation department.--The term `State 
     transportation department' means--

       ``(I) a State transportation department (as defined in 
     section 101 of title 23, United States Code); and
       ``(II) a designee of a State transportation department (as 
     so defined) for the purpose of entering into contracts.

       ``(vii) Uncommitted funds.--The term `uncommitted funds' 
     means the total amount of funds that, as of the date that is 
     180 days after the date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, 
     remain uncommitted under the original contract.
       ``(B) Intelligent transportation infrastructure program.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a 2-part 
     intelligent transportation infrastructure program in 
     accordance with this paragraph to advance the deployment of 
     an operational intelligent transportation infrastructure 
     system, through measurement of various transportation system 
     activities, to simultaneously--

       ``(I) aid in transportation planning and analysis; and
       ``(II) make a significant contribution to the ITS program 
     under this title.

       ``(ii) Objectives.--The objectives of the program are--

[[Page 18727]]

       ``(I) to build or integrate an infrastructure of the 
     measurement of various transportation system metrics to aid 
     in planning, analysis, and maintenance of the Department of 
     Transportation, including the buildout, maintenance, and 
     operation of greater than 40 metropolitan area systems with a 
     total cost not to exceed $2,000,000 for each metropolitan 
     area;
       ``(II) to provide private technology commercialization 
     initiatives to generate revenues that will be reinvested in 
     the intelligent transportation infrastructure system;
       ``(III) to aggregate data into reports for multipoint data 
     distribution techniques; and
       ``(IV) with respect to part I of the program under 
     subparagraph (C), to use an advanced information system 
     designed and monitored by an entity with experience with the 
     Department of Transportation in the design and monitoring of 
     high-reliability, mission-critical voice and data systems.

       ``(C) Part I.--
       ``(i) In general.--In carrying out part I of the program, 
     the Secretary shall permit the entity to which the original 
     contract was awarded to use uncommitted funds to deploy 
     intelligent transportation infrastructure systems that have 
     been accepted by the Secretary--

       ``(I) in accordance with the terms of the original 
     contract; and
       ``(II) in any deployment area, with the consent of the 
     State transportation department for the deployment area.

       ``(ii) Applicable conditions.--The same asset ownership, 
     maintenance, fixed price contract, and revenue sharing model, 
     and the same competitively selected consortium leader, as 
     were used for the deployment of intelligent transportation 
     infrastructure systems under the original contract before the 
     date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU shall apply to each 
     deployment carried out under clause (i).
       ``(iii) Deployment in congested areas.--If the entity 
     referred to in clause (i) is unable to use the uncommitted 
     funds by deploying intelligent transportation infrastructure 
     systems in deployment areas, as determined by the Secretary, 
     the entity may deploy the systems in accordance with this 
     paragraph in 1 or more congested areas, with the consent of 
     the State transportation departments for the congested areas.
       ``(D) Part II.--
       ``(i) In general.--In carrying out part II of the program, 
     the Secretary shall award, on a competitive basis, contracts 
     for the deployment of intelligent transportation 
     infrastructure systems that have been accepted by the 
     Secretary in congested areas, with the consent of the State 
     transportation departments for the congested areas.
       ``(ii) Requirements.--The Secretary shall award contracts 
     under clause (i)--

       ``(I) for individual congested areas among entities that 
     seek to deploy intelligent transportation infrastructure 
     systems in the congested areas; and
       ``(II) on the condition that the terms of each contract 
     awarded requires the entity deploying such system to ensure 
     that the deployed system is compatible (as determined by the 
     Secretary) with systems deployed in other congested areas 
     under this paragraph.

       ``(iii) Provisions in contracts.--The Secretary shall 
     require that each contract for the deployment of an 
     intelligent transportation infrastructure system under this 
     subparagraph contain such provisions relating to asset 
     ownership, maintenance, fixed price, and revenue sharing as 
     the Secretary considers to be appropriate.
       ``(E) Use of funds for undeployed systems.--
       ``(i) In general.--If, under part I or part II of the 
     program, a State transportation department for a deployment 
     area or congested area does not consent by the later of the 
     date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the 
     SAFETEA-LU, or another date determined jointly by the State 
     transportation department and the deployment area or 
     congested area, to participate in the deployment of an 
     intelligent transportation infrastructure system in the 
     deployment area or congested area, upon application by any 
     other deployment area or congested area that has consented by 
     that date to participate in the deployment of such a system, 
     the Secretary shall distribute any such unused funds to any 
     other deployment or congested area that has consented by that 
     date to participate in the deployment of such a system.
       ``(ii) No inclusion in cost limitation.--Costs paid using 
     funds provided through a distribution under clause (i) shall 
     not be considered in determining the limitation on maximum 
     cost described in subparagraph (F)(ii).
       ``(F) Federal share; limits on costs of systems for 
     metropolitan areas.--
       ``(i) Federal share.--Subject to clause (ii), the Federal 
     share of the cost of any project or activity carried out 
     under the program shall be 80 percent.
       ``(ii) Limit on costs of system for each metropolitan 
     area.--

       ``(I) In general.--Not more than $2,000,000 may be provided 
     under this paragraph for deployment of an intelligent 
     transportation infrastructure system for a metropolitan area.
       ``(II) Funding under each part.--A metropolitan area in 
     which an intelligent transportation infrastructure system is 
     deployed under part I or part II under subparagraphs (C) and 
     (D), respectively, including through a distribution of funds 
     under subparagraph (E), may not receive any additional 
     deployment under the other part of the program.

       ``(G) Use of rights-of-way.--
       ``(i) In general.--An intelligent transportation system 
     project described in this paragraph or paragraph (6) that 
     involves privately-owned intelligent transportation system 
     components and is carried out using funds made available from 
     the Highway Trust Fund shall not be subject to any law 
     (including a regulation) of a State or political subdivision 
     of a State prohibiting or regulating commercial activities in 
     the rights-of-way of a highway for which Federal-aid highway 
     funds have been used for planning, design, construction, or 
     maintenance for the project, if the Secretary determines that 
     such use is in the public interest.
       ``(ii) Effect of subparagraph.--Nothing in this 
     subparagraph affects the authority of a State or political 
     subdivision of a State--

       ``(I) to regulate highway safety; or
       ``(II) under sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 253, 332(c)(7)).

       ``(H) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to carry out this paragraph. 
     ''.

     SEC. 5509. REPEAL.

       Effective October 1 of 2005, sections 5208 and 5209 of 
     subtitle C of title V of The Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 502 note; 112 Stat. 452-463) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 5510. NOTICE.

       (a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized for 
     carrying out this title or the amendments made by this title 
     are subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to 
     be provided to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, and Science of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations and 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate, notice of that 
     action shall be concurrently provided to the Committee of 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on 
     Science of the House of Representative and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
       (b) Notice of Reorganization.--On or before the 15th day 
     preceding the date of any major reorganization of a program, 
     project, or activity of the Department for which funds are 
     authorized by this title or the amendments made by this 
     title, the Secretary shall provide notice of the 
     reorganization to the Committees on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure and Science of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate.

     SEC. 5511. MOTORCYCLE CRASH CAUSATION STUDY GRANTS.

       (a) Grants.--The Secretary shall provide grants to the 
     Oklahoma Transportation Center for the purpose of conducting 
     a comprehensive, in-depth motorcycle crash causation study 
     that employs the common international methodology for in-
     depth motorcycle accident investigation of the Organization 
     for Economic Cooperation and Development.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $1,408,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 and 2007 shall be available to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5512. ADVANCED TRAVEL FORECASTING PROCEDURES PROGRAM.

       (a) Continuation and Acceleration of Transims Deployment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accelerate the 
     deployment of the advanced transportation model known as the 
     ``Transportation Analysis Simulation System'' (in this 
     section referred to as ``TRANSIMS''), developed by the Los 
     Alamos National Laboratory.
       (2) Program appreciation.--The purpose of the program is to 
     assist State departments of transportation and metropolitan 
     planning organizations--
       (A) to implement TRANSIMS;
       (B) to develop methods for TRANSIMS applications to 
     transportation planning, air quality analysis, regulatory 
     compliance, and response to natural disasters and other 
     transportation disruptions; and
       (C) to provide training and technical assistance for the 
     implementation of TRANSIMS.
       (b) Required Activities.--The Secretary shall use funds 
     made available to carry out this section to--
       (1) provide funding to State departments of transportation 
     and metropolitan planning organizations serving 
     transportation management areas designated under chapter 52 
     of title 49, United States Code, representing a diversity of 
     populations, geographic regions, and analytic needs to 
     implement TRANSIMS;
       (2) develop methods to demonstrate a wide spectrum of 
     TRANSIMS applications to support local, metropolitan, 
     statewide transportation planning, including integrating 
     highway and transit operational considerations into the 
     transportation Planning process, and estimating the effects 
     of induced travel demand and transit ridership in making 
     transportation conformity determinations where applicable;
       (3) provide training and technical assistance with respect 
     to the implementation and application of TRANSIMS to States, 
     local governments, and metropolitan planning organizations 
     with responsibility for travel modeling;
       (4) to further develop TRANSIMS for additional 
     applications, including--
       (A) congestion analyses;
       (B) major investment studies;
       (C) economic impact analyses;
       (D) alternative analyses;
       (E) freight movement studies;
       (F) emergency evacuation studies;
       (G) port studies; and
       (H) airport access studies;

[[Page 18728]]

       (I) induced demand studies; and
       (J) transit ridership analysis.
       (c) Eligible Activities.--The program may support the 
     development of methods to plan for the transportation 
     response to chemical and biological terrorism and other 
     security concerns.
       (d) Allocation of Funds.--Not more than 75 percent of the 
     funds made available to carry out this section may be 
     allocated to activities described in subsection (b)(1).
       (e) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $2,625,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 5513. RESEARCH GRANTS.

       (a) Thermal Imaging.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant to carry 
     out a demonstration project that uses a thermal imaging 
     inspection system (TIIS) that leverages state-of-the-art 
     thermal imagery technology, integrated with signature 
     recognition software, providing the capability to identify, 
     in real time, faults and failures in tires, brakes and 
     bearings mounted on commercial motor vehicles.
       (2) Use of funds.--Funds shall be used--
       (A) to employ a TIIS in a field environment, along the 
     Interstate, to further assess the system's ability to 
     identify faults in tires, brakes, and bearings mounted on 
     commercial motor vehicles;
       (B) to establish, through statistical analysis, the 
     probability of failure for each component; and
       (C) to develop and integrate a predictive tool into the 
     TIIS, which identifies an impending tire, brake, or bearing 
     failure and provides the use a time frame in which this 
     failure may occur.
       (3) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2006 shall 
     be available to carry out this subsection.
       (b) Transportation Injury Research.--
       (1) Grant.--The Secretary shall make a grant to maintain a 
     center for transportation injury research at the Calspan 
     University of Buffalo Research Center, through the North 
     Campus facility located in Amherst, New York, and affiliated 
     with the State University of New York at Buffalo.
       (2) Recoup costs.-- Notwithstanding current law, Federal 
     regulations, or Office of Management and Budget circulars or 
     guidance, the Center shall be permitted to recoup direct and 
     indirect costs and apply a 7 percent fee to the grant made 
     under this subsection.
       (3) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $1,250,000 in each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (c) Technology Transfer Grant.--
       (1) Grant.--The Secretary shall make grants to the Argonne 
     National Laboratory-Advanced Transportation Technology Center 
     for the purpose of conducting transportation research and 
     demonstration projects that would lead to the exchange of 
     research results with the private sector and collaboration 
     with universities at a centralized location conducive for 
     technology transfer.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $4,000,000 in each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (d) Appalachian Regional Commission.--
       (1) Grant.--The Secretary shall make a grant to the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission to conduct a feasibility 
     study for the creation of a system of inland ports and 
     distribution centers in Appalachia.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $500,000 in fiscal year 2006 shall be 
     available to carry out this subsection.
       (e) Automobile Accident Injury Research.--
       (1) Grants.--The Secretary shall make a grant to the 
     Forsyth Institute for research and technology development for 
     preventing and minimizing head, craniofacial, and spinal cord 
     injuries resulting from automobile accidents.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $500,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009 shall be available to carry out this subsection.
       (f) Rural Transportation Research.--
       (1) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants to the New 
     England Transportation Institute in White River Junction, 
     Vermont for rural transportation research.
       (2) Funding.--
       (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 shall 
     be available to carry out this subsection and shall remain 
     available until expended.
       (B) Cost-sharing.--
       (i) Federal share.--The Federal Share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this subsection shall be 80 
     percent.
       (ii) Non-federal share.--The fair market value of any 
     materials or services provided by the non-Federal sponsor for 
     activities under this subsection shall be credited to the 
     non-Federal share.
       (g) Rural Transportation Research Initiative.--
       (1) Grants.--For each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, 
     the Secretary shall provide a grant to the Upper Great Plains 
     Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University for 
     use in carrying out the Rural Transportation Research 
     Initiative.
       (2) Funding.--
       (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $500,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     subsection, and shall remain available until expended.
       (B) Cost-sharing.--
       (i) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     activities carried out under this subsection shall be 80 
     percent.
       (ii) Non-federal share.--The fair market value of any 
     materials or services provided by the non-Federal project 
     sponsor for any activity under this subsection shall be 
     credited to the non-Federal share.
       (h) Hydrogen-Powered Transportation Research Initiative.--
       (1) Grants.--For each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009, 
     the Secretary shall provide a grant to the University of 
     Montana for use in carrying out the Hydrogen-Powered 
     Transportation Research Initiative.
       (2) Funding.--
       (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $750,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     subsection, and shall remain available until expended.
       (B) Cost-sharing.--
       (i) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     activities carried out under this subsection shall be 80 
     percent.
       (ii) Non-federal share.--The fair market value of any 
     materials or services provided by the non-Federal project 
     sponsor for an activity under this subsection shall be 
     credited to the non-Federal share.
       (i) Cold Region and Rural Transportation Research, 
     Maintenance, and Operations.--
       (1) Grants.--The Secretary shall provide grants to the 
     Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University, 
     for use in developing a research facility in Lewistown, 
     Montana, for basic and applied research and testing on 
     surface transportation issues facing rural and cold regions.
       (2) Funding.--
       (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     subsection, to remain available until expended.
       (B) Cost-sharing.--
       (i) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     activities carried out under this subsection shall be 80 
     percent.
       (ii) Non-federal share.--The fair market value of any 
     materials or services provided by the non-Federal project 
     sponsor for an activity under this section shall be credited 
     to the non-Federal share.
       (j) Advanced Vehicle Technology.--
       (1) Grant.--The Secretary shall make a grant to the 
     University of Kansas Transportation Research Institute for 
     research and development of advanced vehicle technology 
     concepts, focused on vehicle emissions, fuel cells and 
     catalytic processes, and intelligent transportation systems.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $2,500,000 in each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (k) Asphalt Research Consortium.--
       (1) Grant.--The Secretary shall make a grant to the asphalt 
     research consortium lead by the Western Research Institute to 
     research flexible pavement and extending the life-cycle of 
     asphalts.
       (2) Funding.--Of the amounts made available under section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $7,500,000 in each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (l) Renewable Transportation Systems Research.--
       (1) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants to the 
     University of Vermont for research, development and field 
     testing of hydrogen fuel cell and biofuel transportation 
     technology.
       (2) Funding.--
       (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available for section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to 
     remain available until expended.
       (B) Cost-sharing.--
       (i) Federal share.--The Federal Share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this section shall be 80 
     percent.
       (ii) Non-federal share.--The fair market value of any 
     materials or services provided by the non-federal sponsor for 
     activities under this section shall be credited to the non-
     federal share.
       (m) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out in accordance with this section shall 
     be 80 percent unless otherwise expressly provided by this 
     section or otherwise determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 5514. COMPETITION FOR SPECIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE TYPES 
                   OF CULVERT PIPES.

       Notwithstanding any contrary interpretation of appendix A 
     of subpart D of section 635.411 of volume 23, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (as in existence on the date of enactment of this 
     Act), not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall ensure that States provide for 
     competition with respect to the specification of alternative 
     types of culvert pipes through requirements that are 
     commensurate with competition requirements for other 
     construction materials, as determined by the Secretary.
            Subtitle F--Bureau of Transportation Statistics

     SEC. 5601. BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS.

       (a) In General.--Section 111 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

[[Page 18729]]



     ``Sec. 111. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Research 
     and Innovative Technology Administration a Bureau of 
     Transportation Statistics.
       ``(b) Director.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--The Bureau shall be headed by a 
     Director who shall be appointed in the competitive service by 
     the Secretary of Transportation.
       ``(2) Qualifications.--The Director shall be appointed from 
     among individuals who are qualified to serve as the Director 
     by virtue of their training and experience in the collection, 
     analysis, and use of transportation statistics.
       ``(c) Responsibilities.--The Director of the Bureau shall 
     serve as the Secretary's senior advisor on data and 
     statistics and shall be responsible for carrying out the 
     following duties:
       ``(1) Providing data, statistics, and analysis to 
     transportation decisionmakers.--Ensuring that the statistics 
     compiled under paragraph (5) are designed to support 
     transportation decisionmaking by the Federal Government, 
     State and local governments, metropolitan planning 
     organizations, transportation-related associations, the 
     private sector (including the freight community), and the 
     public.
       ``(2) Coordinating collection of information.--Working with 
     the operating administrations of the Department to establish 
     and implement the Bureau's data programs and to improve the 
     coordination of information collection efforts with other 
     Federal agencies.
       ``(3) Data modernization.--Continually improving surveys 
     and data collection methods to improve the accuracy and 
     utility of transportation statistics.
       ``(4) Encouraging data standardization.--Encouraging the 
     standardization of data, data collection methods, and data 
     management and storage technologies for data collected by the 
     Bureau, the operating administrations of the Department of 
     Transportation, States, local governments, metropolitan 
     planning organizations, and private sector entities.
       ``(5) Transportation statistics.--Collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, and publishing a comprehensive set of 
     transportation statistics on the performance and impacts of 
     the national transportation system, including statistics on--
       ``(A) productivity in various parts of the transportation 
     sector;
       ``(B) traffic flows for all modes of transportation;
       ``(C) other elements of the intermodal transportation 
     database established under subsection (e);
       ``(D) travel times and measures of congestion;
       ``(E) vehicle weights and other vehicle characteristics;
       ``(F) demographic, economic, and other variables 
     influencing traveling behavior, including choice of 
     transportation mode and goods movement;
       ``(G) transportation costs for passenger travel and goods 
     movement;
       ``(H) availability and use of mass transit (including the 
     number of passengers served by each mass transit authority) 
     and other forms of for-hire passenger travel;
       ``(I) frequency of vehicle and transportation facility 
     repairs and other interruptions of transportation service;
       ``(J) safety and security for travelers, vehicles, and 
     transportation systems;
       ``(K) consequences of transportation for the human and 
     natural environment;
       ``(L) the extent, connectivity, and condition of the 
     transportation system, building on the national 
     transportation atlas database developed under subsection (g); 
     and
       ``(M) transportation-related variables that influence the 
     domestic economy and global competitiveness.
       ``(6) National spatial data infrastructure.--Building and 
     disseminating the transportation layer of the National 
     Spatial Data Infrastructure developed under Executive Order 
     No. 12906, including coordinating the development of 
     transportation geospatial data standards, compiling 
     intermodal geospatial data, and collecting geospatial data 
     that is not being collected by others.
       ``(7) Issuing guidelines.--Issuing guidelines for the 
     collection of information by the Department required for 
     statistics to be compiled under paragraph (5) in order to 
     ensure that such information is accurate, reliable, relevant, 
     and in a form that permits systematic analysis.
       ``(8) Review sources and reliability of statistics.--
     Reviewing and reporting to the Secretary on the sources and 
     reliability of the statistics proposed by the heads of the 
     operating administrations of the Department to measure 
     outputs and outcomes as required by the Government 
     Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 
     Stat. 285), and the amendments made by such Act, and carrying 
     out such other reviews of the sources and reliability of 
     other data collected or statistical information published by 
     the heads of the operating administrations of the Department 
     as shall be requested by the Secretary.
       ``(9) Making statistics accessible.--Making the statistics 
     published under this subsection readily accessible to the 
     public.
       ``(d) Information Needs Assessment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the Secretary shall enter into 
     an agreement with the National Research Council to develop 
     and publish a National transportation information needs 
     assessment (referred to in this subsection as the 
     `assessment'). The assessment shall be submitted to the 
     Secretary and the appropriate committees of Congress not 
     later than 24 months after such agreement is entered into.
       ``(2) Content.--The assessment shall--
       ``(A) identify, in order of priority, the transportation 
     data that is not being collected by the Bureau, operating 
     administrations of the Department, or other Federal, State, 
     or local entities, but is needed to improve transportation 
     decisionmaking at the Federal, State, and local levels and to 
     fulfill the requirements of subsection (c)(5);
       ``(B) recommend whether the data identified in subparagraph 
     (A) should be collected by the Bureau, other parts of the 
     Department, or by other Federal, State, or local entities, 
     and whether any data is of a higher priority than data 
     currently being collected;
       ``(C) identify any data the Bureau or other Federal, State, 
     or local entity is collecting that is not needed;
       ``(D) describe new data collection methods (including 
     changes in surveys) and other changes the Bureau or other 
     Federal, State, or local entity should implement to improve 
     the standardization, accuracy, and utility of transportation 
     data and statistics; and
       ``(E) estimate the cost of implementing any 
     recommendations.
       ``(3) Consultation.--In developing the assessment, the 
     National Research Council shall consult with the Department's 
     Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics and a 
     representative cross-section of transportation community 
     stakeholders as well as other Federal agencies, including the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, 
     and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
       ``(4) Report to congress.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date on which the National Research Council submits the 
     assessment under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress that describes--
       ``(A) how the Department plans to fill the data gaps 
     identified under paragraph (2)(A);
       ``(B) how the Department plans to stop collecting data 
     identified under paragraph (2)(C);
       ``(C) how the Department plans to implement improved data 
     collection methods and other changes identified under 
     paragraph (2)(D);
       ``(D) the expected costs of implementing subparagraphs (A), 
     (B), and (C) of this paragraph;
       ``(E) any findings of the assessment under paragraph (1) 
     with which the Secretary disagrees, and why; and
       ``(F) any proposed statutory changes needed to implement 
     the findings of the assessment under paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Intermodal Transportation Database.--
       ``(1) In general.--In consultation with the Under Secretary 
     for Policy, the Assistant Secretaries, and the heads of the 
     operating administrations of the Department, the Director 
     shall establish and maintain a transportation database for 
     all modes of transportation.
       ``(2) Use.--The database shall be suitable for analyses 
     carried out by the Federal Government, the States, and 
     metropolitan planning organizations.
       ``(3) Contents.--The database shall include--
       ``(A) information on the volumes and patterns of movement 
     of goods, including local, interregional, and international 
     movement, by all modes of transportation and intermodal 
     combinations and by relevant classification;
       ``(B) information on the volumes and patterns of movement 
     of people, including local, interregional, and international 
     movements, by all modes of transportation (including bicycle 
     and pedestrian modes) and intermodal combinations and by 
     relevant classification;
       ``(C) information on the location and connectivity of 
     transportation facilities and services; and
       ``(D) a national accounting of expenditures and capital 
     stocks on each mode of transportation and intermodal 
     combination.
       ``(f) National Transportation Library.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall establish and 
     maintain a National Transportation Library, which shall 
     contain a collection of statistical and other information 
     needed for transportation decisionmaking at the Federal, 
     State, and local levels.
       ``(2) Access.--The Director shall facilitate and promote 
     access to the Library, with the goal of improving the ability 
     of the transportation community to share information and the 
     ability of the Director to make statistics readily accessible 
     under subsection (c)(9).
       ``(3) Coordination.--The Director shall work with other 
     transportation libraries and transportation information 
     providers, both public and private, to achieve the goal 
     specified in paragraph (2).
       ``(g) National Transportation Atlas Database.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall develop and maintain 
     a national transportation atlas database that is comprised of 
     geospatial databases that depict--
       ``(A) transportation networks;
       ``(B) flows of people, goods, vehicles, and craft over the 
     networks; and
       ``(C) social, economic, and environmental conditions that 
     affect or are affected by the networks.
       ``(2) Intermodal network analysis.--The databases shall be 
     able to support intermodal network analysis.
       ``(h) Mandatory Response Authority for Freight Data 
     Collection.--Whoever, being the owner, official, agent, 
     person in charge, or assistant to the person in charge of any 
     freight corporation, company, business, institution, 
     establishment, or organization of any nature whatsoever, 
     neglects or refuses, when requested by the Director or other 
     authorized officer, employee, or contractor of the Bureau, to 
     answer

[[Page 18730]]

     completely and correctly to the best of the individual's 
     knowledge all questions relating to the corporation, company, 
     business, institution, establishment, or other organization, 
     or to make available records or statistics in the 
     individual's official custody, contained in a data collection 
     request prepared and submitted under the authority of 
     subsection (c)(1), shall be fined not more than $500; but if 
     the individual willfully gives a false answer to such a 
     question, the individual shall be fined not more than 
     $10,000.
       ``(i) Research and Development Grants.--The Secretary may 
     make grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements or 
     contracts with, public and nonprofit private entities 
     (including State transportation departments, metropolitan 
     planning organizations, and institutions of higher education) 
     for--
       ``(1) investigation of the subjects specified in subsection 
     (c)(5) and research and development of new methods of data 
     collection, standardization, management, integration, 
     dissemination, interpretation, and analysis;
       ``(2) demonstration programs by States, local governments, 
     and metropolitan planning organizations to coordinate data 
     collection, reporting, management, storage, and archiving to 
     simplify data comparisons across jurisdictions;
       ``(3) development of electronic clearinghouses of 
     transportation data and related information, as part of the 
     National Transportation Library under subsection (f); and
       ``(4) development and improvement of methods for sharing 
     geographic data, in support of the database under subsection 
     (g) and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
       ``(j) Limitations on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed--
       ``(1) to authorize the Bureau to require any other 
     department or agency to collect data; or
       ``(2) to reduce the authority of any other officer of the 
     Department to collect and disseminate data independently.
       ``(k) Prohibition on Certain Disclosures.--
       ``(1) In general.--An officer, employee, or contractor of 
     the Bureau may not--
       ``(A) make any disclosure in which the data provided by an 
     individual or organization under subsection (c) can be 
     identified;
       ``(B) use the information provided under subsection (c) for 
     a nonstatistical purpose; or
       ``(C) permit anyone other than an individual authorized by 
     the Director to examine any individual report provided under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(2) Copies of reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--No department, bureau, agency, officer, 
     or employee of the United States (except the Director in 
     carrying out this section) may require, for any reason, a 
     copy of any report that has been filed under subsection (c) 
     with the Bureau or retained by an individual respondent.
       ``(B) Limitation on judicial proceedings.--A copy of a 
     report described in subparagraph (A) that has been retained 
     by an individual respondent or filed with the Bureau or any 
     of its employees, contractors, or agents--
       ``(i) shall be immune from legal process; and
       ``(ii) shall not, without the consent of the individual 
     concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in 
     any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative 
     proceedings.
       ``(C) Applicability.--This paragraph shall apply only to 
     reports that permit information concerning an individual or 
     organization to be reasonably determined by direct or 
     indirect means.
       ``(3) Informing respondent of use of data.--In a case in 
     which the Bureau is authorized by statute to collect data or 
     information for a nonstatistical purpose, the Director shall 
     clearly distinguish the collection of the data or 
     information, by rule and on the collection instrument, so as 
     to inform a respondent who is requested or required to supply 
     the data or information of the nonstatistical purpose.
       ``(l) Transportation Statistics Annual Report.--The 
     Director shall submit to the President and Congress a 
     transportation statistics annual report which shall include 
     information on items referred to in subsection (c)(5), 
     documentation of methods used to obtain and ensure the 
     quality of the statistics presented in the report, and 
     recommendations for improving transportation statistical 
     information.
       ``(m) Data Access.--The Director shall have access to 
     transportation and transportation-related information in the 
     possession of any Federal agency, except information--
       ``(1) the disclosure of which to another Federal agency is 
     expressly prohibited by law; or
       ``(2) the disclosure of which the agency possessing the 
     information determines would significantly impair the 
     discharge of authorities and responsibilities which have been 
     delegated to, or vested by law, in such agency.
       ``(n) Proceeds of Data Product Sales.--Notwithstanding 
     section 3302 of title 31, funds received by the Bureau from 
     the sale of data products, for necessary expenses incurred, 
     may be credited to the Highway Trust Fund (other than the 
     Mass Transit Account) for the purpose of reimbursing the 
     Bureau for the expenses.
       ``(o) Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish an 
     advisory council on transportation statistics.
       ``(2) Function.--The function of the advisory council 
     established under this subsection is to--
       ``(A) advise the Director on the quality, reliability, 
     consistency, objectivity, and relevance of transportation 
     statistics and analyses collected, supported, or disseminated 
     by the Bureau and the Department;
       ``(B) provide input to and review the report to Congress 
     under subsection (d)(4); and
       ``(C) advise the Director on methods to encourage 
     cooperation and interoperability of transportation data 
     collected by the Bureau, the operating administrations of the 
     Department, States, local governments, metropolitan planning 
     organizations, and private sector entities.
       ``(3) Membership.--The advisory council established under 
     this subsection shall be composed of not fewer than 9 and not 
     more than 11 members appointed by the Director, who are not 
     officers or employees of the United States. Each member shall 
     have expertise in transportation data collection or analysis 
     or application; except that 1 member shall have expertise in 
     economics, 1 member shall have expertise in statistics, and 1 
     member shall have experience in transportation safety. At 
     least 1 member shall be a senior official of a State 
     department of transportation. Members shall include 
     representation of a cross-section of transportation community 
     stakeholders.
       ``(4) Terms of appointment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     members of the advisory council shall be appointed to 
     staggered terms not to exceed 3 years. A member may be 
     renominated for 1 additional 3-year term.
       ``(B) Current members.--Members serving on the Advisory 
     Council on Transportation Statistics as of the date of 
     enactment of the SAFETEA-LU shall serve until the end of 
     their appointed terms.
       ``(5) Applicability of federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the Advisory 
     Council established under this subsection, except that 
     section 14 of such Act shall not apply.''.
         TITLE VI--TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROJECT DELIVERY

     SEC. 6001. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.

       (a) In General.--Sections 134 and 135 of title 23, United 
     States Code, are amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 134. Metropolitan transportation planning

       ``(a) Policy.--It is in the national interest to--
       ``(1) encourage and promote the safe and efficient 
     management, operation, and development of surface 
     transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of 
     people and freight and foster economic growth and development 
     within and between States and urbanized areas, while 
     minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption and air 
     pollution through metropolitan and statewide transportation 
     planning processes identified in this chapter; and
       ``(2) encourage the continued improvement and evolution of 
     the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning 
     processes by metropolitan planning organizations, State 
     departments of transportation, and public transit operators 
     as guided by the planning factors identified in subsection 
     (h) and section 135(d).
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section and section 135, the 
     following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Metropolitan planning area.--The term `metropolitan 
     planning area' means the geographic area determined by 
     agreement between the metropolitan planning organization for 
     the area and the Governor under subsection (e).
       ``(2) Metropolitan planning organization.--The term 
     `metropolitan planning organization' means the policy board 
     of an organization created as a result of the designation 
     process in subsection (d).
       ``(3) Nonmetropolitan area.--The term `nonmetropolitan 
     area' means a geographic area outside designated metropolitan 
     planning areas.
       ``(4) Nonmetropolitan local official.--The term 
     `nonmetropolitan local official' means elected and appointed 
     officials of general purpose local government in a 
     nonmetropolitan area with responsibility for transportation.
       ``(5) TIP.--The term `TIP' means a transportation 
     improvement program developed by a metropolitan planning 
     organization under subsection (j).
       ``(6) Urbanized area.--The term `urbanized area' means a 
     geographic area with a population of 50,000 or more, as 
     designated by the Bureau of the Census.
       ``(c) General Requirements.--
       ``(1) Development of long-range plans and tips.--To 
     accomplish the objectives in subsection (a), metropolitan 
     planning organizations designated under subsection (d), in 
     cooperation with the State and public transportation 
     operators, shall develop long-range transportation plans and 
     transportation improvement programs for metropolitan planning 
     areas of the State.
       ``(2) Contents.--The plans and TIPs for each metropolitan 
     area shall provide for the development and integrated 
     management and operation of transportation systems and 
     facilities (including accessible pedestrian walkways and 
     bicycle transportation facilities) that will function as an 
     intermodal transportation system for the metropolitan 
     planning area and as an integral part of an intermodal 
     transportation system for the State and the United States.
       ``(3) Process of development.--The process for developing 
     the plans and TIPs shall provide for consideration of all 
     modes of transportation and shall be continuing, cooperative, 
     and comprehensive to the degree appropriate, based on the 
     complexity of the transportation problems to be addressed.
       ``(d) Designation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.--
       ``(1) In general.--To carry out the transportation planning 
     process required by this section,

[[Page 18731]]

     a metropolitan planning organization shall be designated for 
     each urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000 
     individuals--
       ``(A) by agreement between the Governor and units of 
     general purpose local government that together represent at 
     least 75 percent of the affected population (including the 
     largest incorporated city (based on population) as named by 
     the Bureau of the Census); or
       ``(B) in accordance with procedures established by 
     applicable State or local law.
       ``(2) Structure.--Each metropolitan planning organization 
     that serves an area designated as a transportation management 
     area, when designated or redesignated under this subsection, 
     shall consist of--
       ``(A) local elected officials;
       ``(B) officials of public agencies that administer or 
     operate major modes of transportation in the metropolitan 
     area; and
       ``(C) appropriate State officials.
       ``(3) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to interfere with the 
     authority, under any State law in effect on December 18, 
     1991, of a public agency with multimodal transportation 
     responsibilities to--
       ``(A) develop the plans and TIPs for adoption by a 
     metropolitan planning organization; and
       ``(B) develop long-range capital plans, coordinate transit 
     services and projects, and carry out other activities 
     pursuant to State law.
       ``(4) Continuing designation.--A designation of a 
     metropolitan planning organization under this subsection or 
     any other provision of law shall remain in effect until the 
     metropolitan planning organization is redesignated under 
     paragraph (5).
       ``(5) Redesignation procedures.--A metropolitan planning 
     organization may be redesignated by agreement between the 
     Governor and units of general purpose local government that 
     together represent at least 75 percent of the existing 
     planning area population (including the largest incorporated 
     city (based on population) as named by the Bureau of the 
     Census) as appropriate to carry out this section.
       ``(6) Designation of more than 1 metropolitan planning 
     organization.--More than 1 metropolitan planning organization 
     may be designated within an existing metropolitan planning 
     area only if the Governor and the existing metropolitan 
     planning organization determine that the size and complexity 
     of the existing metropolitan planning area make designation 
     of more than 1 metropolitan planning organization for the 
     area appropriate.
       ``(e) Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     boundaries of a metropolitan planning area shall be 
     determined by agreement between the metropolitan planning 
     organization and the Governor.
       ``(2) Included area.--Each metropolitan planning area--
       ``(A) shall encompass at least the existing urbanized area 
     and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 
     20-year forecast period for the transportation plan; and
       ``(B) may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical 
     area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as 
     defined by the Bureau of the Census.
       ``(3) Identification of new urbanized areas within existing 
     planning area boundaries.--The designation by the Bureau of 
     the Census of new urbanized areas within an existing 
     metropolitan planning area shall not require the 
     redesignation of the existing metropolitan planning 
     organization.
       ``(4) Existing metropolitan planning areas in 
     nonattainment.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in the case of 
     an urbanized area designated as a nonattainment area for 
     ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7401 et seq.) as of the date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, 
     the boundaries of the metropolitan planning area in existence 
     as of such date of enactment shall be retained; except that 
     the boundaries may be adjusted by agreement of the Governor 
     and affected metropolitan planning organizations in the 
     manner described in subsection (d)(5).
       ``(5) New metropolitan planning areas in nonattainment.--In 
     the case of an urbanized area designated after the date of 
     enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, as a nonattainment area for 
     ozone or carbon monoxide, the boundaries of the metropolitan 
     planning area--
       ``(A) shall be established in the manner described in 
     subsection (d)(1);
       ``(B) shall encompass the areas described in paragraph 
     (2)(A);
       ``(C) may encompass the areas described in paragraph 
     (2)(B); and
       ``(D) may address any nonattainment area identified under 
     the Clean Air Act for ozone or carbon monoxide.
       ``(f) Coordination in Multistate Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall encourage each 
     Governor with responsibility for a portion of a multistate 
     metropolitan area and the appropriate metropolitan planning 
     organizations to provide coordinated transportation planning 
     for the entire metropolitan area.
       ``(2) Interstate compacts.--The consent of Congress is 
     granted to any 2 or more States--
       ``(A) to enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict 
     with any law of the United States, for cooperative efforts 
     and mutual assistance in support of activities authorized 
     under this section as the activities pertain to interstate 
     areas and localities within the States; and
       ``(B) to establish such agencies, joint or otherwise, as 
     the States may determine desirable for making the agreements 
     and compacts effective.
       ``(3) Lake tahoe region.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `Lake Tahoe 
     region' has the meaning given the term `region' in 
     subdivision (a) of article II of the Tahoe Regional Planning 
     Compact, as set forth in the first section of Public Law 96-
     551 (94 Stat. 3234).
       ``(B) Transportation planning process.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(i) establish with the Federal land management agencies 
     that have jurisdiction over land in the Lake Tahoe region a 
     transportation planning process for the region; and
       ``(ii) coordinate the transportation planning process with 
     the planning process required of State and local governments 
     under this section and section 135.
       ``(C) Interstate compact.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), and 
     notwithstanding subsection (b), to carry out the 
     transportation planning process required by this section, the 
     consent of Congress is granted to the States of California 
     and Nevada to designate a metropolitan planning organization 
     for the Lake Tahoe region, by agreement between the Governors 
     of the States of California and Nevada and units of general 
     purpose local government that together represent at least 75 
     percent of the affected population (including the central 
     city or cities (as defined by the Bureau of the Census)), or 
     in accordance with procedures established by applicable State 
     or local law.
       ``(ii) Involvement of federal land management agencies.--

       ``(I) Representation.--The policy board of a metropolitan 
     planning organization designated under clause (i) shall 
     include a representative of each Federal land management 
     agency that has jurisdiction over land in the Lake Tahoe 
     region.
       ``(II) Funding.--In addition to funds made available to the 
     metropolitan planning organization for the Lake Tahoe region 
     under other provisions of this title and under chapter 53 of 
     title 49, 1 percent of the funds allocated under section 202 
     shall be used to carry out the transportation planning 
     process for the Lake Tahoe region under this subparagraph.

       ``(D) Activities.--Highway projects included in 
     transportation plans developed under this paragraph--
       ``(i) shall be selected for funding in a manner that 
     facilitates the participation of the Federal land management 
     agencies that have jurisdiction over land in the Lake Tahoe 
     region; and
       ``(ii) may, in accordance with chapter 2, be funded using 
     funds allocated under section 202.
       ``(4) Reservation of rights.--The right to alter, amend, or 
     repeal interstate compacts entered into under this subsection 
     is expressly reserved.
       ``(g) MPO Consultation in Plan and TIP Coordination.--
       ``(1) Nonattainment areas.--If more than 1 metropolitan 
     planning organization has authority within a metropolitan 
     area or an area which is designated as a nonattainment area 
     for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act, each 
     metropolitan planning organization shall consult with the 
     other metropolitan planning organizations designated for such 
     area and the State in the coordination of plans and TIPs 
     required by this section.
       ``(2) Transportation improvements located in multiple 
     mpos.--If a transportation improvement, funded from the 
     Highway Trust Fund or authorized under chapter 53 of title 
     49, is located within the boundaries of more than 1 
     metropolitan planning area, the metropolitan planning 
     organizations shall coordinate plans and TIPs regarding the 
     transportation improvement.
       ``(3) Relationship with other planning officials.--The 
     Secretary shall encourage each metropolitan planning 
     organization to consult with officials responsible for other 
     types of planning activities that are affected by 
     transportation in the area (including State and local planned 
     growth, economic development, environmental protection, 
     airport operations, and freight movements) or to coordinate 
     its planning process, to the maximum extent practicable, with 
     such planning activities. Under the metropolitan planning 
     process, transportation plans and TIPs shall be developed 
     with due consideration of other related planning activities 
     within the metropolitan area, and the process shall provide 
     for the design and delivery of transportation services within 
     the metropolitan area that are provided by--
       ``(A) recipients of assistance under chapter 53 of title 
     49;
       ``(B) governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations 
     (including representatives of the agencies and organizations) 
     that receive Federal assistance from a source other than the 
     Department of Transportation to provide nonemergency 
     transportation services; and
       ``(C) recipients of assistance under section 204.
       ``(h) Scope of Planning Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--The metropolitan planning process for a 
     metropolitan planning area under this section shall provide 
     for consideration of projects and strategies that will--
       ``(A) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan 
     area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, 
     productivity, and efficiency;
       ``(B) increase the safety of the transportation system for 
     motorized and nonmotorized users;
       ``(C) increase the security of the transportation system 
     for motorized and nonmotorized users;
       ``(D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and 
     for freight;
       ``(E) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy 
     conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote 
     consistency between

[[Page 18732]]

     transportation improvements and State and local planned 
     growth and economic development patterns;
       ``(F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the 
     transportation system, across and between modes, for people 
     and freight;
       ``(G) promote efficient system management and operation; 
     and
       ``(H) emphasize the preservation of the existing 
     transportation system.
       ``(2) Failure to consider factors.--The failure to consider 
     any factor specified in paragraph (1) shall not be reviewable 
     by any court under this title or chapter 53 of title 49, 
     subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, or chapter 7 of title 
     5 in any matter affecting a transportation plan, a TIP, a 
     project or strategy, or the certification of a planning 
     process.
       ``(i) Development of Transportation Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each metropolitan planning organization 
     shall prepare and update a transportation plan for its 
     metropolitan planning area in accordance with the 
     requirements of this subsection. The metropolitan planning 
     organization shall prepare and update such plan every 4 years 
     (or more frequently, if the metropolitan planning 
     organization elects to update more frequently) in the case of 
     each of the following:
       ``(A) Any area designated as nonattainment, as defined in 
     section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).
       ``(B) Any area that was nonattainment and subsequently 
     designated to attainment in accordance with section 107(d)(3) 
     of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)) and that is subject to a 
     maintenance plan under section 175A of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7505a).

     In the case of any other area required to have a 
     transportation plan in accordance with the requirements of 
     this subsection, the metropolitan planning organization shall 
     prepare and update such plan every 5 years unless the 
     metropolitan planning organization elects to update more 
     frequently.
       ``(2) Transportation plan.--A transportation plan under 
     this section shall be in a form that the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate and shall contain, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       ``(A) Identification of transportation facilities.--An 
     identification of transportation facilities (including major 
     roadways, transit, multimodal and intermodal facilities, and 
     intermodal connectors) that should function as an integrated 
     metropolitan transportation system, giving emphasis to those 
     facilities that serve important national and regional 
     transportation functions. In formulating the transportation 
     plan, the metropolitan planning organization shall consider 
     factors described in subsection (h) as such factors relate to 
     a 20-year forecast period.
       ``(B) Mitigation activities.--
       ``(i) In general.--A long-range transportation plan shall 
     include a discussion of types of potential environmental 
     mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these 
     activities, including activities that may have the greatest 
     potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions 
     affected by the plan.
       ``(ii) Consultation.--The discussion shall be developed in 
     consultation with Federal, State, and tribal wildlife, land 
     management, and regulatory agencies.
       ``(C) Financial plan.--A financial plan that demonstrates 
     how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented, 
     indicates resources from public and private sources that are 
     reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the 
     plan, and recommends any additional financing strategies for 
     needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, 
     for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be 
     included in the adopted transportation plan if reasonable 
     additional resources beyond those identified in the financial 
     plan were available. For the purpose of developing the 
     transportation plan, the metropolitan planning organization, 
     transit operator, and State shall cooperatively develop 
     estimates of funds that will be available to support plan 
     implementation.
       ``(D) Operational and management strategies.--Operational 
     and management strategies to improve the performance of 
     existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular 
     congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and 
     goods.
       ``(E) Capital investment and other strategies.--Capital 
     investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and 
     projected future metropolitan transportation infrastructure 
     and provide for multimodal capacity increases based on 
     regional priorities and needs.
       ``(F) Transportation and transit enhancement activities.--
     Proposed transportation and transit enhancement activities.
       ``(3) Coordination with clean air act agencies.--In 
     metropolitan areas which are in nonattainment for ozone or 
     carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act, the metropolitan 
     planning organization shall coordinate the development of a 
     transportation plan with the process for development of the 
     transportation control measures of the State implementation 
     plan required by the Clean Air Act.
       ``(4) Consultation.--
       ``(A) In general.--In each metropolitan area, the 
     metropolitan planning organization shall consult, as 
     appropriate, with State and local agencies responsible for 
     land use management, natural resources, environmental 
     protection, conservation, and historic preservation 
     concerning the development of a long-range transportation 
     plan.
       ``(B) Issues.--The consultation shall involve, as 
     appropriate--
       ``(i) comparison of transportation plans with State 
     conservation plans or maps, if available; or
       ``(ii) comparison of transportation plans to inventories of 
     natural or historic resources, if available.
       ``(5) Participation by interested parties.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each metropolitan planning organization 
     shall provide citizens, affected public agencies, 
     representatives of public transportation employees, freight 
     shippers, providers of freight transportation services, 
     private providers of transportation, representatives of users 
     of public transportation, representatives of users of 
     pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, 
     representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties 
     with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 
     transportation plan.
       ``(B) Contents of participation plan.--A participation 
     plan--
       ``(i) shall be developed in consultation with all 
     interested parties; and
       ``(ii) shall provide that all interested parties have 
     reasonable opportunities to comment on the contents of the 
     transportation plan.
       ``(C) Methods.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the 
     metropolitan planning organization shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable--
       ``(i) hold any public meetings at convenient and accessible 
     locations and times;
       ``(ii) employ visualization techniques to describe plans; 
     and
       ``(iii) make public information available in electronically 
     accessible format and means, such as the World Wide Web, as 
     appropriate to afford reasonable opportunity for 
     consideration of public information under subparagraph (A).
       ``(6) Publication.--A transportation plan involving Federal 
     participation shall be published or otherwise made readily 
     available by the metropolitan planning organization for 
     public review, including (to the maximum extent practicable) 
     in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the 
     World Wide Web, approved by the metropolitan planning 
     organization and submitted for information purposes to the 
     Governor at such times and in such manner as the Secretary 
     shall establish.
       ``(7) Selection of projects from illustrative list.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(C), a State or metropolitan 
     planning organization shall not be required to select any 
     project from the illustrative list of additional projects 
     included in the financial plan under paragraph (2)(C).
       ``(j) Metropolitan TIP.--
       ``(1) Development.--
       ``(A) In general.--In cooperation with the State and any 
     affected public transportation operator, the metropolitan 
     planning organization designated for a metropolitan area 
     shall develop a TIP for the area for which the organization 
     is designated.
       ``(B) Opportunity for comment.--In developing the TIP, the 
     metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation with the 
     State and any affected public transportation operator, shall 
     provide an opportunity for participation by interested 
     parties in the development of the program, in accordance with 
     subsection (i)(5).
       ``(C) Funding estimates.--For the purpose of developing the 
     TIP, the metropolitan planning organization, public 
     transportation agency, and State shall cooperatively develop 
     estimates of funds that are reasonably expected to be 
     available to support program implementation.
       ``(D) Updating and approval.--The TIP shall be updated at 
     least once every 4 years and shall be approved by the 
     metropolitan planning organization and the Governor.
       ``(2) Contents.--
       ``(A) Priority list.--The TIP shall include a priority list 
     of proposed federally supported projects and strategies to be 
     carried out within each 4-year period after the initial 
     adoption of the TIP.
       ``(B) Financial plan.--The TIP shall include a financial 
     plan that--
       ``(i) demonstrates how the TIP can be implemented;
       ``(ii) indicates resources from public and private sources 
     that are reasonably expected to be available to carry out the 
     program;
       ``(iii) identifies innovative financing techniques to 
     finance projects, programs, and strategies; and
       ``(iv) may include, for illustrative purposes, additional 
     projects that would be included in the approved TIP if 
     reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in 
     the financial plan were available.
       ``(C) Descriptions.--Each project in the TIP shall include 
     sufficient descriptive material (such as type of work, 
     termini, length, and other similar factors) to identify the 
     project or phase of the project.
       ``(3) Included projects.--
       ``(A) Projects under this title and chapter 53 of title 
     49.--A TIP developed under this subsection for a metropolitan 
     area shall include the projects within the area that are 
     proposed for funding under chapter 1 of this title and 
     chapter 53 of title 49.
       ``(B) Projects under chapter 2.--
       ``(i) Regionally significant projects.--Regionally 
     significant projects proposed for funding under chapter 2 
     shall be identified individually in the transportation 
     improvement program.
       ``(ii) Other projects.--Projects proposed for funding under 
     chapter 2 that are not determined to be regionally 
     significant shall be grouped in 1 line item or identified 
     individually in the transportation improvement program.

[[Page 18733]]

       ``(C) Consistency with long-range transportation plan.--
     Each project shall be consistent with the long-range 
     transportation plan developed under subsection (i) for the 
     area.
       ``(D) Requirement of anticipated full funding.--The program 
     shall include a project, or an identified phase of a project, 
     only if full funding can reasonably be anticipated to be 
     available for the project within the time period contemplated 
     for completion of the project.
       ``(4) Notice and comment.--Before approving a TIP, a 
     metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation with the 
     State and any affected public transportation operator, shall 
     provide an opportunity for participation by interested 
     parties in the development of the program, in accordance with 
     subsection (i)(5).
       ``(5) Selection of projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     subsection (k)(4) and in addition to the TIP development 
     required under paragraph (1), the selection of federally 
     funded projects in metropolitan areas shall be carried out, 
     from the approved TIP--
       ``(i) by--

       ``(I) in the case of projects under this title, the State; 
     and
       ``(II) in the case of projects under chapter 53 of title 
     49, the designated recipients of public transportation 
     funding; and

       ``(ii) in cooperation with the metropolitan planning 
     organization.
       ``(B) Modifications to project priority.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, action by the Secretary shall not 
     be required to advance a project included in the approved TIP 
     in place of another project in the program.
       ``(6) Selection of projects from illustrative list.--
       ``(A) No required selection.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (2)(B)(iv), a State or metropolitan planning organization 
     shall not be required to select any project from the 
     illustrative list of additional projects included in the 
     financial plan under paragraph (2)(B)(iv).
       ``(B) Required action by the secretary.--Action by the 
     Secretary shall be required for a State or metropolitan 
     planning organization to select any project from the 
     illustrative list of additional projects included in the 
     financial plan under paragraph (2)(B)(iv) for inclusion in an 
     approved TIP.
       ``(7) Publication.--
       ``(A) Publication of tips.--A TIP involving Federal 
     participation shall be published or otherwise made readily 
     available by the metropolitan planning organization for 
     public review.
       ``(B) Publication of annual listings of projects.--An 
     annual listing of projects, including investments in 
     pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, 
     for which Federal funds have been obligated in the preceding 
     year shall be published or otherwise made available by the 
     cooperative effort of the State, transit operator, and 
     metropolitan planning organization for public review. The 
     listing shall be consistent with the categories identified in 
     the TIP.
       ``(k) Transportation Management Areas.--
       ``(1) Identification and designation.--
       ``(A) Required identification.--The Secretary shall 
     identify as a transportation management area each urbanized 
     area (as defined by the Bureau of the Census) with a 
     population of over 200,000 individuals.
       ``(B) Designations on request.--The Secretary shall 
     designate any additional area as a transportation management 
     area on the request of the Governor and the metropolitan 
     planning organization designated for the area.
       ``(2) Transportation plans.--In a metropolitan planning 
     area serving a transportation management area, transportation 
     plans shall be based on a continuing and comprehensive 
     transportation planning process carried out by the 
     metropolitan planning organization in cooperation with the 
     State and public transportation operators.
       ``(3) Congestion management process.--Within a metropolitan 
     planning area serving a transportation management area, the 
     transportation planning process under this section shall 
     address congestion management through a process that provides 
     for effective management and operation, based on a 
     cooperatively developed and implemented metropolitan-wide 
     strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities 
     eligible for funding under this title and chapter 53 of title 
     49 through the use of travel demand reduction and operational 
     management strategies. The Secretary shall establish an 
     appropriate phase-in schedule for compliance with the 
     requirements of this section but no sooner than 1 year after 
     the identification of a transportation management area.
       ``(4) Selection of projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--All federally funded projects carried 
     out within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning area 
     serving a transportation management area under this title 
     (excluding projects carried out on the National Highway 
     System and projects carried out under the bridge program or 
     the Interstate maintenance program) or under chapter 53 of 
     title 49 shall be selected for implementation from the 
     approved TIP by the metropolitan planning organization 
     designated for the area in consultation with the State and 
     any affected public transportation operator.
       ``(B) National highway system projects.--Projects carried 
     out within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning area 
     serving a transportation management area on the National 
     Highway System and projects carried out within such 
     boundaries under the bridge program or the Interstate 
     maintenance program under this title shall be selected for 
     implementation from the approved TIP by the State in 
     cooperation with the metropolitan planning organization 
     designated for the area.
       ``(5) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) ensure that the metropolitan planning process of a 
     metropolitan planning organization serving a transportation 
     management area is being carried out in accordance with 
     applicable provisions of Federal law; and
       ``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), certify, not less often 
     than once every 4 years, that the requirements of this 
     paragraph are met with respect to the metropolitan planning 
     process.
       ``(B) Requirements for certification.--The Secretary may 
     make the certification under subparagraph (A) if--
       ``(i) the transportation planning process complies with the 
     requirements of this section and other applicable 
     requirements of Federal law; and
       ``(ii) there is a TIP for the metropolitan planning area 
     that has been approved by the metropolitan planning 
     organization and the Governor.
       ``(C) Effect of failure to certify.--
       ``(i) Withholding of project funds.--If a metropolitan 
     planning process of a metropolitan planning organization 
     serving a transportation management area is not certified, 
     the Secretary may withhold up to 20 percent of the funds 
     attributable to the metropolitan planning area of the 
     metropolitan planning organization for projects funded under 
     this title and chapter 53 of title 49.
       ``(ii) Restoration of withheld funds.--The withheld funds 
     shall be restored to the metropolitan planning area at such 
     time as the metropolitan planning process is certified by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(D) Review of certification.--In making certification 
     determinations under this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     provide for public involvement appropriate to the 
     metropolitan area under review.
       ``(l) Abbreviated Plans for Certain Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in the case of 
     a metropolitan area not designated as a transportation 
     management area under this section, the Secretary may provide 
     for the development of an abbreviated transportation plan and 
     TIP for the metropolitan planning area that the Secretary 
     determines is appropriate to achieve the purposes of this 
     section, taking into account the complexity of transportation 
     problems in the area.
       ``(2) Nonattainment areas.--The Secretary may not permit 
     abbreviated plans or TIPs for a metropolitan area that is in 
     nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide under the Clean 
     Air Act.
       ``(m) Additional Requirements for Certain Nonattainment 
     Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
     this title or chapter 53 of title 49, for transportation 
     management areas classified as nonattainment for ozone or 
     carbon monoxide pursuant to the Clean Air Act, Federal funds 
     may not be advanced in such area for any highway project that 
     will result in a significant increase in the carrying 
     capacity for single-occupant vehicles unless the project is 
     addressed through a congestion management process.
       ``(2) Applicability.--This subsection applies to a 
     nonattainment area within the metropolitan planning area 
     boundaries determined under subsection (e).
       ``(n) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed to confer on a metropolitan 
     planning organization the authority to impose legal 
     requirements on any transportation facility, provider, or 
     project not eligible under this title or chapter 53 of title 
     49.
       ``(o) Funding.--Funds set aside under section 104(f) of 
     this title or section 5305(g) of title 49 shall be available 
     to carry out this section.
       ``(p) Continuation of Current Review Practice.--Since plans 
     and TIPs described in this section are subject to a 
     reasonable opportunity for public comment, since individual 
     projects included in plans and TIPs are subject to review 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and since decisions by the Secretary 
     concerning plans and TIPs described in this section have not 
     been reviewed under such Act as of January 1, 1997, any 
     decision by the Secretary concerning a plan or TIP described 
     in this section shall not be considered to be a Federal 
     action subject to review under such Act.

     ``Sec. 135. Statewide transportation planning

       ``(a) General Requirements.--
       ``(1) Development of plans and programs.--To accomplish the 
     objectives stated in section 134(a), each State shall develop 
     a statewide transportation plan and a statewide 
     transportation improvement program for all areas of the 
     State, subject to section 134.
       ``(2) Contents.--The statewide transportation plan and the 
     transportation improvement program developed for each State 
     shall provide for the development and integrated management 
     and operation of transportation systems and facilities 
     (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle 
     transportation facilities) that will function as an 
     intermodal transportation system for the State and an 
     integral part of an intermodal transportation system for the 
     United States.
       ``(3) Process of development.--The process for developing 
     the statewide plan and the transportation improvement program 
     shall provide for consideration of all modes of 
     transportation and the policies stated in section 134(a), and

[[Page 18734]]

     shall be continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive to the 
     degree appropriate, based on the complexity of the 
     transportation problems to be addressed.
       ``(b) Coordination With Metropolitan Planning; State 
     Implementation Plan.--A State shall--
       ``(1) coordinate planning carried out under this section 
     with the transportation planning activities carried out under 
     section 134 for metropolitan areas of the State and with 
     statewide trade and economic development planning activities 
     and related multistate planning efforts; and
       ``(2) develop the transportation portion of the State 
     implementation plan as required by the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
       ``(c) Interstate Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The consent of Congress is granted to 2 
     or more States entering into agreements or compacts, not in 
     conflict with any law of the United States, for cooperative 
     efforts and mutual assistance in support of activities 
     authorized under this section related to interstate areas and 
     localities in the States and establishing authorities the 
     States consider desirable for making the agreements and 
     compacts effective.
       ``(2) Reservation of rights.--The right to alter, amend, or 
     repeal interstate compacts entered into under this subsection 
     is expressly reserved.
       ``(d) Scope of Planning Process.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State shall carry out a statewide 
     transportation planning process that provides for 
     consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and 
     services that will--
       ``(A) support the economic vitality of the United States, 
     the States, nonmetropolitan areas, and metropolitan areas, 
     especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, 
     and efficiency;
       ``(B) increase the safety of the transportation system for 
     motorized and nonmotorized users;
       ``(C) increase the security of the transportation system 
     for motorized and nonmotorized users;
       ``(D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and 
     freight;
       ``(E) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy 
     conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote 
     consistency between transportation improvements and State and 
     local planned growth and economic development patterns;
       ``(F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the 
     transportation system, across and between modes throughout 
     the State, for people and freight;
       ``(G) promote efficient system management and operation; 
     and
       ``(H) emphasize the preservation of the existing 
     transportation system.
       ``(2) Failure to consider factors.--The failure to consider 
     any factor specified in paragraph (1) shall not be reviewable 
     by any court under this title or chapter 53 of title 49, 
     subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, or chapter 7 of title 
     5 in any matter affecting a statewide transportation plan, 
     the transportation improvement program, a project or 
     strategy, or the certification of a planning process.
       ``(e) Additional Requirements.--In carrying out planning 
     under this section, each State shall consider, at a minimum--
       ``(1) with respect to nonmetropolitan areas, the concerns 
     of affected local officials with responsibility for 
     transportation;
       ``(2) the concerns of Indian tribal governments and Federal 
     land management agencies that have jurisdiction over land 
     within the boundaries of the State; and
       ``(3) coordination of transportation plans, the 
     transportation improvement program, and planning activities 
     with related planning activities being carried out outside of 
     metropolitan planning areas and between States.
       ``(f) Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan.--
       ``(1) Development.--Each State shall develop a long-range 
     statewide transportation plan, with a minimum 20-year 
     forecast period for all areas of the State, that provides for 
     the development and implementation of the intermodal 
     transportation system of the State.
       ``(2) Consultation with governments.--
       ``(A) Metropolitan areas.--The statewide transportation 
     plan shall be developed for each metropolitan area in the 
     State in cooperation with the metropolitan planning 
     organization designated for the metropolitan area under 
     section 134.
       ``(B) Nonmetropolitan areas.--With respect to 
     nonmetropolitan areas, the statewide transportation plan 
     shall be developed in consultation with affected 
     nonmetropolitan officials with responsibility for 
     transportation. The Secretary shall not review or approve the 
     consultation process in each State.
       ``(C) Indian tribal areas.--With respect to each area of 
     the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribal 
     government, the statewide transportation plan shall be 
     developed in consultation with the tribal government and the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(D) Consultation, comparison, and consideration.--
       ``(i) In general.--The long-range transportation plan shall 
     be developed, as appropriate, in consultation with State, 
     tribal, and local agencies responsible for land use 
     management, natural resources, environmental protection, 
     conservation, and historic preservation.
       ``(ii) Comparison and consideration.--Consultation under 
     clause (i) shall involve comparison of transportation plans 
     to State and tribal conservation plans or maps, if available, 
     and comparison of transportation plans to inventories of 
     natural or historic resources, if available.
       ``(3) Participation by interested parties.--
       ``(A) In general.--In developing the statewide 
     transportation plan, the State shall provide citizens, 
     affected public agencies, representatives of public 
     transportation employees, freight shippers, private providers 
     of transportation, representatives of users of public 
     transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian 
     walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, 
     representatives of the disabled, providers of freight 
     transportation services, and other interested parties with a 
     reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed plan.
       ``(B) Methods.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the State 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(i) hold any public meetings at convenient and accessible 
     locations and times;
       ``(ii) employ visualization techniques to describe plans; 
     and
       ``(iii) make public information available in electronically 
     accessible format and means, such as the World Wide Web, as 
     appropriate to afford reasonable opportunity for 
     consideration of public information under subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Mitigation activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--A long-range transportation plan shall 
     include a discussion of potential environmental mitigation 
     activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, 
     including activities that may have the greatest potential to 
     restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by 
     the plan.
       ``(B) Consultation.--The discussion shall be developed in 
     consultation with Federal, State, and tribal wildlife, land 
     management, and regulatory agencies.
       ``(5) Financial plan.--The statewide transportation plan 
     may include a financial plan that demonstrates how the 
     adopted statewide transportation plan can be implemented, 
     indicates resources from public and private sources that are 
     reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the 
     plan, and recommends any additional financing strategies for 
     needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, 
     for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be 
     included in the adopted statewide transportation plan if 
     reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in 
     the financial plan were available.
       ``(6) Selection of projects from illustrative list.--A 
     State shall not be required to select any project from the 
     illustrative list of additional projects included in the 
     financial plan described in paragraph (5).
       ``(7) Existing system.--The statewide transportation plan 
     should include capital, operations and management strategies, 
     investments, procedures, and other measures to ensure the 
     preservation and most efficient use of the existing 
     transportation system.
       ``(8) Publication of long-range transportation plans.--Each 
     long-range transportation plan prepared by a State shall be 
     published or otherwise made available, including (to the 
     maximum extent practicable) in electronically accessible 
     formats and means, such as the World Wide Web.
       ``(g) Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.--
       ``(1) Development.--Each State shall develop a statewide 
     transportation improvement program for all areas of the 
     State. Such program shall cover a period of 4 years and be 
     updated every 4 years or more frequently if the Governor 
     elects to update more frequently.
       ``(2) Consultation with governments.--
       ``(A) Metropolitan areas.--With respect to each 
     metropolitan area in the State, the program shall be 
     developed in cooperation with the metropolitan planning 
     organization designated for the metropolitan area under 
     section 134.
       ``(B) Nonmetropolitan areas.--With respect to each 
     nonmetropolitan area in the State, the program shall be 
     developed in consultation with affected nonmetropolitan local 
     officials with responsibility for transportation. The 
     Secretary shall not review or approve the specific 
     consultation process in the State.
       ``(C) Indian tribal areas.--With respect to each area of 
     the State under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribal 
     government, the program shall be developed in consultation 
     with the tribal government and the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(3) Participation by interested parties.--In developing 
     the program, the State shall provide citizens, affected 
     public agencies, representatives of public transportation 
     employees, freight shippers, private providers of 
     transportation, providers of freight transportation services, 
     representatives of users of public transportation, 
     representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle 
     transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, 
     and other interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to 
     comment on the proposed program.
       ``(4) Included projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--A transportation improvement program 
     developed under this subsection for a State shall include 
     federally supported surface transportation expenditures 
     within the boundaries of the State.
       ``(B) Listing of projects.--An annual listing of projects 
     for which funds have been obligated in the preceding year in 
     each metropolitan planning area shall be published or 
     otherwise made available by the cooperative effort of the 
     State, transit operator, and the metropolitan planning 
     organization for public review. The listing shall be 
     consistent with the funding categories identified in each 
     metropolitan transportation improvement program.

[[Page 18735]]

       ``(C) Projects under chapter 2.--
       ``(i) Regionally significant projects.--Regionally 
     significant projects proposed for funding under chapter 2 
     shall be identified individually in the transportation 
     improvement program.
       ``(ii) Other projects.--Projects proposed for funding under 
     chapter 2 that are not determined to be regionally 
     significant shall be grouped in 1 line item or identified 
     individually in the transportation improvement program.
       ``(D) Consistency with statewide transportation plan.--Each 
     project shall be--
       ``(i) consistent with the statewide transportation plan 
     developed under this section for the State;
       ``(ii) identical to the project or phase of the project as 
     described in an approved metropolitan transportation plan; 
     and
       ``(iii) in conformance with the applicable State air 
     quality implementation plan developed under the Clean Air 
     Act, if the project is carried out in an area designated as 
     nonattainment for ozone, particulate matter, or carbon 
     monoxide under such Act.
       ``(E) Requirement of anticipated full funding.--The 
     transportation improvement program shall include a project, 
     or an identified phase of a project, only if full funding can 
     reasonably be anticipated to be available for the project 
     within the time period contemplated for completion of the 
     project.
       ``(F) Financial plan.--The transportation improvement 
     program may include a financial plan that demonstrates how 
     the approved transportation improvement program can be 
     implemented, indicates resources from public and private 
     sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to 
     carry out the transportation improvement program, and 
     recommends any additional financing strategies for needed 
     projects and programs. The financial plan may include, for 
     illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be 
     included in the adopted transportation plan if reasonable 
     additional resources beyond those identified in the financial 
     plan were available.
       ``(G) Selection of projects from illustrative list.--
       ``(i) No required selection.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (F), a State shall not be required to select any project from 
     the illustrative list of additional projects included in the 
     financial plan under subparagraph (F).
       ``(ii) Required action by the secretary.--Action by the 
     Secretary shall be required for a State to select any project 
     from the illustrative list of additional projects included in 
     the financial plan under subparagraph (F) for inclusion in an 
     approved transportation improvement program.
       ``(H) Priorities.--The transportation improvement program 
     shall reflect the priorities for programming and expenditures 
     of funds, including transportation enhancement activities, 
     required by this title and chapter 53 of title 49.
       ``(5) Project selection for areas of less than 50,000 
     population.--Projects carried out in areas with populations 
     of less than 50,000 individuals shall be selected, from the 
     approved transportation improvement program (excluding 
     projects carried out on the National Highway System and 
     projects carried out under the bridge program or the 
     Interstate maintenance program under this title or under 
     sections 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 of title 49), by the 
     State in cooperation with the affected nonmetropolitan local 
     officials with responsibility for transportation. Projects 
     carried out in areas with populations of less than 50,000 
     individuals on the National Highway System or under the 
     bridge program or the Interstate maintenance program under 
     this title or under sections 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 of 
     title 49 shall be selected, from the approved statewide 
     transportation improvement program, by the State in 
     consultation with the affected nonmetropolitan local 
     officials with responsibility for transportation.
       ``(6) Transportation improvement program approval.--Every 4 
     years, a transportation improvement program developed under 
     this subsection shall be reviewed and approved by the 
     Secretary if based on a current planning finding.
       ``(7) Planning finding.--A finding shall be made by the 
     Secretary at least every 4 years that the transportation 
     planning process through which statewide transportation plans 
     and programs are developed is consistent with this section 
     and section 134.
       ``(8) Modifications to project priority.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, action by the Secretary shall not 
     be required to advance a project included in the approved 
     transportation improvement program in place of another 
     project in the program.
       ``(h) Funding.--Funds set aside pursuant to section 104(f) 
     of this title and section 5305(g) of title 49, shall be 
     available to carry out this section.
       ``(i) Treatment of Certain State Laws as Congestion 
     Management Processes.--For purposes of this section and 
     section 134, and sections 5303 and 5304 of title 49, State 
     laws, rules, or regulations pertaining to congestion 
     management systems or programs may constitute the congestion 
     management process under this section and section 134, and 
     sections 5303 and 5304 of title 49, if the Secretary finds 
     that the State laws, rules, or regulations are consistent 
     with, and fulfill the intent of, the purposes of this section 
     and section 134 and sections 5303 and 5304 of title 49, as 
     appropriate.
       ``(j) Continuation of Current Review Practice.--Since the 
     statewide transportation plan and the transportation 
     improvement program described in this section are subject to 
     a reasonable opportunity for public comment, since individual 
     projects included in the statewide transportation plans and 
     the transportation improvement program are subject to review 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and since decisions by the Secretary 
     concerning statewide transportation plans or the 
     transportation improvement program described in this section 
     have not been reviewed under such Act as of January 1, 1997, 
     any decision by the Secretary concerning a metropolitan or 
     statewide transportation plan or the transportation 
     improvement program described in this section shall not be 
     considered to be a Federal action subject to review under 
     such Act.''.
       (b) Schedule for Implementation.--The Secretary shall issue 
     guidance on a schedule for implementation of the changes made 
     by this section, taking into consideration the established 
     planning update cycle for States and metropolitan planning 
     organizations. The Secretary shall not require a State or 
     metropolitan planning organization to deviate from its 
     established planning update cycle to implement changes made 
     by this section. Beginning July 1, 2007, State or 
     metropolitan planning organization plan or program updates 
     shall reflect changes made by this section.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     such title is amended by striking the items relating to 
     sections 134 and 135 and inserting the following:

``134. Metropolitan transportation planning.
``135. Statewide transportation planning.''.

     SEC. 6002. EFFICIENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR PROJECT 
                   DECISIONMAKING.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 138 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 139. Efficient environmental reviews for project 
       decisionmaking

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Agency.--The term `agency' means any agency, 
     department, or other unit of Federal, State, local, or Indian 
     tribal government.
       ``(2) Environmental impact statement.--The term 
     `environmental impact statement' means the detailed statement 
     of environmental impacts required to be prepared under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       ``(3) Environmental review process.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `environmental review process' 
     means the process for preparing for a project an 
     environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, 
     categorical exclusion, or other document prepared under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `environmental review process' 
     includes the process for and completion of any environmental 
     permit, approval, review, or study required for a project 
     under any Federal law other than the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       ``(4) Lead agency.--The term `lead agency' means the 
     Department of Transportation and, if applicable, any State or 
     local governmental entity serving as a joint lead agency 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(5) Multimodal project.--The term `multimodal project' 
     means a project funded, in whole or in part, under this title 
     or chapter 53 of title 49 and involving the participation of 
     more than one Department of Transportation administration or 
     agency.
       ``(6) Project.--The term `project' means any highway 
     project, public transportation capital project, or multimodal 
     project that requires the approval of the Secretary.
       ``(7) Project sponsor.--The term `project sponsor' means 
     the agency or other entity, including any private or public-
     private entity, that seeks approval of the Secretary for a 
     project.
       ``(8) State transportation department.--The term `State 
     transportation department' means any statewide agency of a 
     State with responsibility for one or more modes of 
     transportation.
       ``(b) Applicability.--
       ``(1) In general.--The project development procedures in 
     this section are applicable to all projects for which an 
     environmental impact statement is prepared under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and may be applied, to the 
     extent determined appropriate by the Secretary, to other 
     projects for which an environmental document is prepared 
     pursuant to such Act.
       ``(2) Flexibility.--Any authorities granted in this section 
     may be exercised for a project, class of projects, or program 
     of projects.
       ``(c) Lead Agencies.--
       ``(1) Federal lead agency.--The Department of 
     Transportation shall be the Federal lead agency in the 
     environmental review process for a project.
       ``(2) Joint lead agencies.--Nothing in this section 
     precludes another agency from being a joint lead agency in 
     accordance with regulations under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969.
       ``(3) Project sponsor as joint lead agency.--Any project 
     sponsor that is a State or local governmental entity 
     receiving funds under this title or chapter 53 of title 49 
     for the project shall serve as a joint lead agency with the 
     Department for purposes of preparing any environmental 
     document under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     and may prepare any

[[Page 18736]]

     such environmental document required in support of any action 
     or approval by the Secretary if the Federal lead agency 
     furnishes guidance in such preparation and independently 
     evaluates such document and the document is approved and 
     adopted by the Secretary prior to the Secretary taking any 
     subsequent action or making any approval based on such 
     document, whether or not the Secretary's action or approval 
     results in Federal funding.
       ``(4) Ensuring compliance.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the project sponsor complies with all design and mitigation 
     commitments made jointly by the Secretary and the project 
     sponsor in any environmental document prepared by the project 
     sponsor in accordance with this subsection and that such 
     document is appropriately supplemented if project changes 
     become necessary.
       ``(5) Adoption and use of documents.--Any environmental 
     document prepared in accordance with this subsection may be 
     adopted or used by any Federal agency making any approval to 
     the same extent that such Federal agency could adopt or use a 
     document prepared by another Federal agency.
       ``(6) Roles and responsibility of lead agency.--With 
     respect to the environmental review process for any project, 
     the lead agency shall have authority and responsibility--
       ``(A) to take such actions as are necessary and proper, 
     within the authority of the lead agency, to facilitate the 
     expeditious resolution of the environmental review process 
     for the project; and
       ``(B) to prepare or ensure that any required environmental 
     impact statement or other document required to be completed 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is 
     completed in accordance with this section and applicable 
     Federal law.
       ``(d) Participating Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The lead agency shall be responsible for 
     inviting and designating participating agencies in accordance 
     with this subsection.
       ``(2) Invitation.--The lead agency shall identify, as early 
     as practicable in the environmental review process for a 
     project, any other Federal and non-Federal agencies that may 
     have an interest in the project, and shall invite such 
     agencies to become participating agencies in the 
     environmental review process for the project. The invitation 
     shall set a deadline for responses to be submitted. The 
     deadline may be extended by the lead agency for good cause.
       ``(3) Federal participating agencies.--Any Federal agency 
     that is invited by the lead agency to participate in the 
     environmental review process for a project shall be 
     designated as a participating agency by the lead agency 
     unless the invited agency informs the lead agency, in 
     writing, by the deadline specified in the invitation that the 
     invited agency--
       ``(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 
     project;
       ``(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the 
     project; and
       ``(C) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
       ``(4) Effect of designation.--Designation as a 
     participating agency under this subsection shall not imply 
     that the participating agency--
       ``(A) supports a proposed project; or
       ``(B) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with 
     respect to evaluation of, the project.
       ``(5) Cooperating agency.--A participating agency may also 
     be designated by a lead agency as a `cooperating agency' 
     under the regulations con tained in part 1500 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(6) Designations for categories of projects.--The 
     Secretary may exercise the authorities granted under this 
     subsection for a project, class of projects, or program of 
     projects.
       ``(7) Concurrent reviews.--Each Federal agency shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(A) carry out obligations of the Federal agency under 
     other applicable law concurrently, and in conjunction, with 
     the review required under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), unless doing so would 
     impair the ability of the Federal agency to carry out those 
     obligations; and
       ``(B) formulate and implement administrative, policy, and 
     procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure 
     completion of the environmental review process in a timely, 
     coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner.
       ``(e) Project Initiation.--The project sponsor shall notify 
     the Secretary of the type of work, termini, length and 
     general location of the proposed project, together with a 
     statement of any Federal approvals anticipated to be 
     necessary for the proposed project, for the purpose of 
     informing the Secretary that the environmental review process 
     should be initiated.
       ``(f) Purpose and Need.--
       ``(1) Participation.--As early as practicable during the 
     environmental review process, the lead agency shall provide 
     an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and 
     the public in defining the purpose and need for a project.
       ``(2) Definition.--Following participation under paragraph 
     (1), the lead agency shall define the project's purpose and 
     need for purposes of any document which the lead agency is 
     responsible for preparing for the project.
       ``(3) Objectives.--The statement of purpose and need shall 
     include a clear statement of the objectives that the proposed 
     action is intended to achieve, which may include--
       ``(A) achieving a transportation objective identified in an 
     applicable statewide or metropolitan transportation plan;
       ``(B) supporting land use, economic development, or growth 
     objectives established in applicable Federal, State, local, 
     or tribal plans; and
       ``(C) serving national defense, national security, or other 
     national objectives, as established in Federal laws, plans, 
     or policies.
       ``(4) Alternatives analysis.--
       ``(A) Participation.--As early as practicable during the 
     environmental review process, the lead agency shall provide 
     an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and 
     the public in determining the range of alternatives to be 
     considered for a project.
       ``(B) Range of alternatives.--Following participation under 
     paragraph (1), the lead agency shall determine the range of 
     alternatives for consideration in any document which the lead 
     agency is responsible for preparing for the project.
       ``(C) Methodologies.--The lead agency also shall determine, 
     in collaboration with participating agencies at appropriate 
     times during the study process, the methodologies to be used 
     and the level of detail required in the analysis of each 
     alternative for a project.
       ``(D) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the lead 
     agency, the preferred alternative for a project, after being 
     identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than 
     other alternatives in order to facilitate the development of 
     mitigation measures or concurrent compliance with other 
     applicable laws if the lead agency determines that the 
     development of such higher level of detail will not prevent 
     the lead agency from making an impartial decision as to 
     whether to accept another alternative which is being 
     considered in the environmental review process.
       ``(g) Coordination and Scheduling.--
       ``(1) Coordination plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The lead agency shall establish a plan 
     for coordinating public and agency participation in and 
     comment on the environmental review process for a project or 
     category of projects. The coordination plan may be 
     incorporated into a memorandum of understanding.
       ``(B) Schedule.--
       ``(i) In general.--The lead agency may establish as part of 
     the coordination plan, after consultation with each 
     participating agency for the project and with the State in 
     which the project is located (and, if the State is not the 
     project sponsor, with the project sponsor), a schedule for 
     completion of the environmental review process for the 
     project.
       ``(ii) Factors for consideration.--In establishing the 
     schedule, the lead agency shall consider factors such as--

       ``(I) the responsibilities of participating agencies under 
     applicable laws;
       ``(II) resources available to the cooperating agencies;
       ``(III) overall size and complexity of the project;
       ``(IV) the overall schedule for and cost of the project; 
     and
       ``(V) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources 
     that could be affected by the project.

       ``(C) Consistency with other time periods.--A schedule 
     under subparagraph (B) shall be consistent with any other 
     relevant time periods established under Federal law.
       ``(D) Modification.--The lead agency may--
       ``(i) lengthen a schedule established under subparagraph 
     (B) for good cause; and
       ``(ii) shorten a schedule only with the concurrence of the 
     affected cooperating agencies.
       ``(E) Dissemination.--A copy of a schedule under 
     subparagraph (B), and of any modifications to the schedule, 
     shall be--
       ``(i) provided to all participating agencies and to the 
     State transportation department of the State in which the 
     project is located (and, if the State is not the project 
     sponsor, to the project sponsor); and
       ``(ii) made available to the public.
       ``(2) Comment deadlines.--The lead agency shall establish 
     the following deadlines for comment during the environmental 
     review process for a project:
       ``(A) For comments by agencies and the public on a draft 
     environmental impact statement, a period of not more than 60 
     days after publication in the Federal Register of notice of 
     the date of public availability of such document, unless--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating 
     agencies; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good 
     cause.
       ``(B) For all other comment periods established by the lead 
     agency for agency or public comments in the environmental 
     review process, a period of no more than 30 days from 
     availability of the materials on which comment is requested, 
     unless--
       ``(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 
     the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating 
     agencies; or
       ``(ii) the deadline is extended by the lead agency for good 
     cause.
       ``(3) Deadlines for decisions under other laws.--In any 
     case in which a decision under any Federal law relating to a 
     project (including the issuance or denial of a permit or 
     license) is required to be made by the later of the date that 
     is 180 days after the date on which the Secretary made all 
     final decisions of the lead agency with respect to the 
     project, or 180 days after the date on which an application 
     was submitted for the permit or license, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives--
       ``(A) as soon as practicable after the 180-day period, an 
     initial notice of the failure of the Federal agency to make 
     the decision; and

[[Page 18737]]

       ``(B) every 60 days thereafter until such date as all 
     decisions of the Federal agency relating to the project have 
     been made by the Federal agency, an additional notice that 
     describes the number of decisions of the Federal agency that 
     remain outstanding as of the date of the additional notice.
       ``(4) Involvement of the public.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall reduce any time period provided for public 
     comment in the environmental review process under existing 
     Federal law, including a regulation.
       ``(h) Issue Identification and Resolution.--
       ``(1) Cooperation.--The lead agency and the participating 
     agencies shall work cooperatively in accordance with this 
     section to identify and resolve issues that could delay 
     completion of the environmental review process or could 
     result in denial of any approvals required for the project 
     under applicable laws.
       ``(2) Lead agency responsibilities.--The lead agency shall 
     make information available to the participating agencies as 
     early as practicable in the environmental review process 
     regarding the environmental and socioeconomic resources 
     located within the project area and the general locations of 
     the alternatives under consideration. Such information may be 
     based on existing data sources, including geographic 
     information systems mapping.
       ``(3) Participating agency responsibilities.--Based on 
     information received from the lead agency, participating 
     agencies shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues 
     of concern regarding the project's potential environmental or 
     socioeconomic impacts. In this paragraph, issues of concern 
     include any issues that could substantially delay or prevent 
     an agency from granting a permit or other approval that is 
     needed for the project.
       ``(4) Issue resolution.--
       ``(A) Meeting of participating agencies.--At any time upon 
     request of a project sponsor or the Governor of a State in 
     which the project is located, the lead agency shall promptly 
     convene a meeting with the relevant participating agencies, 
     the project sponsor, and the Governor (if the meeting was 
     requested by the Governor) to resolve issues that could delay 
     completion of the environmental review process or could 
     result in denial of any approvals required for the project 
     under applicable laws.
       ``(B) Notice that resolution cannot be achieved.--If a 
     resolution cannot be achieved within 30 days following such a 
     meeting and a determination by the lead agency that all 
     information necessary to resolve the issue has been obtained, 
     the lead agency shall notify the heads of all participating 
     agencies, the project sponsor, the Governor, the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Council on Environmental Quality, 
     and shall publish such notification in the Federal Register.
       ``(i) Performance Measurement.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a program to measure and report on progress toward 
     improving and expediting the planning and environmental 
     review process.
       ``(j) Assistance to Affected State and Federal Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--For a project that is subject to the 
     environmental review process established under this section 
     and for which funds are made available to a State under this 
     title or chapter 53 of title 49, the Secretary may approve a 
     request by the a State to provide funds so made available 
     under this title or such chapter 53 to affected Federal 
     agencies (including the Department of Transportation), State 
     agencies, and Indian tribes participating in the 
     environmental review process for the projects in that State 
     or participating in a State process that has been approved by 
     the Secretary for that State. Such funds may be provided only 
     to support activities that directly and meaningfully 
     contribute to expediting and improving transportation project 
     planning and delivery for projects in that State.
       ``(2) Activities eligible for funding.--Activities for 
     which funds may be provided under paragraph (1) include 
     transportation planning activities that precede the 
     initiation of the environmental review process, dedicated 
     staffing, training of agency personnel, information gathering 
     and mapping, and development of programmatic agreements.
       ``(3) Use of federal lands highway funds.--The Secretary 
     may also use funds made available under section 204 for a 
     project for the purposes specified in this subsection with 
     respect to the environmental review process for the project.
       ``(4) Amounts.--Requests under paragraph (1) may be 
     approved only for the additional amounts that the Secretary 
     determines are necessary for the Federal agencies, State 
     agencies, or Indian tribes participating in the environmental 
     review process to meet the time limits for environmental 
     review.
       ``(5) Condition.--A request under paragraph (1) to expedite 
     time limits for environmental review may be approved only if 
     such time limits are less than the customary time necessary 
     for such review.
       ``(k) Judicial Review and Savings Clause.--
       ``(1) Judicial review.--Except as set forth under 
     subsection (l), nothing in this section shall affect the 
     reviewability of any final Federal agency action in a court 
     of the United States or in the court of any State.
       ``(2) Savings clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as superseding, amending, or modifying the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any other Federal 
     environmental statute or affect the responsibility of any 
     Federal officer to comply with or enforce any such statute.
       ``(3) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall preempt 
     or interfere with--
       ``(A) any practice of seeking, considering, or responding 
     to public comment; or
       ``(B) any power, jurisdiction, responsibility, or authority 
     that a Federal, State, or local government agency, 
     metropolitan planning organization, Indian tribe, or project 
     sponsor has with respect to carrying out a project or any 
     other provisions of law applicable to projects, plans, or 
     programs.
       ``(l) Limitations on Claims.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial 
     review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a Federal 
     agency for a highway or public transportation capital project 
     shall be barred unless it is filed within 180 days after 
     publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing 
     that the permit, license, or approval is final pursuant to 
     the law under which the agency action is taken, unless a 
     shorter time is specified in the Federal law pursuant to 
     which judicial review is allowed. Nothing in this subsection 
     shall create a right to judicial review or place any limit on 
     filing a claim that a person has violated the terms of a 
     permit, license, or approval.
       ``(2) New information.--The Secretary shall consider new 
     information received after the close of a comment period if 
     the information satisfies the requirements for a supplemental 
     environmental impact statement under section 771.130 of title 
     23, Code of Federal Regulations. The preparation of a 
     supplemental environmental impact statement when required 
     shall be considered a separate final agency action and the 
     deadline for filing a claim for judicial review of such 
     action shall be 180 days after the date of publication of a 
     notice in the Federal Register announcing such action.''.
       (b) Existing Environmental Review Process.--Nothing in this 
     section affects any existing State environmental review 
     process, program, agreement, or funding arrangement approved 
     by the Secretary under section 1309 of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 232; 23 U.S.C. 109 
     note) as such section was in effect on the day preceding the 
     date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     138 the following:

``139. Efficient environmental reviews for project decisionmaking.''.

       (d) Repeal.--Section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act 
     for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 232) is repealed.

     SEC. 6003. STATE ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CERTAIN 
                   PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 324 the following:

     ``Sec. 325. State assumption of responsibilities for certain 
       programs and projects

       ``(a) Assumption of Secretary's Responsibilities Under 
     Applicable Federal Laws.--
       ``(1) Pilot program.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary may establish a pilot 
     program under which States may assume the responsibilities of 
     the Secretary under any Federal laws subject to the 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(B) First 3 fiscal years.--In the first 3 fiscal years 
     following the date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the 
     Secretary may allow up to 5 States to participate in the 
     pilot program.
       ``(2) Scope of program.--Under the pilot program, the 
     Secretary may assign, and a State may assume, any of the 
     Secretary's responsibilities (other than responsibilities 
     relating to federally recognized Indian tribes) for 
     environmental reviews, consultation, or decisionmaking or 
     other actions required under any Federal law as such 
     requirements apply to the following projects:
       ``(A) Projects funded under section 104(h).
       ``(B) Transportation enhancement activities under section 
     133, as such term is defined in section 101(a)(35).
       ``(b) Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding with a State participating in the 
     pilot program setting forth the responsibilities to be 
     assigned under subsection (a)(2) and the terms and conditions 
     under which the assignment is being made.
       ``(2) Certification.--Before the Secretary enters into a 
     memorandum of understanding with a State under paragraph (1), 
     the State shall certify that the State has in effect laws 
     (including regulations) applicable to projects carried out 
     and funded under this title and chapter 53 of title 49 that 
     authorize the State to carry out the responsibilities being 
     assumed.
       ``(3) Maximum duration.--A memorandum of understanding with 
     a State under this section shall be established for an 
     initial period of no more than 3 years and may be renewed by 
     mutual agreement on a periodic basis for periods of not more 
     than 3 years.
       ``(4) Compliance.--
       ``(A) In general.--After entering into a memorandum of 
     understanding under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall review 
     and determine compliance by the State with the memorandum of 
     understanding.
       ``(B) Renewals.--The Secretary shall take into account the 
     performance of a State under the pilot program when 
     considering renewal of

[[Page 18738]]

     a memorandum of understanding with the State under the 
     program.
       ``(5) Sole responsibility.--A State that assumes 
     responsibility under subsection (a)(2) with respect to a 
     Federal law shall be solely responsible and solely liable for 
     complying with and carrying out that law, and the Secretary 
     shall have no such responsibility or liability.
       ``(6) Acceptance of jurisdiction.--In a memorandum of 
     understanding, the State shall consent to accept the 
     jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the compliance, 
     discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility of the 
     Secretary that the State assumes.
       ``(c) Selection of States for Pilot Program.--
       ``(1) Application.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     pilot program, a State shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application that contains such information as the Secretary 
     may require. At a minimum, an application shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the projects or classes of projects 
     for which the State seeks to assume responsibilities under 
     subsection (a)(2); and
       ``(B) a certification that the State has the capability to 
     assume such responsibilities.
       ``(2) Public notice.--Before entering into a memorandum of 
     understanding allowing a State to participate in the pilot 
     program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) publish notice in the Federal Register of the 
     Secretary's intent to allow the State to participate in the 
     program, including a copy of the State's application to the 
     Secretary and the terms of the proposed agreement with the 
     State; and
       ``(B) provide an opportunity for public comment.
       ``(3) Selection criteria.--The Secretary may approve the 
     application of a State to assume responsibilities under the 
     program only if--
       ``(A) the requirements under paragraph (2) have been met; 
     and
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that the State has the 
     capability to assume the responsibilities.
       ``(4) Other federal agency views.--Before assigning to a 
     State a responsibility of the Secretary that requires the 
     Secretary to consult with another Federal agency, the 
     Secretary shall solicit the views of the Federal agency.
       ``(d) State Defined.--With respect to the recreational 
     trails program, the term `State' means the State agency 
     designated by the Governor of the State in accordance with 
     section 206(c)(1).
       ``(e) Preservation of Public Interest Consideration.--
     Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the 
     requirements under any applicable law providing for the 
     consideration and preservation of the public interest, 
     including public participation and community values in 
     transportation decisionmaking.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding after the 
     item relating to section 324 the following:

``325. State assumption of responsibilities for certain programs and 
              projects.''.

     SEC. 6004. STATE ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CATEGORICAL 
                   EXCLUSIONS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is further amended by inserting after section 325 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 326. State assumption of responsibility for 
       categorical exclusions

       ``(a) Categorical Exclusion Determinations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may assign, and a State 
     may assume, responsibility for determining whether certain 
     designated activities are included within classes of action 
     identified in regulation by the Secretary that are 
     categorically excluded from requirements for environmental 
     assessments or environmental impact statements pursuant to 
     regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental 
     Quality under part 1500 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (as in effect on October 1, 2003).
       ``(2) Scope of authority.--A determination described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be made by a State in accordance with 
     criteria established by the Secretary and only for types of 
     activities specifically designated by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Criteria.--The criteria under paragraph (2) shall 
     include provisions for public availability of information 
     consistent with section 552 of title 5 and the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       ``(b) Other Applicable Federal Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a State assumes responsibility under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may also assign and the State 
     may assume all or part of the responsibilities of the 
     Secretary for environmental review, consultation, or other 
     related actions required under any Federal law applicable to 
     activities that are classified by the Secretary as 
     categorical exclusions, with the exception of government-to-
     government consultation with Indian tribes, subject to the 
     same procedural and substantive requirements as would be 
     required if that responsibility were carried out by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Sole responsibility.--A State that assumes 
     responsibility under paragraph (1) with respect to a Federal 
     law shall be solely responsible and solely liable for 
     complying with and carrying out that law, and the Secretary 
     shall have no such responsibility or liability.
       ``(c) Memoranda of Understanding.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary and the State, after 
     providing public notice and opportunity for comment, shall 
     enter into a memorandum of understanding setting forth the 
     responsibilities to be assigned under this section and the 
     terms and conditions under which the assignments are made, 
     including establishment of the circumstances under which the 
     Secretary would reassume responsibility for categorical 
     exclusion determinations.
       ``(2) Term.--A memorandum of understanding--
       ``(A) shall have a term of not more than 3 years; and
       ``(B) shall be renewable.
       ``(3) Acceptance of jurisdiction.--In a memorandum of 
     understanding, the State shall consent to accept the 
     jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the compliance, 
     discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility of the 
     Secretary that the State assumes.
       ``(4) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) monitor compliance by the State with the memorandum 
     of understanding and the provision by the State of financial 
     resources to carry out the memorandum of understanding; and
       ``(B) take into account the performance by the State when 
     considering renewal of the memorandum of understanding.
       ``(d) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate any 
     assumption of responsibility under a memorandum of 
     understanding on a determination that the State is not 
     adequately carrying out the responsibilities assigned to the 
     State.
       ``(e) State Agency Deemed to Be Federal Agency.--A State 
     agency that is assigned a responsibility under a memorandum 
     of understanding shall be deemed to be a Federal agency for 
     the purposes of the Federal law under which the 
     responsibility is exercised.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is further amended by adding 
     after the item relating to section 325 the following:

``326. State assumption of responsibility for categorical 
              exclusions.''.

     SEC. 6005. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DELIVERY PILOT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is further amended by inserting after section 326 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 327. Surface transportation project delivery pilot 
       program

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a surface 
     transportation project delivery pilot program (referred to in 
     this section as the `program').
       ``(2) Assumption of responsibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the other provisions of this 
     section, with the written agreement of the Secretary and a 
     State, which may be in the form of a memorandum of 
     understanding, the Secretary may assign, and the State may 
     assume, the responsibilities of the Secretary with respect to 
     1 or more highway projects within the State under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       ``(B) Additional responsibility.--If a State assumes 
     responsibility under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) the Secretary may assign to the State, and the State 
     may assume, all or part of the responsibilities of the 
     Secretary for environmental review, consultation, or other 
     action required under any Federal environmental law 
     pertaining to the review or approval of a specific project; 
     but
       ``(ii) the Secretary may not assign--

       ``(I) responsibility for any conformity determination 
     required under section 176 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7506); or
       ``(II) any responsibility imposed on the Secretary by 
     section 134 or 135.

       ``(C) Procedural and substantive requirements.--A State 
     shall assume responsibility under this section subject to the 
     same procedural and substantive requirements as would apply 
     if that responsibility were carried out by the Secretary.
       ``(D) Federal responsibility.--Any responsibility of the 
     Secretary not explicitly assumed by the State by written 
     agreement under this section shall remain the responsibility 
     of the Secretary.
       ``(E) No effect on authority.--Nothing in this section 
     preempts or interferes with any power, jurisdiction, 
     responsibility, or authority of an agency, other than the 
     Department of Transportation, under applicable law (including 
     regulations) with respect to a project.
       ``(b) State Participation.--
       ``(1) Number of participating states.--The Secretary may 
     permit not more than 5 States (including the States of 
     Alaska, California, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas) to participate 
     in the program.
       ``(2) Application.--Not later than 270 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that establish requirements relating to 
     information required to be contained in any application of a 
     State to participate in the program, including, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(A) the projects or classes of projects for which the 
     State anticipates exercising the authority that may be 
     granted under the program;
       ``(B) verification of the financial resources necessary to 
     carry out the authority that may be granted under the 
     program; and
       ``(C) evidence of the notice and solicitation of public 
     comment by the State relating to participation of the State 
     in the program, including copies of comments received from 
     that solicitation.
       ``(3) Public notice.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each State that submits an application 
     under this subsection shall give notice of the intent of the 
     State to participate in the program not later than 30 days 
     before the date of submission of the application.

[[Page 18739]]

       ``(B) Method of notice and solicitation.--The State shall 
     provide notice and solicit public comment under this 
     paragraph by publishing the complete application of the State 
     in accordance with the appropriate public notice law of the 
     State.
       ``(4) Selection criteria.--The Secretary may approve the 
     application of a State under this section only if--
       ``(A) the regulatory requirements under paragraph (2) have 
     been met;
       ``(B) the Secretary determines that the State has the 
     capability, including financial and personnel, to assume the 
     responsibility; and
       ``(C) the head of the State agency having primary 
     jurisdiction over highway matters enters into a written 
     agreement with the Secretary described in subsection (c).
       ``(5) Other federal agency views.--If a State applies to 
     assume a responsibility of the Secretary that would have 
     required the Secretary to consult with another Federal 
     agency, the Secretary shall solicit the views of the Federal 
     agency before approving the application.
       ``(c) Written Agreement.--A written agreement under this 
     section shall--
       ``(1) be executed by the Governor or the top-ranking 
     transportation official in the State who is charged with 
     responsibility for highway construction;
       ``(2) be in such form as the Secretary may prescribe;
       ``(3) provide that the State--
       ``(A) agrees to assume all or part of the responsibilities 
     of the Secretary described in subsection (a);
       ``(B) expressly consents, on behalf of the State, to accept 
     the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the compliance, 
     discharge, and enforcement of any responsibility of the 
     Secretary assumed by the State;
       ``(C) certifies that State laws (including regulations) are 
     in effect that--
       ``(i) authorize the State to take the actions necessary to 
     carry out the responsibilities being assumed; and
       ``(ii) are comparable to section 552 of title 5, including 
     providing that any decision regarding the public availability 
     of a document under those State laws is reviewable by a court 
     of competent jurisdiction; and
       ``(D) agrees to maintain the financial resources necessary 
     to carry out the responsibilities being assumed.
       ``(d) Jurisdiction.--
       ``(1) In general.--The United States district courts shall 
     have exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action against a 
     State for failure to carry out any responsibility of the 
     State under this section.
       ``(2) Legal standards and requirements.--A civil action 
     under paragraph (1) shall be governed by the legal standards 
     and requirements that would apply in such a civil action 
     against the Secretary had the Secretary taken the actions in 
     question.
       ``(3) Intervention.--The Secretary shall have the right to 
     intervene in any action described in paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Effect of Assumption of Responsibility.--A State that 
     assumes responsibility under subsection (a)(2) shall be 
     solely responsible and solely liable for carrying out, in 
     lieu of the Secretary, the responsibilities assumed under 
     subsection (a)(2), until the program is terminated as 
     provided in subsection (i).
       ``(f) Limitations on Agreements.--Nothing in this section 
     permits a State to assume any rulemaking authority of the 
     Secretary under any Federal law.
       ``(g) Audits.--
       ``(1) In general.--To ensure compliance by a State with any 
     agreement of the State under subsection (c) (including 
     compliance by the State with all Federal laws for which 
     responsibility is assumed under subsection (a)(2)), for each 
     State participating in the program under this section, the 
     Secretary shall conduct--
       ``(A) semiannual audits during each of the first 2 years of 
     State participation; and
       ``(B) annual audits during each subsequent year of State 
     participation.
       ``(2) Public availability and comment.--
       ``(A) In general.--An audit conducted under paragraph (1) 
     shall be provided to the public for comment.
       ``(B) Response.--Not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which the period for public comment ends, the Secretary shall 
     respond to public comments received under subparagraph (A).
       ``(h) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress an annual report that describes the administration 
     of the program.
       ``(i) Termination.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     program shall terminate on the date that is 6 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Termination by secretary.--The Secretary may 
     terminate the participation of any State in the program if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the State is not 
     adequately carrying out the responsibilities assigned to the 
     State;
       ``(B) the Secretary provides to the State--
       ``(i) notification of the determination of noncompliance; 
     and
       ``(ii) a period of at least 30 days during which to take 
     such corrective action as the Secretary determines is 
     necessary to comply with the applicable agreement; and
       ``(C) the State, after the notification and period provided 
     under subparagraph (B), fails to take satisfactory corrective 
     action, as determined by Secretary.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is further amended by adding 
     after the item relating to section 326 the following:

``327. Surface transportation project delivery pilot program.''.

     SEC. 6006. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT; 
                   CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEEDS AND AQUATIC NOXIOUS 
                   WEEDS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIVE SPECIES.

       (a) Modification to NHS/STP for Environmental Restoration, 
     Pollution Abatement, Control of Noxious Weeds and Aquatic 
     Noxious Weeds.--
       (1) Modifications to national highway system.--Section 
     103(b)(6) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(Q) Environmental restoration and pollution abatement in 
     accordance with section 328.
       ``(R) Control of noxious weeds and aquatic noxious weeds 
     and establishment of native species in accordance with 
     section 329.''.
       (2) Modifications to surface transportation program.--
     Section 133(b) of title 23, is amended by striking paragraph 
     (14) and inserting the following:
       ``(14) Environmental restoration and pollution abatement in 
     accordance with section 328.
       ``(15) Control of noxious weeds and aquatic noxious weeds 
     and establishment of native species in accordance with 
     section 329.''.
       (b) Eligible Activities.--Chapter 3 of title 23, United 
     States Code, is further amended by adding after section 327 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 328. Eligibility for environmental restoration and 
       pollution abatement

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), environmental 
     restoration and pollution abatement to minimize or mitigate 
     the impacts of any transportation project funded under this 
     title (including retrofitting and construction of stormwater 
     treatment systems to meet Federal and State requirements 
     under sections 401 and 402 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341; 1342)) may be carried out to 
     address water pollution or environmental degradation caused 
     wholly or partially by a transportation facility.
       ``(b) Maximum Expenditure.--In a case in which a 
     transportation facility is undergoing reconstruction, 
     rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration, the expenditure 
     of funds under this section for environmental restoration or 
     pollution abatement described in subsection (a) shall not 
     exceed 20 percent of the total cost of the reconstruction, 
     rehabilitation, resurfacing, or restoration of the facility.

     ``Sec. 329. Eligibility for control of noxious weeds and 
       aquatic noxious weeds and establishment of native species

       ``(a) In General.--In accordance with all applicable 
     Federal law (including regulations), funds made available to 
     carry out this section may be used for the following 
     activities if such activities are related to transportation 
     projects funded under this title:
       ``(1) Establishment of plants selected by State and local 
     transportation authorities to perform one or more of the 
     following functions: abatement of stormwater runoff, 
     stabilization of soil, and aesthetic enhancement.
       ``(2) Management of plants which impair or impede the 
     establishment, maintenance, or safe use of a transportation 
     system.
       ``(b) Included Activities.--The establishment and 
     management under subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2) may include--
       ``(1) right-of-way surveys to determine management 
     requirements to control Federal or State noxious weeds as 
     defined in the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) 
     or State law, and brush or tree species, whether native or 
     nonnative, that may be considered by State or local 
     transportation authorities to be a threat with respect to the 
     safety or maintenance of transportation systems;
       ``(2) establishment of plants, whether native or nonnative 
     with a preference for native to the maximum extent possible, 
     for the purposes defined in subsection (a)(1);
       ``(3) control or elimination of plants as defined in 
     subsection (a)(2);
       ``(4) elimination of plants to create fuel breaks for the 
     prevention and control of wildfires; and
       ``(5) training.
       ``(c) Contributions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an activity 
     described in subsection (a) may be carried out concurrently 
     with, in advance of, or following the construction of a 
     project funded under this title.
       ``(2) Condition for activities conducted in advance of 
     project construction.--An activity described in subsection 
     (a) may be carried out in advance of construction of a 
     project only if the activity is carried out in accordance 
     with all applicable requirements of Federal law (including 
     regulations) and State transportation planning processes.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of 
     title 23 is further amended by adding after the item relating 
     to section 327 the following:

``328. Eligibility for environmental restoration and pollution 
              abatement.
``329. Eligibility for control of noxious weeds and aquatic noxious 
              weeds and establishment of native species.''.

     SEC. 6007. EXEMPTION OF INTERSTATE SYSTEM.

       Section 103(c) of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Exemption of interstate system.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Interstate System shall not

[[Page 18740]]

     be considered to be a historic site under section 303 of 
     title 49 or section 138 of this title, regardless of whether 
     the Interstate System or portions or elements of the 
     Interstate System are listed on, or eligible for listing on, 
     the National Register of Historic Places.
       ``(B) Individual elements.--Subject to subparagraph (C), 
     the Secretary shall determine, through the administrative 
     process established for exempting the Interstate System from 
     section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470f), those individual elements of the Interstate 
     System that possess national or exceptional historic 
     significance (such as a historic bridge or a highly 
     significant engineering feature). Such elements shall be 
     considered to be a historic site under section 303 of title 
     49 or section 138 of this title, as applicable.
       ``(C) Construction, maintenance, restoration, and 
     rehabilitation activities.--Subparagraph (B) does not 
     prohibit a State from carrying out construction, maintenance, 
     restoration, or rehabilitation activities for a portion of 
     the Interstate System referred to in subparagraph (B) upon 
     compliance with section 303 of title 49 or section 138 of 
     this title, as applicable, and section 106 of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).''.

     SEC. 6008. INTEGRATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS INTO 
                   TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PLANNING.

       Section 109(c)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``consider the results'' and inserting 
     ``consider--
       ``(A) the results'';
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) the publication entitled `Flexibility in Highway 
     Design' of the Federal Highway Administration;
       ``(C) `Eight Characteristics of Process to Yield Excellence 
     and the Seven Qualities of Excellence in Transportation 
     Design' developed by the conference held during 1998 entitled 
     `Thinking Beyond the Pavement National Workshop on 
     Integrating Highway Development with Communities and the 
     Environment while Maintaining Safety and Performance'; and
       ``(D) any other material that the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate.''.

     SEC. 6009. PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL 
                   REFUGES, AND HISTORIC SITES.

       (a) Programs and Projects With De Minimis Impacts.--
       (1) Title 23.--Section 138 of title 23, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``it is hereby'' and 
     inserting the following: ``(a) Declaration of Policy.--It 
     is''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) De Minimis Impacts.--
       ``(1) Requirements.--
       ``(A) Requirements for historic sites.--The requirements of 
     this section shall be considered to be satisfied with respect 
     to an area described in paragraph (2) if the Secretary 
     determines, in accordance with this subsection, that a 
     transportation program or project will have a de minimis 
     impact on the area.
       ``(B) Requirements for parks, recreation areas, and 
     wildlife or waterfowl refuges.--The requirements of 
     subsection (a)(1) shall be considered to be satisfied with 
     respect to an area described in paragraph (3) if the 
     Secretary determines, in accordance with this subsection, 
     that a transportation program or project will have a de 
     minimis impact on the area. The requirements of subsection 
     (a)(2) with respect to an area described in paragraph (3) 
     shall not include an alternatives analysis.
       ``(C) Criteria.--In making any determination under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall consider to be part of a 
     transportation program or project any avoidance, 
     minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures that are 
     required to be implemented as a condition of approval of the 
     transportation program or project.
       ``(2) Historic sites.--With respect to historic sites, the 
     Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact only if--
       ``(A) the Secretary has determined, in accordance with the 
     consultation process required under section 106 of the 
     National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), that--
       ``(i) the transportation program or project will have no 
     adverse effect on the historic site; or
       ``(ii) there will be no historic properties affected by the 
     transportation program or project;
       ``(B) the finding of the Secretary has received written 
     concurrence from the applicable State historic preservation 
     officer or tribal historic preservation officer (and from the 
     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if the Council is 
     participating in the consultation process); and
       ``(C) the finding of the Secretary has been developed in 
     consultation with parties consulting as part of the process 
     referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl 
     refuges.--With respect to parks, recreation areas, or 
     wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the Secretary may make a 
     finding of de minimis impact only if--
       ``(A) the Secretary has determined, after public notice and 
     opportunity for public review and comment, that the 
     transportation program or project will not adversely affect 
     the activities, features, and attributes of the park, 
     recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for 
     protection under this section; and
       ``(B) the finding of the Secretary has received concurrence 
     from the officials with jurisdiction over the park, 
     recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge.''.
       (2) Title 49.--Section 303 of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(c) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Approval of Programs and Projects.--Subject to 
     subsection (d), the Secretary''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) De Minimis Impacts.--
       ``(1) Requirements.--
       ``(A) Requirements for historic sites.--The requirements of 
     this section shall be considered to be satisfied with respect 
     to an area described in paragraph (2) if the Secretary 
     determines, in accordance with this subsection, that a 
     transportation program or project will have a de minimis 
     impact on the area.
       ``(B) Requirements for parks, recreation areas, and 
     wildlife or waterfowl refuges.--The requirements of 
     subsection (c)(1) shall be considered to be satisfied with 
     respect to an area described in paragraph (3) if the 
     Secretary determines, in accordance with this subsection, 
     that a transportation program or project will have a de 
     minimis impact on the area. The requirements of subsection 
     (c)(2) with respect to an area described in paragraph (3) 
     shall not include an alternatives analysis.
       ``(C) Criteria.--In making any determination under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall consider to be part of a 
     transportation program or project any avoidance, 
     minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures that are 
     required to be implemented as a condition of approval of the 
     transportation program or project.
       ``(2) Historic sites.--With respect to historic sites, the 
     Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact only if--
       ``(A) the Secretary has determined, in accordance with the 
     consultation process required under section 106 of the 
     National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), that--
       ``(i) the transportation program or project will have no 
     adverse effect on the historic site; or
       ``(ii) there will be no historic properties affected by the 
     transportation program or project;
       ``(B) the finding of the Secretary has received written 
     concurrence from the applicable State historic preservation 
     officer or tribal historic preservation officer (and from the 
     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if the Council is 
     participating in the consultation process); and
       ``(C) the finding of the Secretary has been developed in 
     consultation with parties consulting as part of the process 
     referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl 
     refuges.--With respect to parks, recreation areas, or 
     wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the Secretary may make a 
     finding of de minimis impact only if--
       ``(A) the Secretary has determined, after public notice and 
     opportunity for public review and comment, that the 
     transportation program or project will not adversely affect 
     the activities, features, and attributes of the park, 
     recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for 
     protection under this section; and
       ``(B) the finding of the Secretary has received concurrence 
     from the officials with jurisdiction over the park, 
     recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge.''.
       (b) Clarification of Existing Standards.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall (in consultation 
     with affected agencies and interested parties) promulgate 
     regulations that clarify the factors to be considered and the 
     standards to be applied in determining the prudence and 
     feasibility of alternatives under section 138 of title 23 and 
     section 303 of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Requirements.--The regulations--
       (A) shall clarify the application of the legal standards to 
     a variety of different types of transportation programs and 
     projects depending on the circumstances of each case; and
       (B) may include, as appropriate, examples to facilitate 
     clear and consistent interpretation by agency decisionmakers.
       (c) Implementation Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) conduct a study on the implementation of this section 
     and the amendments made by this section; and
       (B) commission an independent review of the study plan and 
     methodology, and any associated conclusions, by the 
     Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of 
     Sciences.
       (2) Components.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall evaluate--
       (A) the processes developed under this section and the 
     amendments made by this section and the efficiencies that may 
     result;
       (B) the post-construction effectiveness of impact 
     mitigation and avoidance commitments adopted as part of 
     projects conducted under this section and the amendments made 
     by this section; and
       (C) the quantity of projects with impacts that are 
     considered de minimis under this section and the amendments 
     made by this section, including information on the location, 
     size, and cost of the projects.
       (3) Report requirement.--The Secretary shall prepare--
       (A) not earlier than the date that is 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, a report on the results of the 
     study conducted under this subsection; and
       (B) not later than March 1, 2010, an update on the report 
     required under subparagraph (A).
       (4) Report recipients.--The Secretary shall--

[[Page 18741]]

       (A) submit the report, review of the report, and update 
     required under paragraph (3) to--
       (i) the appropriate committees of Congress;
       (ii) the Secretary of the Interior; and
       (iii) the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and
       (B) make the report and update available to the public.

     SEC. 6010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES THAT SUPPORT 
                   DEPLOYMENT OF INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) Categorical Exclusions.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     initiate a rulemaking process to establish, to the extent 
     appropriate, categorical exclusions for activities that 
     support the deployment of intelligent transportation 
     infrastructure and systems from the requirement that an 
     environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement 
     be prepared under section 102 of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) in compliance with the 
     standards for categorical exclusions established by that Act.
       (b) Nationwide Programmatic Agreement.--
       (1) Development.--The Secretary shall develop a nationwide 
     programmatic agreement governing the review of activities 
     that support the deployment of intelligent transportation 
     infrastructure and systems in accordance with section 106 of 
     the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) and 
     the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation.
       (2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall develop the 
     agreement under paragraph (1) in consultation with the 
     National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 
     and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established 
     under title II of the National Historic Preservation Act (26 
     U.S.C. 470i et seq.) and after soliciting the views of other 
     interested parties.
       (c) Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure and Systems 
     Defined.--In this section, the term ``intelligent 
     transportation infrastructure and systems'' means intelligent 
     transportation infrastructure and intelligent transportation 
     systems, as such terms are defined in subtitle C of title V 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 6011. TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY.

       (a) Conformity Redeterminations.--Section 176(c)(2) of the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(E) The appropriate metropolitan planning organization 
     shall redetermine conformity of existing transportation plans 
     and programs not later than 2 years after the date on which 
     the Administrator--
       ``(i) finds a motor vehicle emissions budget to be adequate 
     in accordance with section 93.118(e)(4) of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on October 1, 2004);
       ``(ii) approves an implementation plan that establishes a 
     motor vehicle emissions budget if that budget has not yet 
     been determined to be adequate in accordance with clause (i); 
     or
       ``(iii) promulgates an implementation plan that establishes 
     or revises a motor vehicle emissions budget.''.
       (b) Frequency of Conformity Determination Updates.--Section 
     176(c)(4)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7506(c)(4)(B)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) address the appropriate frequency for making 
     conformity determinations, but the frequency for making 
     conformity determinations on updated transportation plans and 
     programs shall be every 4 years, except in a case in which--
       ``(I) the metropolitan planning organization elects to 
     update a transportation plan or program more frequently; or
       ``(II) the metropolitan planning organization is required 
     to determine conformity in accordance with paragraph (2)(E); 
     and''.
       (c) Time Horizon for Conformity Determinations in 
     Nonattainment Areas.--Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7506(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) Conformity horizon for transportation plans.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each conformity determination required 
     under this section for a transportation plan under section 
     134(i) of title 23, United States Code, or section 5303(i) of 
     title 49, United States Code, shall require a demonstration 
     of conformity for the period ending on either the final year 
     of the transportation plan, or at the election of the 
     metropolitan planning organization, after consultation with 
     the air pollution control agency and solicitation of public 
     comments and consideration of such comments, the longest of 
     the following periods:
       ``(i) The first 10-year period of any such transportation 
     plan.
       ``(ii) The latest year in the implementation plan 
     applicable to the area that contains a motor vehicle emission 
     budget.
       ``(iii) The year after the completion date of a regionally 
     significant project if the project is included in the 
     transportation improvement program or the project requires 
     approval before the subsequent conformity determination.
       ``(B) Regional emissions analysis.--The conformity 
     determination shall be accompanied by a regional emissions 
     analysis for the last year of the transportation plan and for 
     any year shown to exceed emission budgets by a prior 
     analysis, if such year extends beyond the applicable period 
     as determined under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Exception.--In any case in which an area has a 
     revision to an implementation plan under section 175A(b) and 
     the Administrator has found the motor vehicles emissions 
     budgets from that revision to be adequate in accordance with 
     section 93.118(e)(4) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (as in effect on October 1, 2004), or has approved the 
     revision, the demonstration of conformity at the election of 
     the metropolitan planning organization, after consultation 
     with the air pollution control agency and solicitation of 
     public comments and consideration of such comments, shall be 
     required to extend only through the last year of the 
     implementation plan required under section 175A(b).
       ``(D) Effect of election.--Any election by a metropolitan 
     planning organization under this paragraph shall continue in 
     effect until the metropolitan planning organization elects 
     otherwise.
       ``(E) Air pollution control agency defined.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `air pollution control agency' means an 
     air pollution control agency (as defined in section 302(b)) 
     that is responsible for developing plans or controlling air 
     pollution within the area covered by a transportation 
     plan.''.
       (d) Substitution of Transportation Control Measures.--
     Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) (as 
     amended by subsection (c)) is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) Substitution of transportation control measures.--
       ``(A) In general.--Transportation control measures that are 
     specified in an implementation plan may be replaced or added 
     to the implementation plan with alternate or additional 
     transportation control measures--
       ``(i) if the substitute measures achieve equivalent or 
     greater emissions reductions than the control measure to be 
     replaced, as demonstrated with an emissions impact analysis 
     that is consistent with the current methodology used for 
     evaluating the replaced control measure in the implementation 
     plan;
       ``(ii) if the substitute control measures are implemented--

       ``(I) in accordance with a schedule that is consistent with 
     the schedule provided for control measures in the 
     implementation plan; or
       ``(II) if the implementation plan date for implementation 
     of the control measure to be replaced has passed, as soon as 
     practicable after the implementation plan date but not later 
     than the date on which emission reductions are necessary to 
     achieve the purpose of the implementation plan;

       ``(iii) if the substitute and additional control measures 
     are accompanied with evidence of adequate personnel and 
     funding and authority under State or local law to implement, 
     monitor, and enforce the control measures;
       ``(iv) if the substitute and additional control measures 
     were developed through a collaborative process that 
     included--

       ``(I) participation by representatives of all affected 
     jurisdictions (including local air pollution control 
     agencies, the State air pollution control agency, and State 
     and local transportation agencies);
       ``(II) consultation with the Administrator; and
       ``(III) reasonable public notice and opportunity for 
     comment; and

       ``(v) if the metropolitan planning organization, State air 
     pollution control agency, and the Administrator concur with 
     the equivalency of the substitute or additional control 
     measures.
       ``(B) Adoption.--(i) Concurrence by the metropolitan 
     planning organization, State air pollution control agency and 
     the Administrator as required by subparagraph (A)(v) shall 
     constitute adoption of the substitute or additional control 
     measures so long as the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i), 
     (A)(ii), (A)(iii) and (A)(iv) are met.
       ``(ii) Once adopted, the substitute or additional control 
     measures become, by operation of law, part of the state 
     implementation plan and become federally enforceable.
       ``(iii) Within 90 days of its concurrence under 
     subparagraph (A)(v), the State air pollution control agency 
     shall submit the substitute or additional control measure to 
     the Administrator for incorporation in the codification of 
     the applicable implementation plan. Nothwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act, no additional State process 
     shall be necessary to support such revision to the applicable 
     plan.
       ``(C) No requirement for express permission.--The 
     substitution or addition of a transportation control measure 
     in accordance with this paragraph and the funding or approval 
     of such a control measure shall not be contingent on the 
     existence of any provision in the applicable implementation 
     plan that expressly permits such a substitution or addition.
       ``(D) No requirement for new conformity determination.--The 
     substitution or addition of a transportation control measure 
     in accordance with this paragraph shall not require--
       ``(i) a new conformity determination for the transportation 
     plan; or
       ``(ii) a revision of the implementation plan.
       ``(E) Continuation of control measure being replaced.--A 
     control measure that is being replaced by a substitute 
     control measure under this paragraph shall remain in effect 
     until the substitute control measure is adopted by the State 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       ``(F) Effect of adoption.--Adoption of a substitute control 
     measure shall constitute rescission of the previously 
     applicable control measure.''.
       (e) Lapse of Conformity.--Section 176(c) of the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) (as amended by subsections (c) and 
     (d)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (8) the 
     following:
       ``(9) Lapse of conformity.--If a conformity determination 
     required under this subsection for a transportation plan 
     under section 134(i) of

[[Page 18742]]

     title 23, United States Code, or section 5303(i) of title 49, 
     United States Code, or a transportation improvement program 
     under section 134(j) of such title 23 or under section 
     5303(j) of such title 49 is not made by the applicable 
     deadline and such failure is not corrected by additional 
     measures to either reduce motor vehicle emissions sufficient 
     to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this 
     subsection within 12 months after such deadline or other 
     measures sufficient to correct such failures, the 
     transportation plan shall lapse.
       ``(10) Lapse.--In this subsection, the term `lapse' means 
     that the conformity determination for a transportation plan 
     or transportation improvement program has expired, and thus 
     there is no currently conforming transportation plan or 
     transportation improvement program.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--Section 176(c)(4) of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(4) (as amended by subsection (b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``(4)(A) No later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 
     the Administrator shall promulgate'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(4) Criteria and procedures for determining conformity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall promulgate, and 
     periodically update,'';
       (3) in the second sentence of subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``No later than one year after such date of 
     enactment, the Administrator, with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of Transportation, shall promulgate'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(B) Transportation plans, programs, and projects.--The 
     Administrator, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
     Transportation, shall promulgate, and periodically update,''; 
     and
       (B) in the third sentence, by striking ``A suit'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) Civil action to compel promulgation.--A civil 
     action''; and
       (4) by striking subparagraph (E) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) and inserting the following:
       ``(E) Inclusion of criteria and procedures in sip.--Not 
     later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the 
     SAFETEA-LU the procedures under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include a requirement that each State include in the State 
     implementation plan criteria and procedures for consultation 
     required by subparagraph (D)(i), and enforcement and 
     enforceability (pursuant to sections 93.125(c) and 
     93.122(a)(4)(ii) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations) in 
     accordance with the Administrator's criteria and procedures 
     for consultation, enforcement and enforceability.''.
       (g) Regulations.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall promulgate revised regulations to 
     implement the changes made by this section.

     SEC. 6012. FEDERAL REFERENCE METHOD.

       (a) In General.--Section 6102(e) of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (42 U.S.C. 7407 note; 112 
     Stat. 464-465) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Field Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, the Administrator shall--
       ``(1) conduct a field study of the ability of the 
     PM2.5 Federal Reference Method to differentiate 
     those particles that are larger than 2.5 micrometers in 
     diameter;
       ``(2) develop a Federal reference method to measure 
     directly particles that are larger than 2.5 micrometers in 
     diameter without reliance on subtracting from coarse particle 
     measurements those particles that are equal to or smaller 
     than 2.5 micrometers in diameter;
       ``(3) develop a method of measuring the composition of 
     coarse particles; and
       ``(4) submit a report on the study and responsibilities of 
     the Administrator under paragraphs (1) through (3) to--
       ``(A) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(B) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate.''.

     SEC. 6013. AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA INFLUENCED BY 
                   EXCEPTIONAL EVENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 319 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7619) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``after notice and opportunity for public hearing'' 
     and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 319. AIR QUALITY MONITORING.

       ``(a) In General.--After notice and opportunity for public 
     hearing''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Air Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional 
     Events.--
       ``(1) Definition of exceptional event.--In this section:
       ``(A) In general.--The term `exceptional event' means an 
     event that--
       ``(i) affects air quality;
       ``(ii) is not reasonably controllable or preventable;
       ``(iii) is an event caused by human activity that is 
     unlikely to recur at a particular location or a natural 
     event; and
       ``(iv) is determined by the Administrator through the 
     process established in the regulations promulgated under 
     paragraph (2) to be an exceptional event.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--In this subsection, the term 
     `exceptional event' does not include--
       ``(i) stagnation of air masses or meteorological 
     inversions;
       ``(ii) a meteorological event involving high temperatures 
     or lack of precipitation; or
       ``(iii) air pollution relating to source noncompliance.
       ``(2) Regulations.--
       ``(A) Proposed regulations.--Not later than March 1, 2006, 
     after consultation with Federal land managers and State air 
     pollution control agencies, the Administrator shall publish 
     in the Federal Register proposed regulations governing the 
     review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced 
     by exceptional events.
       ``(B) Final regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date on which the Administrator publishes proposed 
     regulations under subparagraph (A), and after providing an 
     opportunity for interested persons to make oral presentations 
     of views, data, and arguments regarding the proposed 
     regulations, the Administrator shall promulgate final 
     regulations governing the review and handling or air quality 
     monitoring data influenced by an exceptional event that are 
     consistent with paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Principles and requirements.--
       ``(A) Principles.--In promulgating regulations under this 
     section, the Administrator shall follow--
       ``(i) the principle that protection of public health is the 
     highest priority;
       ``(ii) the principle that timely information should be 
     provided to the public in any case in which the air quality 
     is unhealthy;
       ``(iii) the principle that all ambient air quality data 
     should be included in a timely manner, an appropriate Federal 
     air quality database that is accessible to the public;
       ``(iv) the principle that each State must take necessary 
     measures to safeguard public health regardless of the source 
     of the air pollution; and
       ``(v) the principle that air quality data should be 
     carefully screened to ensure that events not likely to recur 
     are represented accurately in all monitoring data and 
     analyses.
       ``(B) Requirements.--Regulations promulgated under this 
     section shall, at a minimum, provide that--
       ``(i) the occurrence of an exceptional event must be 
     demonstrated by reliable, accurate data that is promptly 
     produced and provided by Federal, State, or local government 
     agencies;
       ``(ii) a clear causal relationship must exist between the 
     measured exceedances of a national ambient air quality 
     standard and the exceptional event to demonstrate that the 
     exceptional event caused a specific air pollution 
     concentration at a particular air quality monitoring 
     location;
       ``(iii) there is a public process for determining whether 
     an event is exceptional; and
       ``(iv) there are criteria and procedures for the Governor 
     of a State to petition the Administrator to exclude air 
     quality monitoring data that is directly due to exceptional 
     events from use in determinations by the Administrator with 
     respect to exceedances or violations of the national ambient 
     air quality standards.
       ``(4) Interim provision.--Until the effective date of a 
     regulation promulgated under paragraph (2), the following 
     guidance issued by the Administrator shall continue to apply:
       ``(A) Guidance on the identification and use of air quality 
     data affected by exceptional events (July 1986).
       ``(B) Areas affected by PM-10 natural events, May 30, 1996.
       ``(C) Appendices I, K, and N to part 50 of title 40, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.''.

     SEC. 6014. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT OF RECYCLED COOLANT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall conduct a review 
     of Federal procurement policy of recycled coolant.
       (b) Elements.--In conducting the review under subsection 
     (a), the President shall consider recycled coolant produced 
     from processes that--
       (1) are energy efficient;
       (2) generate no hazardous waste (as defined in section 1004 
     of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903));
       (3) produce no emissions of air pollutants;
       (4) present lower health and safety risks to employees at a 
     plant or facility; and
       (5) recover at least 97 percent of the glycols from used 
     antifreeze feedstock.

     SEC. 6015. CLEAN SCHOOL BUS PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Alternative fuel.--The term ``alternative fuel'' 
     means--
       (A) liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, 
     liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, or propane;
       (B) methanol or ethanol at no less than 85 percent by 
     volume; or
       (C) biodiesel conforming with standards published by the 
     American Society for Testing and Materials as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Clean school bus.--The term ``clean school bus'' means 
     a school bus with a gross vehicle weight of greater than 
     14,000 pounds that--
       (A) is powered by a heavy duty engine; and
       (B) is operated solely on an alternative fuel or ultra-low 
     sulfur diesel fuel.
       (4) Eligible recipient.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     ``eligible recipient'' means--

[[Page 18743]]

       (i) one or more local or State governmental entities 
     responsible for providing school bus service to one or more 
     public school systems or the purchase of school buses;
       (ii) one or more contracting entities that provide school 
     bus service to one or more public school systems; or
       (iii) a nonprofit school transportation association.
       (B) Special requirements.--In the case of eligible 
     recipients identified under clauses (ii) and (iii) of 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall establish timely 
     and appropriate requirements for notice and may establish 
     timely and appropriate requirements for approval by the 
     public school systems that would be served by buses purchased 
     or retrofit using grant funds made available under this 
     section.
       (5) Retrofit technology.--The term ``retrofit technology'' 
     means a particulate filter or other emissions control 
     equipment that is verified or certified by the Administrator 
     or the California Air Resources Board as an effective 
     emission reduction technology when installed on an existing 
     school bus.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (7) Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.--The term ``ultra-low 
     sulfur diesel fuel'' means diesel fuel that contains sulfur 
     at not more than 15 parts per million.
       (b) Program for Retrofit or Replacement of Certain Existing 
     School Buses With Clean School Buses.--
       (1) Establishment.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Secretary and other appropriate Federal departments and 
     agencies, shall establish a program for awarding grants on a 
     competitive basis to eligible recipients for the replacement 
     of, retrofit (including repowering, aftertreatment, and 
     remanufactured engines) of, or purchase of alternative fuels 
     for, certain existing school buses. The awarding of grants 
     for the purchase of alternative fuels should be consistent 
     with the historic funding levels of the program for such 
     purchase.
       (B) Balancing.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Administrator shall achieve, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, achieve an appropriate balance between awarding 
     grants--
       (i) to replace school buses;
       (ii) to install retrofit technologies; and
       (iii) to purchase and use alternative fuel.
       (2) Priority of grant applications.--
       (A) Replacement.--In the case of grant applications to 
     replace school buses, the Administrator shall give priority 
     to applicants that propose to replace school buses 
     manufactured before model year 1977.
       (B) Retrofitting.--In the case of grant applications to 
     retrofit school buses, the Administrator shall give priority 
     to applicants that propose to retrofit school buses 
     manufactured in or after model year 1991.
       (3) Use of school bus fleet.--
       (A) In general.--All school buses acquired or retrofitted 
     with funds provided under this section shall be operated as 
     part of the school bus fleet for which the grant was made for 
     not less than 5 years.
       (B) Maintenance, operation, and fueling.--New school buses 
     and retrofit technology shall be maintained, operated, and 
     fueled according to manufacturer recommendations or State 
     requirements.
       (4) Retrofit grants.--The Administrator may award grants 
     under this section for up to 100 percent of the retrofit 
     technologies and installation costs.
       (5) Replacement grants.--
       (A) Eligibility for 50 percent grants.--The Administrator 
     may award grants under this section for replacement of school 
     buses in the amount of up to \1/2\ of the acquisition costs 
     (including fueling infrastructure) for--
       (i) clean school buses with engines manufactured in model 
     year 2005 or 2006 that emit not more than--

       (I) 1.8 grams per brake horsepower-hour of non-methane 
     hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen; and
       (II) .01 grams per brake horsepower-hour of particulate 
     matter; or

       (ii) clean school buses with engines manufactured in model 
     year 2007, 2008, or 2009 that satisfy regulatory requirements 
     established by the Administrator for emissions of oxides of 
     nitrogen and particulate matter to be applicable for school 
     buses manufactured in model year 2010.
       (B) Eligibility for 25 percent grants.--The Administrator 
     may award grants under this section for replacement of school 
     buses in the amount of up to \1/4\ of the acquisition costs 
     (including fueling infrastructure) for--
       (i) clean school buses with engines manufactured in model 
     year 2005 or 2006 that emit not more than--

       (I) 2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour of non-methane 
     hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen; and
       (II) .01 grams per brake horsepower-hour of particulate 
     matter; or

       (ii) clean school buses with engines manufactured in model 
     year 2007 or thereafter that satisfy regulatory requirements 
     established by the Administrator for emissions of oxides of 
     nitrogen and particulate matter from school buses 
     manufactured in that model year.
       (6) Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of a grant recipient receiving 
     a grant for the acquisition of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel 
     school buses with engines manufactured in model year 2005 or 
     2006, the grant recipient shall provide, to the satisfaction 
     of the Administrator--
       (i) documentation that diesel fuel containing sulfur at not 
     more than 15 parts per million is available for carrying out 
     the purposes of the grant; and
       (ii) a commitment by the applicant to use that fuel in 
     carrying out the purposes of the grant.
       (7) Deployment and distribution.--The Administrator, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, shall--
       (A) achieve nationwide deployment of clean school buses 
     through the program under this section; and
       (B) ensure a broad geographic distribution of grant awards, 
     with no State receiving more than 10 percent of the grant 
     funding made available under this section during a fiscal 
     year.
       (8) Annual report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than January 31 of each year, 
     the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that--
       (i) evaluates the implementation of this section; and
       (ii) describes--

       (I) the total number of grant applications received;
       (II) the number and types of alternative fuel school buses, 
     ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel school buses, and retrofitted 
     buses requested in grant applications;
       (III) grants awarded and the criteria used to select the 
     grant recipients;
       (IV) certified engine emission levels of all buses 
     purchased or retrofitted under this section;
       (V) an evaluation of the in-use emission level of buses 
     purchased or retrofitted under this section; and
       (VI) any other information the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.

       (c) Education.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop an 
     education outreach program to promote and explain the grant 
     program.
       (2) Coordination with stakeholders.--The outreach program 
     shall be designed and conducted in conjunction with national 
     school bus transportation associations and other 
     stakeholders.
       (3) Components.--The outreach program shall--
       (A) inform potential grant recipients on the process of 
     applying for grants;
       (B) describe the available technologies and the benefits of 
     the technologies;
       (C) explain the benefits of participating in the grant 
     program; and
       (D) include, as appropriate, information from the annual 
     report required under subsection (b)(8).
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 
     section, to remain available until expended--
       (1) $55,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2008, 2009, and 2010.

     SEC. 6016. SPECIAL DESIGNATION.

       For the purpose of any applicable program under title 23, 
     United States Code, the city of Norman, Oklahoma, shall be 
     considered to be part of the Oklahoma City urbanized area.

     SEC. 6017. INCREASED USE OF RECOVERED MINERAL COMPONENT IN 
                   FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS INVOLVING PROCUREMENT 
                   OF CEMENT OR CONCRETE.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle F of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6961 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 6005. INCREASED USE OF RECOVERED MINERAL COMPONENT IN 
                   FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS INVOLVING PROCUREMENT 
                   OF CEMENT OR CONCRETE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Agency head.--The term `agency head' means--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Transportation; and
       ``(B) the head of each other Federal agency that on a 
     regular basis procures, or provides Federal funds to pay or 
     assist in paying the cost of procuring, material for cement 
     or concrete projects.
       ``(2) Cement or concrete project.--The term `cement or 
     concrete project' means a project for the construction or 
     maintenance of a highway or other transportation facility or 
     a Federal, State, or local government building or other 
     public facility that--
       ``(A) involves the procurement of cement or concrete; and
       ``(B) is carried out in whole or in part using Federal 
     funds.
       ``(3) Recovered mineral component.--The term `recovered 
     mineral component' means--
       ``(A) ground granulated blast furnace slag other than lead 
     slag;
       ``(B) coal combustion fly ash;
       ``(C) blast furnace slag aggregate other than lead slag 
     aggregate;
       ``(D) silica fume; and
       ``(E) any other waste material or byproduct recovered or 
     diverted from solid waste that the Administrator, in 
     consultation with an agency head, determines should be 
     treated as recovered mineral component under this section for 
     use in cement or concrete projects paid for, in whole or in 
     part, by the agency head.
       ``(b) Implementation of Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator and each agency 
     head shall take such actions as are necessary to implement 
     fully all procurement requirements and incentives in effect 
     as of the date of enactment of this section

[[Page 18744]]

      (including guidelines under section 6002) that provide for 
     the use of cement and concrete incorporating recovered 
     mineral component in cement or concrete projects.
       ``(2) Priority.--In carrying out paragraph (1) an agency 
     head shall give priority to achieving greater use of 
     recovered mineral component in cement or concrete projects 
     for which recovered mineral components historically have not 
     been used or have been used only minimally.
       ``(3) Conformance.--The Administrator and each agency head 
     shall carry out this subsection in accordance with section 
     6002.
       ``(c) Full Implementation Study.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, in cooperation with 
     the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy, 
     shall conduct a study to determine the extent to which 
     current procurement requirements, when fully implemented in 
     accordance with subsection (b), may realize energy savings 
     and environmental benefits attainable with substitution of 
     recovered mineral component in cement used in cement or 
     concrete projects.
       ``(2) Matters to be addressed.--The study shall--
       ``(A) quantify the extent to which recovered mineral 
     components are being substituted for Portland cement, 
     particularly as a result of current procurement requirements, 
     and the energy savings and environmental benefits associated 
     with that substitution;
       ``(B) identify all barriers in procurement requirements to 
     greater realization of energy savings and environmental 
     benefits, including barriers resulting from exceptions from 
     current law; and
       ``(C)(i) identify potential mechanisms to achieve greater 
     substitution of recovered mineral component in types of 
     cement or concrete projects for which recovered mineral 
     components historically have not been used or have been used 
     only minimally;
       ``(ii) evaluate the feasibility of establishing guidelines 
     or standards for optimized substitution rates of recovered 
     mineral component in those cement or concrete projects; and
       ``(iii) identify any potential environmental or economic 
     effects that may result from greater substitution of 
     recovered mineral component in those cement or concrete 
     projects.
       ``(3) Report.--Not later than 30 months after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the study.
       ``(d) Additional Procurement Requirements.--Unless the 
     study conducted under subsection (c) identifies any effects 
     or other problems described in subsection (c)(2)(C)(iii) that 
     warrant further review or delay, the Administrator and each 
     agency head shall, not later than 1 year after the release of 
     the report in accordance with subsection (c)(3), take 
     additional actions authorized under this Act to establish 
     procurement requirements and incentives that provide for the 
     use of cement and concrete with increased substitution of 
     recovered mineral component in the construction and 
     maintenance of cement or concrete projects, so as to--
       ``(1) realize more fully the energy savings and 
     environmental benefits associated with increased 
     substitution; and
       ``(2) eliminate barriers identified under subsection (c).
       ``(e) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section affects 
     the requirements of section 6002 (including the guidelines 
     and specifications for implementing those requirements).''.
       (b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents in 
     section 1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 
     6901) is amended by adding after the item relating to section 
     6004 the following:

``Sec. 6005. Increased use of recovered mineral component in federally 
              funded projects involving procurement of cement or 
              concrete.''.

     SEC. 6018. USE OF GRANULAR MINE TAILINGS.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle F of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6961 et seq.) (as amended by section 6017(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 6006. USE OF GRANULAR MINE TAILINGS.

       ``(a) Mine Tailings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and heads 
     of other Federal agencies, shall establish criteria 
     (including an evaluation of whether to establish a numerical 
     standard for concentration of lead and other hazardous 
     substances) for the safe and environmentally protective use 
     of granular mine tailings from the Tar Creek, Oklahoma Mining 
     District, known as `chat', for--
       ``(A) cement or concrete projects; and
       ``(B) transportation construction projects (including 
     transportation construction projects involving the use of 
     asphalt) that are carried out, in whole or in part, using 
     Federal funds.
       ``(2) Requirements.--In establishing criteria under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider--
       ``(A) the current and previous uses of granular mine 
     tailings as an aggregate for asphalt; and
       ``(B) any environmental and public health risks and 
     benefits derived from the removal, transportation, and use in 
     transportation projects of granular mine tailings.
       ``(3) Public participation.--In establishing the criteria 
     under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall solicit and 
     consider comments from the public.
       ``(4) Applicability of criteria.--On the establishment of 
     the criteria under paragraph (1), any use of the granular 
     mine tailings described in paragraph (1) in a transportation 
     project that is carried out, in whole or in part, using 
     Federal funds, shall meet the criteria established under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Effect of Sections.--Nothing in this section or 
     section 6005 affects any requirement of any law (including a 
     regulation) in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. prec. 6901) 
     (as amended by section 6017(b)) is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 6005 the following:

``Sec. 6006. Use of granular mine tailings.''.

             TITLE VII--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION

     SEC. 7001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Hazardous Materials 
     Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 7002. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or a repeal of, a section or other provision, 
     the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of title 49, United States Code.
    Subtitle A--General Authorities on Transportation of Hazardous 
                               Materials

     SEC. 7101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds with respect to hazardous 
     materials transportation that--
       (1) approximately 4,000,000,000 tons of regulated hazardous 
     materials are transported each year and approximately 
     1,200,000 movements of hazardous materials occur each day, 
     according to Department of Transportation estimates;
       (2) the movement of hazardous materials in commerce is 
     necessary to maintain economic vitality and meet consumer 
     demands and must be conducted in a safe, secure, and 
     efficient manner;
       (3) accidents involving, or unauthorized access to, 
     hazardous materials in transportation may result in a release 
     of such materials and pose a serious threat to public health 
     and safety;
       (4) because of the potential risks to life, property, and 
     the environment posed by unintentional releases of hazardous 
     materials, consistency in laws and regulations governing the 
     transportation of hazardous materials is necessary and 
     desirable; and
       (5) in order to provide reasonable, adequate, and cost-
     effective protection from the risks posed by the 
     transportation of hazardous materials, a network of well-
     trained State and local emergency response personnel and 
     hazmat employees is essential.
       (b) Purpose.--Section 5101 is amended by striking ``The 
     purpose'' and all that follows through the period at the end 
     and inserting the following: ``The purpose of this chapter is 
     to protect against the risks to life, property, and the 
     environment that are inherent in the transportation of 
     hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign 
     commerce.''.

     SEC. 7102. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 5102 is amended as follows:
       (1) Commerce.--Paragraph (1) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (A);
       (B) by striking ``State.'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``State; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) on a United States-registered aircraft.''.
       (2) Hazmat employee.--Paragraph (3)(A) is amended--
       (A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) who--

       ``(I) is employed on a full time, part time, or temporary 
     basis by a hazmat employer; or
       ``(II) is self-employed (including an owner-operator of a 
     motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft) transporting hazardous 
     material in commerce; and'';

       (B) in clause (ii)--
       (i) by striking ``course of employment'' and inserting 
     ``course of such full time, part time, or temporary 
     employment, or such self employment,''; and
       (ii) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (C) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating 
     subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B); and
       (D) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``employed by a hazmat employer,'' and 
     inserting ``employed on a full time, part time, or temporary 
     basis by a hazmat employer, or self employed,''; and
       (ii) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) designs, manufactures, fabricates, inspects, marks, 
     maintains, reconditions, repairs, or tests a package, 
     container, or packaging component that is represented, 
     marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in 
     transporting hazardous material in commerce;''.
       (3) Hazmat employer.--Paragraph (4) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(4) `hazmat employer'--
       ``(A) means a person--
       ``(i) who--

       ``(I) employs or uses at least 1 hazmat employee on a full 
     time, part time, or temporary basis; or
       ``(II) is self-employed (including an owner-operator of a 
     motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft)

[[Page 18745]]

     transporting hazardous material in commerce; and

       ``(ii) who--

       ``(I) transports hazardous material in commerce;
       ``(II) causes hazardous material to be transported in 
     commerce; or
       ``(III) designs, manufactures, fabricates, inspects, marks, 
     maintains, reconditions, repairs, or tests a package, 
     container, or packaging component that is represented, 
     marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in 
     transporting hazardous material in commerce; and

       ``(B) includes a department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the United States Government, or an authority of a State, 
     political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe, carrying 
     out an activity described in clause (ii).''.
       (4) Imminent hazard.--Paragraph (5) is amended by inserting 
     ``relating to hazardous material'' after ``of a condition''.
       (5) Motor carrier.--Paragraph (7) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(7) `motor carrier'--
       ``(A) means a motor carrier, motor private carrier, and 
     freight forwarder as those terms are defined in section 
     13102; but
       ``(B) does not include a freight forwarder, as so defined, 
     if the freight forwarder is not performing a function 
     relating to highway transportation.''.
       (6) National response team.--Paragraph (8) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``national response team'' both places it 
     appears and inserting ``National Response Team''; and
       (B) by striking ``national contingency plan'' and inserting 
     ``National Contingency Plan''.
       (7) Person.--Paragraph (9)(A) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(A) includes a government, Indian tribe, or authority of 
     a government or tribe that--
       ``(i) offers hazardous material for transportation in 
     commerce;
       ``(ii) transports hazardous material to further a 
     commercial enterprise; or
       ``(iii) designs, manufactures, fabricates, inspects, marks, 
     maintains, reconditions, repairs, or tests a package, 
     container, or packaging component that is represented, 
     marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in 
     transporting hazardous material in commerce; but''.
       (8) Secretary of transportation.--Section 5102 is further 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) as 
     paragraphs (12), (13), and (14), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:
       ``(11) `Secretary' means the Secretary of Transportation 
     except as otherwise provided.''.

     SEC. 7103. GENERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

       (a) Designating Material as Hazardous.--Section 5103(a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``etiologic agent'' and all that follows 
     through ``corrosive material,'' and inserting ``infectious 
     substance, flammable or combustible liquid, solid, or gas, 
     toxic, oxidizing, or corrosive material,''; and
       (2) by striking ``decides'' and inserting ``determines''.
       (b) Regulations for Safe Transportation.--Section 
     5103(b)(1)(A) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) apply to a person who--
       ``(i) transports hazardous material in commerce;
       ``(ii) causes hazardous material to be transported in 
     commerce;
       ``(iii) designs, manufactures, fabricates, inspects, marks, 
     maintains, reconditions, repairs, or tests a package, 
     container, or packaging component that is represented, 
     marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in 
     transporting hazardous material in commerce;
       ``(iv) prepares or accepts hazardous material for 
     transportation in commerce;
       ``(v) is responsible for the safety of transporting 
     hazardous material in commerce;
       ``(vi) certifies compliance with any requirement under this 
     chapter; or
       ``(vii) misrepresents whether such person is engaged in any 
     activity under clause (i) through (vi); and''.
       (c) Technical Amendment Regarding Consultation.--Section 
     5103 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b)(1)(C); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Consultation.--When prescribing a security regulation 
     or issuing a security order that affects the safety of the 
     transportation of hazardous material, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall consult with the Secretary of 
     Transportation.''.

     SEC. 7104. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF HAZMAT LICENSES.

       (a) Covered Hazardous Materials.--Section 5103a(b) is 
     amended by striking ``with respect to--'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``with respect to any material defined 
     as hazardous material by the Secretary for which the 
     Secretary requires placarding of a commercial motor vehicle 
     transporting that material in commerce.''.
       (b) Recommendations on Chemical or Biological Materials.--
     Section 5103a is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Recommendations on Chemical and Biological 
     Materials.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     recommend to the Secretary of Transportation any chemical or 
     biological material or agent for regulation as a hazardous 
     material under section 5103(a) if the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services determines that such material or agent poses a 
     significant risk to the health of individuals.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5103a(a)(1) is amended 
     by striking ``subsection (c)(1)(B),'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (d)(1)(B),''.

     SEC. 7105. BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR DRIVERS HAULING HAZARDOUS 
                   MATERIALS.

       Section 5103a is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Background Checks for Drivers Hauling Hazardous 
     Materials.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Employer notification.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, the Director of the 
     Transportation Security Administration, after receiving 
     comments from interested parties, shall develop and implement 
     a process for notifying hazmat employers designated by an 
     applicant of the results of the applicant's background record 
     check, if--
       ``(i) such notification is appropriate considering the 
     potential security implications; and
       ``(ii) the Director, in a final notification of threat 
     assessment, served on the applicant determines that the 
     applicant does not meet the standards set forth in 
     regulations issued to carry out this section.
       ``(B) Relationship to other background records checks.--
       ``(i) Elimination of redundant checks.--An individual with 
     respect to whom the Transportation Security Administration--

       ``(I) has performed a security threat assessment under this 
     section; and
       ``(II) has issued a final notification of no security 
     threat,

      is deemed to have met the requirements of any other 
     background check that is required for purposes of any Federal 
     law applicable to transportation workers if that background 
     check is equivalent to, or less stringent than, the 
     background check required under this section.
       ``(ii) Determination by director.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of issuance of the report under paragraph (5), 
     but no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Director shall initiate a rulemaking 
     proceeding, including notice and opportunity for comment, to 
     determine which background checks required for purposes of 
     Federal laws applicable to transportation workers are 
     equivalent to, or less stringent than, those required under 
     this section.
       ``(iii) Future rulemakings.--The Director shall make a 
     determination under the criteria established under clause 
     (ii) with respect to any rulemaking proceeding to establish 
     or modify required background checks for transportation 
     workers initiated after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) Appeals process for more stringent state 
     procedures.--If a State establishes its own standards for 
     applicants for a hazardous materials endorsement to a 
     commercial driver's license, the State shall also provide--
       ``(A) an appeals process similar to and to the same extent 
     as the process provided under part 1572 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, by which an applicant denied a hazardous 
     materials endorsement to a commercial driver's license by 
     that State may appeal that denial; and
       ``(B) a waiver process similar to and to the same extent as 
     the process provided under part 1572 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, by which an applicant denied a hazardous 
     materials endorsement to a commercial driver's license by 
     that State may apply for a waiver.
       ``(3) Clarification of term defined in regulations.--The 
     term `transportation security incident', as defined in part 
     1572 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, does not 
     include a work stoppage or other nonviolent employee-related 
     action resulting from an employer-employee dispute. Not later 
     than 30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, 
     the Director shall modify the definition of that term to 
     reflect the preceding sentence.
       ``(4) Background check capacity.--Not later than October 1, 
     2005, the Director shall transmit to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     implementation of fingerprint-based security threat 
     assessments and the adequacy of fingerprinting locations, 
     personnel, and resources to accomplish the timely processing 
     of fingerprint-based security threat assessments for 
     individuals holding commercial driver's licenses who are 
     applying to renew hazardous materials endorsements.
       ``(5) Report.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Director shall transmit to 
     the committees referred to in paragraph (4) a report on the 
     Director's plans to reduce or eliminate redundant background 
     checks for holders of hazardous materials endorsements 
     performed under this section.
       ``(B) Contents.--The report shall--
       ``(i) include a list of background checks and other 
     security or threat assessment requirements applicable to 
     transportation workers under Federal laws for which the 
     Department of Homeland Security is responsible and the 
     process by which the Secretary of Homeland Security will 
     determine whether such checks or assessments are equivalent 
     to, or less stringent than, the background check performed 
     under this section; and
       ``(ii) provide an analysis of how the Director plans to 
     reduce or eliminate redundant background checks in a manner 
     that will continue to ensure the highest level of safety and 
     security.

[[Page 18746]]

       ``(h) Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators Registered To 
     Operate in Mexico or Canada.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 6 months 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, a commercial 
     motor vehicle operator registered to operate in Mexico or 
     Canada shall not operate a commercial motor vehicle 
     transporting a hazardous material in commerce in the United 
     States until the operator has undergone a background records 
     check similar to the background records check required for 
     commercial motor vehicle operators licensed in the United 
     States to transport hazardous materials in commerce.
       ``(2) Extension.--The Director of the Transportation 
     Security Administration may extend the deadline established 
     by paragraph (1) for a period not to exceed 6 months if the 
     Director determines that such an extension is necessary.
       ``(3) Commercial motor vehicle defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term `commercial motor vehicle' has the 
     meaning given that term by section 31101.''.

     SEC. 7106. REPRESENTATION AND TAMPERING.

       (a) Representation.--Section 5104(a)(1) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``a container,'' and all that follows 
     through ``packaging) for'' and inserting ``a package, 
     component of a package, or packaging for''; and
       (2) by striking ``the container'' and all that follows 
     through ``packaging) meets'' and inserting ``the package, 
     component of a package, or packaging meets''.
       (b) Tampering.--Section 5104(b) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A person may not'' and inserting ``No 
     person may''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``component of a package, 
     or packaging,'' after ``package,''.

     SEC. 7107. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       Section 5105 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (d); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).

     SEC. 7108. TRAINING OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES.

       Section 5107 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Training Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of funds 
     under section 5128(c), the Secretary shall make grants under 
     this subsection--
       ``(A) for training instructors to train hazmat employees; 
     and
       ``(B) to the extent determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary, for such instructors to train hazmat employees.
       ``(2) Eligibility.--A grant under this subsection shall be 
     made to a nonprofit hazmat employee organization that 
     demonstrates--
       ``(A) expertise in conducting a training program for hazmat 
     employees; and
       ``(B) the ability to reach and involve in a training 
     program a target population of hazmat employees.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Training of Certain Employees.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that maintenance-of-way employees and railroad 
     signalmen receive general awareness and familiarization 
     training and safety training pursuant to section 172.704 of 
     title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.''; and
       (4) in subsection (g)(2) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) 
     of this subsection) by striking ``sections 5106, 5108(a)-
     (g)(1) and (h), and 5109 of this title'' and inserting 
     ``section 5106''.

     SEC. 7109. REGISTRATION.

       (a) Persons Required To File.--
       (1) Requirement to file.--Section 5108(a)(1)(B) is amended 
     by striking ``class A or B explosive'' and inserting 
     ``Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosive material''.
       (2) Authority to require to file.--Section 5108(a)(2)(B) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) a person designing, manufacturing, fabricating, 
     inspecting, marking, maintaining, reconditioning, repairing, 
     or testing a package, container, or packaging component that 
     is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for 
     use in transporting hazardous material in commerce.''.
       (3) No transportation without filing.--Section 5108(a)(3) 
     is amended by striking ``manufacture,'' and all that follows 
     through ``package or'' and inserting ``design, manufacture, 
     fabricate, inspect, mark, maintain, recondition, repair, or 
     test a package, container packaging component, or''.
       (b) Form and Content of Filings.--Section 5108(b)(1)(C) is 
     amended by striking ``the activity.'' and inserting ``any of 
     the activities.''.
       (c) Filing.--Section 5108(c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Filing.--Each person required to file a registration 
     statement under subsection (a) shall file the statement in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.''.
       (d) Registration.--As soon as practicable, the 
     Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
     Administration shall transmit to the Federal Motor Carrier 
     Safety Administration hazardous material registrant 
     information obtained before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act under section 5108 of title 49, United 
     States Code, together with any Department of Transportation 
     identification number for each registrant.
       (e) Relationship to Other Laws.--Section 5108(i)(2)(B) is 
     amended by inserting ``an Indian tribe,'' after ``subdivision 
     of a State,''.
       (f) Fees.--Section 5108(g) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``may'' and inserting 
     ``shall'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting ``$3,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Fees on exempt persons.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a)(4), the Secretary shall impose and collect a fee of $25 
     from a person who is required to register under this section 
     but who is otherwise exempted by the Secretary from paying 
     any fee under this section. The fee shall be used to pay the 
     costs incurred by the Secretary in processing registration 
     statements filed by such persons.''.

     SEC. 7110. SHIPPING PAPERS AND DISCLOSURE.

       (a) Disclosure Considerations and Requirements.--Section 
     5110 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``under subsection (b) of this section.'' 
     in subsection (a) and inserting ``in regulations.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b); and
       (3) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively.
       (b) Retention of Papers.--Subsection (d) of section 5110, 
     as redesignated by subsection (a)(3) of this section, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Retention of Papers.--
       ``(1) Shippers.--The person who provides the shipping paper 
     under this section shall retain the paper, or an electronic 
     format of it, for a period of 2 years after the date that the 
     shipping paper is provided to the carrier, with the paper or 
     electronic format to be accessible through the shipper's 
     principal place of business.
       ``(2) Carriers.--The carrier required to keep the shipping 
     paper under this section, shall retain the paper, or an 
     electronic format of it, for a period of 1 year after the 
     date that the shipping paper is provided to the carrier, with 
     the paper or electronic format to be accessible through the 
     carrier's principal place of business.
       ``(3) Availability to government agencies.--Any person 
     required to keep a shipping paper under this subsection 
     shall, upon request, make it available to a Federal, State, 
     or local government agency at reasonable times and 
     locations.''.

     SEC. 7111. RAIL TANK CARS.

       Section 5111, and the item relating to section 5111 in the 
     analyis for chapter 51, are repealed.

     SEC. 7112. UNSATISFACTORY SAFETY RATINGS.

       (a) In General.--The text of section 5113 is amended to 
     read as follows: ``A violation of section 31144(c)(3) shall 
     be considered a violation of this chapter, and shall be 
     subject to the penalties in sections 5123 and 5124.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The first subsection (c) of 
     section 31144, relating to prohibited transportation, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``sections 521(b)(5)(A) 
     and 5113'' and inserting ``section 521(b)(5)(A)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of paragraph (3) the following: 
     ``A violation of this paragraph by an owner or operator 
     transporting hazardous material shall be considered a 
     violation of chapter 51, and shall be subject to the 
     penalties in sections 5123 and 5124.''.
       (c) Technical Correction.--The second subsection (c) of 
     section 31144, relating to safety reviews of new operators, 
     is redesignated as subsection (f).

     SEC. 7113. TRAINING CURRICULUM FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

       (a) In General.--Section 5115(a) is amended by striking the 
     subsection designation and all that follows through the 
     period at the end of the first sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--In coordination with the Director of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Chairman of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretaries of Labor, 
     Energy, and Health and Human Services, and the Director of 
     the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and 
     using existing coordinating mechanisms of the National 
     Response Team and, for radioactive material, the Federal 
     Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall maintain, and update 
     periodically, a current curriculum of courses necessary to 
     train public sector emergency response and preparedness teams 
     in matters relating to the transportation of hazardous 
     material.''.
       (b) Requirements.--Section 5115(b) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``developed'' and inserting ``maintained and updated''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``under other United 
     States Government grant programs, including those'' and 
     inserting ``with Federal financial assistance, including 
     programs''.
       (c) Training on Complying With Legal Requirements.--Section 
     5115(c)(3) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``and such other voluntary consensus 
     standard-setting organizations as the Secretary of 
     Transportation determines appropriate''.
       (d) Distribution and Publication.--Section 5115(d) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``national response team'' and inserting ``National Response 
     Team'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``Director of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency'' and inserting ``Secretary''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and distribute'' after ``publish''; and
       (B) by striking ``programs that uses'' and all that follows 
     before the period at the end and inserting ``programs and 
     courses maintained and updated under this section and of any 
     programs utilizing such courses''.

[[Page 18747]]



     SEC. 7114. PLANNING AND TRAINING GRANTS; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 
                   EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND.

       (a) Maintenance of Effort.--Sections 5116(a)(2)(A) and 
     5116(b)(2)(A) are amended by striking ``2 fiscal years'' and 
     inserting ``5 fiscal years''.
       (b) Monitoring and Technical Assistance.--Section 5116(f) 
     is amended by striking ``national response team'' and 
     inserting ``National Response Team''.
       (c) Delegation of Authority.--Section 5116(g) is amended by 
     striking ``Government grant programs'' and inserting 
     ``Federal financial assistance''.
       (d) Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Fund.--
       (1) Name of fund.--Section 5116(i) is amended by inserting 
     after ``an account in the Treasury'' the following: ``(to be 
     known as the `Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness 
     Fund')''.
       (2) Publication of emergency response guide.--Section 
     5116(i) is further amended--
       (A) by striking ``collects under section 5108(g)(2)(A) of 
     this title and'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (2);
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4);
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) to publish and distribute an emergency response 
     guide; and''; and
       (E) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by subparagraph (C) 
     of this paragraph) by striking ``10 percent'' and inserting 
     ``2 percent''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 5108(g)(2)(C) is amended 
     by striking ``the account the Secretary of the Treasury 
     establishes'' and inserting ``the Hazardous Materials 
     Emergency Preparedness Fund established''.
       (e) Reports.--Section 5116(k) is amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall submit annually to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate and make available to the 
     public information on the allocation and uses of the planning 
     grants allocated under subsection (a), training grants under 
     subsection (b), and grants under subsection (j) of this 
     section and under section 5107.''; and
       (2) by striking ``Such report'' in the second sentence and 
     inserting ``The report''.

     SEC. 7115. SPECIAL PERMITS AND EXCLUSIONS.

       (a) Section Heading.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5117 is amended by striking the 
     section designation and heading and inserting the following:

     ``Sec. 5117. Special permits and exclusions''.

       (2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to section 
     5117 in the analysis for chapter 51 is amended to read as 
     follows:

``5117. Special permits and exclusions.''.

       (b) Subsection Heading.--The heading for subsection (a) of 
     section 5117 is amended by striking ``Exempt'' and inserting 
     ``Issue Special Permits''.
       (c) Authority to Issue Special Permits.--Section 5117(a)(1) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``an exemption'' and inserting ``, modify, 
     or terminate a special permit authorizing a variance''; and
       (2) by striking ``transporting, or causing to be 
     transported, hazardous material'' and inserting ``performing 
     a function regulated by the Secretary under section 
     5103(b)(1)''.
       (d) Period of Special Permit.--Section 5117(a)(2) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) A special permit issued under this section shall be 
     effective for an initial period of not more than 2 years and 
     may be renewed by the Secretary upon application for 
     successive periods of not more than 4 years each or, in the 
     case of a special permit relating to section 5112, for an 
     additional period of not more than 2 years.''.
       (e) Applications.--Sections 5117(b) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``an exemption'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``a special permit''; and
       (2) by striking ``the exemption'' and inserting ``the 
     special permit''.
       (f) Dealing With Applications Promptly.--Section 5117(c) is 
     amended by striking ``the exemption'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``the special permit''.
       (g) Limitation on Authority.--Section 5117(e) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``an exemption'' and inserting ``a special 
     permit''; and
       (2) by striking ``be exempt'' and inserting ``be granted a 
     variance''.
       (h) Repeal of Section 5118.--Section 5118, and the item 
     relating to such section in the analysis for chapter 51, are 
     repealed.

     SEC. 7116. UNIFORM FORMS AND PROCEDURES.

       Section 5119 is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 5119. Uniform forms and procedures

       ``(a) Establishment of Working Group.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a working group of State and local government 
     officials, including representatives of the National 
     Governors' Association, the National Association of Counties, 
     the National League of Cities, the United States Conference 
     of Mayors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and 
     the Alliance for Uniform Hazmat Transportation Procedures.
       ``(b) Purpose of Working Group.--The purpose of the working 
     group shall be to develop uniform forms and procedures for a 
     State to register, and to issue permits to, persons that 
     transport, or cause to be transported, hazardous material by 
     motor vehicle in the State.
       ``(c) Limitation on Working Group.--The working group may 
     not propose to define or limit the amount of a fee a State 
     may impose or collect.
       ``(d) Procedure.--The Secretary shall develop a procedure 
     for the working group to employ in developing recommendations 
     for the Secretary to harmonize existing State registration 
     and permit laws and regulations relating to the 
     transportation of hazardous materials, with special attention 
     paid to each State's unique safety concerns and interest in 
     maintaining strong hazmat safety standards.
       ``(e) Report of Working Group.--Not later than 18 months 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, the working 
     group shall transmit to the Secretary a report containing 
     recommendations for establishing uniform forms and procedures 
     described in subsection (b).
       ``(f) Regulations.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     the working group's report is delivered to the Secretary, the 
     Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out such 
     recommendations of the working group as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate. In developing such regulations, the 
     Secretary shall consider the State needs associated with the 
     transition to and implementation of a uniform forms and 
     procedures program.
       ``(g) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed as prohibiting a State from 
     voluntarily participating in a program of uniform forms and 
     procedures until such time as the Secretary issues 
     regulations under subsection (f).''.

     SEC. 7117. INTERNATIONAL UNIFORMITY OF STANDARDS AND 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Consultation.--Section 5120(b) is amended by inserting 
     ``and requirements'' after ``standards''.
       (b) Differences With International Standards and 
     Requirements.--Section 5120(c) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``or requirement'' after 
     ``standard'' each place it appears; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``standard or'' before ``requirement'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (B) by striking ``included in a standard''.

     SEC. 7118. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.

       (a) General Authority.--Section 5121(a) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by inserting ``conduct tests,'' 
     after ``investigate,'';
       (2) in the second sentence by striking ``After'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), 
     after''; and
       (3) by striking ``regulation prescribed'' and inserting 
     ``regulation prescribed, or an order, special permit, or 
     approval issued,''.
       (b) Records, Reports, and Information.--Section 5121(b) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``and property'' after 
     ``records''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``property,'' after ``records,'';
       (B) by inserting ``for inspection'' after ``available''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``requests'' and inserting ``undertakes an 
     investigation or makes a request''.
       (c) Enhanced Authority To Discover Hidden Shipments of 
     Hazardous Material.--Section 5121(c) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Inspections and Investigations.--
       ``(1) In general.--A designated officer, employee, or agent 
     of the Secretary--
       ``(A) may inspect and investigate, at a reasonable time and 
     in a reasonable manner, records and property relating to a 
     function described in section 5103(b)(1);
       ``(B) except in the case of packaging immediately adjacent 
     to its hazardous material contents, may gain access to, open, 
     and examine a package offered for, or in, transportation when 
     the officer, employee, or agent has an objectively reasonable 
     and articulable belief that the package may contain a 
     hazardous material;
       ``(C) may remove from transportation a package or related 
     packages in a shipment offered for or in transportation for 
     which--
       ``(i) such officer, employee, or agent has an objectively 
     reasonable and articulable belief that the package may pose 
     an imminent hazard; and
       ``(ii) such officer, employee, or agent contemporaneously 
     documents such belief in accordance with procedures set forth 
     in guidance or regulations prescribed under subsection (e);
       ``(D) may gather information from the offeror, carrier, 
     packaging manufacturer or tester, or other person responsible 
     for the package, to ascertain the nature and hazards of the 
     contents of the package;
       ``(E) as necessary, under terms and conditions specified by 
     the Secretary, may order the offeror, carrier, packaging 
     manufacturer or tester, or other person responsible for the 
     package to have the package transported to, opened, and the 
     contents examined and analyzed, at a facility appropriate for 
     the conduct of such examination and analysis; and
       ``(F) when safety might otherwise be compromised, may 
     authorize properly qualified personnel to assist in the 
     activities conducted under this subsection.
       ``(2) Display of credentials.--An officer, employee, or 
     agent acting under this subsection shall display proper 
     credentials when requested.
       ``(3) Safe resumption of transportation.--In instances 
     when, as a result of an inspection or investigation under 
     this subsection, an imminent hazard is not found to exist, 
     the Secretary, in accordance with procedures set forth in 
     regulations prescribed under subsection (e), shall assist--
       ``(A) in the safe and prompt resumption of transportation 
     of the package concerned; or

[[Page 18748]]

       ``(B) in any case in which the hazardous material being 
     transported is perishable, in the safe and expeditious 
     resumption of transportation of the perishable hazardous 
     material.''.
       (d) Emergency Authority for Hazardous Material 
     Transportation.--Section 5121 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (f) and (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Emergency Orders.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, upon inspection, investigation, 
     testing, or research, the Secretary determines that a 
     violation of a provision of this chapter, or a regulation 
     prescribed under this chapter, or an unsafe condition or 
     practice, constitutes or is causing an imminent hazard, the 
     Secretary may issue or impose emergency restrictions, 
     prohibitions, recalls, or out-of-service orders, without 
     notice or an opportunity for a hearing, but only to the 
     extent necessary to abate the imminent hazard.
       ``(2) Written orders.--The action of the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1) shall be in a written emergency order that--
       ``(A) describes the violation, condition, or practice that 
     constitutes or is causing the imminent hazard;
       ``(B) states the restrictions, prohibitions, recalls, or 
     out-of-service orders issued or imposed; and
       ``(C) describes the standards and procedures for obtaining 
     relief from the order.
       ``(3) Opportunity for review.--After taking action under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide for review of the 
     action under section 554 of title 5 if a petition for review 
     is filed within 20 calendar days of the date of issuance of 
     the order for the action.
       ``(4) Expiration of effectivenesss of order.--If a petition 
     for review of an action is filed under paragraph (3) and the 
     review under that paragraph is not completed by the end of 
     the 30-day period beginning on the date the petition is 
     filed, the action shall cease to be effective at the end of 
     such period unless the Secretary determines, in writing, that 
     the imminent hazard providing a basis for the action 
     continues to exist.
       ``(5) Out of service order defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term `out-of-service order' means a requirement that an 
     aircraft, vessel, motor vehicle, train, railcar, locomotive, 
     other vehicle, transport unit, transport vehicle, freight 
     container, potable tank, or other package not be moved until 
     specified conditions have been met.
       ``(e) Regulations.--
       ``(1) Temporary regulations.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date of enactment of the Hazardous Materials 
     Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 
     2005, the Secretary shall issue temporary regulations to 
     carry out subsections (c) and (d). The temporary regulations 
     shall expire on the date of issuance of the regulations under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Final regulations.--Not later than 1 year after such 
     date of enactment, the Secretary shall issue regulations to 
     carry out subsections (c) and (d) in accordance with 
     subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5.''.
       (e) Grants and Cooperative Agreements.--Section 5121 is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (f) (as redesignated by 
     subsection (d)(1) of this section) the following:
       ``(g) Grants and Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may 
     enter into grants and cooperative agreements with a person, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States, a unit of 
     State or local government, an Indian tribe, a foreign 
     government (in coordination with the Department of State), an 
     educational institution, or other appropriate entity--
       ``(1) to expand risk assessment and emergency response 
     capabilities with respect to the security of transportation 
     of hazardous material;
       ``(2) to enhance emergency communications capacity as 
     determined necessary by the Secretary, including the use of 
     integrated, interoperable emergency communications 
     technologies where appropriate;
       ``(3) to conduct research, development, demonstration, risk 
     assessment, and emergency response planning and training 
     activities; or
       ``(4) to otherwise carry out this chapter.''.
       (f) Report.--Section 5121(h) (as redesignated by subsection 
     (d)(1) of this section) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``submit to the President for transmittal to the Congress'' 
     and inserting ``transmit to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``relating to a function 
     regulated by the Secretary under section 5103(b)(1)'' after 
     ``activities''.

     SEC. 7119. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 5122(a) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``chapter or a 
     regulation prescribed or order'' and inserting ``chapter or a 
     regulation prescribed or order, special permit, or 
     approval''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The court may award appropriate relief, 
     including a temporary or permanent injunction, punitive 
     damages, and assessment of civil penalties considering the 
     same penalty amounts and factors as prescribed for the 
     Secretary in an administrative case under section 5123.''.
       (b) Imminent Hazards.--Section 5122(b)(1)(B) is amended by 
     striking ``or ameliorate the'' and inserting ``or mitigate 
     the''.

     SEC. 7120. CIVIL PENALTY.

       (a) Penalty.--Section 5123(a) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``regulation prescribed or order issued'' 
     and inserting ``regulation, order, special permit, or 
     approval issued''; and
       (B) by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$50,000'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) If the Secretary finds that a violation under 
     paragraph (1) results in death, serious illness, or severe 
     injury to any person or substantial destruction of property, 
     the Secretary may increase the amount of the civil penalty 
     for such violation to not more than $100,000.
       ``(3) If the violation is related to training, paragraph 
     (1) shall be applied by substituting `$450' for `$250'.''.
       (b) Hearing Requirement.--Section 5123(b) is amended by 
     striking ``regulation prescribed'' and inserting ``regulation 
     prescribed or order, special permit, or approval issued''.
       (c) Civil Actions To Collect.--Section 5123(d) is amended 
     by striking ``section.'' and inserting ``section and any 
     accrued interest on the civil penalty as calculated in 
     accordance with section 1005 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2705). In the civil action, the amount and 
     appropriateness of the civil penalty shall not be subject to 
     review.''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Hearing requirement.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (b) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply with respect to violations described in 
     section 5123(a) of title 49, United States Code (as amended 
     by this section), that occur on or after that date.
       (2) Civil actions to collect.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (c) shall apply with respect to civil penalties 
     imposed on violations described in section 5123(a) of title 
     49, United States Code (as amended by this section), that 
     occur on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7121. CRIMINAL PENALTY.

       Section 5124 is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 5124. Criminal penalty

       ``(a) In General.--A person knowingly violating section 
     5104(b) or willfully or recklessly violating this chapter or 
     a regulation, order, special permit, or approval issued under 
     this chapter shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for 
     not more than 5 years, or both; except that the maximum 
     amount of imprisonment shall be 10 years in any case in which 
     the violation involves the release of a hazardous material 
     that results in death or bodily injury to any person.
       ``(b) Knowing Violations.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) a person acts knowingly when--
       ``(A) the person has actual knowledge of the facts giving 
     rise to the violation; or
       ``(B) a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and 
     exercising reasonable care would have that knowledge; and
       ``(2) knowledge of the existence of a statutory provision, 
     or a regulation or a requirement required by the Secretary, 
     is not an element of an offense under this section.
       ``(c) Willful Violations.--For purposes of this section, a 
     person acts willfully when--
       ``(1) the person has knowledge of the facts giving rise to 
     the violation; and
       ``(2) the person has knowledge that the conduct was 
     unlawful.
       ``(d) Reckless Violations.--For purposes of this section, a 
     person acts recklessly when the person displays a deliberate 
     indifference or conscious disregard to the consequences of 
     that person's conduct.''.

     SEC. 7122. PREEMPTION.

       (a) Substantive Differences.--Section 5125(b) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(E) the designing, manufacturing, fabricating, 
     inspecting, marking, maintaining, reconditioning, repairing, 
     or testing a package, container, or packaging component that 
     is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for 
     use in transporting hazardous material in commerce.''; and
       (2) by striking ``prescribes after November 16, 1990. 
     However, the'' in paragraph (2) and inserting ``prescribes. 
     The''.
       (b) Decisions on Preemption.--Section 5125(d)(1) is amended 
     in the first sentence by inserting before the period at the 
     end ``or section 5119(e)''.
       (c) Waiver of Preemption.--Section 5125(e) is amended in 
     the first sentence by inserting before the period at the end 
     ``or section 5119(b)''.
       (d) Standards.--Section 5125 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(h) Application of Each Preemption Standard.--Each 
     standard for preemption in subsection (b), (c)(1), or (d), 
     and in section 5119(b), is independent in its application to 
     a requirement of a State, political subdivision of a State, 
     or Indian tribe.
       ``(i) Non-Federal Enforcement Standards.--This section does 
     not apply to any procedure, penalty, required mental state, 
     or other standard utilized by a State, political subdivision 
     of a State, or Indian tribe to enforce a requirement 
     applicable to the transportation of hazardous material.''.

     SEC. 7123. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 5125 (as amended by section 7122 of 
     this Act) is further amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (f);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), and (i) as 
     subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and
       (3) in subsection (f) (as so redesignated) by moving 
     paragraph (2) (including subparagraphs (A) through (D)) 2 ems 
     to the left.

[[Page 18749]]

       (b) Judicial Review.--Chapter 51 is amended by 
     redesignating section 5127 as section 5128 and by inserting 
     after section 5126 the following:

     ``Sec. 5127. Judicial review

       ``(a) Filing and Venue.--Except as provided in section 
     20114(c), a person adversely affected or aggrieved by a final 
     action of the Secretary under this chapter may petition for 
     review of the final action in the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia or in the court of 
     appeals for the United States for the circuit in which the 
     person resides or has its principal place of business. The 
     petition must be filed not more than 60 days after the 
     Secretary's action becomes final.
       ``(b) Judicial Procedures.--When a petition is filed under 
     subsection (a), the clerk of the court immediately shall send 
     a copy of the petition to the Secretary. The Secretary shall 
     file with the court a record of any proceeding in which the 
     final action was issued, as provided in section 2112 of title 
     28.
       ``(c) Authority of Court.--The court has exclusive 
     jurisdiction, as provided in subchapter II of chapter 5 of 
     title 5, to affirm or set aside any part of the Secretary's 
     final action and may order the Secretary to conduct further 
     proceedings.
       ``(d) Requirement for Prior Objection.--In reviewing a 
     final action under this section, the court may consider an 
     objection to a final action of the Secretary only if the 
     objection was made in the course of a proceeding or review 
     conducted by the Secretary or if there was a reasonable 
     ground for not making the objection in the proceeding.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 51 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 5127 and 
     inserting the following:

``5127. Judicial review.
``5128. Authorization of appropriations.''.

     SEC. 7124. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

       Section 5126(a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or causes to be transported hazardous 
     material,'' and inserting ``hazardous material, or causes 
     hazardous material to be transported,'';
       (2) by striking ``manufactures,'' and all that follows 
     through ``or sells'' and inserting ``designs, manufactures, 
     fabricates, inspects, marks, maintains, reconditions, 
     repairs, or tests a package, container, or packaging 
     component that is represented'';
       (3) by striking ``must'' and inserting ``shall''; and
       (4) by striking ``manufacturing,'' and all that follows 
     through ``testing'' and inserting ``designing, manufacturing, 
     fabricating, inspecting, marking, maintaining, 
     reconditioning, repairing, or testing''.

     SEC. 7125. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 5128 (as redesignated by section 7123(b) of this 
     Act) is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 5128. Authorizations of appropriations

       ``(a) In General.--In order to carry out this chapter 
     (except sections 5107(e), 5108(g)(2), 5113, 5115, 5116, and 
     5119), the following amounts are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary:
       ``(1) For fiscal year 2005, $24,940,000.
       ``(2) For fiscal year 2006, $29,000,000.
       ``(3) For fiscal year 2007, $30,000,000.
       ``(4) For fiscal year 2008, $30,000,000.
       ``(b) Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Fund.--
     There shall be available to the Secretary, from the account 
     established pursuant to section 5116(i), for each of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2008 the following:
       ``(1) To carry out section 5115, $200,000.
       ``(2) To carry out sections 5116(a) and (b), $21,800,000 to 
     be allocated as follows:
       ``(A) $5,000,000 to carry out section 5116(a).
       ``(B) $7,800,000 to carry out section 5116(b).
       ``(C) Of the amount provided for by this paragraph for a 
     fiscal year in excess of the suballocations in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B)--
       ``(i) 35 percent shall be used to carry out section 
     5116(a); and
       ``(ii) 65 percent shall be used to carry out section 
     5116(b),
     except that the Secretary may increase the proportion to 
     carry out section 5116(b) and decrease the proportion to 
     carry out section 5116(a) if the Secretary determines that 
     such reallocation is appropriate to carry out the intended 
     uses of these funds as described in the applications 
     submitted by States and Indian tribes.
       ``(3) To carry out section 5116(f), $150,000.
       ``(4) To publish and distribute the Emergency Response 
     Guidebook under section 5116(i)(3), $625,000.
       ``(5) To carry out section 5116(j), $1,000,000.
       ``(c) Hazmat Training Grants.--There shall be available to 
     the Secretary, from the account established pursuant to 
     section 5116(i), to carry out section 5107(e) $4,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
       ``(d) Issuance of Hazmat Licenses.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated for the Department of Transportation such 
     amounts as may be necessary to carry out section 5103a.
       ``(e) Credits to Appropriations.--The Secretary may credit 
     to any appropriation to carry out this chapter an amount 
     received from a State, Indian tribe, or other public 
     authority or private entity for expenses the Secretary incurs 
     in providing training to the State, authority, or entity.
       ``(f) Availability of Amounts.--Amounts made available by 
     or under this section remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 7126. REFERENCES TO THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION.

       Chapter 51 is amended by striking ``Secretary of 
     Transportation'' each place it appears (other than the second 
     place it appears in section 5108(g)(2)(C) and in sections 
     5102(11), 5103(c), 5103a(c), 5115(a), 5115(c)(3), 5116(i), 
     and 5120(a)) and inserting ``Secretary''.

     SEC. 7127. CRIMINAL MATTERS.

       Section 845(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) aspects of the transportation of explosive materials 
     via railroad, water, highway, or air that pertain to safety, 
     including security, and are regulated by the Department of 
     Transportation or the Department of Homeland Security;''.

     SEC. 7128. ADDITIONAL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

       (a) Title 49 Penalties.--Section 46312 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``part--'' in subsection (a) and inserting 
     ``part or chapter 51--''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or chapter 51'' in subsection (b) after 
     ``under this part''.
       (b) Title 18 Penalties.--Section 3663(a)(1)(A) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``5124,'' before 
     ``46312,''.

     SEC. 7129. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart I of part 172 of the Department of 
     Transportation's regulations (49 C.F.R. 172.800 et seq.), or 
     any subsequent Department of Transportation regulation in 
     pari materia, does not apply to the surface transportation 
     activities of a farmer that are--
       (1) in direct support of the farmer's farming operations; 
     and
       (2) conducted within a 150-mile radius of those operations.
       (b) Farmer Defined.--In this section, the term ``farmer'' 
     means a person--
       (1) actively engaged in the production or raising of crops, 
     poultry, livestock, or other agricultural commodities; and
       (2) whose gross receipts from the sale of such agricultural 
     commodities or products do not exceed $500,000 annually.

     SEC. 7130. DETERMINING AMOUNT OF UNDECLARED SHIPMENTS OF 
                   HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall review existing 
     options and determine additional options for discovering the 
     amount of undeclared shipments of hazardous materials (as 
     defined in section 5101 of title 49, United States Code) 
     entering the United States.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the 
     results of the study.

     SEC. 7131. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESEARCH PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Pipeline and 
     Hazardous Materials Safety Administration shall enter into a 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences to carry out 
     the 9 research projects called for in the 2005 Special Report 
     283 of the Transportation Research Board entitled 
     ``Cooperative Research for Hazardous Materials 
     Transportation: Defining the Need, Converging on Solutions''. 
     In carrying out the research projects, the National Academy 
     of Sciences shall consult with the Administrator.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate a report on the need to 
     establish a cooperative research program on hazardous 
     materials transportation.
       (c) Funding.--Of the amounts made available by section 
     5101(a)(1) of this Act, $1,250,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2009 shall be available to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 7132. NATIONAL FIRST RESPONDER TRANSPORTATION INCIDENT 
                   RESPONSE SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide funding to the 
     Operation Respond Institute to design, build, and operate a 
     seamless first responder hazardous materials incident 
     detection, preparedness, and response system.
       (b) Expansion.--This system shall include an expansion of 
     the Operation Respond Emergency Information System (OREIS).
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008.

     SEC. 7133. COMMON CARRIER PIPELINE SYSTEM.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the 
     economic, environmental, and homeland security advantages and 
     disadvantages of operating a common carrier pipeline system 
     in the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 
     for the transportation of aromatic chemicals.
       (b) Evaluation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall evaluate the appropriateness of different Federal 
     incentives for the construction and operation of such a 
     pipeline system, including loan guarantees, other types of 
     financial assistance, and various types of tax incentives.
       (c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2005, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the study, including recommendations, if any, for 
     legislation.
                Subtitle B--Sanitary Food Transportation

     SEC. 7201. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Sanitary Food 
     Transportation Act of 2005''.

[[Page 18750]]



     SEC. 7202. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) Unsanitary Transport Deemed Adulteration.--Section 402 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) If it is transported or offered for transport by a 
     shipper, carrier by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, 
     or any other person engaged in the transportation of food 
     under conditions that are not in compliance with regulations 
     promulgated under section 416.''.
       (b) Sanitary Transportation Requirements.--Chapter IV of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 416. SANITARY TRANSPORTATION PRACTICES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Bulk vehicle.--The term `bulk vehicle' includes a 
     tank truck, hopper truck, rail tank car, hopper car, cargo 
     tank, portable tank, freight container, or hopper bin, and 
     any other vehicle in which food is shipped in bulk, with the 
     food coming into direct contact with the vehicle.
       ``(2) Transportation.--The term `transportation' means any 
     movement in commerce by motor vehicle or rail vehicle.
       ``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     require shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, 
     receivers, and other persons engaged in the transportation of 
     food to use sanitary transportation practices prescribed by 
     the Secretary to ensure that food is not transported under 
     conditions that may render the food adulterated.
       ``(c) Contents.--The regulations under subsection (b) 
     shall--
       ``(1) prescribe such practices as the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate relating to--
       ``(A) sanitation;
       ``(B) packaging, isolation, and other protective measures;
       ``(C) limitations on the use of vehicles;
       ``(D) information to be disclosed--
       ``(i) to a carrier by a person arranging for the transport 
     of food; and
       ``(ii) to a manufacturer or other person that--

       ``(I) arranges for the transportation of food by a carrier; 
     or
       ``(II) furnishes a tank vehicle or bulk vehicle for the 
     transportation of food; and

       ``(E) recordkeeping; and
       ``(2) include--
       ``(A) a list of nonfood products that the Secretary 
     determines may, if shipped in a bulk vehicle, render 
     adulterated food that is subsequently transported in the same 
     vehicle; and
       ``(B) a list of nonfood products that the Secretary 
     determines may, if shipped in a motor vehicle or rail vehicle 
     (other than a tank vehicle or bulk vehicle), render 
     adulterated food that is simultaneously or subsequently 
     transported in the same vehicle.
       ``(d) Waivers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may waive any requirement 
     under this section, with respect to any class of persons, 
     vehicles, food, or nonfood products, if the Secretary 
     determines that the waiver--
       ``(A) will not result in the transportation of food under 
     conditions that would be unsafe for human or animal health; 
     and
       ``(B) will not be contrary to the public interest.
       ``(2) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish in the 
     Federal Register any waiver and the reasons for the waiver.
       ``(e) Preemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--A requirement of a State or political 
     subdivision of a State that concerns the transportation of 
     food is preempted if--
       ``(A) complying with a requirement of the State or 
     political subdivision and a requirement of this section, or a 
     regulation prescribed under this section, is not possible; or
       ``(B) the requirement of the State or political subdivision 
     as applied or enforced is an obstacle to accomplishing and 
     carrying out this section or a regulation prescribed under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Applicability.--This subsection applies to 
     transportation that occurs on or after the effective date of 
     the regulations promulgated under subsection (b).
       ``(f) Assistance of Other Agencies.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation, the Secretary of Agriculture, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
     heads of other Federal agencies, as appropriate, shall 
     provide assistance on request, to the extent resources are 
     available, to the Secretary for the purposes of carrying out 
     this section.''.
       (c) Inspection of Transportation Records.--
       (1) Requirement.--Section 703 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 373) is amended--
       (A) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``For the purpose'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 703. RECORDS.

       ``(a) In General.--For the purpose''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Food Transportation Records.--A shipper, carrier by 
     motor vehicle or rail vehicle, receiver, or other person 
     subject to section 416 shall, on request of an officer or 
     employee designated by the Secretary, permit the officer or 
     employee, at reasonable times, to have access to and to copy 
     all records that the Secretary requires to be kept under 
     section 416(c)(1)(E).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 703 of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as designated by 
     paragraph (1)(A)) is amended by striking ``carriers.'' and 
     inserting ``carriers, except as provided in subsection 
     (b).''.
       (d) Prohibited Acts; Records Inspection.--Section 301(e) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(e)) 
     is amended by inserting ``416,'' before ``504,'' each place 
     it appears.
       (e) Unsafe Food Transportation.--Section 301 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(hh) The failure by a shipper, carrier by motor vehicle 
     or rail vehicle, receiver, or any other person engaged in the 
     transportation of food to comply with the sanitary 
     transportation practices prescribed by the Secretary under 
     section 416.''.

     SEC. 7203. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS.

       Chapter 57 is amended to read as follows:

               ``CHAPTER 57--SANITARY FOOD TRANSPORTATION

``5701. Food Transportation safety inspections.

     ``Sec. 5701. Food transportation safety inspections

       ``(a) Inspection Procedures.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish procedures 
     for transportation safety inspections for the purpose of 
     identifying suspected incidents of contamination or 
     adulteration of--
       ``(A) food in violation of regulations promulgated under 
     section 416 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
       ``(B) a carcass, part of a carcass, meat, meat food 
     product, or animal subject to detention under section 402 of 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 672); and
       ``(C) poultry products or poultry subject to detention 
     under section 19 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 
     U.S.C. 467a).
       ``(2) Training.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     develop and carry out a training program to conduct 
     enforcement of this chapter and regulations prescribed under 
     this chapter or compatible State laws and regulations.
       ``(B) Conduct.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall train inspectors, including 
     Department of Transportation personnel, State employees 
     described under subsection (c), or personnel paid with funds 
     authorized under sections 31102 and 31104, in the recognition 
     of adulteration problems associated with the transportation 
     of cosmetics, devices, drugs, food, and food additives and in 
     the procedures for obtaining assistance of the appropriate 
     departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the 
     Government and State authorities to support the enforcement.
       ``(3) Applicability.--The procedures established under 
     paragraph (1) shall apply, at a minimum, to Department of 
     Transportation personnel that perform commercial motor 
     vehicle or railroad safety inspections.
       ``(b) Notification of Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services or Secretary of Agriculture.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall promptly notify the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services or the Secretary of Agriculture, as 
     applicable, of any instances of potential food contamination 
     or adulteration of a food identified during transportation 
     safety inspections.
       ``(c) Use of State Employees.--The means by which the 
     Secretary of Transportation carries out subsection (b) may 
     include inspections conducted by State employees using funds 
     authorized to be appropriated under sections 31102 through 
     31104.''.

     SEC. 7204. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle takes effect on October 1, 2005.
     Subtitle C--Research and Innovative Technology Administration

     SEC. 7301. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.

       Section 112 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Administrative Authorities.--The Administrator may 
     enter into grants and cooperative agreements with Federal 
     agencies, State and local government agencies, other public 
     entities, private organizations, and other persons--
       ``(1) to conduct research into transportation service and 
     infrastructure assurance; and
       ``(2) to carry out other research activities of the 
     Administration.''.
      TITLE VIII--TRANSPORTATION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING GUARANTEE

     SEC. 8001. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS FOR THE HIGHWAY AND 
                   MASS TRANSIT CATEGORIES.

       (a) Limits.--Redesignate paragraphs (2) through (9) of 
     section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 as paragraphs (6) through (13), 
     respectively, and strike paragraph (1) of such section 251(c) 
     and insert the following new paragraphs:
       ``(1) with respect to fiscal year 2005--
       ``(A) for the highway category: $31,277,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the mass transit category: $955,792,000 in new 
     budget authority and $6,674,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2006--
       ``(A) for the highway category: $33,942,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the mass transit category: $1,643,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $7,359,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(3) with respect to fiscal year 2007--
       ``(A) for the highway category: $36,960,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the mass transit category: $1,712,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $8,120,000,000 in outlays;

[[Page 18751]]

       ``(4) with respect to fiscal year 2008--
       ``(A) for the highway category: $39,123,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the mass transit category: $1,858,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $8,742,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2009--
       ``(A) for the highway category: $40,660,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the mass transit category: $1,977,500,000 in new 
     budget authority and $9,180,000,000 in outlays;''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century'' and all that follows through the colon and 
     inserting: ``the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
     Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:''; and
       (B) by adding at the end thereof the following new clauses:
       ``(v) 69-8362-0-7-401 (National Driver Registry).
       ``(vi) 69-8159-0-7-401 (Motor Carrier Safety Operations and 
     Programs).
       ``(vii) 06-8158-0-7-401 (Motor Carrier Safety Grants).''; 
     and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) Mass transit category.--The term `mass transit 
     category' means the following budget accounts, or portions of 
     the accounts, that are subject to the obligation limitations 
     on contract authority provided in the Safe, Accountable, 
     Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 
     Users or for which appropriations are provided in accordance 
     with authorizations contained in that Act:
       ``(i) 69-1120-0-1-401 (Administrative Expenses).
       ``(ii) 69-1134-0-1-401 (Capital Investment Grants).
       ``(iii) 69-8191-0-7-401 (Discretionary Grants).
       ``(iv) 69-1129-0-1-401 (Formula Grants).
       ``(v) 69-1127-0-1-401 (Interstate Transfer Grants--
     Transit).
       ``(vi) 69-1125-0-1-401 (Job Access and Reverse Commute).
       ``(vii) 69-1122-0-1-401 (Miscellaneous Expired Accounts).
       ``(viii) 69-1121-0-1-401 (Research, Training and Human 
     Resources).
       ``(ix) 69-8350-0-7-401 (Trust Fund Share of Expenses).
       ``(x) 69-1137-0-1-401 (Transit Planning and Research).
       ``(xi) 69-1136-0-1-401 (University Transportation 
     Research).
       ``(xii) 69-1128-0-1-401 (Washington Metropolitan Area 
     Transit Authority).''.

     SEC. 8002. ADJUSTMENTS TO ALIGN HIGHWAY SPENDING WITH 
                   REVENUES.

       Subparagraphs (B) through (E) of section 251(b)(1) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Adjustment to align highway spending with revenues.--
     (i) When the President submits the budget under section 1105 
     of title 31, United States Code, OMB shall calculate and the 
     budget shall make adjustments to the highway category for the 
     budget year and each outyear as provided in clause 
     (ii)(I)(cc).
       ``(ii)(I)(aa) OMB shall take the actual level of highway 
     receipts for the year before the current year and subtract 
     the sum of the estimated level of highway receipts in 
     subclause (II) plus any amount previously calculated under 
     item (bb) for that year.
       ``(bb) OMB shall take the current estimate of highway 
     receipts for the current year and subtract the estimated 
     level of receipts for that year.
       ``(cc) OMB shall add one-half of the sum of the amount 
     calculated under items (aa) and (bb) to the obligation 
     limitations set forth in the section 8003 of the Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users and, using current estimates, calculate the 
     outlay change resulting from the change in obligations for 
     the budget year and the first outyear and the outlays flowing 
     therefrom through subsequent fiscal years. After making the 
     calculations under the preceding sentence, OMB shall adjust 
     the amount of obligations set forth in that section for the 
     budget year and the first outyear by adding one-half of the 
     sum of the amount calculated under items (aa) and (bb) to 
     each such year.
       ``(II) The estimated level of highway receipts for the 
     purposes of this clause are--
       ``(aa) for fiscal year 2005, $31,562,000,000;
       ``(bb) for fiscal year 2006, $33,712,000,000;
       ``(cc) for fiscal year 2007, $34,623,000,000
       ``(dd) for fiscal year 2008, $35,449,000,000; and
       ``(ee) for fiscal year 2009, $36,220,000,000.
       ``(III) In this clause, the term `highway receipts' means 
     the governmental receipts credited to the highway account of 
     the Highway Trust Fund.
       ``(C) In addition to the adjustment required by 
     subparagraph (B), when the President submits the budget under 
     section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 
     2007, 2008, or 2009, OMB shall calculate and the budget shall 
     include for the budget year and each outyear an adjustment to 
     the limits on outlays for the highway category and the mass 
     transit category equal to--
       ``(i) the outlays for the applicable category calculated 
     assuming obligation levels consistent with the estimates 
     prepared pursuant to subparagraph (D), as adjusted, using 
     current technical assumptions; minus
       ``(ii) the outlays for the applicable category set forth in 
     the subparagraph (D) estimates, as adjusted.
       ``(D)(i) When OMB and CBO submit their final sequester 
     report for fiscal year 2006, that report shall include an 
     estimate of the outlays for each of the categories that would 
     result in fiscal years 2007 through 2010 from obligations at 
     the levels specified in section 8003 of the Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users using current assumptions.
       ``(ii) When the President submits the budget under section 
     1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 2007, 
     2008, 2009, or 2010, OMB shall adjust the estimates made in 
     clause (i) by the adjustments by subparagraphs (B) and (C).
       ``(E) OMB shall consult with the Committees on the Budget 
     and include a report on adjustments under subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C) in the preview report.''.

     SEC. 8003. LEVEL OF OBLIGATION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Highway Category.--For the purposes of section 251(b) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, the level of obligation limitations for the highway 
     category is--
       (1) for fiscal year 2005, $35,164,292,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2006, $37,220,843,903;
       (3) for fiscal year 2007, $39,460,710,516;
       (4) for fiscal year 2008, $40,824,075,404; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2009, $42,469,970,178.
       (b) Mass Transit Category.--For the purposes of section 
     251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, the level of obligation limitations for the mass 
     transit category is--
       (1) for fiscal year 2005, $7,646,336,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2006, $8,622,931,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 2007, $8,974,775,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 2008, $9,730,893,000; and
       (5) for fiscal year 2009, $10,338,065,000.
     For purposes of this subsection, the term ``obligation 
     limitations'' means the sum of budget authority and 
     obligation limitations.

     SEC. 8004. ENFORCEMENT OF GUARANTEE.

       Clause 3 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended--
       (1) by striking ``section 8103 of the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century'' and inserting ``section 8003 of 
     the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of 
     this clause, any obligation limitation relating to surface 
     transportation projects under section 1602 of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and section 
     1702 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
     Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users shall be 
     assumed to be administered on the basis of sound program 
     management practices that are consistent with past practices 
     of the administering agency permitting States to decide High 
     Priority Project funding priorities within State program 
     allocations.''.

     SEC. 8005. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE 
                   EXPENSES.

       For purposes of clauses 2 and 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
     Representatives, it shall be in order to transfer funds, in 
     amounts specified in annual appropriation Acts to carry out 
     the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (including the amendments made 
     by that Act), from the Federal Transit Administration's 
     administrative expenses account to other mass transit budget 
     accounts under section 250(c)(4)(C) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
                     TITLE IX--RAIL TRANSPORTATION

     SEC. 9001. HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Corridor Development.--
       (1) Amendments.--Section 26101 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``planning'' and 
     inserting ``development'';
       (B) in the heading of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``Planning'' and inserting ``Development'';
       (C) by striking ``corridor planning'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``corridor development'';
       (D) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (i) by inserting ``, or if it is an activity described in 
     subparagraph (M)'' after ``high-speed rail improvements'';
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (K);
       (iii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (L) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(M) the acquisition of locomotives, rolling stock, track, 
     and signal equipment.''; and
       (E) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``planning'' and 
     inserting ``development''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to section 
     26101 in the table of sections of chapter 261 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``planning'' and 
     inserting ``development''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 26104 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 26104. Authorization of appropriations

       ``(a) Fiscal Years 2006 Through 2013.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary--
       ``(1) $70,000,000 for carrying out section 26101; and
       ``(2) $30,000,000 for carrying out section 26102,
     for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2013.
       ``(b) Funds to Remain Available.--Funds made available 
     under this section shall remain available until expended.''.

[[Page 18752]]

       (c) Definition.--Section 26105(1) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``and cooperative 
     agreements'' and inserting ``, cooperative agreements, and 
     other transactions''.

     SEC. 9002. CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAIL LINE RELOCATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--
       (1) Program requirements.--Chapter 201 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end of subchapter II 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 20154. Capital grants for rail line relocation 
       projects

       ``(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall carry out a grant program to provide 
     financial assistance for local rail line relocation and 
     improvement projects.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--A State is eligible for a grant under 
     this section for any construction project for the improvement 
     of the route or structure of a rail line that either--
       ``(1) is carried out for the purpose of mitigating the 
     adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, motor vehicle 
     traffic flow, community quality of life, or economic 
     development; or
       ``(2) involves a lateral or vertical relocation of any 
     portion of the rail line.
       ``(c) Considerations for Approval of Grant Applications.--
     In determining whether to award a grant to an eligible State 
     under this section, the Secretary shall consider the 
     following factors:
       ``(1) The capability of the State to fund the rail line 
     relocation project without Federal grant funding.
       ``(2) The requirement and limitation relating to allocation 
     of grant funds provided in subsection (d).
       ``(3) Equitable treatment of the various regions of the 
     United States.
       ``(4) The effects of the rail line, relocated or improved 
     as proposed, on motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic, safety, 
     community quality of life, and area commerce.
       ``(5) The effects of the rail line, relocated as proposed, 
     on the freight and passenger rail operations on the rail 
     line.
       ``(d) Allocation Requirements.--At least 50 percent of all 
     grant funds awarded under this section out of funds 
     appropriated for a fiscal year shall be provided as grant 
     awards of not more than $20,000,000 each. The $20,000,000 
     amount shall be adjusted by the Secretary to reflect 
     inflation for fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 2006.
       ``(e) Non-Federal Share.--
       ``(1) Percentage.--A State or other non-Federal entity 
     shall pay at least 10 percent of the shared costs of a 
     project that is funded in part by a grant awarded under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Forms of contributions.--The share required by 
     paragraph (1) may be paid in cash or in kind.
       ``(3) In-kind contributions.--The in-kind contributions 
     that are permitted to be counted under paragraph (2) for a 
     project for a State or other non-Federal entity are as 
     follows:
       ``(A) A contribution of real property or tangible personal 
     property (whether provided by the State or a person for the 
     State).
       ``(B) A contribution of the services of employees of the 
     State or other non-Federal entity, calculated on the basis of 
     costs incurred by the State or other non-Federal entity for 
     the pay and benefits of the employees, but excluding overhead 
     and general administrative costs.
       ``(C) A payment of any costs that were incurred for the 
     project before the filing of an application for a grant for 
     the project under this section, and any in-kind contributions 
     that were made for the project before the filing of the 
     application, if and to the extent that the costs were 
     incurred or in-kind contributions were made, as the case may 
     be, to comply with a provision of a statute required to be 
     satisfied in order to carry out the project.
       ``(4) Financial contribution from private entities.--
       ``(A) The Secretary shall require a State to submit a 
     description of the anticipated public and private benefits 
     associated with each rail line relocation or improvement 
     project described in subsection (a). The determination of 
     such benefits shall be developed in consultation with the 
     owner and user of the rail line being relocated or improved 
     or other private entity involved in the project.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall consider the feasibility of 
     seeking financial contributions or commitments from private 
     entities involved with the project in proportion to the 
     expected benefits determined under subparagraph (A) that 
     accrue to such entities from the project.
       ``(f) Agreements to Combine Amounts.--Two or more States 
     (not including political subdivisions of States) may, 
     pursuant to an agreement entered into by the States, combine 
     any part of the amounts provided through grants for a project 
     under this section if--
       ``(1) the project will benefit each of the States entering 
     into the agreement; and
       ``(2) the agreement is not a violation of a law of any such 
     State.
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations for carrying out this section.
       ``(h) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Construction.--The term `construction' means the 
     supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of 
     all costs incidental to the construction or reconstruction of 
     a project described under subsection (b)(1) of this section, 
     including bond costs and other costs relating to the issuance 
     of bonds or other debt financing instruments and costs 
     incurred by the State in performing project related audits, 
     and includes--
       ``(A) locating, surveying, and mapping;
       ``(B) track installation, restoration, and rehabilitation;
       ``(C) acquisition of rights-of-way;
       ``(D) relocation assistance, acquisition of replacement 
     housing sites, and acquisition and rehabilitation, 
     relocation, and construction of replacement housing;
       ``(E) elimination of obstacles and relocation of utilities; 
     and
       ``(F) and other activities defined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Quality of life.--The term `quality of life' includes 
     first responders' emergency response time, the environment, 
     noise levels, and other factors as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' includes, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, a political subdivision of a 
     State, and the District of Columbia.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for use in 
     carrying out this section $350,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2009.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for such 
     chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

``20154. Capital grants for rail line relocation projects.''.

       (b) Regulations.--
       (1) Temporary regulations.--Not later than April 1, 2006, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall issue temporary 
     regulations to implement the grant program under section 
     20154 of title 49, United States Code, as added by subsection 
     (a). Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States 
     Code, shall not apply to the issuance of a temporary 
     regulation under this subsection or of any amendment of such 
     a temporary regulation.
       (2) Final regulations.--Not later than October 1, 2006, the 
     Secretary shall issue final regulations implementing the 
     program.

     SEC. 9003. REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 102(7) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     802(7)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) `railroad' has the meaning given that term in section 
     20102 of title 49, United States Code; and''.
       (b) General Authority.--Section 502(a) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary shall provide 
     direct loans and loan guarantees to--
       ``(1) State and local governments;
       ``(2) interstate compacts consented to by Congress under 
     section 410(a) of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 
     1997 (49 U.S.C. 24101 nt);
       ``(3) government sponsored authorities and corporations;
       ``(4) railroads;
       ``(5) joint ventures that include at least 1 railroad; and
       ``(6) solely for the purpose of constructing a rail 
     connection between a plant or facility and a second rail 
     carrier, limited option rail freight shippers that own or 
     operate a plant or other facility that is served by no more 
     than a single railroad.''.
       (c) Priority Projects.--Section 502(c) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (5);
       (2) by striking ``areas.'' in paragraph (6) and inserting 
     ``areas;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) enhance service and capacity in the national rail 
     system; or
       ``(8) would materially alleviate rail capacity problems 
     which degrade the provision of service to shippers and would 
     fulfill a need in the national transportation system.''.
       (d) Extent of Authority.--Section 502(d) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$3,500,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$35,000,000,000'';
       (2) by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$7,000,000,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end ``The Secretary shall not 
     establish any limit on the proportion of the unused amount 
     authorized under this subsection that may be used for 1 loan 
     or loan guarantee.''.
       (e) Cohorts of Loans.--Section 502(f) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (D) of paragraph (2);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) as 
     subparagraph (F);
       (3) by adding after subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) the 
     following:
       ``(E) the size and characteristics of the cohort of which 
     the loan or loan guarantee is a member; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end of paragraph (4) ``A cohort may 
     include loans and loan guarantees. The Secretary shall not 
     establish any limit on the proportion of a cohort that may be 
     used for 1 loan or loan guarantee.''.
       (f) Conditions of Assistance.--
       (1) Assurances.--Section 502(h) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822(h)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C); and

[[Page 18753]]

       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary shall not require an applicant for a 
     direct loan or loan guarantee under this section to provide 
     collateral. Any collateral provided or thereafter enhanced 
     shall be valued as a going concern after giving effect to the 
     present value of improvements contemplated by the completion 
     and operation of the project. The Secretary shall not require 
     that an applicant for a direct loan or loan guarantee under 
     this section have previously sought the financial assistance 
     requested from another source.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall require recipients of direct 
     loans or loan guarantees under this section to comply with--
       ``(A) the standards of section 24312 of title 49, United 
     States Code, as in effect on September 1, 2002, with respect 
     to the project in the same manner that the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation is required to comply with such 
     standards for construction work financed under an agreement 
     made under section 24308(a) of that title; and
       ``(B) the protective arrangements established under section 
     504 of this Act, with respect to employees affected by 
     actions taken in connection with the project to be financed 
     by the loan or loan guarantee.''.
       (2) Technical correction.--Section 502 of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     822) is amended by striking ``offered;'' in subsection 
     (f)(2)(A) and inserting ``offered, if any;''.
       (g) Time Limit and Repayment Schedules.--Section 502 of the 
     Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 
     U.S.C. 822) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Time Limit for Approval or Disapproval.--Not later 
     than 90 days after receiving a complete application for a 
     direct loan or loan guarantee under this section, the 
     Secretary shall approve or disapprove the application.
       ``(j) Repayment Schedules.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     repayment schedule requiring payments to commence not later 
     than the sixth anniversary date of the original loan 
     disbursement.
       ``(2) Accrual.--Interest shall accrue as of the date of 
     disbursement, and shall be amortized over the remaining term 
     of the loan beginning at the time the payments begin.''.
       (h) Evaluation Charge.--Section 503(k) of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     823(k)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking 
     ``Investigation'' and inserting ``Evaluation'';
       (2) by inserting ``the cost of evaluating the application, 
     including'' after ``reasonable charge for''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``Amounts collected 
     under this subsection shall be credited directly to the 
     Safety and Operations account of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, and shall remain available until expended to 
     pay for the evaluation costs described in this subsection.''.
       (i) Fees and Charges.--Section 503 of the Railroad 
     Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 
     823) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(l) Fees and Charges.--Except as provided in this title, 
     the Secretary may not assess any fees, including user fees, 
     or charges in connection with a direct loan or loan guarantee 
     provided under section 502.''.
       (j) Substantive Criteria and Standards.--Not later than 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall publish in the Federal 
     Register and post on the Department of Transportation website 
     the substantive criteria and standards used by the Secretary 
     to determine whether to approve or disapprove applications 
     submitted under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization 
     and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822). The 
     Secretary of Transportation shall ensure adequate procedures 
     and guidelines are in place to permit the filing of complete 
     applications within 30 days of such publication.

     SEC. 9004. REPORT REGARDING IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY OF TRAIN 
                   TRAVEL IN COMMUNITIES WITHOUT GRADE SEPARATION.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall, in 
     consultation with State and local government officials, 
     conduct a study of the impact of blocked highway-railroad 
     grade crossings on the ability of emergency responders to 
     perform public safety and security duties.
       (b) Report on the Impact of Blocked Highway-Railroad Grade 
     Crossings on Emergency Responders.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit the results of the study and recommendations for 
     reducing the impact of blocked crossings on emergency 
     response to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.

     SEC. 9005. WELDED RAIL AND TANK CAR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Track Standards.--Section 20142 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(e) Track Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Within 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Federal Railroad 
     Administration shall--
       ``(A) require each track owner using continuous welded rail 
     track to include procedures (in its procedures filed with the 
     Administration pursuant to section 213.119 of title 49, Code 
     of Federal Regulations) to improve the identification of 
     cracks in rail joint bars;
       ``(B) instruct Administration track inspectors to obtain 
     copies of the most recent continuous welded rail programs of 
     each railroad within the inspectors' areas of responsibility 
     and require that inspectors use those programs when 
     conducting track inspections; and
       ``(C) establish a program to review continuous welded rail 
     joint bar inspection data from railroads and Administration 
     track inspectors periodically.
       ``(2) Inspection.--Whenever the Administration determines 
     that it is necessary or appropriate, the Administration may 
     require railroads to increase the frequency of inspection, or 
     improve the methods of inspection, of joint bars in 
     continuous welded rail.''.
       (b) Tank Car Standards.--
       (1) Amendment.--Subchapter II of chapter 201 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 20155. Tank cars

       ``(a) Standards.--The Federal Railroad Administration 
     shall--
       ``(1) validate a predictive model to quantify the relevant 
     dynamic forces acting on railroad tank cars under accident 
     conditions within 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     section; and
       ``(2) initiate a rulemaking to develop and implement 
     appropriate design standards for pressurized tank cars within 
     18 months after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(b) Older Tank Car Impact Resistance Analysis and 
     Report.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     section the Federal Railroad Administration shall conduct a 
     comprehensive analysis to determine the impact resistance of 
     the steels in the shells of pressure tank cars constructed 
     before 1989. Within 6 months after completing that analysis 
     the Administration shall transmit a report, including 
     recommendations for reducing any risk of catastrophic 
     fracture and separation of such cars, to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives. ''.
       (2) Table of sections amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter II of chapter 201 of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``20155. Tank cars.''.

     SEC. 9006. ALASKA RAILROAD.

       (a) Grants.--The Secretary shall make grants to the Alaska 
     Railroad for capital rehabilitation and improvements 
     benefiting its passenger operations.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary.

     SEC. 9007. STUDY OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION AND REGULATION.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     enter into an arrangement with the Transportation Research 
     Board of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the Nation's railroad transportation 
     system since the enactment of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. 
     The study shall address and make recommendations on--
       (1) the performance of the Nation's major railroads 
     regarding service levels, service quality, and rates;
       (2) the projected demand for freight transportation over 
     the next two decades and the constraints limiting the 
     railroads' ability to meet that demand;
       (3) the effectiveness of public policy in balancing the 
     need for railroads to earn adequate returns with those of 
     shippers for reasonable rates and adequate service; and
       (4) the future role of the Surface Transportation Board in 
     regulating railroad rates, service levels, and the railroads' 
     common carrier obligations, particularly as railroads may 
     become revenue adequate.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     Secretary and the Transportation Research Board enter into 
     the arrangement for the study, the Secretary shall transmit 
     the results of the study conducted under subsection (a) to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation 
     $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and $800,000 for fiscal year 
     2007 to carry out this section. Such sums are to remain 
     available until expended.

     SEC. 9008. HAWAII PORT INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for any fiscal year for an intermodal or marine 
     facility comprising a component of the Hawaii Port 
     Infrastructure Expansion Program, and any non-Federal 
     contributions made available for that program, shall be--
       (1) transferred to and administered by the Administrator of 
     the Maritime Administration; and
       (2) subject only to such conditions and requirements as may 
     be required by the Maritime Administration.
       (b) Intermodal Authorizations.--
       (1) Intermodal centers.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, an intermodal or marine facility described 
     in subsection (a) is eligible for funding under section 
     5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code.
       (2) Intermodal surface freight transfer facility 
     eligibility.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
     intermodal or marine facility described in subsection (a) is 
     deemed to

[[Page 18754]]

     be eligible to be an intermodal surface freight transfer 
     facility for the purposes of section 181(9)(D) of title 23, 
     United States Code.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Transportation such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this section.
       (2) No limitation.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be 
     construed--
       (A) to limit or prevent the transfer or administration 
     under subsection (a) of any funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available pursuant to any other authorization of 
     appropriations or by any appropriations Act; or
       (B) to limit the application of subsection (b) to title 49, 
     United States Code.
                   TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
        Subtitle A--Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety

     SEC. 10101. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Sportfishing and 
     Recreational Boating Safety Act of 2005''.

    CHAPTER 1--DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 10111. AMENDMENT OF DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH 
                   RESTORATION ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     chapter an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.).

     SEC. 10112. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 777b) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the succeeding fiscal year.'' in the 
     third sentence and inserting ``succeeding fiscal years.''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``in carrying on the research program of 
     the Fish and Wildlife Service in respect to fish of material 
     value for sport and recreation.'' and inserting ``to 
     supplement the 57 percent of the balance of each annual 
     appropriation to be apportioned among the States, as provided 
     for in section 4(c).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--The first sentence of section 3 (16 U.S.C. 
     777b) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sport Fish Restoration Account'' and 
     inserting ``Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``that Account'' and inserting ``that Trust 
     Fund, except as provided in section 9504(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     take effect on October 1, 2005.

     SEC. 10113. DIVISION OF ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 777c) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) through (c) and 
     redesignating subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) as 
     subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before subsection (b), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1), the following:
       ``(a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2009, the balance of each annual appropriation made in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 3 remaining after 
     the distributions for administrative expenses and other 
     purposes under subsection (b) and for multistate conservation 
     grants under section 14 shall be distributed as follows:
       ``(1) Coastal wetlands.--An amount equal to 18.5 percent to 
     the Secretary of the Interior for distribution as provided in 
     the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3951 et seq.).
       ``(2) Boating safety.--An amount equal to 18.5 percent to 
     the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating for State recreational boating safety programs 
     under section 13106 of title 46, United States Code.
       ``(3) Clean vessel act.--An amount equal to 2.0 percent to 
     the Secretary of the Interior for qualified projects under 
     section 5604(c) of the Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
     1322 note).
       ``(4) Boating infrastructure.--An amount equal to 2.0 
     percent to the Secretary of the Interior for obligation for 
     qualified projects under section 7404(d) of the Sportfishing 
     and Boating Safety Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 777g-1(d)).
       ``(5) National outreach and communications.--An amount 
     equal to 2.0 percent to the Secretary of the Interior for the 
     National Outreach and Communications Program under section 
     8(d) of this Act. Such amounts shall remain available for 3 
     fiscal years, after which any portion thereof that is 
     unobligated by the Secretary for that program may be expended 
     by the Secretary under subsection (c) of this section.'';
       (3) by striking (b)(1)(A), as redesignated by paragraph 
     (1), and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Set-aside for administration.--From the annual 
     appropriation made in accordance with section 3, for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the Secretary of the Interior 
     may use no more than the amount specified in subparagraph (B) 
     for the fiscal year for expenses for administration incurred 
     in the implementation of this Act, in accordance with this 
     section and section 9. The amount specified in subparagraph 
     (B) for a fiscal year may not be included in the amount of 
     the annual appropriation distributed under subsection (a) for 
     the fiscal year.'';
       (4) by striking ``Secretary of the Interior, after the 
     distribution, transfer, use, and deduction under subsections 
     (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively, and after deducting 
     amounts used for grants under section 14, shall apportion the 
     remainder'' in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph 
     (1), and inserting ``Secretary, for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009, after the distribution, transfer, use and 
     deduction under subsection (b), and after deducting amounts 
     used for grants under section 14 of this title, shall 
     apportion 57 percent of the balance'';
       (5) by striking ``per centum'' each place it appears in 
     subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (1), and 
     inserting ``percent'';
       (6) by striking ``subsections (a), (b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(B), 
     and (c)'' in paragraph (1) of subsection (e), as redesignated 
     by paragraph (1), and inserting ``paragraphs (1), (3), (4), 
     and (5) of subsection (a)''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Transfer of Certain Funds.--Amounts available under 
     paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (a) that are unobligated 
     by the Secretary of the Interior after 3 fiscal years shall 
     be transferred to the Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating and shall be expended for State 
     recreational boating safety programs under section 13106(a) 
     of title 46, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 10114. MAINTENANCE OF PROJECTS.

       Section 8 (16 U.S.C. 777g) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``in carrying out the research program of 
     the Fish and Wildlife Service in respect to fish of material 
     value for sport or recreation.'' in subsection (b)(2) and 
     inserting ``to supplement the 57 percent of the balance of 
     each annual appropriation to be apportioned among the States 
     under section 4(c).''; and
       (2) by striking ``subsection (c) or (d)'' in subsection 
     (d)(3) and inserting ``subsection (a)(5) or subsection (b)''.

     SEC. 10115. BOATING INFRASTRUCTURE.

       Section 7404(d)(1) of the Sportfishing and Boating Safety 
     Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 777g-1(d)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide 
     that the United States shall aid the States in fish 
     restoration and management projects, and for other purposes,' 
     approved August 9, 1950, as amended by this Act,'' and 
     inserting ``section 4(a)(4) of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish 
     Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 10116. REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING USE OF 
                   AMOUNTS FOR EXPENSES FOR ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 9 (16 U.S.C. 777h) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``section 4(d)(1)'' in subsection (a) and 
     inserting ``section 4(b)''; and
       (2) by striking ``section 4(d)(1)'' in subsection (b)(1) 
     and inserting ``section 4(b)''.

     SEC. 10117. PAYMENTS OF FUNDS TO AND COOPERATION WITH PUERTO 
                   RICO, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, GUAM, AMERICAN 
                   SAMOA, THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA 
                   ISLANDS, AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

       Section 12 (16 U.S.C. 777k) is amended by striking ``in 
     carrying on the research program of the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service in respect to fish of material value for sport or 
     recreation.'' and inserting ``to supplement the 57 percent of 
     the balance of each annual appropriation to be apportioned 
     among the States under section 4(b) of this Act.''.

     SEC. 10118. MULTISTATE CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 14 (16 U.S.C. 777m) is amended--
       (1) by striking so much of subsection (a) as precedes 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Amount for grants.--For each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009, not more than $3,000,000 of each annual 
     appropriation made in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 3 shall be distributed to the Secretary of the 
     Interior for making multistate conservation project grants in 
     accordance with this section.'';
       (2) by striking ``section 4(e)'' each place it appears in 
     subsection (a)(2)(B) and inserting ``section 4(c)''; and
       (3) by striking ``Of the balance of each annual 
     appropriation made under section 3 remaining after the 
     distribution and use under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 
     section 4 for each fiscal year and after deducting amounts 
     used for grants under subsection (a)--'' in subsection (e) 
     and inserting ``Of amounts made available under section 4(b) 
     for each fiscal year--''.

     SEC. 10119. EXPENDITURE OF REMAINING BALANCE IN BOAT SAFETY 
                   ACCOUNT.

       The Act is amended by redesignating section 15 (16 U.S.C. 
     777 note) as section 16, and by inserting after section 14 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 15. EXPENDITURE OF REMAINING BALANCE IN BOAT SAFETY 
                   ACCOUNT.

       ``Amounts remaining in the Boat Safety Account on October 
     1, 2005, and amounts thereafter credited to the Account under 
     section 9602(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall 
     be available, without further appropriation, for making 
     expenditures before October 1, 2010, to carry out the 
     purposes of this section and shall be distributed as follows:
       ``(1) In fiscal year 2006, $28,155,000 shall be 
     distributed--
       ``(A) under section 4 of this Act in the following manner:
       ``(i) $11,200,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(2) of that section;
       ``(ii) $1,245,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(3) of that section;
       ``(iii) $1,245,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(4) of that section;
       ``(iv) $1,245,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(5) of that section; and
       ``(v) $12,800,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (b) of that section; and
       ``(B) under section 14 of this Act, $420,000, to be added 
     to funds available under subsection (a)(1) of that section.

[[Page 18755]]

       ``(2) In fiscal year 2007, $22,419,000 shall be 
     distributed--
       ``(A) under section 4 of this Act in the following manner:
       ``(i) $8,075,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(2) of that section;
       ``(ii) $713,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(3) of that section;
       ``(iii) $713,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(4) of that section;
       ``(iv) $713,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(5) of that section; and
       ``(v) $11,925,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (b) of this Act; and
       ``(B) under section 14 of this Act, $280,000 to be added to 
     funds available under subsection (a)(1) of that section.
       ``(3) In fiscal year 2008, $17,139,000 shall be 
     distributed--
       ``(A) under section 4 of this Act in the following manner:
       ``(i) $6,800,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(2) of that section;
       ``(ii) $333,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(3) of that section;
       ``(iii) $333,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(4) of that section;
       ``(iv) $333,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(5) of that section; and
       ``(v) $9,200,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (b) of that section; and
       ``(B) under section 14 of this Act, $140,000, to be added 
     to funds available under subsection (a)(1) of that section.
       ``(4) In fiscal year 2009, $12,287,000 shall be 
     distributed--
       ``(A) under section 4 of this Act in the following manner:
       ``(i) $5,100,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(2) of that section;
       ``(ii) $48,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(3) of that section;
       ``(iii) $48,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(4) of that section;
       ``(iv) $48,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (a)(5) of that section; and
       ``(v) $6,900,000 to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (b) of that section; and
       ``(B) under section 14 of this Act, $143,000, to be added 
     to funds available under subsection (a)(1) of that section.
       ``(5) In fiscal year 2010, all remaining funds in the 
     Account shall be distributed under section 4 of this Act in 
     the following manner:
       ``(A) one-third to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (b); and
       ``(B) two-thirds to be added to funds available under 
     subsection (h).''.

             CHAPTER 2--CLEAN VESSEL ACT OF 1992 AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 10131. GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 5604(c)(2) of the Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (33 
     U.S.C. 1322 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (3) in subparagraph (A), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``receptions'' and inserting ``reception''.

       CHAPTER 3--RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 10141. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       Section 13102(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``the Boat Safety Account'' and inserting 
     ``the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund''.

     SEC. 10142. AVAILABILITY OF ALLOCATIONS.

       Section 13104(a) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``2 years'' in paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``3 years''; and
       (2) by striking ``2-year'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``3-year''.

     SEC. 10143. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR STATE 
                   RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY PROGRAMS.

       Section 13106 of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``the amount 
     appropriated from the Boat Safety Account for that fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``the amount made available from the 
     Boat Safety Account for that fiscal year under section 10119 
     of the Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety Act of 
     2005'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``section 4(b) of the 
     Act of August 9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777c(b))'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(2) of section 4 of the Dingell-Johnson Sport 
     Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c(a)(2))'';
       (3) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``not less than one 
     percent and'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation under 
     paragraph (5)(C) of section 4(b)'' and inserting ``Secretary 
     under subsection (a)(2) of section 4'';
       (B) by striking ``(16 U.S.C. 777c(b))'' and inserting ``(16 
     U.S.C. 777c(a)(2)'';
       (C) by striking ``$3,333,336'' and inserting 
     ``$4,266,666'';
       (D) by striking ``$1,333,336'' and inserting ``not less 
     than $2,083,333''; and
       (5) in subsection (c)(3) by striking ``until expended.'' 
     and inserting ``during the 2 succeeding fiscal years. Any 
     amount that is unexpected or unobligated at the end of the 3-
     year period during which it is available shall be withdrawn 
     by the Secretary and allocated to the States in addition to 
     any other amounts available for allocation in the fiscal year 
     in which they are withdrawn or the following fiscal year.''.
               Subtitle B--Other Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 10201. NOTICE REGARDING PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESS 
                   CONCERNS.

       The Secretary shall notify each State or political 
     subdivision of a State to which the Secretary awards a grant 
     or other Federal funds of the criteria for participation by a 
     small business concern in any program or project that is 
     funded, in whole or in part, by the Federal Government under 
     section 155 of the Small Business Reauthorization and 
     Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 567g).

     SEC. 10202. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.

       (a) Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical 
     Services.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, acting through the Under Secretary for 
     Emergency Preparedness and Response, shall establish a 
     Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services.
       (2) Membership.--The Interagency Committee shall consist of 
     the following officials, or their designees:
       (A) The Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration.
       (B) The Director, Preparedness Division, Directorate of 
     Emergency Preparedness and Response of the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       (C) The Administrator, Health Resources and Services 
     Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
       (D) The Director, Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.
       (E) The Administrator, United States Fire Administration, 
     Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response of the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       (F) The Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
       (G) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
     Readiness.
       (H) The Director, Indian Health Service, Department of 
     Health and Human Services.
       (I) The Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (J) A representative of any other Federal agency appointed 
     by the Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security through the Under Secretary for Emergency 
     Preparedness and Response, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, as having a significant role in 
     relation to the purposes of the Interagency Committee.
       (K) A State emergency medical services director appointed 
     by the Secretary.
       (3) Purposes.--The purposes of the Interagency Committee 
     are as follows:
       (A) To ensure coordination among the Federal agencies 
     involved with State, local, tribal, or regional emergency 
     medical services and 9-1-1 systems.
       (B) To identify State, local, tribal, or regional emergency 
     medical services and 9-1-1 needs.
       (C) To recommend new or expanded programs, including grant 
     programs, for improving State, local, tribal, or regional 
     emergency medical services and implementing improved 
     emergency medical services communications technologies, 
     including wireless 9-1-1.
       (D) To identify ways to streamline the process through 
     which Federal agencies support State, local, tribal or 
     regional emergency medical services.
       (E) To assist State, local, tribal or regional emergency 
     medical services in setting priorities based on identified 
     needs.
       (F) To advise, consult, and make recommendations on matters 
     relating to the implementation of the coordinated State 
     emergency medical services programs.
       (4) Administration.--The Administrator of the National 
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in cooperation with 
     the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     and the Director of the Preparedness Division, Directorate of 
     Emergency Preparedness and Response of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, shall provide administrative support to 
     the Interagency Committee, including scheduling meetings, 
     setting agendas, keeping minutes and records, and producing 
     reports.
       (5) Leadership.--The members of the Interagency Committee 
     shall select a chairperson of the Committee each year.
       (6) Meetings.--The Interagency Committee shall meet as 
     frequently as is determined necessary by the chairperson of 
     the Committee.
       (7) Annual reports.--The Interagency Committee shall 
     prepare an annual report to Congress regarding the 
     Committee's activities, actions, and recommendations.

     SEC. 10203. HUBZONE PROGRAM.

       Section 3(p)(4)(B)(ii) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632(p)(4)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subclause (II) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding after subclause (II) the following:

       ``(III) there is located a difficult development area, as 
     designated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     in accordance with section 42(d)(5)(C)(iii) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, within Alaska, Hawaii, or any territory 
     or possession of the United States outside the 48 contiguous 
     States.''.

     SEC. 10204. CATASTROPHIC HURRICANE EVACUATION PLANS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretaries''), in coordination with the Gulf Coast States 
     and contiguous States, shall jointly review and assess 
     Federal

[[Page 18756]]

     and State evacuation plans for catastrophic hurricanes 
     impacting the Gulf Coast Region and report its findings and 
     recommendations to Congress.
       (b) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretaries shall consult with appropriate Federal, State, 
     and local transportation and emergency management agencies.
       (c) Contents.--In conducting the review, the Secretaries 
     shall consider, at a minimum--
       (1) all practical modes of transportation available for 
     evacuations;
       (2) the extent to which evacuation plans are coordinated 
     with neighboring States;
       (3) methods of communicating evacuation plans and preparing 
     citizens in advance of evacuations; and
       (4) methods of coordinating communication with evacuees 
     during plan execution.
       (d) Report.--The Secretaries shall submit to Congress a 
     report of their findings under this section and 
     recommendations not later than October 1, 2006.

     SEC. 10205. INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY EXPANSION.

       Any funds provided for the Federal share, and any funds 
     provided for the non-Federal share, for an intermodal 
     transportation maritime facility at the Port of Anchorage, 
     Alaska, or for access to that facility shall be transferred 
     to and administered by the Administrator of the Maritime 
     Administration.

     SEC. 10206. ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN WESTERN ALASKA 
                   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA PROGRAM.

       A community shall be eligible to participate in the western 
     Alaska community development quota program established under 
     section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)) if the community--
       (1) is listed in table 7 to part 679 of title 50, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on March 8, 2004; or
       (2) was determined to be eligible participate in such 
     program by the National Marine Fisheries Service on April 19, 
     1999.

     SEC. 10207. RAIL REHABILITATION AND BRIDGE REPAIR.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for rail rehabilitation and bridge repair in 
     the State of Alabama for the period encompassing fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010 such sums as may be necessary, for work 
     on--
       (1) the Luxapalila Valley Railroad from the Mississippi and 
     Alabama State line east to Belk, Alabama;
       (2) the Meridian & Bigbee Railroad from the Mississippi and 
     Alabama State line east to Burkeville, Alabama;
       (3) the Three Notch Railroad from Georgiana, Alabama, to 
     Andalusia, Alabama;
       (4) the Wiregrass Railroad in Alabama;
       (5) the Alabama & Gulf Coast Railroad from the Mississippi 
     and Alabama State line southeast to Mobile and Atmore in 
     Alabama; and
       (6) the railroad bridge that spans the Coosa River, 
     connecting the east and west sides of the City of Gadsden, 
     Alabama.

     SEC. 10208. RENTED OR LEASED MOTOR VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 301 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 30106. Rented or leased motor vehicle safety and 
       responsibility

       ``(a) In General.--An owner of a motor vehicle that rents 
     or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the 
     owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or 
     political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner 
     of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to 
     persons or property that results or arises out of the use, 
     operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of 
     the rental or lease, if--
       ``(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged 
     in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor 
     vehicles; and
       ``(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the 
     part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner).
       ``(b) Financial Responsibility Laws.--Nothing in this 
     section supersedes the law of any State or political 
     subdivision thereof--
       ``(1) imposing financial responsibility or insurance 
     standards on the owner of a motor vehicle for the privilege 
     of registering and operating a motor vehicle; or
       ``(2) imposing liability on business entities engaged in 
     the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles 
     for failure to meet the financial responsibility or liability 
     insurance requirements under State law.
       ``(c) Applicability and Effective Date.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, this section shall apply with 
     respect to any action commenced on or after the date of 
     enactment of this section without regard to whether the harm 
     that is the subject of the action, or the conduct that caused 
     the harm, occurred before such date of enactment.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Affiliate.--The term `affiliate' means a person other 
     than the owner that directly or indirectly controls, is 
     controlled by, or is under common control with the owner. In 
     the preceding sentence, the term `control' means the power to 
     direct the management and policies of a person whether 
     through ownership of voting securities or otherwise.
       ``(2) Owner.--The term `owner' means a person who is--
       ``(A) a record or beneficial owner, holder of title, 
     lessor, or lessee of a motor vehicle;
       ``(B) entitled to the use and possession of a motor vehicle 
     subject to a security interest in another person; or
       ``(C) a lessor, lessee, or a bailee of a motor vehicle, in 
     the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles, 
     having the use or possession thereof, under a lease, 
     bailment, or otherwise.
       ``(3) Person.--The term `person' means any individual, 
     corporation, company, limited liability company, trust, 
     association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, 
     or any other entity.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 30105 
     the following:

``30106. Rented or leased motor vehicle safety and responsibility.''.

     SEC. 10209. MIDWAY ISLAND.

       (a) Grants.--In order to provide for both the safety of 
     commercial and military aviation operations and the support 
     of resource management in the remote Pacific, the Commandant 
     of the Coast Guard, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans 
     and Atmosphere, shall develop such memoranda of understanding 
     as may be necessary, and to make grants or otherwise provide 
     funding, to provide for the operation of the Midway Airport, 
     the rightsizing of necessary infrastructure and support 
     facilities, the maintenance and development of the Airport, 
     and other related matters.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the United States Coast Guard, the 
     Department of Transportation, and the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out this section for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

     SEC. 10210. DEMONSTRATION OF DIGITAL PROJECT SIMULATION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Digital project simulation demonstration project.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a demonstration initiative using 
     digital project simulation to plan, design, and construct the 
     project listed in item 31 designated in section 1934 of the 
     SAFETEA-LU.
       (2) Cooperation.--To be eligible to receive funds made 
     available for the project referred to in paragraph (1), the 
     project sponsor, including private entities working with the 
     project sponsor on the project, and the State shall enter 
     into an agreement to work cooperatively with the Secretary to 
     use digital project simulation for such project and to 
     evaluate the effectiveness of using such simulation.
       (b) Simulation Program Development.--
       (1) In general.--In establishing the demonstration 
     initiative under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide, 
     to the extent practicable, that--
       (A) the planning, design, and construction of the project 
     is carried out by using digital project simulation to achieve 
     savings and efficiency in investment planning, project 
     delivery coordination, and facility management; and
       (B) in constructing such project, the project sponsor use 
     digital lifecycle management techniques, including the use of 
     embedded electronics and software to monitor performance of 
     the infrastructure and provide safety and security 
     information to the project sponsor.
       (2) Collaboration.--The Secretary, the State, and the 
     project sponsor may consult with technology companies and 
     educational institutions that strive to develop and enhance 
     technologies, including digital project simulation, that save 
     money and time by using efficient methods of design, 
     construction, and operation for transportation infrastructure 
     projects.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after completion 
     of the project described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     detailed report comparing the application of digital project 
     simulation for such project to more traditional approaches to 
     planning, design, and construction.
       (2) Performance measures and recommendations.--The report 
     shall also include--
       (A) a description of the performance measures applied, 
     including cost comparisons and length of construction; and
       (B) recommendations, if any, for administrative or 
     legislative action.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``digital project simulation'' means computer-assisted three-
     dimensional technology and digital lifecycle management.

     SEC. 10211. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Oklahoma.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     if the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'') 
     determines that a regulatory program submitted by the State 
     of Oklahoma for approval by the Administrator under a law 
     administered by the Administrator meets applicable 
     requirements of the law, and the Administrator approves the 
     State to administer the State program under the law with 
     respect to areas in the State that are not Indian country, on 
     request of the State, the Administrator shall approve the 
     State to administer the State program in the areas of the 
     State that are in Indian country, without any further 
     demonstration of authority by the State.
       (b) Treatment as State.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Administrator may treat an Indian tribe 
     in the State of Oklahoma as a State under a law administered 
     by the Administrator only if--
       (1) the Indian tribe meets requirements under the law to be 
     treated as a State; and

[[Page 18757]]

       (2) the Indian tribe and the agency of the State of 
     Oklahoma with federally delegated program authority enter 
     into a cooperative agreement, subject to review and approval 
     of the Administrator after notice and opportunity for public 
     hearing, under which the Indian tribe and that State agency 
     agree to treatment of the Indian tribe as a State and to 
     jointly plan administer program requirements.

     SEC. 10212. RESCISSION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

       (a) In General.--On September 30, 2009, $8,543,000,000 of 
     the unobligated balances of funds apportioned before such 
     date to the States for the Interstate maintenance, national 
     highway system, bridge, congestion mitigation and air quality 
     improvement, surface transportation (other than the STP set-
     aside programs), metropolitan planning, minimum guarantee, 
     Appalachian development highway system, recreational trails, 
     safe routes to school, freight intermodal connectors, 
     coordinated border infrastructure, high risk rural road, and 
     highway safety improvement programs, and each of the STP set-
     aside programs, is rescinded.
       (b) Allocation Among States.--The Secretary shall determine 
     each State's share of the amount to be rescinded by 
     subsection (a) on September 30, 2009, by multiplying 
     $8,543,000,000 by the ratio of the aggregate amount 
     apportioned to such State for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 
     for all the programs referred to in subsection (a) to the 
     aggregate amount apportioned to all States for such fiscal 
     years for those programs.
       (c) Calculations.--To determine the allocation of the 
     amount to be rescinded for a State under subsection (b) among 
     the programs referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall make the following calculations:
       (1) The Secretary shall multiply such amount to be 
     rescinded by the ratio that the aggregate amount of 
     unobligated funds available to the State on September 30, 
     2009, for each such program bears to the aggregate amount of 
     unobligated funds available to the State on September 30, 
     2009, for all such programs.
       (2) The Secretary shall multiply such amount to be 
     rescinded by the ratio that the aggregate of the amount 
     apportioned to the State for each such program for fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2009 bears to the aggregate amount 
     apportioned to the State for all such programs for fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2009.
       (d) Allocation Among Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     State, shall rescind for the State from each program referred 
     to in subsection (a) the amount determined for the program 
     under subsection (c)(1).
       (2) Special rule.--
       (A) Restoration of funds for covered programs.--If the 
     rescission calculated under subsection (c)(1) for a covered 
     program exceeds the amount calculated for the covered program 
     under subsection (c)(2), the State shall immediately restore 
     to the apportionment account for the covered program from the 
     unobligated balances of programs referred to in subsection 
     (a) (other than covered programs) the amount of funds 
     required so that the net rescission from the covered program 
     does not exceed the amount calculated for the covered program 
     under subsection (c)(2).
       (B) Treatment of restored funds.--Any funds restored under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to be the funds that were 
     rescinded for the purposes of obligation.
       (3) Covered program defined.--In paragraph (2), the term 
     ``covered program'' means a program authorized under sections 
     130 and 152 of title 23, United States Code, paragraph (2) or 
     (3) of section 133(d) of that title, section 144 of that 
     title, section 149 of that title, or section 1404 of this 
     Act.
       (e) Treatment of Safety Programs.--In making calculations 
     under subsections (c)(1), (c)(2), and (d)(2), the Secretary 
     shall treat the STP set-aside program for safety programs and 
     the highway safety improvement program as a single program.
       (f) STP Set-Aside Program Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``STP set-aside program'' means the amount set aside 
     under section 133(d) of title 23, United States Code, for 
     each of the safety programs, transportation enhancement 
     activities, and division between urbanized areas of over 
     200,000 population and other areas.

     SEC. 10213. TRIBAL LAND.

       Section 707(a) of Public Law 106-568 (25 U.S.C. 1041e(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``(1) In general.--''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
          Subtitle C--Specific Vehicle Safety-related Rulings

     SEC. 10301. VEHICLE ROLLOVER PREVENTION AND CRASH MITIGATION.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 301 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 30128. Vehicle rollover prevention and crash 
       mitigation

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall initiate rulemaking 
     proceedings, for the purpose of establishing rules or 
     standards that will reduce vehicle rollover crashes and 
     mitigate deaths and injuries associated with such crashes for 
     motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of not more 
     than 10,000 pounds.
       ``(b) Rollover Prevention.--One of the rulemaking 
     proceedings initiated under subsection (a) shall be to 
     establish performance criteria to reduce the occurrence of 
     rollovers consistent with stability enhancing technologies. 
     The Secretary shall issue a proposed rule in this proceeding 
     by rule by October 1, 2006, and a final rule by April 1, 
     2009.
       ``(c) Occupant Ejection Prevention.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall also initiate a 
     rulemaking proceeding to establish performance standards to 
     reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants 
     from outboard seating positions. In formulating the standards 
     the Secretary shall consider various ejection mitigation 
     systems. The Secretary shall issue a final rule under this 
     paragraph no later than October 1, 2009.
       ``(2) Door locks and door retention.--The Secretary shall 
     complete the rulemaking proceeding initiated to upgrade 
     Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, relating to 
     door locks and door retention, no later than 30 months after 
     the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(d) Protection of Occupants.--One of the rulemaking 
     proceedings initiated under subsection (a) shall be to 
     establish performance criteria to upgrade Federal Motor 
     Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216 relating to roof strength for 
     driver and passenger sides. The Secretary may consider 
     industry and independent dynamic tests that realistically 
     duplicate the actual forces transmitted during a rollover 
     crash. The Secretary shall issue a proposed rule by December 
     31, 2005, and a final rule by July 1, 2008.
       ``(e) Deadlines.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     deadline for a final rule under this section cannot be met, 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) notify the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce and explain why that deadline cannot be 
     met; and
       ``(2) establish a new deadline.''.

     SEC. 10302. SIDE-IMPACT CRASH PROTECTION RULEMAKING.

       (a) Rulemaking.--The Secretary shall complete a rulemaking 
     proceeding under chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, 
     to establish a standard designed to enhance passenger motor 
     vehicle occupant protection, in all seating positions, in 
     side impact crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final rule 
     by July 1, 2008.
       (b) Deadlines.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     deadline for a final rule under this section cannot be met, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) notify the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce and explain why that deadline cannot be 
     met; and
       (2) establish a new deadline.

     SEC. 10303. TIRE RESEARCH.

       Within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on research 
     conducted to address tire aging. The report shall include a 
     summary of any Federal agency findings, activities, 
     conclusions, and recommendations concerning tire aging and 
     recommendations for potential rulemaking regarding tire 
     aging.
       (a) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     301 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 30127 the following:

``30128. Vehicle accident ejection protection.''.

     SEC. 10304. VEHICLE BACKOVER AVOIDANCE TECHNOLOGY STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration shall conduct a study of 
     effective methods for reducing the incidence of injury and 
     death outside of parked passenger motor vehicles with a gross 
     vehicle weight rating of not more than 10,000 pounds 
     attributable to movement of such vehicles. The Administrator 
     shall complete the study within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and report its findings to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce not 
     later than 15 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Specific Issues to Be Covered.--The study required by 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) include an analysis of backover prevention technology;
       (2) identify, evaluate, and compare the available 
     technologies for detecting people or objects behind a motor 
     vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of not more than 
     10,000 pounds for their accuracy, effectiveness, cost, and 
     feasibility for installation; and
       (3) provide an estimate of cost savings that would result 
     from widespread use of backover prevention devices and 
     technologies in motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 
     rating of not more than 10,000 pounds, including savings 
     attributable to the prevention of--
       (A) injuries and fatalities; and
       (B) damage to bumpers and other motor vehicle parts and 
     damage to other objects.

     SEC. 10305. NONTRAFFIC INCIDENT DATA COLLECTION.

       (a) In General.--In conjunction with the study required in 
     section 10304, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration shall establish a method to collect and 
     maintain data on the number and types of injuries and deaths 
     involving motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating 
     of not more than 10,000 pounds in non-traffic incidents.
       (b) Data Collection and Publication.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall publish the data collected under 
     subsection (a) no less frequently than biennially.

[[Page 18758]]



     SEC. 10306. STUDY OF SAFETY BELT USE TECHNOLOGIES.

       The Secretary shall conduct a review of safety belt use 
     technologies to consider possible revisions in strategies for 
     achieving further gains in safety belt use. The Secretary 
     shall complete the study by July 1, 2008.

     SEC. 10307. AMENDMENT OF AUTOMOBILE INFORMATION DISCLOSURE 
                   ACT.

       (a) Safety Labeling Requirement.--Section 3 of the 
     Automobile Information Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1232) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subsection 
     (e);
       (2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon in subsection 
     (f)(3);
       (3) by striking ``(3).'' in subsection (f)(4) and inserting 
     ``(3);''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) if 1 or more safety ratings for such automobile have 
     been assigned and formally published or released by the 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the New 
     Car Assessment Program, information about safety ratings 
     that--
       ``(1) includes a graphic depiction of the number of stars, 
     or other applicable rating, that corresponds to each such 
     assigned safety rating displayed in a clearly differentiated 
     fashion indicating the maximum possible safety rating;
       ``(2) refers to frontal impact crash tests, side impact 
     crash tests, and rollover resistance tests (whether or not 
     such automobile has been assigned a safety rating for such 
     tests);
       ``(3) contains information describing the nature and 
     meaning of the crash test data presented and a reference to 
     additional vehicle safety resources, including http://
www.safecar.gov; and
       ``(4) is presented in a legible, visible, and prominent 
     fashion and covers at least--
       ``(A) 8 percent of the total area of the label; or
       ``(B) an area with a minimum length of 4 \1/2\ inches and a 
     minimum height of 3 \1/2\ inches; and
       ``(h) if an automobile has not been tested by the National 
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the New Car 
     Assessment Program, or safety ratings for such automobile 
     have not been assigned in one or more rating categories, a 
     statement to that effect.''.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     issue regulations to ensure that the labeling requirements 
     under subsections (g) and (h) of section 3 of the Automobile 
     Information Disclosure Act, as added by subsection (a), are 
     implemented by September 1, 2007.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation, to 
     accelerate the testing processes and increasing the number of 
     vehicles tested under the New Car Assessment Program of the 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration--
       (1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $8,134,065 for fiscal year 2007;
       (3) $8,418,760 for fiscal year 2008;
       (4) $8,713,410 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (5) $9,018,385 for fiscal year 2010.

     SEC. 10308. POWER WINDOW SWITCHES.

       The Secretary shall upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
     Standard 118 to require that power windows in motor vehicles 
     not in excess of 10,000 pounds have switches that raise the 
     window only when the switch is pulled up or out. The 
     Secretary shall issue a final rule implementing this section 
     by April 1, 2007.

     SEC. 10309. 15-PASSENGER VAN SAFETY.

       (a) Testing.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     require the testing of 15-passenger vans as part of the 
     rollover resistance program of the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration's new car assessment program.
       (2) 15-passenger van defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``15-passenger van'' means a vehicle that seats 10 to 14 
     passengers, not including the driver.
       (b) Prohibition of Purchase, Rental, or Lease of 
     Noncomplying 15-Passenger Vans for School Use.--Section 
     30112(a) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Except as provided''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Except as provided in this section, sections 30113 
     and 30114 of this title, and subchapter III of this chapter, 
     a school or school system may not purchase or lease a new 15-
     passenger van if it will be used significantly by, or on 
     behalf of, the school or school system to transport 
     preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to or from 
     school or an event related to school, unless the 15-passenger 
     van complies with the motor vehicle standards prescribed for 
     school buses and multifunction school activity buses under 
     this title. This paragraph does not apply to the purchase or 
     lease of a 15-passenger van under a contract executed before 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
       (c) Penalty.--Section 30165(a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) School buses.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     maximum amount of a civil penalty under this paragraph shall 
     be $10,000 in the case of--
       ``(i) the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction 
     or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, or 
     importation of a school bus or school bus equipment (as those 
     terms are defined in section 30125(a) of this title) in 
     violation of section 30112(a)(1) of this title; or
       ``(ii) a violation of section 30112(a)(2) of this title.
       ``(B) Related series of violations.--A separate violation 
     occurs for each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle 
     equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform 
     an act required by that section. The maximum penalty under 
     this paragraph for a related series of violations is 
     $15,000,000.''.

     SEC. 10310. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 
     carry out this subtitle, chapter 301 of title 49, and part C 
     of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code--
       (1) $136,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (2) $142,800,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (3) $149,900,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (4) $157,400,000 for fiscal year 2009.
    TITLE XI--HIGHWAY REAUTHORIZATION AND EXCISE TAX SIMPLIFICATION

     SEC. 1100. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                 Subtitle A--Trust Fund Reauthorization

     SEC. 1101. EXTENSION OF HIGHWAY-RELATED TAXES AND TRUST 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) Extension of Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--The following provisions are each amended 
     by striking ``2005'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``2011'':
       (A) Section 4041(a)(1)(C)(iii)(I) (relating to rate of tax 
     on certain buses).
       (B) Section 4041(a)(2)(B) (relating to rate of tax on 
     special motor fuels).
       (C) Section 4041(m)(1) (relating to certain alcohol fuels).
       (D) Section 4051(c) (relating to termination of tax on 
     heavy trucks and trailers).
       (E) Section 4071(d) (relating to termination of tax on 
     tires).
       (F) Section 4081(d)(1) (relating to termination of tax on 
     gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene).
       (2) Extension of tax, etc., on use of certain heavy 
     vehicles.--The following provisions are each amended by 
     striking ``2006'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``2011'':
       (A) Section 4481(f) (relating to period tax in effect).
       (B) Section 4482(c)(4) (relating to taxable period).
       (C) Section 4482(d) (relating to special rule for taxable 
     period in which termination date occurs).
       (3) Floor stocks refunds.--Section 6412(a)(1) (relating to 
     floor stocks refunds) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2005'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``2011'', and
       (B) by striking ``2006'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``2012''.
       (b) Extension of Certain Exemptions.--
       (1) Certain tax-free sales.--Section 4221(a) (relating to 
     certain tax-free sales) is amended by striking ``2005'' and 
     inserting ``2011''.
       (2) Termination of exemptions for highway use tax.--Section 
     4483(h) (relating to termination of exemptions for highway 
     use tax) is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2011''.
       (c) Extension of Transfers of Certain Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), 
     and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c), of section 9503 
     (relating to the Highway Trust Fund) are each amended--
       (A) by striking ``2005'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``2011'', and
       (B) by striking ``2006'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``2012''.
       (2) Motorboat and small-engine fuel tax transfers.--
       (A) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 9503(c)(5) is 
     amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (B) Conforming amendments to land and water conservation 
     fund.--Section 201(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-11(b)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2011'', and
       (ii) by striking ``2004'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``2012''.
       (d) Extension and Expansion of Expenditures From Trust 
     Funds.--
       (1) Highway trust fund.--
       (A) Highway account.--Paragraph (1) of section 9503(c) of 
     such Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Federal-aid highway program.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (e), amounts in the Highway Trust Fund shall be 
     available, as provided by appropriation Acts, for making 
     expenditures before September 30, 2009 (October 1, 2009, in 
     the case of expenditures for administrative expenses), to 
     meet those obligations of the United States heretofore or 
     hereafter incurred which are authorized to be paid out of the 
     Highway Trust Fund under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
     Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users or 
     any other provision of law which was referred to in this 
     paragraph before the date of the enactment of such Act (as 
     such Act and provisions of law are in effect on the date of 
     the enactment of such Act).''.
       (B) Mass transit account.--Paragraph (3) of section 9503(e) 
     of such Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Expenditures from account.--Amounts in the Mass 
     Transit Account shall be available,

[[Page 18759]]

     as provided by appropriation Acts, for making capital or 
     capital related expenditures (including capital expenditures 
     for new projects) before October 1, 2009, in accordance with 
     the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users or any other provision of law 
     which was referred to in this paragraph before the date of 
     the enactment of such Act (as such Act and provisions of law 
     are in effect on the date of the enactment of such Act).''.
       (C) Exception to limitation on transfers.--Subparagraph (B) 
     of section 9503(b)(6) is amended by striking ``July 31, 
     2005'' and inserting ``September 30, 2009 (October 1, 2009, 
     in the case of expenditures for administrative expenses)''.
       (2) Aquatic resources trust fund.--
       (A) Sport fish restoration account.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 9504(b) is amended by striking ``Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part V'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
     Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users''.
       (B) Exception to limitation on transfers.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 9504(d) is amended by striking ``July 31, 2005'' and 
     inserting ``October 1, 2009''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1102. MODIFICATION OF ADJUSTMENTS OF APPORTIONMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 9503(d) (relating to adjustments 
     for apportionments) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``24-month'' in paragraph (1)(B) and 
     inserting ``48-month'', and
       (2) by striking ``2 years' '' in the heading for paragraph 
     (3) and inserting ``4 years' ''.
       (b) Measurement of Net Highway Receipts.--Section 9503(d) 
     is amended by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7) 
     and by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Measurement of net highway receipts.--For purposes of 
     making any estimate under paragraph (1) of net highway 
     receipts for periods ending after the date specified in 
     subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall treat--
       ``(A) each expiring provision of subsection (b) which is 
     related to appropriations or transfers to the Highway Trust 
     Fund to have been extended through the end of the 48-month 
     period referred to in paragraph (1)(B), and
       ``(B) with respect to each tax imposed under the sections 
     referred to in subsection (b)(1), the rate of such tax during 
     the 48-month period referred to in paragraph (1)(B) to be the 
     same as the rate of such tax as in effect on the date of such 
     estimate.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
            Subtitle B--Excise Tax Reform and Simplification

     PART 1--HIGHWAY EXCISE TAXES

     SEC. 1111. MODIFICATION OF GAS GUZZLER TAX.

       (a) Uniform Application of Tax.--Subparagraph (A) of 
     section 4064(b)(1) (defining automobile) is amended by 
     striking the second sentence.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2005.

     SEC. 1112. EXCLUSION FOR TRACTORS WEIGHING 19,500 POUNDS OR 
                   LESS FROM FEDERAL EXCISE TAX ON HEAVY TRUCKS 
                   AND TRAILERS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 4051 (relating 
     to imposition of tax) is amended by redesignating paragraph 
     (4) as paragraph (5) and by inserting after paragraph (3) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Exclusion for tractors weighing 19,500 pounds or 
     less.--The tax imposed by paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     tractors of the kind chiefly used for highway transportation 
     in combination with a trailer or semitrailer if--
       ``(A) such tractor has a gross vehicle weight of 19,500 
     pounds or less (as determined by the Secretary), and
       ``(B) such tractor, in combination with a trailer or 
     semitrailer, has a gross combined weight of 33,000 pounds or 
     less (as determined by the Secretary).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales after September 30, 2005.

     SEC. 1113. VOLUMETRIC EXCISE TAX CREDIT FOR ALTERNATIVE 
                   FUELS.

       (a) Imposition of Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4041(a)(2)(B) (relating to rate of 
     tax) is amended--
       (A) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (i),
       (B) by striking clauses (ii) and (iii),
       (C) by striking the last sentence, and
       (D) by adding after clause (i) the following new clause:
       ``(ii) in the case of liquefied natural gas, any liquid 
     fuel (other than ethanol and methanol) derived from coal 
     (including peat), and liquid hydrocarbons derived from 
     biomass (as defined in section 29(c)(3)), 24.3 cents per 
     gallon.''.
       (2) Treatment of compressed natural gas.--Section 
     4041(a)(3) (relating to compressed natural gas) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``48.54 cents per MCF (determined at 
     standard temperature and pressure)'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``18.3 cents per energy equivalent of a gallon of 
     gasoline'', and
       (B) by striking ``MCF'' in subparagraph (C) and inserting 
     ``energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline''.
       (3) New reference.--The heading for paragraph (2) of 
     section 4041(a) is amended by striking ``Special motor 
     fuels'' and inserting ``Alternative fuels''.
       (b) Credit for Alternative Fuel and Alternative Fuel 
     Mixtures.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6426(a) (relating to allowance of 
     credits) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credits.--There shall be allowed as a 
     credit--
       ``(1) against the tax imposed by section 4081 an amount 
     equal to the sum of the credits described in subsections (b), 
     (c), and (e), and
       ``(2) against the tax imposed by section 4041 an amount 
     equal to the sum of the credits described in subsection (d).
     No credit shall be allowed in the case of the credits 
     described in subsections (d) and (e) unless the taxpayer is 
     registered under section 4101.''.
       (2) Alternative fuel and alternative fuel mixture credit.--
     Section 6426 (relating to credit for alcohol fuel and 
     biodiesel mixtures) is amended by redesignating subsections 
     (d) and (e) as subsections (f) and (g) and by inserting after 
     subsection (c) the following new subsections:
       ``(d) Alternative Fuel Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     alternative fuel credit is the product of 50 cents and the 
     number of gallons of an alternative fuel or gasoline gallon 
     equivalents of a nonliquid alternative fuel sold by the 
     taxpayer for use as a fuel in a motor vehicle or motorboat, 
     or so used by the taxpayer.
       ``(2) Alternative fuel.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `alternative fuel' means--
       ``(A) liquefied petroleum gas,
       ``(B) P Series Fuels (as defined by the Secretary of Energy 
     under section 13211(2) of title 42, United States Code),
       ``(C) compressed or liquefied natural gas,
       ``(D) liquefied hydrogen,
       ``(E) any liquid fuel derived from coal (including peat) 
     through the Fischer-Tropsch process, and
       ``(F) liquid hydrocarbons derived from biomass (as defined 
     in section 29(c)(3)).
     Such term does not include ethanol, methanol, or biodiesel.
       ``(3) Gasoline gallon equivalent.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `gasoline gallon equivalent' means, with 
     respect to any nonliquid alternative fuel, the amount of such 
     fuel having a Btu content of 124,800 (higher heating value).
       ``(4) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     sale or use for any period after September 30, 2009 
     (September 30, 2014, in the case of any sale or use involving 
     liquefied hydrogen).
       ``(e) Alternative Fuel Mixture Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     alternative fuel mixture credit is the product of 50 cents 
     and the number of gallons of alternative fuel used by the 
     taxpayer in producing any alternative fuel mixture for sale 
     or use in a trade or business of the taxpayer.
       ``(2) Alternative fuel mixture.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `alternative fuel mixture' means a mixture 
     of alternative fuel and taxable fuel (as defined in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 4083(a)(1)) which--
       ``(A) is sold by the taxpayer producing such mixture to any 
     person for use as fuel, or
       ``(B) is used as a fuel by the taxpayer producing such 
     mixture.
       ``(3) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     sale or use for any period after September 30, 2009 
     (September 30, 2014, in the case of any sale or use involving 
     liquefied hydrogen).''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The section heading for section 6426 is amended by 
     striking ``alcohol fuel and biodiesel'' and inserting 
     ``alcohol fuel, biodiesel, and alternative fuel''.
       (B) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 65 is 
     amended by striking ``alcohol fuel and biodiesel'' in the 
     item relating to section 6426 and inserting ``alcohol fuel, 
     biodiesel, and alternative fuel''.
       (C) Section 6427(e) is amended--
       (i) by inserting ``or the alternative fuel mixture credit'' 
     after ``biodiesel mixture credit'' in paragraph (1),
       (ii) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and 
     paragraph (4) as paragraph (5),
       (iii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Alternative fuel.--If any person sells or uses an 
     alternative fuel (as defined in section 6426(d)(2)) for a 
     purpose described in section 6426(d)(1) in such person's 
     trade or business, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) 
     to such person an amount equal to the alternative fuel credit 
     with respect to such fuel.'',
       (iv) by striking ``under paragraph (1) with respect to any 
     mixture'' in paragraph (3) (as redesignated by clause (ii)) 
     and inserting ``under paragraph (1) or (2) with respect to 
     any mixture or alternative fuel'',
       (v) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as so redesignated) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Registration requirement for alternative fuels.--The 
     Secretary shall not make any payment under this subsection to 
     any person with respect to any alternative fuel credit or 
     alternative fuel mixture credit unless the person is 
     registered under section 4101.'',
       (vi) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5)(A) (as 
     redesignated by clause (ii)),
       (vii) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5)(B) 
     (as so redesignated) and inserting a comma,
       (viii) by adding at the end of paragraph (5) (as so 
     redesignated) the following new subparagraphs:

[[Page 18760]]

       ``(C) except as provided in subparagraph (D), any 
     alternative fuel or alternative fuel mixture (as defined in 
     subsection (d)(2) or (e)(3) of section 6426) sold or used 
     after September 30, 2009, and
       ``(D) any alternative fuel or alternative fuel mixture (as 
     so defined) involving liquefied hydrogen sold or used after 
     September 30, 2014.'', and
       (ix) by striking ``or Biodiesel Used to Produce Alcohol 
     Fuel and Biodiesel Mixtures'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``, Biodiesel, or Alternative Fuel''.
       (c) Additional Registration Requirements.--Section 
     4101(a)(1) (relating to registration) is amended by striking 
     ``4041(a)(1)'' and inserting ``4041(a)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any sale or use for any period after September 
     30, 2006.

     PART 2--AQUATIC EXCISE TAXES

     SEC. 1115. ELIMINATION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES TRUST FUND AND 
                   TRANSFORMATION OF SPORT FISH RESTORATION 
                   ACCOUNT.

       (a) Simplification of Funding for Boat Safety Account.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 9503(c) (relating 
     to transfers from Trust Fund for motorboat fuel taxes) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking so much of that paragraph as precedes 
     subparagraph (D),
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively, and
       (C) by inserting before subparagraph (C) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       ``(4) Transfers from the trust fund for motorboat fuel 
     taxes.--
       ``(A) Transfer to land and water conservation fund.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall pay from time to 
     time from the Highway Trust Fund into the land and water 
     conservation fund provided for in title I of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 amounts (as determined by 
     the Secretary) equivalent to the motorboat fuel taxes 
     received on or after October 1, 2005, and before October 1, 
     2011.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--The aggregate amount transferred under 
     this subparagraph during any fiscal year shall not exceed 
     $1,000,000.
       ``(B) Excess funds transferred to sport fish restoration 
     and boating trust fund.--Any amounts in the Highway Trust 
     Fund--
       ``(i) which are attributable to motorboat fuel taxes, and
       ``(ii) which are not transferred from the Highway Trust 
     Fund under subparagraph (A),
     shall be transferred by the Secretary from the Highway Trust 
     Fund into the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust 
     Fund.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (5) of section 9503(c) 
     is amended by striking ``Account in the Aquatic Resources'' 
     in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``and Boating''.
       (b) Merging of Accounts.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 9504 is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is hereby established 
     in the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known 
     as the `Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund'. Such 
     Trust Fund shall consist of such amounts as may be 
     appropriated, credited, or paid to it as provided in this 
     section, section 9503(c)(4), section 9503(c)(5), or section 
     9602(b).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subsection (b) of section 9504, as amended by section 
     1101 of this Act, is amended--
       (i) by striking ``Account'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``and Boating Trust Fund'',
       (ii) by striking ``Account'' both places it appears in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``and Boating Trust 
     Fund'', and
       (iii) by striking ``account'' both places it appears in the 
     headings for paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``trust 
     fund''.
       (B) Subsection (d) of section 9504, as amended by section 
     1101 of this Act, is amended--
       (i) by striking ``Aquatic Resources'' in the heading 
     thereof,
       (ii) by striking ``any Account in the Aquatic Resources'' 
     in paragraph (1) and inserting ``the Sport Fish Restoration 
     and Boating'', and
       (iii) by striking ``any such Account'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``such Trust Fund''.
       (C) Subsection (e) of section 9504 is amended by striking 
     ``Boat Safety Account and Sport Fish Restoration Account'' 
     and inserting ``Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust 
     Fund''.
       (D) Section 9504 is amended by striking ``aquatic 
     resources'' in the heading thereof and inserting ``sport fish 
     restoration and boating''.
       (E) The item relating to section 9504 in the table of 
     sections for subchapter A of chapter 98 is amended by 
     striking ``aquatic resources'' and inserting ``sport fish 
     restoration and boating''.
       (F) Paragraph (2) of section 1511(e) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 551(e)) is amended by striking 
     ``Aquatic Resources Trust Fund of the Highway Trust Fund'' 
     and inserting ``Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust 
     Fund''.
       (c) Phaseout of Boat Safety Account.--Subsection (c) of 
     section 9504 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Expenditures From Boat Safety Account.--Amounts 
     remaining in the Boat Safety Account on October 1, 2005, and 
     amounts thereafter credited to the Account under section 
     9602(b), shall be available, without further appropriation, 
     for making expenditures before October 1, 2010, to carry out 
     the purposes of section 15 of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish 
     Restoration Act (as in effect on the date of the enactment of 
     the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
     Equity Act: A Legacy for Users). For purposes of section 
     9602, the Boat Safety Account shall be treated as a Trust 
     Fund established by this subchapter.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2005.

     SEC. 1116. REPEAL OF HARBOR MAINTENANCE TAX ON EXPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 4462 (relating 
     to definitions and special rules) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Nonapplicability of Tax to Exports.--The tax imposed 
     by section 4461(a) shall not apply to any port use with 
     respect to any commercial cargo to be exported from the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 4461(c)(1) is amended by adding ``or'' at the 
     end of subparagraph (A), by striking subparagraph (B), and by 
     redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
       (2) Section 4461(c)(2) is amended by striking ``imposed--'' 
     and all that follows through ``in any other case,'' and 
     inserting ``imposed''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect before, on, and after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1117. CAP ON EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN FISHING EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 4161(a) (relating 
     to sport fishing equipment) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Imposition of tax.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is hereby imposed on the sale of 
     any article of sport fishing equipment by the manufacturer, 
     producer, or importer a tax equal to 10 percent of the price 
     for which so sold.
       ``(B) Limitation on tax imposed on fishing rods and 
     poles.--The tax imposed by subparagraph (A) on any fishing 
     rod or pole shall not exceed $10.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4161(a)(2) is amended 
     by striking ``paragraph (1)'' both places it appears and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)(A)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, 
     or importer after September 30, 2005.

     PART 3--AERIAL EXCISE TAXES

     SEC. 1121. CLARIFICATION OF EXCISE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR 
                   AGRICULTURAL AERIAL APPLICATORS AND EXEMPTION 
                   FOR FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN FORESTRY 
                   OPERATIONS.

       (a) No Waiver by Farm Owner, Tenant, or Operator 
     Necessary.--Subparagraph (B) of section 6420(c)(4) (relating 
     to certain farming use other than by owner, etc.) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(B) if the person so using the gasoline is an aerial or 
     other applicator of fertilizers or other substances and is 
     the ultimate purchaser of the gasoline, then subparagraph (A) 
     of this paragraph shall not apply and the aerial or other 
     applicator shall be treated as having used such gasoline on a 
     farm for farming purposes.''.
       (b) Exemption Includes Fuel Used Between Airfield and 
     Farm.--Section 6420(c)(4), as amended by subsection (a), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new flush 
     sentence:
     ``In the case of an aerial applicator, gasoline shall be 
     treated as used on a farm for farming purposes if the 
     gasoline is used for the direct flight between the airfield 
     and 1 or more farms.''.
       (c) Exemption From Tax on Air Transportation of Persons for 
     Forestry Purposes Extended to Fixed-Wing Aircraft.--
     Subsection (f) of section 4261 (relating to tax on air 
     transportation of persons) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Exemption for Certain Uses.--No tax shall be imposed 
     under subsection (a) or (b) on air transportation--
       ``(1) by helicopter for the purpose of transporting 
     individuals, equipment, or supplies in the exploration for, 
     or the development or removal of, hard minerals, oil, or gas, 
     or
       ``(2) by helicopter or by fixed-wing aircraft for the 
     purpose of the planting, cultivation, cutting, or 
     transportation of, or caring for, trees (including logging 
     operations),
     but only if the helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft does not 
     take off from, or land at, a facility eligible for assistance 
     under the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, or 
     otherwise use services provided pursuant to section 44509 or 
     44913(b) or subchapter I of chapter 471 of title 49, United 
     States Code, during such use. In the case of helicopter 
     transportation described in paragraph (1), this subsection 
     shall be applied by treating each flight segment as a 
     distinct flight.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fuel use or air transportation after September 
     30, 2005.

     SEC. 1122. MODIFICATION OF RURAL AIRPORT DEFINITION.

       (a) In General.--Section 4261(e)(1)(B) (defining rural 
     airport) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(in the case of any airport described in 
     clause (ii)(III), on flight segments of at least 100 miles)'' 
     after ``by air'' in clause (i), and
       (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I) of 
     clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of subclause 
     (II) of clause (ii) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at 
     the end of clause (ii) the following new subclause:

       ``(III) is not connected by paved roads to another 
     airport.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2005.

[[Page 18761]]



     SEC. 1123. EXEMPTION FROM TAXES ON TRANSPORTATION PROVIDED BY 
                   SEAPLANES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4261 (relating to imposition of 
     tax) is amended by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection 
     (j) and by inserting after subsection (h) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Exemption for Seaplanes.--No tax shall be imposed by 
     this section or section 4271 on any air transportation by a 
     seaplane with respect to any segment consisting of a takeoff 
     from, and a landing on, water, but only if the places at 
     which such takeoff and landing occur have not received and 
     are not receiving financial assistance from the Airport and 
     Airways Trust Fund.''.
       (b) Rate of Fuel Tax for Seaplanes Subject to Exemption.--
     Subsection (b) of section 4083 is amended by striking 
     ``section 4261(h)'' and inserting ``subsection (h) or (i) of 
     section 4261''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to transportation beginning after September 30, 
     2005.

     SEC. 1124. CERTAIN SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS EXEMPT FROM TAXES ON 
                   AIR TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 4281 (relating to small aircraft 
     on nonestablished lines) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``For purposes of this section, an 
     aircraft shall not be considered as operated on an 
     established line at any time during which such aircraft is 
     being operated on a flight the sole purpose of which is 
     sightseeing.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to transportation beginning after 
     September 30, 2005, but shall not apply to any amount paid 
     before such date for such transportation.

     PART 4--TAXES RELATING TO ALCOHOL

     SEC. 1125. REPEAL OF SPECIAL OCCUPATIONAL TAXES ON PRODUCERS 
                   AND MARKETERS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

       (a) Repeal of Occupational Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--The following provisions of part II of 
     subchapter A of chapter 51 (relating to occupational taxes) 
     are hereby repealed:
       (A) Subpart A (relating to proprietors of distilled spirits 
     plants, bonded wine cellars, etc.).
       (B) Subpart B (relating to brewer).
       (C) Subpart D (relating to wholesale dealers) (other than 
     sections 5114 and 5116).
       (D) Subpart E (relating to retail dealers) (other than 
     section 5124).
       (E) Subpart G (relating to general provisions) (other than 
     sections 5142, 5143, 5145, and 5146).
       (2) Nonbeverage domestic drawback.--Section 5131 is amended 
     by striking ``, on payment of a special tax per annum,''.
       (3) Industrial use of distilled spirits.--Section 5276 is 
     hereby repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1)(A) The heading for part II of subchapter A of chapter 
     51 and the table of subparts for such part are amended to 
     read as follows:

                  ``PART II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

``Subpart A. Manufacturers of stills.
``Subpart B. Nonbeverage domestic drawback claimants.
``Subpart C. Recordkeeping by dealers.
``Subpart D. Other provisions.''.

       (B) The table of parts for such subchapter A is amended by 
     striking the item relating to part II and inserting the 
     following new item:

``Part II. Miscellaneous provisions.''.

       (2) Subpart C of part II of such subchapter (relating to 
     manufacturers of stills) is redesignated as subpart A.
       (3)(A) Subpart F of such part II (relating to nonbeverage 
     domestic drawback claimants) is redesignated as subpart B and 
     sections 5131 through 5134 are redesignated as sections 5111 
     through 5114, respectively.
       (B) The table of sections for such subpart B, as so 
     redesignated, is amended--
       (i) by redesignating the items relating to sections 5131 
     through 5134 as relating to sections 5111 through 5114, 
     respectively, and
       (ii) by striking ``and rate of tax'' in the item relating 
     to section 5111, as so redesignated.
       (C) Section 5111, as redesignated by subparagraph (A), is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``AND RATE OF TAX'' in the section heading,
       (ii) by striking the subsection heading for subsection (a), 
     and
       (iii) by striking subsection (b).
       (4) Part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 is amended by 
     adding after subpart B, as redesignated by paragraph (3), the 
     following new subpart:
         ``Subpart C--Recordkeeping and Registration by Dealers

``Sec. 5121. Recordkeeping by wholesale dealers.
``Sec. 5122. Recordkeeping by retail dealers.
``Sec. 5123. Preservation and inspection of records, and entry of 
              premises for inspection.
``Sec. 5124. Registration by dealers.''.

       (5)(A) Section 5114 (relating to records) is moved to 
     subpart C of such part II and inserted after the table of 
     sections for such subpart.
       (B) Section 5114 is amended--
       (i) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following new heading:

     ``SEC. 5432. RECORDKEEPING BY WHOLESALE DEALERS.''

     , and
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and 
     by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Wholesale Dealers.--For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) Wholesale dealer in liquors.--The term `wholesale 
     dealer in liquors' means any dealer (other than a wholesale 
     dealer in beer) who sells, or offers for sale, distilled 
     spirits, wines, or beer, to another dealer.
       ``(2) Wholesale dealer in beer.--The term `wholesale dealer 
     in beer' means any dealer who sells, or offers for sale, 
     beer, but not distilled spirits or wines, to another dealer.
       ``(3) Dealer.--The term `dealer' means any person who 
     sells, or offers for sale, any distilled spirits, wines, or 
     beer.
       ``(4) Presumption in case of sale of 20 wine gallons or 
     more.--The sale, or offer for sale, of distilled spirits, 
     wines, or beer, in quantities of 20 wine gallons or more to 
     the same person at the same time, shall be presumptive 
     evidence that the person making such sale, or offer for sale, 
     is engaged in or carrying on the business of a wholesale 
     dealer in liquors or a wholesale dealer in beer, as the case 
     may be. Such presumption may be overcome by evidence 
     satisfactorily showing that such sale, or offer for sale, was 
     made to a person other than a dealer.''.
       (C) Paragraph (3) of section 5121(d), as so redesignated, 
     is amended by striking ``section 5146'' and inserting 
     ``section 5123''.
       (6)(A) Section 5124 (relating to records) is moved to 
     subpart C of part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 and 
     inserted after section 5121.
       (B) Section 5124 is amended--
       (i) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following new heading:

     ``SEC. 5122. RECORDKEEPING BY RETAIL DEALERS.'',

       (ii) by striking ``section 5146'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting ``section 5123'', and
       (iii) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and 
     inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Retail Dealers.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Retail dealer in liquors.--The term `retail dealer in 
     liquors' means any dealer (other than a retail dealer in beer 
     or a limited retail dealer) who sells, or offers for sale, 
     distilled spirits, wines, or beer, to any person other than a 
     dealer.
       ``(2) Retail dealer in beer.--The term `retail dealer in 
     beer' means any dealer (other than a limited retail dealer) 
     who sells, or offers for sale, beer, but not distilled 
     spirits or wines, to any person other than a dealer.
       ``(3) Limited retail dealer.--The term `limited retail 
     dealer' means any fraternal, civic, church, labor, 
     charitable, benevolent, or ex-servicemen's organization 
     making sales of distilled spirits, wine or beer on the 
     occasion of any kind of entertainment, dance, picnic, bazaar, 
     or festival held by it, or any person making sales of 
     distilled spirits, wine or beer to the members, guests, or 
     patrons of bona fide fairs, reunions, picnics, carnivals, or 
     other similar outings, if such organization or person is not 
     otherwise engaged in business as a dealer.
       ``(4) Dealer.--The term `dealer' has the meaning given such 
     term by section 5121(c)(3).''.
       (7) Section 5146 is moved to subpart C of part II of 
     subchapter A of chapter 51, inserted after section 5122, and 
     redesignated as section 5123.
       (8) Subpart C of part II of subchapter A of chapter 51, as 
     amended by paragraph (7), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 5124. REGISTRATION BY DEALERS.

       ``Every dealer who is subject to the recordkeeping 
     requirements under section 5121 or 5122 shall register with 
     the Secretary such dealer's name or style, place of 
     residence, trade or business, and the place where such trade 
     or business is to be carried on. In the case of a firm or 
     company, the names of the several persons constituting the 
     same, and the places of residence, shall be so registered.''.
       (9) Section 7012 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4) 
     and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively, and by 
     inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) For provisions relating to registration by dealers in 
     distilled spirits, wines, and beer, see section 5124.''.
       (10) Part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 is amended by 
     inserting after subpart C the following new subpart:
                     ``Subpart D--Other Provisions

``Sec. 5131. Packaging distilled spirits for industrial uses.
``Sec. 5132. Prohibited purchases by dealers.''.

       (11) Section 5116 is moved to subpart D of part II of 
     subchapter A of chapter 51, inserted after the table of 
     sections, redesignated as section 5131, and amended by 
     inserting ``(as defined in section 5121(c))'' after 
     ``dealer'' in subsection (a).
       (12) Subpart D of part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 5132. PROHIBITED PURCHASES BY DEALERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, it shall be unlawful for a 
     dealer to purchase distilled spirits for resale from any 
     person other than a wholesale dealer in liquors who is 
     required to keep the records prescribed by section 5121.
       ``(b) Limited Retail Dealers.--A limited retail dealer may 
     lawfully purchase distilled spirits for resale from a retail 
     dealer in liquors.
       ``(c) Penalty and Forfeiture.--

``For penalty and forfeiture provisions applicable to violations of 
              subsection (a), see sections 5687 and 7302.''.


[[Page 18762]]


       (13) Subsection (b) of section 5002 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 5112(a)'' and inserting ``section 
     5121(c)(3)'',
       (B) by striking ``section 5112'' and inserting ``section 
     5121(c)'', and
       (C) by striking ``section 5122'' and inserting ``section 
     5122(c)''.
       (14) Subparagraph (A) of section 5010(c)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``section 5134'' and inserting ``section 5114''.
       (15) Subsection (d) of section 5052 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Brewer.--For purposes of this chapter, the term 
     `brewer' means any person who brews beer or produces beer for 
     sale. Such term shall not include any person who produces 
     only beer exempt from tax under section 5053(e).''.
       (16) The text of section 5182 is amended to read as 
     follows:

``For provisions requiring recordkeeping by wholesale liquor dealers, 
              see section 5112, and by retail liquor dealers, see 
              section 5122.''.

       (17) Subsection (b) of section 5402 is amended by striking 
     ``section 5092'' and inserting ``section 5052(d)''.
       (18) Section 5671 is amended by striking ``or 5091''.
       (19)(A) Part V of subchapter J of chapter 51 is hereby 
     repealed.
       (B) The table of parts for such subchapter J is amended by 
     striking the item relating to part V.
       (20)(A) Sections 5142, 5143, and 5145 are moved to 
     subchapter D of chapter 52, inserted after section 5731, 
     redesignated as sections 5732, 5733, and 5734, respectively, 
     and amended by striking ``this part'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``this subchapter''.
       (B) Section 5732, as redesignated by subparagraph (A), is 
     amended by striking ``(except the tax imposed by section 
     5131)'' each place it appears.
       (C) Paragraph (2) of section 5733(c), as redesignated by 
     subparagraph (A), is amended by striking ``liquors'' both 
     places it appears and inserting ``tobacco products and 
     cigarette papers and tubes''.
       (D) The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 52 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 5732. Payment of tax.
``Sec. 5733. Provisions relating to liability for occupational taxes.
``Sec. 5734. Application of State laws.''.

       (E) Section 5731 is amended by striking subsection (c) and 
     by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
       (21) Subsection (c) of section 6071 is amended by striking 
     ``section 5142'' and inserting ``section 5732''.
       (22) Paragraph (1) of section 7652(g) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``subpart F'' and inserting ``subpart B'', 
     and
       (B) by striking ``section 5131(a)'' and inserting ``section 
     5111''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on July 1, 2008, but shall not apply to 
     taxes imposed for periods before such date.

     SEC. 1126. INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR DISTILLED SPIRITS 
                   WHOLESALERS AND FOR DISTILLED SPIRITS IN 
                   CONTROL STATE BAILMENT WAREHOUSES FOR COSTS OF 
                   CARRYING FEDERAL EXCISE TAXES ON BOTTLED 
                   DISTILLED SPIRITS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part I of subchapter A of 
     chapter 51 (relating to gallonage and occupational taxes) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 5011. INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR AVERAGE COST OF CARRYING 
                   EXCISE TAX.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 38, the amount 
     of the distilled spirits credit for any taxable year is the 
     amount equal to the product of--
       ``(1) in the case of--
       ``(A) any eligible wholesaler, the number of cases of 
     bottled distilled spirits--
       ``(i) which were bottled in the United States, and
       ``(ii) which are purchased by such wholesaler during the 
     taxable year directly from the bottler of such spirits, or
       ``(B) any person which is subject to section 5005 and which 
     is not an eligible wholesaler, the number of cases of bottled 
     distilled spirits which are stored in a warehouse operated 
     by, or on behalf of, a State or political subdivision 
     thereof, or an agency of either, on which title has not 
     passed on an unconditional sale basis, and
       ``(2) the average tax-financing cost per case for the most 
     recent calendar year ending before the beginning of such 
     taxable year.
       ``(b) Eligible Wholesaler.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `eligible wholesaler' means any person which holds a 
     permit under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act as a 
     wholesaler of distilled spirits which is not a State or 
     political subdivision thereof, or an agency of either.
       ``(c) Average Tax-Financing Cost.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     average tax-financing cost per case for any calendar year is 
     the amount of interest which would accrue at the deemed 
     financing rate during a 60-day period on an amount equal to 
     the deemed Federal excise tax per case.
       ``(2) Deemed financing rate.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the deemed financing rate for any calendar year is the 
     average of the corporate overpayment rates under paragraph 
     (1) of section 6621(a) (determined without regard to the last 
     sentence of such paragraph) for calendar quarters of such 
     year.
       ``(3) Deemed federal excise tax per case.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the deemed Federal excise tax per case is 
     $25.68.
       ``(d) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Case.--The term `case' means 12 80-proof 750-
     milliliter bottles.
       ``(2) Number of cases in lot.--The number of cases in any 
     lot of distilled spirits shall be determined by dividing the 
     number of liters in such lot by 9.''.
       (b) Credit Treated as Part of General Business Credit.--
     Section 38(b) (relating to current year business credit) is 
     amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (18), by 
     striking the period at the end of paragraph (19), and 
     inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(20) the distilled spirits credit determined under 
     section 5011(a).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart A of part I of subchapter A of chapter 51 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 5011. Income tax credit for average cost of carrying excise 
              tax.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after September 30, 
     2005.

     SEC. 1127. QUARTERLY EXCISE TAX FILING FOR SMALL ALCOHOL 
                   EXCISE TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 5061 (relating 
     to time for collecting tax on distilled spirits, wines, and 
     beer) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as 
     paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively, and by inserting after 
     paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Taxpayers liable for taxes of not more than 
     $50,000.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxpayer who 
     reasonably expects to be liable for not more than $50,000 in 
     taxes imposed with respect to distilled spirits, wines, and 
     beer under subparts A, C, and D and section 7652 for the 
     calendar year and who was liable for not more than $50,000 in 
     such taxes in the preceding calendar year, the last day for 
     the payment of tax on withdrawals, removals, and entries (and 
     articles brought into the United States from Puerto Rico) 
     under bond for deferred payment shall be the 14th day after 
     the last day of the calendar quarter during which the action 
     giving rise to the imposition of such tax occurs.
       ``(B) No application after limit exceeded.--Subparagraph 
     (A) shall not apply to any taxpayer for any portion of the 
     calendar year following the first date on which the aggregate 
     amount of tax due under subparts A, C, and D and section 7652 
     from such taxpayer during such calendar year exceeds $50,000, 
     and any tax under such subparts which has not been paid on 
     such date shall be due on the 14th day after the last day of 
     the semimonthly period in which such date occurs.
       ``(C) Calendar quarter.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `calendar quarter' means the three-month period 
     ending on March 31, June 30, September 30, or December 31.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5061(d)(6), as 
     redesignated by subsection (a), is amended by striking 
     ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph (5)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to quarterly periods beginning on 
     and after January 1, 2006.
                       PART 5--SPORT EXCISE TAXES

     SEC. 1131. CUSTOM GUNSMITHS.

       (a) Small Manufacturers Exempt From Firearms Excise Tax.--
     Section 4182 (relating to exemptions) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by 
     inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Small Manufacturers, Etc.--
       ``(1) In general.--The tax imposed by section 4181 shall 
     not apply to any pistol, revolver, or firearm described in 
     such section if manufactured, produced, or imported by a 
     person who manufactures, produces, and imports less than an 
     aggregate of 50 of such articles during the calendar year.
       ``(2) Controlled groups.--All persons treated as a single 
     employer for purposes of subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 
     shall be treated as one person for purposes of paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or 
     importer after September 30, 2005.
       (2) No inference.--Nothing in the amendments made by this 
     section shall be construed to create any inference with 
     respect to the proper tax treatment of any sales before the 
     effective date of such amendments.
                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 1141. MOTOR FUEL TAX ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a Motor Fuel Tax 
     Enforcement Advisory Commission (in this section referred to 
     as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Function.--The Commission shall--
       (1) review motor fuel revenue collections, historical and 
     current;
       (2) review the progress of investigations with respect to 
     motor fuel taxes;
       (3) develop and review legislative proposals with respect 
     to motor fuel taxes;
       (4) monitor the progress of administrative regulation 
     projects relating to motor fuel taxes;
       (5) review the results of Federal and State agency 
     cooperative efforts regarding motor fuel taxes;

[[Page 18763]]

       (6) review the results of Federal interagency cooperative 
     efforts regarding motor fuel taxes; and
       (7) evaluate and make recommendations to the President and 
     Congress regarding--
       (A) the effectiveness of existing Federal enforcement 
     programs regarding motor fuel taxes,
       (B) enforcement personnel allocation, and
       (C) proposals for regulatory projects, legislation, and 
     funding.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of the 
     following representatives appointed by the Chairmen and the 
     Ranking Members of the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives:
       (A) At least 1 representative from each of the following 
     Federal entities: the Department of Homeland Security, the 
     Department of Transportation--Office of Inspector General, 
     the Federal Highway Administration, the Department of 
     Defense, and the Department of Justice.
       (B) At least 1 representative from the Federation of State 
     Tax Administrators.
       (C) At least 1 representative from any State department of 
     transportation.
       (D) 2 representatives from the highway construction 
     industry.
       (E) 6 representatives from industries relating to fuel 
     distribution -- refiners (2 representatives), distributors (1 
     representative), pipelines (1 representative), and terminal 
     operators (2 representatives).
       (F) 1 representative from the retail fuel industry.
       (G) 2 representatives from the staff of the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate and 2 representatives from the staff of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Terms.--Members shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (3) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (4) Travel expenses.--Members shall serve without pay but 
     shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (5) Chairman.--The Chairman of the Commission shall be 
     elected by the members.
       (d) Funding.--Such sums as are necessary shall be available 
     from the Highway Trust fund for the expenses of the 
     Commission.
       (e) Consultation.--Upon request of the Commission, 
     representatives of the Department of the Treasury and the 
     Internal Revenue Service shall be available for consultation 
     to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under 
     this section.
       (f) Obtaining Data.--The Commission may secure directly 
     from any department or agency of the United States, 
     information (other than information required by any law to be 
     kept confidential by such department or agency) necessary for 
     the Commission to carry out its duties under this section. 
     Upon request of the Commission, the head of that department 
     or agency shall furnish such nonconfidential information to 
     the Commission. The Commission shall also gather evidence 
     through such means as it may deem appropriate, including 
     through holding hearings and soliciting comments by means of 
     Federal Register notices.
       (g) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate as of the 
     close of September 30, 2009.

     SEC. 1142. NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 
                   FINANCING COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a National Surface 
     Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Commission''). The Commission 
     shall hold its first meeting within 90 days of the 
     appointment of the eighth individual to be named to the 
     Commission.
       (b) Function.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall, with respect to the 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     ending before 2016--
       (A) make a thorough investigation and study of revenues 
     flowing into the Highway Trust Fund under current law, 
     including the individual components of the overall flow of 
     such revenues;
       (B) consider whether the amount of such revenues is likely 
     to increase, decline, or remain unchanged, absent changes in 
     the law, particularly by taking into account the impact of 
     possible changes in public vehicular choice, fuel use, or 
     travel alternatives that could be expected to reduce or 
     increase revenues into the Highway Trust Fund;
       (C) consider alternative approaches to generating revenues 
     for the Highway Trust Fund, and the level of revenues that 
     such alternatives would yield;
       (D) consider highway and transit needs and whether 
     additional revenues into the Highway Trust Fund, or other 
     Federal revenues dedicated to highway and transit 
     infrastructure, would be required in order to meet such 
     needs;
       (E) consider a program that would exempt all or a portion 
     of gasoline or other motor fuels used in a State from the 
     Federal excise tax on such gasoline or other motor fuels if 
     such State elects not to receive all or a portion of Federal 
     transportation funding, including--
       (i) whether such State should be required to increase State 
     gasoline or other motor fuels taxes by the amount of the 
     decrease in the Federal excise tax on such gasoline or other 
     motor fuels;
       (ii) whether any Federal transportation funding should not 
     be reduced or eliminated for States participating in such 
     program; and
       (iii) whether there are any compliance problems related to 
     enforcement of Federal transportation-related excise taxes 
     under such program; and
       (F) study such other matters closely related to the 
     subjects described in the preceding subparagraphs as it may 
     deem appropriate.
       (2) Preparation of report.--Based on such investigation and 
     study, the Commission shall develop a final report, with 
     recommendations and the bases for those recommendations, 
     indicating policies that should be adopted, or not adopted, 
     to achieve various levels of annual revenue for the Highway 
     Trust Fund and to enable the Highway Trust Fund to receive 
     revenues sufficient to meet highway and transit needs. Such 
     recommendations shall address, among other matters as the 
     Commission may deem appropriate--
       (A) what levels of revenue are required by the Federal 
     Highway Trust Fund in order for it to meet needs to maintain 
     and improve the condition and performance of the Nation's 
     highway and transit systems;
       (B) what levels of revenue are required by the Federal 
     Highway Trust Fund in order to ensure that Federal levels of 
     investment in highways and transit do not decline in real 
     terms; and
       (C) the extent, if any, to which the Highway Trust Fund 
     should be augmented by other mechanisms or funds as a Federal 
     means of financing highway and transit infrastructure 
     investments.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, appointed as follows:
       (A) 7 members appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (B) 2 members appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.
       (C) 2 members appointed by the Ranking Minority Member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (D) 2 members appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate.
       (E) 2 members appointed by the Ranking Minority Member of 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
       (2) Qualifications.--Members appointed pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be appointed from among individuals 
     knowledgeable in the fields of public transportation finance 
     or highway and transit programs, policy, and needs, and may 
     include representatives of interested parties, such as State 
     and local governments or other public transportation 
     authorities or agencies, representatives of the 
     transportation construction industry (including suppliers of 
     technology, machinery, and materials), transportation labor 
     (including construction and providers), transportation 
     providers, the financial community, and users of highway and 
     transit systems.
       (3) Terms.--Members shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (4) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (5) Travel expenses.--Members shall serve without pay but 
     shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (6) Chairman.--The Chairman of the Commission shall be 
     elected by the members.
       (d) Staff.--The Commission may appoint and fix the pay of 
     such personnel as it considers appropriate.
       (e) Funding.--Funding for the Commission shall be provided 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury and by the Secretary of 
     Transportation, out of funds available to those agencies for 
     administrative and policy functions.
       (f) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of the 
     Commission, the head of any department or agency of the 
     United States may detail any of the personnel of that 
     department or agency to the Commission to assist in carrying 
     out its duties under this section.
       (g) Obtaining Data.--The Commission may secure directly 
     from any department or agency of the United States, 
     information (other than information required by any law to be 
     kept confidential by such department or agency) necessary for 
     the Commission to carry out its duties under this section. 
     Upon request of the Commission, the head of that department 
     or agency shall furnish such nonconfidential information to 
     the Commission. The Commission shall also gather evidence 
     through such means as it may deem appropriate, including 
     through holding hearings and soliciting comments by means of 
     Federal Register notices.
       (h) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of its 
     first meeting, the Commission shall transmit its final 
     report, including recommendations, to the Secretary of 
     Transportation, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs of the Senate.
       (i) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the 
     180th day following the date of transmittal of the report 
     under subsection (h). All records and papers of the 
     Commission shall thereupon be delivered to the Administrator 
     of General Services for deposit in the National Archives.

[[Page 18764]]



     SEC. 1143. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF HIGHWAY PROJECTS AND RAIL-
                   TRUCK TRANSFER FACILITIES.

       (a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 142 (relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (13), by striking the 
     period at the end of paragraph (14) and inserting ``, or'', 
     and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(15) qualified highway or surface freight transfer 
     facilities.''.
       (b) Qualified Highway or Surface Freight Transfer 
     Facilities.--Section 142 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(m) Qualified Highway or Surface Freight Transfer 
     Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(15), the 
     term `qualified highway or surface freight transfer 
     facilities' means--
       ``(A) any surface transportation project which receives 
     Federal assistance under title 23, United States Code (as in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection),
       ``(B) any project for an international bridge or tunnel for 
     which an international entity authorized under Federal or 
     State law is responsible and which receives Federal 
     assistance under title 23, United States Code (as so in 
     effect), or
       ``(C) any facility for the transfer of freight from truck 
     to rail or rail to truck (including any temporary storage 
     facilities directly related to such transfers) which receives 
     Federal assistance under either title 23 or title 49, United 
     States Code (as so in effect).
       ``(2) National limitation on amount of tax-exempt financing 
     for facilities.--
       ``(A) National limitation.--The aggregate amount allocated 
     by the Secretary of Transportation under subparagraph (C) 
     shall not exceed $15,000,000,000.
       ``(B) Enforcement of national limitation.--An issue shall 
     not be treated as an issue described in subsection (a)(15) if 
     the aggregate face amount of bonds issued pursuant to such 
     issue for any qualified highway or surface freight transfer 
     facility (when added to the aggregate face amount of bonds 
     previously so issued for such facility) exceeds the amount 
     allocated to such facility under subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) Allocation by secretary of transportation.--The 
     Secretary of Transportation shall allocate the amount 
     described in subparagraph (A) among qualified highway or 
     surface freight transfer facilities in such manner as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(3) Expenditure of proceeds.--An issue shall not be 
     treated as an issue described in subsection (a)(15) unless at 
     least 95 percent of the net proceeds of the issue is expended 
     for qualified highway or surface freight transfer facilities 
     within the 5-year period beginning on the date of issuance. 
     If at least 95 percent of such net proceeds is not expended 
     within such 5-year period, an issue shall be treated as 
     continuing to meet the requirements of this paragraph if the 
     issuer uses all unspent proceeds of the issue to redeem bonds 
     of the issue within 90 days after the end of such 5-year 
     period. The Secretary, at the request of the issuer, may 
     extend such 5-year period if the issuer establishes that any 
     failure to meet such period is due to circumstances beyond 
     the control of the issuer.
       ``(4) Exception for current refunding bonds.--Paragraph (2) 
     shall not apply to any bond (or series of bonds) issued to 
     refund a bond issued under subsection (a)(15) if--
       ``(A) the average maturity date of the issue of which the 
     refunding bond is a part is not later than the average 
     maturity date of the bonds to be refunded by such issue,
       ``(B) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the 
     outstanding amount of the refunded bond, and
       ``(C) the refunded bond is redeemed not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the issuance of the refunding bond.
     For purposes of subparagraph (A), average maturity shall be 
     determined in accordance with section 147(b)(2)(A).''.
       (c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph 
     (3) of section 146(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to exception for certain bonds) is amended by 
     striking ``or (14)'' and all that follows through the end of 
     the paragraph and inserting ``(14), or (15) of section 
     142(a), and''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 1144. TREASURY STUDY OF HIGHWAY FUELS USED BY TRUCKS FOR 
                   NON-TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a 
     study regarding the use of highway motor fuel by trucks that 
     is not used for the propulsion of the vehicle. As part of 
     such study--
       (1) in the case of vehicles carrying equipment that is 
     unrelated to the transportation function of the vehicle--
       (A) the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Transportation, and with public notice and 
     comment, shall determine the average annual amount of tax-
     paid fuel consumed per vehicle, by type of vehicle, used by 
     the propulsion engine to provide the power to operate the 
     equipment attached to the highway vehicle, and
       (B) the Secretary of the Treasury shall review the 
     technical and administrative feasibility of exempting such 
     nonpropulsive use of highway fuels from the highway motor 
     fuels excise taxes, and, if such exemptions are technically 
     and administratively feasible, shall propose options for 
     implementing such exemptions for--
       (i) mobile machinery (as defined in section 4053(8) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) whose nonpropulsive fuel use 
     exceeds 50 percent, and
       (ii) any highway vehicle which consumes fuel for both 
     transportation- and non-transportation-related equipment, 
     using a single motor,
       (2) in the case where non-transportation equipment is run 
     by a separate motor--
       (A) the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine the 
     annual average amount of fuel exempted from tax in the use of 
     such equipment by equipment type, and
       (B) the Secretary of the Treasury shall review issues of 
     administration and compliance related to the present-law 
     exemption provided for such fuel use, and
       (3) the Secretary of the Treasury shall--
       (A) estimate the amount of taxable fuel consumed by trucks 
     and the emissions of various pollutants due to the long-term 
     idling of diesel engines, and
       (B) determine the cost of reducing such long-term idling 
     through the use of plug-ins at truck stops, auxiliary power 
     units, or other technologies.
       (b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2007, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall report the findings of the study 
     required under subsection (a) to the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives.

     SEC. 1145. DIESEL FUEL TAX EVASION REPORT.

        Not later than 360 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue shall 
     report to the Committees on Finance and Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate and the Committees on Ways and 
     Means and Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives on--
       (1) the availability of new technologies, including 
     forensic or chemical molecular markers, that can be employed 
     to enhance collections of the excise tax on diesel fuel and 
     the plans of the Internal Revenue Service to employ such 
     technologies,
       (2) the design of a test to place forensic or chemical 
     molecular markers in any excluded liquid (as defined in 
     section 48.4081-1(b) of title 26, Code of Federal 
     Regulations),
       (3) the design of a test, in consultation with the 
     Department of Defense, to place forensic or chemical 
     molecular markers in all nonstrategic bulk fuel deliveries of 
     diesel fuel to the military, and
       (4) the design of a test to place forensic or chemical 
     molecular markers in all diesel fuel bound for export 
     utilizing the Gulf of Mexico.

     SEC. 1146. TAX TREATMENT OF STATE OWNERSHIP OF RAILROAD REAL 
                   ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST.

       (a) In General.--If a State owns all of the outstanding 
     stock of a corporation--
       (1) which is a real estate investment trust on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act,
       (2) which is a non-operating class III railroad, and
       (3) substantially all of the activities of which consist of 
     the ownership, leasing, and operation by such corporation of 
     facilities, equipment, and other property used by the 
     corporation or other persons for railroad transportation and 
     for economic development purposes for the benefit of the 
     State and its citizens, then, to the extent such activities 
     are of a type which are an essential governmental function 
     within the meaning of section 115 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, income derived from such activities by the 
     corporation shall be treated as accruing to the State for 
     purposes of section 115 of such Code.
       (b) Gain or Loss not Recognized on Conversion.--
     Notwithstanding section 337(d) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986--
       (1) no gain or loss shall be recognized under section 336 
     or 337 of such Code, and
       (2) no change in basis of the property of such corporation 
     shall occur, because of any change of status of a corporation 
     to a tax-exempt entity by reason of the application of 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Tax-Exempt Financing.--
       (1) In general.--Any obligation issued by a corporation 
     described in subsection (a) at least 95 percent of the net 
     proceeds (as defined in section 150(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986) of which are to be used to provide for 
     the acquisition, construction, or improvement of railroad 
     transportation infrastructure (including railroad terminal 
     facilities)--
       (A) shall be treated as a State or local bond (within the 
     meaning of section 103(c) of such Code), and
       (B) shall not be treated as a private activity bond (within 
     the meaning of section 103(b)(1) of such Code) solely by 
     reason of the ownership or use of such railroad 
     transportation infrastructure by the corporation.
       (2) No inference.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), 
     nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect the 
     treatment of the private use of proceeds or property financed 
     with obligations issued by the corporation for purposes of 
     section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and part IV 
     of subchapter B of such Code.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Real estate investment trust.--The term ``real estate 
     investment trust'' has the meaning given such term by section 
     856(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) Non-operating class iii railroad.--The term ``non-
     operating class III railroad'' has the meaning given such 
     term by part A of subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code 
     (49 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.), and the regulations thereunder.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' includes--

[[Page 18765]]

       (A) the District of Columbia and any possession of the 
     United States, and
       (B) any authority, agency, or public corporation of a 
     State.
       (e) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this 
     section shall apply on and after the date on which a State 
     becomes the owner of all of the outstanding stock of a 
     corporation described in subsection (a) through action of 
     such corporation's board of directors.
       (2) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any State 
     which--
       (A) becomes the owner of all of the voting stock of a 
     corporation described in subsection (a) after December 31, 
     2003, or
       (B) becomes the owner of all of the outstanding stock of a 
     corporation described in subsection (a) after December 31, 
     2006.

     SEC. 1147. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS TO THE LEAKING UNDERGROUND 
                   STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 9508 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Limitation on Transfers to Leaking Underground 
     Storage Tank Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     amount may be appropriated to the Leaking Underground Storage 
     Tank Trust Fund on and after the date of any expenditure from 
     the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund which is not 
     permitted by this section. The determination of whether an 
     expenditure is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
       ``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or 
     referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
       ``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently 
     enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive 
     the application of this paragraph.
       ``(2) Exception for prior obligations.--Paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to any expenditure to liquidate any contract 
     entered into (or for any amount otherwise obligated) before 
     October 1, 2011, in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
           Subtitle D--Highway-Related Technical Corrections

     SEC. 1151. HIGHWAY-RELATED TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Amendments Related to Section 301 of the American Jobs 
     Creation Act of 2004.--Section 6427 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (f), and
       (2) by striking subsection (o) and redesignating subsection 
     (p) as subsection (o).
       (b) Amendments Related to Section 853 of the American Jobs 
     Creation Act of 2004.--
       (1) Subparagraph (C) of section 4081(a)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``for use in commercial aviation'' and inserting 
     ``for use in commercial aviation by a person registered for 
     such use under section 4101''.
       (2) So much of paragraph (2) of section 4081(d) as precedes 
     subparagraph (A) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Aviation fuels.--The rates of tax specified in 
     clauses (ii) and (iv) of subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be 4.3 
     cents per gallon--''.
       (3) Section 6421(f)(2) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``noncommercial aviation (as defined in 
     section 4041(c)(2))'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``aviation which is not commercial aviation (as defined in 
     section 4083(b))'', and
       (B) by striking ``aviation which is not noncommercial 
     aviation'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``commercial 
     aviation''.
       (c) Amendment Related to Section 9005 of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century.--The last sentence of 
     paragraph (2) of section 9504(b) is amended by striking 
     ``subparagraph (B)'', and inserting ``subparagraph (C)''.
       (d) Amendment Related to Section 1306 of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005.--
       (1) Subsection (b) of section 1306 of the Energy Tax 
     Incentives Act of 2005 is amended by striking 
     ``Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' and 
     inserting ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
     Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users''.
       (2) If the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is enacted before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, for purposes of executing 
     any amendments made by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to 
     section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the 
     amendments made by section 1126(b) of this Act shall be 
     treated as having been executed before such amendments made 
     by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
       (e) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 9504(b)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``the Act entitled `An Act to provide that the 
     United States shall aid the States in fish restoration and 
     management projects, and for other purposes', approved August 
     9, 1950'' and inserting ``the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish 
     Restoration Act''.
       (2) Sections 6426(d)(2)(F) and 4041(a)(2)(B)(ii) are both 
     amended by striking ``section 29(c)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``section 45K(c)(3)''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) American jobs creation act of 2004.--The amendments 
     made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect as if 
     included in the provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act 
     of 2004 to which they relate.
       (2) Transportation equity act for the 21st century.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (c) shall take effect as if 
     included in the provision of the Transportation Equity Act 
     for the 21st Century to which it relates.
       (3) Energy policy act of 2005.--The amendments made by 
     subsections (d)(1) and (e)(2) shall take effect as if 
     included in the provision of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 
     2005 to which they relate.
                   Subtitle E--Preventing Fuel Fraud

     SEC. 1161. TREATMENT OF KEROSENE FOR USE IN AVIATION.

       (a) All Kerosene Taxed at Highest Rate.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4081(a)(2)(A) (relating to rates 
     of tax) is amended by adding ``and'' at the end of clause 
     (ii), by striking ``, and'' at the end of clause (iii) and 
     inserting a period, and by striking clause (iv).
       (2) Exception for use in aviation.--Subparagraph (C) of 
     section 4081(a)(2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) Taxes imposed on fuel used in aviation.--In the case 
     of kerosene which is removed from any refinery or terminal 
     directly into the fuel tank of an aircraft for use in 
     aviation, the rate of tax under subparagraph (A)(iii) shall 
     be--
       ``(i) in the case of use for commercial aviation by a 
     person registered for such use under section 4101, 4.3 cents 
     per gallon, and
       ``(ii) in the case of use for aviation not described in 
     clause (i), 21.8 cents per gallon.''.
       (3) Applicable rate in case of certain refueler trucks, 
     tankers, and tank wagons.--Section 4081(a)(3) (relating to 
     certain refueler trucks, tankers, and tank wagons treated as 
     terminals) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``a secured area of'' in subparagraph 
     (A)(i), and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Applicable rate.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(C), 
     in the case of any kerosene treated as removed from a 
     terminal by reason of this paragraph--
       ``(i) the rate of tax specified in paragraph (2)(C)(i) in 
     the case of use described in such paragraph shall apply if 
     such terminal is located within a secured area of an airport, 
     and
       ``(ii) the rate of tax specified in paragraph (2)(C)(ii) 
     shall apply in all other cases.''.
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Sections 4081(a)(3)(A) and 4082(b) are amended by 
     striking ``aviation-grade'' each place it appears.
       (B) Section 4081(a)(4) is amended by striking ``paragraph 
     (2)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)(C)(i)''.
       (C) The heading for paragraph (4) of section 4081(a) is 
     amended by striking ``aviation-grade''.
       (D) Section 4081(d)(2) is amended by striking so much as 
     precedes subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Aviation fuels.--The rates of tax specified in 
     subsections (a)(2)(A)(ii) and (a)(2)(C)(ii) shall be 4.3 
     cents per gallon--''.
       (E) Subsection (e) of section 4082 is amended--
       (i) by striking ``aviation-grade'',
       (ii) by striking ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv)'' and 
     inserting ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iii)'',
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``For purposes of this subsection, any removal described in 
     section 4081(a)(3)(A) shall be treated as a removal from a 
     terminal but only if such terminal is located within a secure 
     area of an airport.'', and
       (iv) by striking ``Aviation-grade Kerosene'' in the heading 
     thereof and inserting ``Kerosene Removed Into an Aircraft''.
       (b) Reduced Rate for Use of Certain Liquids in Aviation.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 4041 (relating 
     to imposition of tax) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene'' in paragraph 
     (1) and inserting ``any liquid for use as a fuel other than 
     aviation gasoline'',
       (B) by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene'' in paragraph 
     (2) and inserting ``liquid for use as a fuel other than 
     aviation gasoline'',
       (C) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Rate of tax.--The rate of tax imposed by this 
     subsection shall be 21.8 cents per gallon (4.3 cents per 
     gallon with respect to any sale or use for commercial 
     aviation).'', and
       (D) by striking ``Aviation-grade Kerosene'' in the heading 
     thereof and inserting ``Certain Liquids Used as a Fuel in 
     Aviation''.
       (2) Partial refund of full rate.--
       (A) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 6427(l) (relating 
     to nontaxable uses of diesel fuel, kerosene and aviation 
     fuel) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Nontaxable use.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `nontaxable use' means any use which is exempt from the 
     tax imposed by section 4041(a)(1) other than by reason of a 
     prior imposition of tax.''.
       (B) Refunds for noncommercial aviation.--Section 6427(l) 
     (relating to nontaxable uses of diesel fuel, kerosene and 
     aviation fuel) is amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as 
     paragraph (6) and by inserting after paragraph (4) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Refunds for kerosene used in noncommercial 
     aviation.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of kerosene used in aviation 
     not described in paragraph (4)(A) (other than any use which 
     is exempt from the tax imposed by section 4041(c) other than 
     by reason of a prior imposition of tax), paragraph (1) shall 
     not apply to so much of the tax imposed by section 4081 as is 
     attributable to--
       ``(i) the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund 
     financing rate imposed by such section, and
       ``(ii) so much of the rate of tax specified in section 
     4081(a)(2)(A)(iii) as does not exceed the rate specified in 
     section 4081(a)(2)(C)(ii).

[[Page 18766]]

       ``(B) Payment to ultimate, registered vendor.--The amount 
     which would be paid under paragraph (1) with respect to any 
     kerosene shall be paid only to the ultimate vendor of such 
     kerosene. A payment shall be made to such vendor if such 
     vendor--
       ``(i) is registered under section 4101, and
       ``(ii) meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), (B), or 
     (D) of section 6416(a)(1).''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 4041(a)(1)(B) is amended by striking the last 
     sentence.
       (B) The heading for subsection (l) of section 6427 is 
     amended by striking ``, Kerosene and Aviation Fuel'' and 
     inserting ``and Kerosene''.
       (C) Section 4082(d)(2)(B) is amended by striking ``section 
     6427(l)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``section 6427(l)(6)(B)''.
       (D) Section 6427(i)(4)(A) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (4)(B) or (5)'' both places it 
     appears and inserting ``paragraph (4)(B), (5), or (6)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``subsection (b)(4) and subsection 
     (l)(5)'' in the last sentence and inserting ``subsections 
     (b)(4), (l)(5), and (l)(6)''.
       (E) Paragraph (4) of section 6427(l) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``aviation-grade'' in subparagraph (A),
       (ii) by striking ``section 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv)'' and 
     inserting ``section 4081(a)(2)(iii)'',
       (iii) by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene'' in 
     subparagraph (B) and inserting ``kerosene used in commercial 
     aviation as described in subparagraph (A)'', and
       (iv) by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene'' in the heading 
     thereof and inserting ``kerosene used in commercial 
     aviation''.
       (F) Section 6427(l)(6)(B), as redesignated by paragraph 
     (2)(B), is amended by striking ``aviation-grade kerosene'' 
     and inserting ``kerosene used in aviation''.
       (c) Transfers From Highway Trust Fund of Taxes on Fuels 
     Used in Aviation to Airport and Airway Trust Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9503(c) (relating to expenditures 
     from Highway Trust Fund) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Transfers from the trust fund for certain aviation 
     fuel taxes.--The Secretary shall pay at least monthly from 
     the Highway Trust Fund into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
     amounts (as determined by the Secretary) equivalent to the 
     taxes received on or after October 1, 2005, and before 
     October 1, 2011, under section 4081 with respect to so much 
     of the rate of tax as does not exceed--
       ``(A) 4.3 cents per gallon of kerosene with respect to 
     which a payment has been made by the Secretary under section 
     6427(l)(4), and
       ``(B) 21.8 cents per gallon of kerosene with respect to 
     which a payment has been made by the Secretary under section 
     6427(l)(5).

     Transfers under the preceding sentence shall be made on the 
     basis of estimates by the Secretary, and proper adjustments 
     shall be made in the amounts subsequently transferred to the 
     extent prior estimates were in excess of or less than the 
     amounts required to be transferred. Any amount allowed as a 
     credit under section 34 by reason of paragraph (4) or (5) of 
     section 6427(l) shall be treated for purposes of 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) as a payment made by the Secretary 
     under such paragraph.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 9502(a) is amended by striking ``appropriated 
     or credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund as provided 
     in this section or section 9602(b)'' and inserting 
     ``appropriated, credited, or paid into the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund as provided in this section, section 9503(c)(7), 
     or section 9602(b)''.
       (B) Section 9502(b)(1) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``subsections (c) and (e) of section 4041'' 
     in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``section 4041(c)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``and aviation-grade kerosene'' in 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``and kerosene to the extent 
     attributable to the rate specified in section 
     4081(a)(2)(C)''.
       (C) Section 9503(b) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (d) Certain Refunds Not Transferred From Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund.--
       (1) Section 9502(d)(2) (relating to transfers from Airport 
     and Airway Trust Fund on account of certain refunds) is 
     amended by inserting ``(other than subsections (l)(4) and 
     (l)(5) thereof)'' after ``or 6427 (relating to fuels not used 
     for taxable purposes)''.
       (2) The text of section 9502(d)(3) (relating to transfers 
     from Airport and Airway Trust Fund on account of certain 
     section 34 credits) is amended by inserting ``(other than 
     payments made by reason of paragraph (4) or (5) of section 
     6427(l))'' after ``section 34''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to fuels or liquids removed, entered, or sold 
     after September 30, 2005.

     SEC. 1162. REPEAL OF ULTIMATE VENDOR REFUND CLAIMS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO FARMING.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6427(l)(6) 
     (relating to registered vendors to administer claims for 
     refund of diesel fuel or kerosene sold to farmers and State 
     and local governments), as redesignated by section 1161, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to diesel 
     fuel or kerosene used by a State or local government.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of paragraph (6) of 
     section 6427(l), as so redesignated, is amended by striking 
     ``farmers and''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales after September 30, 2005.

     SEC. 1163. REFUNDS OF EXCISE TAXES ON EXEMPT SALES OF FUEL BY 
                   CREDIT CARD.

       (a) Registration of Person Extending Credit on Certain 
     Exempt Sales of Fuel.--Section 4101(a) (relating to 
     registration) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Registration of persons extending credit on certain 
     exempt sales of fuel.--The Secretary shall require 
     registration by any person which--
       ``(A) extends credit by credit card to any ultimate 
     purchaser described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 
     6416(b)(2) for the purchase of taxable fuel upon which tax 
     has been imposed under section 4041 or 4081, and
       ``(B) does not collect the amount of such tax from such 
     ultimate purchaser.''.
       (b) Refunds of Tax on Gasoline.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 6416(a) (relating 
     to condition to allowance) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B),'' after ``For purposes of this subsection,'' in 
     subparagraph (A),
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) 
     and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) Credit card issuer.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     if the purchase of gasoline described in subparagraph (A) 
     (determined without regard to the registration status of the 
     ultimate vendor) is made by means of a credit card issued to 
     the ultimate purchaser, paragraph (1) shall not apply and the 
     person extending the credit to the ultimate purchaser shall 
     be treated as the person (and the only person) who paid the 
     tax, but only if such person--
       ``(i) is registered under section 4101, and
       ``(ii) has established, under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary, that such person--

       ``(I) has not collected the amount of the tax from the 
     person who purchased such article, or
       ``(II) has obtained the written consent from the ultimate 
     purchaser to the allowance of the credit or refund, and

       ``(iii) has so established that such person--

       ``(I) has repaid or agreed to repay the amount of the tax 
     to the ultimate vendor,
       ``(II) has obtained the written consent of the ultimate 
     vendor to the allowance of the credit or refund, or
       ``(III) has otherwise made arrangements which directly or 
     indirectly provides the ultimate vendor with reimbursement of 
     such tax.

     If clause (i), (ii), or (iii) is not met by such person 
     extending the credit to the ultimate purchaser, then such 
     person shall collect an amount equal to the tax from the 
     ultimate purchaser and only such ultimate purchaser may claim 
     such credit or payment.'',
       (C) by striking ``subparagraph (A)'' in subparagraph (C), 
     as redesignated by paragraph (2), and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'',
       (D) by inserting ``or credit card issuer'' after ``vendor'' 
     in subparagraph (C), as so redesignated, and
       (E) by inserting ``or credit card issuer'' after ``vendor'' 
     in the heading thereof.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 6416(b)(2) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Subparagraphs 
     (C) and (D) shall not apply in the case of any tax imposed on 
     gasoline under section 4081 if the requirements of subsection 
     (a)(4) are not met.''.
       (c) Diesel Fuel or Kerosene.--Paragraph (6) of section 
     6427(l) (relating to nontaxable uses of diesel fuel and 
     kerosene), as redesignated by section 1161, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The amount'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph (D), the 
     amount'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Credit card issuer.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     if the purchase of any fuel described in subparagraph (A) 
     (determined without regard to the registration status of the 
     ultimate vendor) is made by means of a credit card issued to 
     the ultimate purchaser, the Secretary shall pay to the person 
     extending the credit to the ultimate purchaser the amount 
     which would have been paid under paragraph (1) (but for 
     subparagraph (A)), but only if such person meets the 
     requirements of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of section 
     6416(a)(4)(B). If such clause (i), (ii), or (iii) is not met 
     by such person extending the credit to the ultimate 
     purchaser, then such person shall collect an amount equal to 
     the tax from the ultimate purchaser and only such ultimate 
     purchaser may claim such amount.''.
       (d) Conforming Penalty Amendments.--
       (1) Section 6206 (relating to special rules applicable to 
     excessive claims under sections 6420, 6421, and 6427) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Any portion'' in the first sentence and 
     inserting ``Any portion of a refund made under section 
     6416(a)(4) and any portion'',
       (B) by striking ``payments under sections 6420'' in the 
     first sentence and inserting ``refunds under section 
     6416(a)(4) and payments under sections 6420'',
       (C) by striking ``section 6420'' in the second sentence and 
     inserting ``section 6416(a)(4), 6420'', and
       (D) by striking ``SECTIONS 6420, 6421, AND 6427'' in the 
     heading thereof and inserting ``CERTAIN SECTIONS''.
       (2) Section 6675(a) is amended by inserting ``section 
     6416(a)(4) (relating to certain sales of gasoline),'' after 
     ``made under''.
       (3) Section 6675(b)(1) is amended by inserting 
     ``6416(a)(4),'' after ``under section''.

[[Page 18767]]

       (4) The item relating to section 6206 in the table of 
     sections for subchapter A of chapter 63 is amended by 
     striking ``sections 6420, 6421, and 6427'' and inserting 
     ``certain sections''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales after December 31, 2005.

     SEC. 1164. REREGISTRATION IN EVENT OF CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--Section 4101(a) (relating to registration) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Reregistration in event of change in ownership.--
     Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a person 
     (other than a corporation the stock of which is regularly 
     traded on an established securities market) shall be required 
     to reregister under this section if after a transaction (or 
     series of related transactions) more than 50 percent of 
     ownership interests in, or assets of, such person are held by 
     persons other than persons (or persons related thereto) who 
     held more than 50 percent of such interests or assets before 
     the transaction (or series of related transactions).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Civil penalty.--Section 6719 (relating to failure to 
     register) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or reregister'' after ``register'' each 
     place it appears,
       (B) by inserting ``or Reregister'' after ``Register'' in 
     the heading for subsection (a), and
       (C) by inserting ``OR REREGISTER'' after ``REGISTER'' in 
     the heading thereof.
       (2) Criminal penalty.--Section 7232 (relating to failure to 
     register under section 4101, false representations of 
     registration status, etc.) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or reregister'' after ``register'',
       (B) by inserting ``or reregistration'' after 
     ``registration'', and
       (C) by inserting ``OR REREGISTER'' after ``REGISTER'' in 
     the heading thereof.
       (3) Additional civil penalty.--Section 7272 (relating to 
     penalty for failure to register) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or reregister'' after ``failure to 
     register'' in subsection (a),
       (B) by inserting ``OR REREGISTER'' after ``REGISTER'' in 
     the heading thereof.
       (4) Clerical amendments.--The item relating to section 6719 
     in the table of sections for part I of subchapter B of 
     chapter 68, the item relating to section 7232 in the table of 
     sections for part II of subchapter A of chapter 75, and the 
     item relating to section 7272 in the table of sections for 
     subchapter B of chapter 75 are each amended by inserting ``or 
     reregister'' after ``register''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to actions, or failures to act, after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1165. RECONCILIATION OF ON-LOADED CARGO TO ENTERED 
                   CARGO.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 343 of the Trade 
     Act of 2002 is amended by inserting at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Transmission of data.--Pursuant to paragraph (2), not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, the Secretary of Homeland Security, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall 
     establish an electronic data interchange system through which 
     the United States Customs and Border Protection shall 
     transmit to the Internal Revenue Service information 
     pertaining to cargoes of any taxable fuel (as defined in 
     section 4083 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that the 
     United States Customs and Border Protection has obtained 
     electronically under its regulations adopted in accordance 
     with paragraph (1). For this purpose, not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this paragraph, all filers of 
     required cargo information for such taxable fuels (as so 
     defined) must provide such information to the United States 
     Customs and Border Protection through such electronic data 
     interchange system.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1166. TREATMENT OF DEEP-DRAFT VESSELS.

       (a) In General.--On and after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall require that a 
     vessel described in section 4042(c)(1) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 be considered a vessel for purposes of 
     the registration of the operator of such vessel under section 
     4101 of such Code, unless such operator uses such vessel 
     exclusively for purposes of the entry of taxable fuel.
       (b) Exemption for Domestic Bulk Transfers by Deep-Draft 
     Vessels.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4081(a)(1) 
     (relating to tax on removal, entry, or sale) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) Exemption for bulk transfers to registered terminals 
     or refineries.--
       ``(i) In general.--The tax imposed by this paragraph shall 
     not apply to any removal or entry of a taxable fuel 
     transferred in bulk by pipeline or vessel to a terminal or 
     refinery if the person removing or entering the taxable fuel, 
     the operator of such pipeline or vessel (except as provided 
     in clause (ii)), and the operator of such terminal or 
     refinery are registered under section 4101.
       ``(ii) Nonapplication of registration to vessel operators 
     entering by deep-draft vessel.--For purposes of clause (i), a 
     vessel operator is not required to be registered with respect 
     to the entry of a taxable fuel transferred in bulk by a 
     vessel described in section 4042(c)(1).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1167. PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN ADULTERATED FUELS.

       (a) In General.--Part I of subchapter B of chapter 68 
     (relating to assessable penalties) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6720A. PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN ADULTERATED 
                   FUELS.

       ``(a) In General.--Any person who knowingly transfers for 
     resale, sells for resale, or holds out for resale any liquid 
     for use in a diesel-powered highway vehicle or a diesel-
     powered train which does not meet applicable EPA regulations 
     (as defined in section 45H(c)(3)), shall pay a penalty of 
     $10,000 for each such transfer, sale, or holding out for 
     resale, in addition to the tax on such liquid (if any).
       ``(b) Penalty in the Case of Retailers.--Any person who 
     knowingly holds out for sale (other than for resale) any 
     liquid described in subsection (a), shall pay a penalty of 
     $10,000 for each such holding out for sale, in addition to 
     the tax on such liquid (if any).''.
       (b) Dedication of Revenue.--Paragraph (5) of section 
     9503(b) (relating to certain penalties) is amended by 
     inserting ``6720A,'' after ``6719,''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part I 
     of subchapter B of chapter 68 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 6720A. Penalty with respect to certain adulterated fuels.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any transfer, sale, or holding out for sale or 
     resale occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       And the Senate agree to the same.
     From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
     consideration of the House bill (except title X) and the 
     Senate amendment (except title V), and modifications 
     committed to conference:
     Don Young,
     Thomas E. Petri,
     Sherwood Boehlert,
     Howard Coble,
     John J. Duncan, Jr.,
     John L. Mica,
     Pete Hoekstra,
     Steven C. LaTourette,
     Spencer Bachus,
     Richard H. Baker,
     Gary G. Miller,
     Robin Hayes,
     Rob Simmons,
     Henry E. Brown, Jr.
     Sam Graves,
     Bill Shuster,
     John Boozman,
     James L. Oberstar,
     Nick Rahall,
     Peter A. DeFazio,
     Jerry F. Costello,
     Eleanor Holmes Norton,
     Jerrold Nadler,
     Robert Menendez,
     Corrine Brown,
     Bob Filner,
     Eddie Bernice Johnson,
     Gene Taylor,
     Juanita Millender-McDonald,
     Elijah E. Cummings,
     Earl Blumenauer,
     Ellen O. Tauscher,
     From the Committee on the Budget, for consideration of secs. 
     8001-8003 of the House bill, and title III of the Senate 
     amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
     Jim Nussle,
     Mario Diaz-Balart,
     John Spratt,
     From the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for 
     consideration of secs. 1118, 1605, 1809, 3018, and 3030 of 
     the House bill, and secs. 1304, 1819, 6013, 6031, 6038, and 
     7603 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
     conference:
     Ric Keller,
     John Barrow,
     From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration 
     of provisions in the House bill and Senate amendment relating 
     to Clean Air Act provisions of transportation planning 
     contained in secs. 6001 and 6006 of the House bill, and secs. 
     6005 and 6006 of the Senate amendment; and secs. 1210, 1824, 
     1833, 5203, and 6008 of the House bill, and secs. 1501, 1511, 
     1522, 1610-1619, 1622, 4001, 4002, 6016, 6023, 7218, 7223, 
     7251, 7252, 7256-7262, 7324, 7381, 7382, and 7384 of the 
     Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
     Joe Barton,
     Chip Pickering,
     John D. Dingell,
     From the Committee on Government Reform, for consideration of 
     sec. 4205 of the House bill, and sec. 2101 of the Senate 
     amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
     Tom Davis,
     Todd R. Platts,
     From the Committee on Homeland Security, for consideration of 
     secs. 1834, 6027, 7324, and 7325 of the Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     Chris Cox,
     Daniel E. Lungren,
     Bennie G. Thompson,
     From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of 
     secs. 1211, 1605, 1812, 1832, 2013, 2017, 4105, 4201, 4202, 
     4214, 7018-7020, and 7023 of the House bill, and secs. 1410, 
     1512,

[[Page 18768]]

     1513, 6006, 6029, 7108, 7113, 7115, 7338, 7340, 7343, 7345, 
     7362, 7363, 7406, 7407, and 7413 of the Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     Lamar Smith,
     John Conyers,
     From the Committee on Resources, for consideration of secs. 
     1119, 3021, 6002, and 6003 of the House bill, and secs. 1501, 
     1502, 1505, 1511, 1514, 1601, 1603, 6040, and 7501-7518 of 
     the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
     conference:
     Greg Walden,
     Ron Kind,
     From the Committee on Rules, for consideration of secs. 8004 
     and 8005 of the House bill, and modifications committed to 
     conference:
     David Dreier,
     Shelley Moore Capito,
     Jim McGovern,
     From the Committee on Science, for consideration of secs. 
     2010, 3013, 3015, 3034, 3039, 3041, 4112, and title V of the 
     House bill, and title II and secs. 6014, 6015, 6036, 7118, 
     7212, 7214, 7361, and 7370 of the Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     Vernon J. Ehlers,
     David Reichert,
     Bart Gordon,
     From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of 
     title X of the House bill, and title V of the Senate 
     amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
     William M. Thomas,
     Jim McCrery,
     For consideration of the House bill and Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     Tom DeLay
                                Managers on the Part of the House.

     James M. Inhofe,
     John Warner,
     Kit Bond,
     George V. Voinovich,
     Lincoln Chafee,
     Lisa Murkowski,
     John Thune,
     Jim DeMint,
     Johnny Isakson,
     David Vitter,
     Chuck Grassley,
     Orrin Hatch,
     Richard Shelby,
     Wayne Allard,
     Ted Stevens,
     Trent Lott,
     Jim Jeffords,
     Max Baucus,
     Joe Lieberman,
     Barbara Boxer,
     Tom Carper,
     Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Barack Obama,
     Ken T. Conrad,
     Daniel K. Inouye,
     Jay Rockefeller,
      Paul Sarbanes,
     Jack Reed,
     Tim Johnson,
                               Managers on the Part of the Senate.

      JOINT EXPLANATORY KSTATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

       The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3), to authorize 
     funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and 
     transit programs, and for other purposes, submit the 
     following joint statement to the House and the Senate in 
     explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the 
     managers and recommended in the accompanying conference 
     report:
       The Senate amendment to the text of the bill struck all of 
     the House bill after the enacting clause and inserted a 
     substitute text.
       The House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of 
     the Senate with an amendment that is a substitute for the 
     House bill and the Senate amendment. The difference between 
     the House bill, the Senate amendment, and the substitute 
     agreed to in conference are noted below, except for clerical 
     corrections, conforming changes made necessary by agreements 
     reached by the conferees, and minor drafting and clarifying 
     changes.

                     TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

                 Subtitle A--Authorizations of Programs


               sec. 1101. authorization of appropriations

     House Bill
       Sec. 1101.
       Subsection (a) authorizes funds out of the Highway Trust 
     Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for the following 
     highway programs: Interstate Maintenance Program, National 
     Highway System, Bridge Program, Highway Safety Improvements 
     Program, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion 
     Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, Appalachian 
     Development Highway System Program, Recreational Trails 
     Program, Federal Lands Highways Program, National Corridor 
     Infrastructure Improvement Program, Coordinated Border 
     Infrastructure Program, Projects of National and Regional 
     Significance Program, Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry 
     Terminal Facilities, National Scenic Byways Program, 
     Congestion Pricing Pilot Program, Deployment of 511 Traveler 
     Information Program, High Priority Projects Program, Freight 
     Intermodal Connector Program, High Risk Rural Road Safety 
     Improvement Program, Highway Use Tax Evasion Program, 
     Pedestrian and Cyclist Equity, Dedicated Truck Lanes, 
     Highways for LIFE Program, and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
     Program.
       Subsection (b) continues the disadvantaged business 
     enterprise (DBE) program with minor changes. The Committee 
     finds there is a continuing compelling need for the DBE 
     program. In enacting TEA 21 in 1998, Congress compiled an 
     extensive record on the effects of discrimination in 
     transportation contracting. Much of this information remains 
     valid today. We agree with those courts that have observed 
     that evidence concerning the exclusion of disadvantaged 
     groups remains relevant over a considerable period of time. 
     The Committee has relied on the information that Congress 
     used in 1998 in finding a continuing compelling need for the 
     DBE program.
       The Committee has also taken notice of data about the 
     period between 1998 and today. The data demonstrates the 
     continuing need for the program, as DBEs are still not able 
     to compete on the same basis as other businesses. First, the 
     regulation, found constitutional in a series of recent court 
     rulings, tells recipients to set overall goals. Under the 
     rules, recipients may set DBE contract goals only for that 
     portion of the overall goal that cannot be achieved by 
     completely race-neutral means. Highway and transit program 
     data for 2000-2002 shows that the overwhelming majority of 
     recipients have to set DBE contract goals to achieve all or 
     part of their overall goals. Unfortunately, race-neutral 
     means alone cannot overcome the persisting effects of 
     discrimination.
       Second, in several States for which DOT has comparative 
     2002 data, participation by minority- and women-owned 
     businesses in State-funded highway contracts to which no 
     contract goals applied fell well short both of DBE overall 
     goals and DBE participation in federally-assisted contracts. 
     If states are to ensure equal opportunity for DBEs, contract 
     goal programs remain essential. Third, DOT provided 15 
     detailed studies from states and cities that found 
     disparities between the availability and utilization of 
     minority- and women-owned businesses in government 
     contracting. The courts agree that it is fair to make an 
     inference of discriminatory exclusion from such disparities.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1101.
       This section authorizes sums out of the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than Mass Transit Account) for the Interstate 
     Maintenance Program, National Highway System, Bridge Program, 
     Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air 
     Quality Improvement Program, Highway Safety Improvement 
     Program, Appalachian Development Highway System Program, 
     Recreational Trails Program, Federal Lands Highway Program, 
     Multi-State Corridor Planning Program, Border, Planning, 
     Operations and Technology Program, National Scenic Byways 
     Program, Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance Program, 
     Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities, 
     Puerto Rico Highway Program, Public-Private Partnerships 
     Pilot Program, Denali Access System, Delta Region 
     Transportation Development Program, and Intermodal Passenger 
     Facilities.
       The authorizing amounts to be appropriated are as follows:
       Interstate Maintenance Program: $5,799,188,140 for fiscal 
     year 2005, $6,032,059,334 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $6,049,378,729 for fiscal year 2007, $6,351,069,528 for 
     fiscal year 2008, and $6,443,591,248 for fiscal year 2009
       National Highway System: $7,054,146,316 for fiscal year 
     2005, $7,333,629,462 for fiscal year 2006, $7,354,650,712 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $7,720,825,041 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $7,833,068,496 for fiscal year 2009
       Bridge Program: $4,970,732,691 for fiscal year 2005, 
     $5,157,180,500 for fiscal year 2006, $5,141,987,920 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $5,429,922,039 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $5,509,052,458 for fiscal year 2009
       Surface Transportation: $7,318,023,129 for fiscal year 
     2005, $7,597,631,986 for fiscal year 2006, $7,619,446,491 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $7,999,438,719 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $8,116,064,782 for fiscal year 2009
       Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement: 
     $1,979,088,016 for fiscal year 2005, $2,049,058,323 for 
     fiscal year 2006, $2,054,941,629 for fiscal year 2007, 
     $2,157,424,382 for fiscal year 2008, and $2,188,954,810 for 
     fiscal year 2009
       Highway Safety Improvement Program: $1,196,657,870 for 
     fiscal year 2005, $1,234,248,870 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $1,246,818,516 for fiscal year 2007, $1,308,999,063 for 
     fiscal year 2008, and $1,328,233,842 for fiscal year 2009
       Appalachian Development Highway System Program: 
     $532,518,499 for fiscal years 2005 through 2009
       Recreational Trails Program: $54,154,424 for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009
       Federal Lands Highway Program Indian Reservation Roads: 
     $291,251,572 for fiscal year 2005, $312,578,616 for fiscal 
     year 2006, $334,905,660 for fiscal year 2007, $357,232,704 
     for fiscal year 2008, and $379,559,748 for fiscal year 2009
       Recreation Roads: $44,654,088 for each fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009
       Park Roads and Parkways: $276,855,346 for fiscal year 2005, 
     and $285,786,164 for fiscal years 2006 through 2009

[[Page 18769]]

       Refuge Roads: $26,792,453 for fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009
       Public Lands Highways: $267,924,258 for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009
       Safety: $35,723,270 for fiscal years 2005 through 2009
       Multi-State Corridor Planning Program: $120,566,038 for 
     fiscal year 2005, $140,660,377 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $160,754,717 for fiscal year 2007, $180,849,057 for fiscal 
     year 2008, and $200,943,396 for fiscal year 2009
       Border Planning, Operations, and Technology Program: 
     $120,566,038 for fiscal year 2005, $140,660,377 for fiscal 
     year 2006, $160,754,717 for fiscal year 2007, $180,849,057 
     for fiscal year 2008, and $200,943,396 for fiscal year 2009
       National Scenic Byways Program: $31,257,862 for fiscal year 
     2005, $32,150,943 for fiscal year 2006, $33,044,025 for 
     fiscal year 2007, and $34,830,189 for fiscal years 2008 and 
     2009
       Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance Program: $0
       Construction of Ferry Boats and Terminal Facilities 
     Program: $54,154,424 for fiscal years 2005 through 2009
       Puerto Rico Highway Program: $129,496,855 for fiscal year 
     2005, $133,069,182 for fiscal year 2006, $137,534,591 for 
     fiscal year 2007, $142,893,082 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     $145,572,327 for fiscal year 2009
       Public-Private Partnerships Pilot Program: $8,930,818 for 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009
       Denali Access System: $26,792,453 for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009
       Delta Region Transportation Development Program: 
     $71,446,541 for fiscal years 2005 through 2009
       Intermodal Passenger Facilities: $8,930,818 for fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications. This provision authorizes funds out of the 
     Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) for 
     the highway programs: Interstate Maintenance Program, 
     National Highway System, Bridge Program, Highway Safety 
     Improvements Program, Surface Transportation Program, 
     Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 
     Appalachian Development Highway System Program, Recreational 
     Trails Program, Federal Lands Highways Program, National 
     Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program, Coordinated 
     Border Infrastructure Program, Projects of National and 
     Regional Significance Program, Construction of Ferry Boats 
     and Ferry Terminal Facilities, National Scenic Byways 
     Program, High Priority Projects Program, Safe Routes to 
     School Program, Highways for LIFE Program, and Puerto Rico 
     Highway Program.
       Subsection (b) continues the disadvantaged business 
     enterprise (DBE) program with minor changes. The Committee 
     finds there is a continuing compelling need for the DBE 
     program. In enacting TEA 21 in 1998, Congress compiled an 
     extensive record on the effects of discrimination in 
     transportation contracting. Much of this information remains 
     valid today. We agree with those courts that have observed 
     that evidence concerning the exclusion of disadvantaged 
     groups remains relevant over a considerable period of time. 
     The Committee has relied on the information that Congress 
     used in 1998 in finding a continuing compelling need for the 
     DBE program. Under DBE, not less than 10 percent of the funds 
     provided under titles I and II of this Act shall be expended 
     with small businesses owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals, except to the extent 
     the Secretary of Transportation determines otherwise. The 
     provision in current law requiring a review of the program by 
     the Comptroller General of the United States has been 
     eliminated. The Comptroller General completed the required 
     review in June 2001.


                     SEC. 1102. OBLIGATION CEILING

     House Bill
       Sec. 1102.
       This section provides the obligation limitation for the 
     federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs. 
     Subsection (b) addresses the exemptions to the obligation 
     limitation. Paragraphs 1-8 in this subsection are identical 
     to TEA 21. Paragraph (9) is added to address three year 
     obligation authority (OA) made available under TEA 21 for 
     research programs and ``no-year'' OA made available for 
     certain programs and projects under TEA 21 or in subsequent 
     appropriations acts. Subsections (c),(d),(e),(f),(g),(h), and 
     (i) address how the obligation authority is distributed, the 
     redistribution of unused obligation authority, and the 
     limitation on obligations for administrative expenses are 
     virtually identical to TEA 21.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1102.
       This section sets limits on obligations for spending.
       The general limitation on spending shall be as follows:
       $34,425,380,000 for fiscal year 2005,
       $37,154,999,523 for fiscal year 2006,
       $37,450,167,691 for fiscal year 2007,
       $38,816,364,417 for fiscal year 2008, and
       $40,321,257,845 for fiscal year 2009.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts provisions from both House and Senate 
     bills with modified funding levels and a funding flexibility 
     provision for fiscal year 2005. This flexibility provision 
     allows states to obligate funds from 1301 and 1302 of this 
     Act and sections 117 and 144(g) of title 23 on core formula 
     programs.


                       SEC. 1103. APPORTIONMENTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1103.
       This section makes changes to the process by which 
     apportionments are made pursuant to Section 104 of Title 23. 
     Subsection (a) of this section amends the way administrative 
     expenses for FHWA and FMCSA are provided. These expenses were 
     formerly funded as a takedown and are now a specific 
     authorized amount.
       Subsection (b) of this section changes the set-aside amount 
     for the Alaska Highway and the set-asides for the U.S. 
     Territories under the National Highway System program 
     apportionment formula.
       Subsection (c) of this section requires the report mandated 
     by Section 104(j) of Title 23 be available on the Internet.
       Subsection (d) of this section makes a conforming amendment 
     to the metropolitan planning set-aside formula to reflect the 
     fact that administrative expenses are no longer funded as a 
     takedown.
       Subsection (e) of this section updates the reference for 
     the Puerto Rico Highway program, replacing the TEA 21 
     reference with a TEA LU reference.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1103.
       This section makes amendments to current apportionments. It 
     authorizes the appropriation of funds for the administrative 
     expenses of the Federal Highway Administration and details 
     the use of these funds.
       This section amends the amounts authorized for 
     administrative expenses, for specified programs to:
       $415,283,019 for fiscal year 2005,
       $428,679,245 for fiscal year 2006,
       $442,075,472 for fiscal year 2007,
       $455,471,698 for fiscal year 2008, and
       $468,867,925 for fiscal year 2009.
       Funds authorized in this section shall be used for the 
     Federal-aid highway program and programs authorized under 
     chapter 2 of title 23, USC. Such sums as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate shall be transferred to the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission for administrative activities 
     associated with the Appalachian highway development system.
       The bill increases the set-aside for metropolitan planning 
     to 1.5 percent from the same programs as under TEA-21 and, 
     additionally, the new Highway Safety Program and Equity Bonus 
     Program. Because the 2000 Census establishes 46 new 
     Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), an increase in 
     funding for metropolitan planning is required. Under the law, 
     each MPO is directed to assume the responsibility for 
     carrying out specific, costly and detailed Federal analysis 
     as required under NEPA, Air Quality Conformity, Long Range 
     Planning, Transportation Improvement Program planning, 
     transportation modeling, operations, and public involvement. 
     This bill further enhances MPO planning for habitat plan 
     development, freight movement, transportation security, 
     deployment of ITS systems including operating and managing 
     traffic centers and incident management programs, and 
     interacting with emergency management officials regarding 
     homeland security issues.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to provisions from both House and 
     Senate bills with modifications. This section amends current 
     apportionments. It authorizes the appropriation of funds for 
     the administrative expenses of the Federal Highway 
     Administration and details the use of these funds.
       This provision increases the set-aside amount for the 
     Alaska Highway and the set-asides for the U.S. Territories 
     under the National Highway System program apportionment 
     formula. Changes are also made to the Operation Lifesaver and 
     High-Speed Rail Corridor programs from set-asides to become 
     individually-funded programs.
       The Conference adopts the Senate CMAQ provision with 
     modifications. The addition of a weighting factor for PM2.5 
     nonattainment areas is not included in the substitute. The 
     Senate language regarding an additional adjustment factor for 
     carbon monoxide is adopted with no modifications.
       For areas in ozone nonattainment, the Conference applies a 
     weighting factor of 1.0 for areas designated under subpart 1 
     of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act. The Conference 
     maintains the current system of varied weighting factors for 
     areas classified under subpart 2 and intends it to apply to 
     8-hour nonattainment areas in the same manner it did to 1-
     hour nonattainment areas. For example, an 8-hour ozone 
     nonattainment area that is classified by EPA as moderate 
     pursuant to subpart 2 would receive a weighting factor of 
     1.1, while an 8-hour nonattainment area classified by EPA as 
     serious pursuant to subpart 2 would receive a weighting 
     factor of 1.2.

[[Page 18770]]




                    SEC. 1104. EQUITY BONUS PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1104.
       This section retains the Minimum Guarantee program that was 
     created in TEA-21.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1104.
       This section strikes and replaces the Minimum Guarantee 
     Program under Section 105 of Title 23, United States Code 
     with the Equity Bonus Program.
       The Secretary shall ensure that the percentages of 
     apportionments of each State is sufficient to ensure that no 
     State's percentage return from the Highway Trust Fund is less 
     than 92 percent in each of the fiscal years 2005-2009. The 
     rate of return shall include from each State, the total 
     apportionments made for the fiscal year for the Interstate 
     Maintenance Program, the National Highway System Program, the 
     Bridge Program, the Surface Transportation Program, the 
     Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 
     the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the Appalachian 
     Development Highway System Program, the Recreational Trails 
     Program, the Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance 
     Program, the Metropolitan Planning Program, and the Equity 
     Bonus Program.
       Special rules protect the calculations for States with a 
     population density of less than 20 persons per square mile, a 
     population less than 1 million, a median household income 
     less than $35,000, or a State with a fatality rate during 
     2002 on Interstate highways greater than 1 fatality per 100 
     million vehicle miles traveled on Interstate highways. 
     Further, no State receives apportionments less than 110 
     percent of the average annual apportionments for specified 
     programs during 1998-2003. There is a cap on the Equity Bonus 
     such that no State may receive apportionments more than a 
     specified percentage of their average for 1998-2003. The 
     scope, or percent funding included in the Equity Bonus 
     program, remains the same as TEA-21 at 92.5 percent.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate structure with 
     modifications. The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     percentages of apportionments of each State is sufficient to 
     ensure that no State's percentage return from the Highway 
     Trust Fund is less than 90.5% in fiscal year 2005 and 2006, 
     91.5% in 2007, and 92% in 2008 and 2009. The rate of return 
     shall include from each State, the total apportionments made 
     for the fiscal year for the Interstate Maintenance Program, 
     the National Highway System Program, the Bridge Program, the 
     Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion Mitigation and 
     Air Quality Improvement Program, the Highway Safety 
     Improvement Program, the Appalachian Development Highway 
     System Program, the Recreational Trails Program, the Safe 
     Routes to School Program, the Metropolitan Planning Program, 
     the High Priority Project Program, the Railway-Highway 
     Crossings Program, the Coordinated Border Infrastructure 
     Program, and the Equity Bonus Program.
       Special rules protect the share of apportionments to be 
     provided to any State meeting any one or more of the 
     following criteria: total population density of less than 40 
     persons per square mile, as reported in the decennial census 
     conducted by the Federal Government in 2000, having at least 
     1.25 percent of its total acreage in Federal ownership based 
     on GSA's ``Federal Real Property Profile, as of September 30, 
     2004'' report; or a population less than 1 million as 
     reported in that census; or a median household income less 
     than $35,000 as reported in that census; or a State with a 
     fatality rate during 2002 on Interstate highways greater than 
     1 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled on 
     Interstate highways; or a State with an indexed, state motor 
     fuels excise tax rate higher than 150 percent of the Federal 
     motor fuels excise tax rate on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       Further, no State receives apportionments less than certain 
     percentages above their TEA-21 average annual apportionments 
     for specified programs during 1998-2003. (FY 2005--117 
     percent; FY 2006--118 percent; FY 2007--119 percent; FY 
     2008--120 percent; and FY 2009--121 percent)


              SEC. 1105. REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY

     House Bill
       Sec. 1108.
       This section continues the revenue aligned budget 
     authority, but in a way that ensures greater stability in 
     program funding level adjustments.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1105.
       This section changes the calculation of Revenue Aligned 
     Budget Authority under Section 110 of Title 23, United States 
     Code.
       A new method of determining RABA is established in this 
     section. This provision amends section 110 of Title 23, to 
     extend the RABA provision through FY 2009. It also amends 
     section 110 to provide that if the RABA adjustment in a 
     fiscal year is negative, the amount of contract authority 
     apportioned to the States for that year shall be reduced by 
     an amount equal to the negative RABA. Under TEA-21, negative 
     adjustments were delayed until the succeeding fiscal year. 
     Under the new method, no reduction to apportionments are made 
     for RABA for a fiscal year if the cash balance of the highway 
     trust fund (other than the mass transit account) exceeds 
     $6,000,000,000 on October 1 of that fiscal year.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts concepts from both the House and 
     Senate provisions. This provision changes the calculation of 
     Revenue Aligned Budget Authority under Section 110 of Title 
     23 to ensure greater stability in program funding level 
     adjustments.
       A new method of determining RABA is established in this 
     section. This provision amends section 110 of Title 23, to 
     extend the RABA provision through FY 2009. RABA calculations 
     will be spread over 2 fiscal years, rather than in a single 
     year as in TEA-21.
       For fiscal year 2007, any positive RABA amounts will be 
     applied to increasing the minimum rate of return for donor 
     States as close to 92 percent as possible. Any remaining 
     funds are to be distributed proportionally.
       Under the new method, no reduction to apportionments are 
     made for RABA for a fiscal year if the cash balance of the 
     highway trust fund (other than the mass transit account) 
     exceeds $6,000,000,000 on October 1 of that fiscal year.


               SEC. 1106. FUTURE INTERSTATE SYSTEM ROUTES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1801.
       This section replaces the 12-year requirement with a 20-
     year requirement to provide States more time to substantially 
     complete construction of highways designated as future 
     Interstate System routes, before the States forfeit future 
     Interstate designation status. This section also extends the 
     time limitation contained in existing agreements from 12 
     years to 20 years.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with a 
     modification to change the timeframes from 20 years to 25 
     years.


                    SEC. 1107. METROPOLITAN PLANNING

     House Bill
       Sec. 1816.
       This section requires the States to distribute planning 
     funds to the metropolitan planning organizations within 30 
     days of receipt of such funds from the Secretary.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a 
     modification to increase the set-aside for metropolitan 
     planning funds from 1 percent to 1.25 percent.


            SEC. 1108. TRANSFER OF HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT FUNDS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1302.
       This section clarifies and authorizes the transferability 
     of funds from the Highway Trust Fund.
       This provision clarifies that Title 23 funds may be 
     transferred by the Secretary to the Federal Transit 
     Administration for other than a transit capital project, 
     provided such project is eligible for Title 23 assistance.
       This section also allows funds derived from the HTF to be 
     transferred, at the request of a State, to another State or 
     States or to a Federal agency provided that they are expended 
     on Title 23 eligible projects.
       An equal amount of obligation authority is transferred with 
     funds transferred from one State to another State. Funds may 
     only be used for the same purpose and in the same manner for 
     which they were authorized.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                     SEC. 1109. RECREATIONAL TRAILS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1119.
       This section makes various improvements to the recreational 
     trails program established in section 206 of Title 23, U.S. 
     Code.
       Subsection (a) amends 23 USC 104(h) to permit the use of 
     administrative funds for training and deletes reference to 
     the National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee.
       Subsection (b) amends 23 USC 206(d)(2) regarding 
     permissible uses of funds to include assessment of trail 
     conditions and to clarify that new trails on Federal lands 
     must be recommended in a statewide comprehensive outdoor 
     recreation plan.
       Subsection (c) strikes 23 USC 206 (b)(3)(C), which permits 
     States to waive requirements regarding distribution of funds 
     for various types of projects.
       Subsection (d) amends 23 USC 206(f) to provide that the 
     federal share for recreational trails projects shall be 
     determined in accordance with section 120(b) of Title 23 and 
     allows recreational trails funds to be used toward the 
     Federal share of certain other Federal programs.
       Subsection (e) amends 23 USC 206(h)(1) to provide that pre-
     approval planning and environmental compliance costs can be 
     credited toward the non-Federal share of a project.

[[Page 18771]]

       Subsection (f) directs the Secretary to encourage the 
     States to use qualified youth conservation or service corps 
     to complete trail projects.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1603.
       This section allows funds to be used to provide and 
     maintain recreational trails for motorized and nonmotorized 
     recreational trail uses.
       The changes in section 206 of Title 23 amend the 
     permissible uses of funds apportioned to States under this 
     program. Eligible categories are added to permit trail 
     assessment for accessibility and maintenance, and to hire 
     trail crews, youth conservation, or service corps to perform 
     recreational trails activities. Non-law enforcement trail 
     safety and trail-use monitoring patrols, and trail-related 
     training are now activities eligible for Recreational Trails 
     Program (RTP) educational funds. However, funds provided 
     under this program are not intended to support routine law 
     enforcement.
       Under this section, pre-approval planning and environmental 
     compliance costs may be credited toward the non-Federal share 
     for RTP projects, limited to costs incurred less than 18 
     months prior to project approval.
       Since projects in this section are much smaller than 
     typical highway projects, this program is relieved of several 
     requirements, which, while appropriate for large highway 
     projects, are excessively burdensome for small trail 
     projects. RTP projects are not subject to sections 112, 114, 
     116, 134, 135, 138, 217, and 301, of Title 23 and section 303 
     of title 49.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a 
     modification to add the Senate provision (H) under 
     ``Permissible Uses'' which allows for the development and 
     dissemination of publications and operation of educational 
     programs to promote safety and environmental protection, 
     supporting non-law enforcement trail safety and trail use 
     monitoring patrol programs, and providing trail-related 
     training. The Conferees change the administrative expenses 
     from a percentage of program funding to a specific annual 
     authorization.


              SEC. 1110. TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

     House Bill
       Sec. 1107.
       This section amends Section 109(e) of Title 23 and Section 
     112 of Title 23 to require that contracts for federally 
     funded highway construction projects include costs for 
     appropriate safety measures. The amendment to Section 109 
     requires that temporary traffic control devices be installed 
     and maintained during construction and maintenance projects 
     in order to provide protection for construction workers. The 
     amendment to Section 112 requires the Secretary to issue 
     regulations establishing the conditions for and the 
     appropriate use of Federal funds for uniformed law 
     enforcement officers, positive protective measures between 
     traffic and workers, and installation of temporary traffic 
     control devices during construction and maintenance projects.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House position.


      SEC. 1111. SET-ASIDES FOR INTERSTATE DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1115.
       This section eliminates the Interstate Maintenance 
     Discretionary program in Section 118 of Title 23. The 
     Committee does not intend to have any changes to this program 
     affect any projects that have already been funded under this 
     program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1805.
       This section continues the interstate discretionary project 
     set-aside listed in section 118(c)(1) of title 23 for fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009 and increases the amount.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate position.


                      SEC. 1112. EMERGENCY RELIEF

     House Bill
       Sec. 1110.
       This section authorizes additional amounts for this program 
     above the $100 million per year to be derived from the 
     General Fund. It is the Committee's intent that if there is a 
     need for additional funds over and above the annually 
     authorized level of $100 million that those funds be 
     appropriated from the General Fund.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version.


               SEC. 1113. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1111.
       This section continues the requirement in Section 133(f)(1) 
     of Title 23 that States suballocate a portion of their 
     Surface Transportation Program funds to urbanized areas with 
     over 200,000 individuals.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a 
     modification to add eligibility for projects relating to 
     intersections that have high accident rates or high levels of 
     congestion on the Federal-aid system.


                   SEC. 1114. HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1116.
       Subsection (a) retains the principles for applications for 
     and approval of Federal assistance for bridge replacement or 
     rehabilitation allowed in current law. It also includes 
     additional language to allow Federal participation in 
     preventive maintenance on a bridge, as well as, installing 
     scour countermeasures to a bridge.
       Subsection (b) continues the discretionary bridge program 
     and subsection (c) changes the lower bound for the off-system 
     set-aside from 15 percent to 20 percent.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1807.
       The Highway Bridge Program provides funds to assist States 
     in improving the condition of their bridges, through 
     replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive 
     maintenance.
       The changes to section 144 allow the use of bridge funds 
     for: (1) preventive maintenance activities consistent with 
     the section 116(d) of the NHS Designation Act, (2) preventive 
     maintenance on off-system bridges, and (3) scour 
     countermeasures without regard to eligibility. This section 
     also increased bridge discretionary funding to $133,962,264.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to accept the House provision with 
     modifications. The off-system bridge set-aside is to remain 
     as current law at 15 percent and the Federal share for 
     highway bridges projects is now eligible for up to 90 
     percent.


              SEC. 1115. HIGHWAY USE TAX EVASION PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1112.
       This section continues the existing program to combat 
     highway use tax evasion and makes changes designed to reduce 
     tax evasion and increase receipts into the Highway Trust 
     Fund.
       The Highway Use Tax Evasion program supports State and 
     Federal efforts to enhance motor fuel tax enforcement. To 
     make the program more effective, this provision would amend 
     section 143 of title 23 to: (1) dedicate funding for 
     intergovernmental enforcement efforts; (2) allow projects for 
     identification of tax evasion in the area of foreign imported 
     fuel; (3) assist States and Indian Tribes in addressing 
     issues related to the collection of State motor fuel taxes; 
     and (4) provide for annual reporting on examinations, 
     criminal investigations, and audits by the States and the 
     Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
     Senate Bill
       Comparable provision in Senate finance title.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to the House provision with funding 
     modifications.


           SEC. 1116. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1113.
       This section directs the Secretary to apportion funds made 
     available for the Appalachian Development Highway System 
     (ADHS) among the states on the basis of the estimated cost to 
     complete the system. It specifies that such funds are subject 
     to title 23 requirements and are available to construct ADHS 
     highways and access roads. It also prohibits the use of toll 
     revenues as non-federal match for the construction, 
     improvement, and maintenance of highways, bridges, or 
     tunnels.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1808.
       The Appalachian Development Highway System program provides 
     funds for the construction of the Appalachian corridor 
     highways in thirteen States and for the establishment of a 
     State-Federal framework to meet the needs of the region.
       This section prescribes how funds made available for the 
     Appalachian development highway system are to be apportioned 
     to the States in the Appalachian region. The latest cost 
     estimate is to be used as the basis for apportionments. The 
     funding shall remain available until expended and the Federal 
     share is delineated in section 201 of the Appalachian 
     Regional Development Act of 1965. This section also prohibits 
     the use of toll credits on projects funded under the 
     Appalachian development highway system program under subtitle 
     IV of title 40.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version.

[[Page 18772]]




 SEC. 1117. TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNITY, AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1117.
       This section reauthorizes the program for fiscal years 2004 
     through 2009. It prohibits funds made available for this 
     program from being transferred to other programs, and 
     establishes the federal cost share for projects carried out 
     under this program in accordance with section 120(b) of title 
     23. Subsection (c) establishes a pilot program to support 
     transportation planning and public participation in decision 
     making.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1813.
       This section continues the Transportation and Community and 
     System Preservation (TCSP) Pilot Program, a comprehensive 
     initiative of research and implementation grants to 
     investigate the relationships between transportation and 
     community and system preservation, as well as private sector-
     based initiatives. This section also makes TCSP projects STP 
     eligible.
       This section requires the Secretary to establish a 
     comprehensive program to facilitate the planning, 
     development, and implementation of strategies by States, 
     metropolitan planning organizations, Federally-recognized 
     Indian tribes, and local governments to integrate 
     transportation, community, and system preservation plans and 
     practices.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference agrees to the Senate provision with 
     modifications to drop subsection (b)(18) from the Senate 
     passed bill and move (19) to an eligible activity under the 
     Surface Transportation Program. The conference also agreed to 
     not codify this program.


                 SEC. 1118. TERRITORIAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1818.
       The changes made in section 215 of title 23 update and 
     consolidate the statutory provisions governing the 
     territorial highway program.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                   SEC. 1119. FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1120.
       Subsection (a) amends the contracting provisions of the 
     Indian reservation roads program in section 202(d)(3) of 
     title 23. This section was added to the United States Code in 
     TEA 21. The Committee felt at that time that the 
     congressional intent with regard to tribal contracting 
     authority was clear. Unfortunately, the Committee now 
     believes the full intent of the TEA 21 amendments has not 
     been fulfilled. This subsection aims to clarify the intent of 
     the Committee on this important point for the Indian tribes.
       The Committee is aware that certain tribes currently 
     possess the ability to carry out themselves, or contract 
     directly with outside providers, highway, bridge, and transit 
     projects that are located on Indian reservations or that 
     provide access to the reservations, including planning, 
     research, engineering, and construction activities relating 
     to such projects. Other tribes are developing their ability 
     to perform those functions.
       This amendment to section 202(d)(3) of title 23 is intended 
     to empower Indian tribes that have the ability and interest 
     to carry out the activities in-house or to contract directly 
     with outside providers for the activities consistent with the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. It 
     allows tribes to choose, on a project-by-project basis, those 
     activities that they want to perform themselves or to 
     contract directly with outside providers. At the same time, 
     existing capabilities within the Bureau of Indian Affairs are 
     retained to support tribes that do not have such ability or 
     interest. It directs that funds be paid directly by the 
     Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the Indian tribal 
     government when a tribe carries out, or contracts directly 
     with outside providers for a planning, research, engineering, 
     or construction activity relating to a highway, bridge, or 
     transit project located on an Indian reservation or that 
     provides access to the reservation. Furthermore, it directs 
     FHWA to determine the amount of funds for such activity and 
     project that is to be received by the Indian tribe according 
     to the funding formula established under section 202(d) of 
     title 23, without deducting from it any non-project-related 
     administrative take-down or project management costs imposed 
     by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department of the 
     Interior.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1806.
       The Federal Lands Highway Program provides funding for a 
     coordinated program of public roads and transit facilities 
     serving Federal and Indian lands.
       Section 101 of title 23 is amended to include new 
     definitions for `recreation roads' and `public forest service 
     roads,' to reflect new classes of Federal lands highways. It 
     also changes the definitions of `forest development roads and 
     trails' and `forest road or trail' to reflect current U.S. 
     Forest Service definitions and a new class of Federal lands 
     highways.
       The Federal Lands Highways program allocation in section 
     202 of title 23, USC is amended to: (1) revise the date on 
     which the Indian Reservation Road fund distribution formula 
     regulation is published, from April 1999 to April 2004, and 
     the year in which the new formula is implemented, from 
     October 1999 to October 2004; (2) allow the use of Indian 
     Reservation Road Bridge funds to be used for design, 
     engineering and precon-
     struction as well as construction; (3) limit the amounts that 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs may use to pay the costs of 
     administering the Indian reservation roads program (including 
     the administrative expenses relating to individual projects 
     associated with the Indian reservation roads program) to 6 
     percent; (4) require not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which funds are made available to the Secretary of the 
     Interior the distribution and availability of such funds for 
     immediate use by eligible Indian tribes; (5) establish a 
     demonstration program under which eligible tribes may enter 
     into contracts and agreements with the Secretary of 
     Transportation under the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act; (6) authorize $13,396,226 annually 
     for IRR bridge planning, design, engineering, 
     preconstruction, construction and inspection; and (7) make 
     Indian reservation road maintenance expenses eligible for 
     funding up to certain amounts.
       Section 204 of title 23 is amended to: (1) allow the 
     Secretary to enter into agreements as well as contracts, and 
     (2) expand the use of refuge road funds to be used for 
     interpretive signage, maintenance of public roads in National 
     Fish hatcheries, payment of the non-Federal share of Federal-
     aid highway and transit projects, and maintenance and 
     improvement of recreational trails. Funding used for trails 
     would be limited to 5 percent of available funding per fiscal 
     year.
       Maintenance and improvement projects on recreation roads 
     consistent with or identified in a land use plan do not need 
     any additional environmental reviews or assessments under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) if there is no new information and no significant 
     changes to the proposal bearing on environmental concerns. 
     Improvement projects include those consisting of one or more 
     of the following elements: roadway widening, adding 
     shoulders, paving of gravel roads, gravelling of earth roads, 
     rebuilding of the roadway subgrade, reshaping the roadway 
     surface, replacing culverts, rehabilitation or widening of 
     bridges, minor grade and curvature adjustments to short 
     sections of roads, and the installation of signs, pavement 
     striping, guardrails and other safety hardware.
       A safety funding category is created to provide dedicated 
     funds for transportation safety improvement projects, 
     collection of safety information, development and operation 
     of safety management systems, highway safety education 
     programs, and other eligible activities under section 402 of 
     title 23. Safety funding is distributed among the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land 
     Management, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
       A recreation roads funding category is created to provide 
     dedicated funds for improvement projects for public roads 
     under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, 
     Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, Department of Defense, 
     and Army Corps of Engineers, and that are owned by the U.S. 
     Government.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate provision with several 
     modifications. New funding and eligibility categories for 
     safety and recreation roads are eliminated. Specific dollar 
     amounts are identified for program management oversight and 
     project-related administrative expenses of the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs equaling roughly 6 percent of each year's 
     program allocation. These amounts are still subject to 
     reduction upon a tribe's request for use in carrying out 
     contracts and agreements in accordance with the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.).
       In addition to contracts and agreements currently permitted 
     under section 202(d)(3) of title 23 between tribes and the 
     Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), tribes 
     will also be able to enter into contracts and agreements in 
     accordance with ISDEAA for IRR programs or projects with the 
     Secretary of Transportation.
       Amounts authorized for Indian reservation road bridges is 
     increased to $14 million annually. Within the office of the 
     Secretary is created a new Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
     Tribal Government Affairs. The Secretary is also directed to 
     conduct a national IRR survey, and to conduct a study of 
     methods to reduce collisions between motor vehicles and 
     wildlife.


                 SEC. 1120. PUERTO RICO HIGHWAY PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.

[[Page 18773]]


     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1811.
       Section 173 of title 23 authorizes the continuation of the 
     Puerto Rico Highway Program to carry out a highway program in 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       The committee continues the requirement to distribute the 
     lump sum authorized each year to programs in the same 
     proportions that Puerto Rico received apportionments of such 
     funds in 1997. The funds are subject to the penalties under 
     titles 23 and 49 that would apply to apportionments from the 
     programs.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate language with minor 
     modifications.


                       SEC. 1121. HOV FACILITIES

     House Bill
       Sec. 1208.
       This section adds a new section 168 to title 23 that 
     authorizes the use of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. 
     Subsection (a) of the proposed section 168 in title 23 allows 
     a state agency to establish the occupancy requirements of 
     vehicles operating on an HOV facility except that no fewer 
     than 2 occupants per vehicle may be required for use of a HOV 
     facility.
       This section also provides the exemptions for the HOV 
     occupancy requirements including motorcycles, bicycles, 
     public transportation vehicles, and High Occupancy Toll (HOT) 
     vehicles and low emission and energy-efficient vehicles.
       For HOT lanes the state agency must charge operators of 
     vehicles with less than the established occupancy 
     requirements a fee. The agency must also establish a program 
     that addresses how motorists can enroll and participate in 
     the toll program, automatically collects tolls, and 
     establishes policies and procedures to manage demand by 
     varying the toll, enforce violations, and permit low-income 
     drivers to pay a reduced toll.
       For inherently low emission vehicles, a state may allow the 
     use of HOV lanes even if the occupancy requirements are not 
     met so long as the vehicles are certified pursuant to section 
     88.311-93 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. The state 
     agency may also allow other low emission and energy efficient 
     vehicles to pay a toll to use HOV lanes even if the occupancy 
     requirements are not met if those vehicles meet the 
     certification requirements that the EPA is directed to 
     develop in subsection (e). The toll amount charged to low 
     emission vehicles not certified pursuant to the CFR and other 
     energy efficient vehicles may be less than other HOT lane 
     vehicles, or the toll may be zero.
       This section also sets requirements applicable to tolls on 
     HOV lanes. This subsection verifies that HOV facilities on 
     the interstate can be tolled pursuant to the provisions of 
     this section. The subsection also states that the state 
     agency must first use the toll revenue to repay debt and 
     provide a reasonable rate of return on investments and then 
     must give priority consideration to projects for developing 
     alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel and projects 
     for improving highway safety, including projects that improve 
     safety by providing increased capacity.
       This section addresses HOV facility management, operation, 
     monitoring and enforcement. If a state agency allows single 
     occupancy HOV vehicles to use the facility it must ensure 
     that vehicles maintain a minimum operating speed 90 percent 
     of the time over a 6-month period during weekday peak travel 
     periods.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1606.
       This section amends section 102(a) of title 23 to clarify 
     existing law and provide more flexibility to State and local 
     agencies for effective management of HOV facilities.
       This section identifies the types of vehicles that are 
     exempt from meeting the minimum occupancy requirements for 
     HOV facilities. This provision also identifies the possible 
     options that responsible agencies may select from and use as 
     operational strategies to maximize the use of existing and 
     planned future HOV facilities and highway capacity, mitigate 
     congestion, and reduce fuel consumption. Motorcycles shall 
     not be considered single-occupant vehicles and shall be 
     allowed to use HOV facilities, consistent with the provisions 
     of section 163 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act 
     of 1982.
       Responsible agencies may allow low-emission and energy-
     efficient vehicles to use HOV facilities provided that the 
     agency: (1) creates a program that defines how such 
     qualifying vehicles are selected and certified, (2) 
     establishes a method to label qualifying vehicles (3) 
     continuously monitors, evaluates, reports to the Secretary on 
     performance, (4) and imposes restrictions on the use of HOV 
     lanes by vehicles that do not meet established requirements.
       Responsible agencies are provided with the option of 
     charging vehicles a toll for the use of an HOV facility if 
     these vehicles do not meet the minimum occupancy 
     requirements, and if the requirements of section 129 of title 
     23 are met.
       A responsible agency under this section includes a State 
     department of transportation, local transportation agency, or 
     other public or private entity designated by a State to 
     collect a toll on HOV lanes.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference agrees to the House provision, with certain 
     accommodations to the Senate language, to add a new section 
     168 to title 23 that authorizes the use of HOV lanes. 
     Subsection (a) of the new section 168 in title 23 allows a 
     state agency to establish the occupancy requirements of 
     vehicles operating on an HOV facility except that no fewer 
     than 2 occupants per vehicle may be required for use of a HOV 
     facility.
       The conferees intend for this provision to provide 
     exemptions for the HOV occupancy requirements including 
     motorcycles, bicycles, public transportation vehicles, 
     inherently low emission vehicles, low emission and energy-
     efficient vehicles, and High Occupancy Toll (HOT) vehicles.
       For inherently low emission vehicles, the conferees accept 
     the House provisions that the state may allow the use of HOV 
     lanes even if the occupancy requirements are not met so long 
     as the vehicles are certified pursuant to section 88.311-93 
     of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. The state agency 
     may also allow other low emission and energy efficient 
     vehicles to pay a toll to use HOV lanes even if the occupancy 
     requirements are not met if those vehicles meet the 
     certification requirements that the EPA is directed to 
     develop in subsection (e). The toll amount charged to low 
     emission vehicles not certified pursuant to the CFR and other 
     energy efficient vehicles may be less than other HOT lane 
     vehicles, or the toll may be zero.
       The House recedes to the Senate on the definition of low 
     emission and energy efficient vehicles. Under this language, 
     the Administrator of EPA must certify that a low emission or 
     energy efficient vehicles operating in the HOV lane with 
     fewer than 2 passengers meets Tier II emissions levels 
     established under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7521(i)) for that make and model vehicle. In addition 
     to meeting Tier II, a low emission or energy efficient 
     vehicles must meet one of two additional requirements: it 
     must be an alternative fuel vehicle operating on alternative 
     fuel or, if it is propelled by on-board hybrid technologies, 
     it must meet particular fuel economy performance 
     requirements.
       For the purposes of this section, Senate recedes to the 
     House on the definition of alternative fuel vehicles with one 
     clarification that such fuels include additional 
     substantially non-petroleum fuels regulated under 10 C.F.R. 
     490.
       With respect to the determination of fuel economy 
     performance requirements for a low emission or energy 
     efficient vehicle not meeting occupancy requirements that is 
     propelled by on-board hybrid technologies, the conferees have 
     agreed to accept language in the Senate-passed legislation. 
     Under this subsection, a low emission or energy efficient 
     vehicle propelled by hybrid technology may access the HOV 
     lane if the EPA certifies that it has achieved not less than 
     a 50-percent increase in city fuel economy or not less than a 
     25-percent increase in combined city-highway fuel economy. 
     The conferees also have made conforming changes to the 
     section to ensure that states have the ability to increase 
     either of these percentages as part of their HOV management 
     programs. The conferees intend to give the states broad 
     discretion to increase these percentages for individual 
     vehicles as a way of managing vehicle access, maintaining air 
     quality and preventing lane degradation.
       The conferees note that some current hybrid manufacturers 
     make hybrid versions of a vehicle and do not make a gasoline 
     counterpart. In such cases, the conferees feel that EPA and 
     the states should compare the hybrid vehicle to a group or 
     class of gasoline vehicles of similar size, weight and 
     performance.
       This section also sets requirements applicable to tolls on 
     HOV lanes. This subsection verifies that HOV facilities on 
     the Interstate can be tolled pursuant to the provisions of 
     this section. The subsection also states that the state 
     agency must first use the toll revenue to repay debt and 
     provide a reasonable rate of return on investments and then 
     must give priority consideration to projects for developing 
     alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel and projects 
     for improving highway safety, including projects that improve 
     safety by providing increased capacity.
       This section addresses HOV facility management, operation, 
     monitoring and enforcement. If a state agency allows single 
     occupancy HOV vehicles to use the facility it must ensure 
     that vehicles maintain a minimum operating speed 90 percent 
     of the time over a 6-month period during weekday peak travel 
     periods. The conferees intend that a state agency include a 
     public authority or a public or private entity designated by 
     the state agency.


                   SEC. 1122. BIA INDIAN ROAD PROGRAM

                         SEC. 1123. DEFINITIONS

     House Bill
       This section adds ``Advanced Truck Stop Electrification 
     System'' to the definitions in section 101.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a 
     modification to add an additional provision to amend the 
     definition of ``Transportation Enhancement Activity'' to 
     include

[[Page 18774]]

     the acquisition of historic battlefields and to clarify that 
     inventory for outdoor advertising is currently and shall 
     continue to be an eligible activity.
       Inventory control may include, but not be limited to, data 
     collection, acquisition and maintenance of digital aerial 
     photography, video logging, scanning and imaging of data, 
     developing and maintaining an inventory and control database, 
     and hiring of outside legal counsel.

                     Subtitle B--Congestion Relief


       SEC. 1201. REAL-TIME SYSTEM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1203.
       This section requires the Secretary to establish a program 
     that provides to all States the capability to monitor, in 
     real-time, the traffic and travel conditions of the nation's 
     major highways and to share the information with other 
     States, local governments, and the traveling public.
       The Secretary is required to establish a steering committee 
     to provide guidance regarding the content and uniformity of 
     data exchange formats to ensure that data can be shared.
       With approval from the Secretary, States may obligate 
     certain formula funds for activities related to the planning 
     and deployment of this program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1702.
       This section encourages the deployment of systems to 
     monitor the condition of key surface transportation 
     facilities.
       Changes made to 23 USC 169(c) in this section require the 
     States to establish an incident reporting system within two 
     years of enactment of this section. If a State demonstrates 
     that it cannot meet this deadline, the Secretary may extend 
     this deadline up to 5 years after date of enactment.
       The purpose of the proposed real-time system management 
     information program is to provide the nationwide capability 
     to monitor and disseminate real-time traffic and travel 
     conditions of major highways. The committee hopes this 
     program will improve the security of the surface 
     transportation system, address congestion problems, support 
     improved response to weather events, and facilitate national 
     and regional traveler information.
       Specifically, this section requires the Secretary to 
     establish data exchange formats within one year of enactment 
     of this bill. Within two years of enactment of this bill, 
     each State will be required to establish a statewide incident 
     reporting system, unless a waiver is received from the 
     Secretary that allows up to 3 additional years. In exercising 
     this discretion, the committee expects that the Secretary 
     will only provide the State the minimum extension necessary 
     to complete development of its reporting system.
       The committee expects State and local governments to 
     explicitly address real-time highway and transit needs and 
     the systems needed to meet those needs including coverage, 
     monitoring systems, data fusion and archiving, and methods of 
     information sharing and exchange within their intelligent 
     transportation system regional architecture.
       Activities related to the planning and deployment of real-
     time monitoring elements would be eligible for Surface 
     Transportation Program and National Highway System funds. 
     Under this section, a State may obligate State Planning and 
     Research funds for activities related to the planning of 
     real-time monitoring elements.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to accept the House provision with 
     one exception in dropping the provision to establish a 
     National Steering Committee.

                  Subtitle C--Mobility and Efficiency


       SEC. 1301. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

     House Bill
       Sec. 1304.
       This section establishes a program to finance critical, 
     high-cost transportation infrastructure that address critical 
     national economic and transportation needs. These projects of 
     national and regional significance will improve the safe, 
     secure, and efficient movement of people and goods throughout 
     the United States and improve the health and welfare of the 
     national economy by increasing economic productivity, 
     facilitating international trade, relieving transportation 
     congestion, and enhancing transportation safety.
       The program will fund the construction of high-cost surface 
     transportation projects, including freight railroad projects 
     eligible under title 23. To be eligible for assistance under 
     this program, eligible project costs must equal or exceed the 
     lesser of $500 million or 75 percent of the State's highway 
     apportionment for the prior fiscal year. The Secretary of 
     Transportation will conduct a national solicitation for 
     applications for projects of national and regional 
     significance and award grants on a competitive basis. The 
     program creates a rigorous review process for project 
     applicants similar to the Federal Transit Administration's 
     review process for transit new start projects.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to adopt the House provision.


    SEC. 1302. NATIONAL CORRIDOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1301.
       This section directs the Secretary to establish and 
     implement a program to allocate funding to States for highway 
     construction projects in corridors of national significance. 
     A State must submit applications to the Secretary for funds.
       The Secretary shall give priority to corridor projects that 
     are part of, or will be designated as part of, the Dwight D. 
     Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense highways 
     and to any project that will be complete in five years. The 
     Secretary shall consider such factors as mobility, economic 
     growth, linking two existing segments of Interstate, 
     commercial vehicle traffic due to NAFTA, reduction of travel 
     time, value of the cargo traveling through the corridor, 
     economic costs, and the financing associated with the 
     project.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1809.
       The program supports and encourages multistate 
     transportation planning and facilitates both project 
     development and decision-making for multistate corridors. 
     State transportation departments or metropolitan planning 
     organizations may receive and administer the funds provided 
     under this section for multistate highway and multimodal 
     planning studies and construction.
       Freight demand is forecasted to increase significantly in 
     the coming years. The committee's goal is to meet this 
     growing demand by improving highways and intermodal 
     connections in the nation's key corridors. Funds provided by 
     the Corridor Program should supplement other public and 
     private funding to support strategic improvements, expanding 
     both capacity and efficiency.
       The Secretary shall select studies and projects to be 
     carried out under this program based on: 1) the existence and 
     significance of binding agreements; 2) the endorsement of the 
     study or project by elected representative; 3) prospects for 
     early completion; and 4) whether the study or project was 
     listed in 1105(c) of ISTEA.
       The committee expects that the Secretary will encourage 
     States and other jurisdictions to work together and shall 
     give priority to projects that increase mobility, freight 
     productivity, access to marine or inland ports, safety and 
     security, and reliability.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to continue this program as current 
     law with a modification for the funding to be as such sums as 
     necessary out of the General Fund.


          SEC. 1303. COORDINATED BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1302.
       This section establishes a new formula program for border 
     infrastructure projects. The Secretary apportions funds to 
     the States based upon several factors: incoming commercial 
     trucks passing through land border ports of entry; the number 
     of incoming personal motor vehicles and buses passing through 
     the land border ports of entry; the weight of incoming cargo 
     by commercial trucks passing through such ports of entry; and 
     the number of land border ports of entry.
       Definitions--``Border region'' means any portion of a 
     border State within 20 miles in an international land border 
     with Canada or Mexico. ``Border State'' means any State that 
     has an international land border with Canada or Mexico. 
     ``Commercial Truck'' means a commercial motor vehicle as 
     defined in section 31301(4) (other than subparagraph (B)) of 
     title 49, U.S.C.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1810.
       The purpose of this program is to support the coordination 
     and improvement of bi-national transportation planning, 
     operations, efficiency, capacity, information exchange, 
     safety, and security at the international borders of the 
     United States with Canada and Mexico. The term border State 
     in this section means any of the States of Alaska, Arizona, 
     California, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New 
     Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Texas, 
     Vermont, and Washington.
       The committee is aware of the ever growing strain on the 
     nation's points of entry caused by the demands of a global 
     economy. As with the Corridors Program, the committee has 
     elected to expand funding for the Borders program in hopes 
     that both capacity and operational efficiency can be improved 
     to meet future freight mobility needs.
       The General Services Administration (GSA) is authorized to 
     receive funding under this section at the request of a border 
     State. The committee intends transportation improvement 
     projects undertaken with funds directly transferred by the 
     Secretary to the GSA to be designed and constructed in 
     coordination with State transportation officials. State 
     transportation departments and metropolitan planning 
     organizations at or

[[Page 18775]]

     near an international land border in a border State may 
     receive and administer funds allocated under this program to 
     carry out the eligible activities listed in this section.
       For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate funds 
     based on the specified formula listed in this section. In 
     choosing projects, it is the hope of the committee that 
     border States choose projects that emphasize multimodal 
     planning, improvements in infrastructure, and improvements 
     that stress both the environment and a desire to promote 
     increased safety, security, freight capacity, and highway 
     access to rail, marine, and air services.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to the House provision with a change 
     to the definition of Border region being any portion of a 
     border State within 100 miles in an international land border 
     with Canada or Mexico. Under this section a border state may 
     use funds apportioned to it for this program for, among other 
     things, highway projects located within 100 geographic miles 
     of an international land border, and for planning and 
     environmental studies for such projects. Such projects are 
     considered to be within a border region and as facilitating 
     cross-border motor vehicle and cargo movements and motor 
     vehicle and cargo movements related to international trade. 
     The Conferees intend funding provided under this program be 
     used to improve highway infrastructure or highway safety for 
     the purpose of facilitating movement of people and goods. 
     Under the provision, various features of title 23 are 
     incorporated by reference, including the sliding scale match 
     provision of 23 USC 120.


   SEC. 1304. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1804.
       This section adds new corridor designations to the high 
     priority corridor list in ISTEA.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to House provision with modifications 
     adding additional corridors.


                  SEC. 1305. TRUCK PARKING FACILITIES

     House Bill
       Sec. 1306.
       This section establishes a pilot program in cooperation 
     with appropriate State, regional, and local governments to 
     address the shortage of long-term parking for commercial 
     motor vehicles on the National Highway System.
       This section allows State, regional, and local governments 
     to address the safety problem of fatigued drivers through a 
     pilot program designed to allow for the creation of new rest 
     stops, as stated in section 120(c) of title 23, addition of 
     new commercial motor vehicle parking facilities adjacent to 
     commercial truck stops or travel plazas, or opening existing 
     weigh stations or park-and-ride facilities to commercial 
     motor vehicle parking. Pilot programs may also include using 
     intelligent transportation systems, or other means, to 
     promote the availability of public or privately available 
     parking facilities.
       The Committee developed this pilot project after working 
     closely with the Administration, industry, State safety and 
     construction agencies, and truck plaza and rest stop 
     operators. It is the Committee's intent that the projects 
     funded from this pilot program only address adding parking 
     facilities in corridors with an identified truck parking 
     shortage. This pilot program is not intended to compete with 
     local businesses or commercial enterprises.
       Not later than five years after the enactment of this bill, 
     the Secretary shall transmit a report on the results of the 
     pilot programs developed under this section.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1814.
       This section creates the Commercial Truck Parking and the 
     Corridor and Fringe Parking Pilot Programs. This section also 
     authorizes the Secretary to appropriate funds for these 
     programs.
       The committee aims to create additional parking on the 
     National Highway System by creating two different pilot 
     programs: the Commercial Truck Parking Pilot Program and the 
     Corridor and Fringe Parking Pilot Program. The section 
     authorizes the Secretary to appropriate $8,930,818 in grants 
     from the Highway Trust Fund for each of these programs.
       The Commercial Truck Parking Pilot Program allows funds to 
     be used for construction of safety rest areas that include 
     truck parking, commercial vehicle parking facilities adjacent 
     to commercial truck stops, and projects designed to improve 
     accessibility for truck parking on or near the National 
     Highway System. The committee expects priority for these 
     funds will be given to States with a severe shortage of 
     commercial vehicle parking, as well as potential for positive 
     effects on safety, congestion, and air quality from improved 
     parking facility.
       The committee also recognized the importance of adequate 
     and accessible parking for car pooling, van pooling, ride 
     sharing, commuting, and high occupancy vehicle travel. The 
     committee notes that these practices have a definitive impact 
     on congestion, air quality and traffic safety and proposes 
     the Corridor and Fringe Parking Pilot Program to be given to 
     the States for the construction of parking facilities, costs 
     to promote public awareness of the facilities, and geometric 
     design improvement on adjoining roadways.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to adopt the House provision.


     SEC. 1306. FREIGHT INTERMODAL DISTRIBUTION PILOT GRANT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1307.
       This provision establishes a pilot program to demonstrate 
     the feasibility of developing inland intermodal port 
     facilities that can accommodate short-haul rail shipments, 
     relieve traffic congestion, and improve safety at coastal 
     ports in metropolitan areas on the West Coast. Priority will 
     be given to projects that will reduce congestion into and out 
     of international ports in the U.S., reduce the need to move 
     empty containers into and out of ports, and establish or 
     expand intermodal facilities that encourage the development 
     of inland freight distribution centers. Eligible projects may 
     include developing and constructing intermodal freight 
     distribution and transfer facilities at inland ports or at 
     facilities serving inland ports.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications that eliminate the preference for West Coast 
     ports and names six projects to carry out the pilot program.


  SEC. 1307. DEPLOYMENT OF MAGNETIC LEVITATION TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1118.
       This section details the funding and eligibility 
     requirements for constructing fixed guideway infrastructure, 
     as well as the related components necessary for the 
     construction, but not including costs incurred for a new 
     station. Eligible projects under this section must involve a 
     segment or segments of high speed ground transportation 
     corridor, result in an operating transportation facility that 
     provides a revenue-producing service and be approved by the 
     Secretary. It is the Committee's intent for this program to 
     be administered as a new program and not the continuation of 
     any previously authorized program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1819.
       This section continues the authorization of the Magnetic 
     Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment program 
     (MAGLEV) in section 322 of title 23.
       Section 322 of title 23 is amended to allow the Secretary 
     to solicit additional applications from States or authorities 
     designated by one or more States, for financial assistance 
     for planning, design, and construction of eligible MAGLEV 
     projects. Authorized from the Highway Trust Fund for this 
     program is $357,232,704 for fiscal year 2005, $370,628,931 
     for fiscal year 2006, $379,559,748 for fiscal year 2007, 
     $388,490,566 for fiscal year 2008, $401,886,792 for fiscal 
     year 2009.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


       SEC. 1308. DELTA REGION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1824.
       This section creates section 178 of title 23, the Delta 
     Regional Transportation Development Program.
       The Delta Regional Transportation Development Program is a 
     discretionary program to assist the Delta Regional Authority 
     in developing adequate transportation infrastructure in the 
     8-state region served by the authority. The committee feels 
     that this investment will remedy severe economic distress by 
     stimulating development in the region through the 
     mobilization of people and goods through a safe 
     transportation program. Funds under this program may be used 
     for multi-state highway and transit planning, development, 
     and construction.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


  SEC. 1309. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLE EXEMPTION FROM AXLE 
                          WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1830.
       This section extends the exemption that public transit 
     vehicles and over-the-road buses have from axle weight 
     restrictions.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1404.
       This section amends section 127 of title 23, relating to 
     axle weight limitations for vehicles using the interstate 
     system.
       This section amends section 127 of title 23 to exempt any 
     over-the-road bus (as defined

[[Page 18776]]

     in section 301 of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 
     1990) or any vehicle that is regularly and exclusively used 
     as an intrastate public agency transit passenger bus using 
     the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways from 
     the maximum gross weight limitations imposed by any State.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                  SEC. 1310. INTERSTATE OASIS PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1815.
       This section establishes an interstate oasis program.
       This section requires the Secretary to establish an 
     interstate oasis program for designating interstate oases 
     that provide products and services to the public, 24 hour 
     access to restroom, and parking for automobiles and heavy 
     trucks. The Secretary shall also take into account the 
     appearance of the facility as well as the proximity of the 
     system to the interstate for its designation.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.

                       Subtitle D--Highway Safety


             SEC. 1401. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1401.
       This section amends title 23 by eliminating the requirement 
     that States set aside 10 percent of their section 133, 
     Surface Transportation Program, funds to carry out section 
     130 of title 23, the Railway-Highway Crossing program and 
     section 152, the Hazard Elimination program. This section 
     also establishes a separate funding authorization for a 
     combined section 130 and 152 called Highway Safety 
     Improvement Program. However, the authorizing language for 
     the two programs still resides in Section 130 and Section 
     152.
       In subsection (a) the definition of Safety Improvement 
     Project as used in Section 101(a)(30) of title 23 is expanded 
     to include the installation of fluorescent, yellow-green 
     signs at pedestrian or bicycle crossings or school zones.
       Subsection (b) amends title 23 to move the set-aside for 
     Operation Lifesaver from the apportionment under the Surface 
     Transportation Program to the apportionment for Section 130. 
     It also increases the amount for this program from $500,000 
     to $600,000.
       Subsection (c) increases the amount of the set-aside for 
     hazard elimination in high-speed rail corridors designated 
     under 104(d)(2) of title 23 and for the Minneapolis/St. 
     Paul--Chicago segment of the Midwest High-Speed Rail 
     Corridor. The subsection also adds the Northern New England 
     High Speed Rail Corridor and expands the South Central 
     Corridor to section 104(d)(2) of title 23.
       Subsection (d) adds a special rule to allow States to use 
     funds for protective devices on other section 130 activities 
     if the State demonstrates to the Secretary that it has met 
     the needs in such State for protective devices. The 
     apportionment formula for rail highway crossings is amended 
     to distribute funds 50 percent based on the STP formula and 
     50 percent based on the number of rail highway crossings. 
     Each state shall receive at least a minimum of one half of 
     one percent. The federal share will be 90 percent. States 
     will be required to report to Congress every two years and 
     can use up to two percent of their funds for analysis and 
     data collection.
       Subsection (e) makes technical changes.
       Subsection (f) amends section 152(a)(1) of title 23 to 
     include in the state survey dangers to the disabled from 
     hazardous road conditions. It also includes a requirement 
     that States identify the roadway safety improvements for 
     hazardous locations. It also adds four new activities for 
     which the funds can be used. The Secretary will use the STP 
     apportionment formula to apportion funds to the States for 
     the Hazard Elimination program. Each State shall receive at 
     least one half of one percent from funds apportioned to the 
     States. The federal share will be 90 percent. The Secretary 
     is required to report to Congress every two years the results 
     of this program, including projects completed, the 
     effectiveness of the projects, adequacy of funding and 
     recommendation of improvements to the program.
       Subsection (g) makes the amendments in subsection (d), (e) 
     and (f) effective September 30, 2005 since there is no 
     funding for the new Highway Safety Improvement Program in 
     fiscal year 2005.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1401.
       This program authorizes a new core Federal-aid funding 
     program for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in 
     section 148 of title 23.
       The Committee heard compelling testimony that further 
     progress was needed to project the safety of the traveling 
     public. While rates of highway fatalities have decreased in 
     recent years, 42,000 Americans still lose their lives on the 
     nation's highways each year. In response, the committee has 
     elected to create and apportion funds for a new core program, 
     the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Recognizing that 
     needs and circumstances vary in each State, the committee has 
     sought to provide flexibility to the States on how the new 
     program funds are spent. To ensure that such flexibility is 
     well applied, the Committee will require each State to 
     develop a safety plan and restrict spending under the program 
     to projects or activities arising from that plan.
       Section 133 of title 23, is amended by eliminating the 
     current provision that requires States to set-aside a minimum 
     of 10% of Surface Transportation Program funds for safety 
     programs. Section 148 is subject to three set-asides: (1) 
     $178,616,352 for the elimination of hazards and the 
     installation of protective devices at railway-highway 
     crossings; (2) $22,327,044 for the improvement of traffic 
     signs and pavement markings to accommodate older drivers and 
     pedestrians, and (3) $62,515,723 for the Safe Routes to 
     Schools program under section 150 of title 23.
       Section 1401 eliminates the Hazard Elimination Program 
     under Section 152 of title 23, and incorporates it into 23 
     USC 148 the new HSIP. Additional categories eligible for 
     funding under this section have been added to what is 
     currently eligible under subsection (f) and (g) of section 
     152, title 23.
       The HSIP directs State transportation departments to 
     establish and implement a State strategic highway safety plan 
     in their State. In order to receive funds for this program, 
     States must have a process in place to analyze highway safety 
     problems and opportunities and to produce strategies to 
     mitigate identified safety problems. States must also submit 
     an annual report to the Secretary that identifies hazardous 
     locations and elements, and assesses the costs and 
     impediments to eliminating the hazards.
       States that have developed a strategic highway safety plan 
     are also permitted to use up to 25% of their section 148 
     funds on safety projects carried out under any other section 
     of title 23 as long as the project is consistent with the 
     State's strategic highway safety plan.
       The development of a strategic highway safety plan does not 
     require changes in existing planning processes, plans, or 
     programs of other State transportation or highway safety 
     agencies.
       Sec. 1402.
       This section increases the funding level for Operation 
     Lifesaver from $500,000 to $535,849 for each fiscal year and 
     moves the source of funding from the Surface Transportation 
     Program to section 148, the Highway Safety Improvement 
     Program.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications. The program set-asides within the Senate HSIP 
     structure were modified: (1) to eliminate the set-aside for 
     the Safe Routes to School program, making it a separately 
     funded program; (2) eliminating the mandatory set-aside for 
     bicycle and pedestrian improvements; (3) added a set-aside of 
     $90,000,000 annually for construction and operational 
     improvements on high risk rural roads; (4) increasing the 
     set-aside for the installation of protective devices at 
     railway-highway crossings to $220,000,000; and (5) increasing 
     the set-aside for Operation Lifesaver to $560,000.
       With regards to the State strategic highway safety plans, 
     States are given until October 1, 2007 to develop the plan. 
     If such a plan has not been developed by October 1, 2007, a 
     State's HSIP apportionment for subsequent fiscal years will 
     be frozen at fiscal year 2007 levels, until the State 
     completes development of the strategic highway safety plan. 
     States that have developed a strategic highway safety plan 
     and also certify to the Secretary that they have met their 
     State's needs relating to railway-highway crossings and 
     infrastructure highway safety improvement projects, are also 
     permitted to use up to 10% of their HSIP funds on safety 
     projects carried out under any other section of title 23 
     (e.g. section 402 Highway Safety programs), consistent with 
     the State's strategic highway safety plan. If a State 
     certifies that it has met all of its needs for installation 
     of protective devices at railway-highway crossings, the State 
     may use funds set-aside for section 130 Railway-Highway 
     Crossings to pay for any other safety projects eligible under 
     the HSIP, consistent with that State's strategic safety plan. 
     If a State certifies that it has met all of its needs for 
     construction and operational improvements on high risk rural 
     roads, the State may use funds set-aside for that purpose to 
     pay for any other safety projects eligible under the HSIP, 
     consistent with that State's strategic safety plan. The high 
     risk rural roads program requires the Secretary to ensure 
     States set aside an aggregate of $90 million a year to 
     improve the safety of rural roads. The Conferees intend for 
     the set-aside to be applied proportionally to each States' 
     share of the HSIP apportionment.
       With regards to the distribution formula used to apportion 
     funds for the HSIP program to the States, the Conference 
     abandons the Surface Transportation Program formula 
     previously used to distribute funds for sections 152 and 130. 
     Adopted in its place is the following formula for 
     distributing funds apportioned for the HSIP program: \1/3\ of 
     the funds are apportioned based on each State's

[[Page 18777]]

     percentage of lane miles of Federal-aid highways; \1/3\ of 
     the funds are apportioned based on each State's percentage of 
     vehicle miles traveled on Federal-aid highways; and \1/3\ of 
     the funds are apportioned based on the each State's 
     percentage of fatalities on the Federal-aid system. 
     Additionally, of the amounts set-aside from the HSIP for the 
     elimination of hazards and the installation of protective 
     devices at railway-highway crossings under section 130(e), 
     \1/2\ of the funds are apportioned based on the formula set 
     forth in section 104(b)(3)(A) and \1/2\ of the funds are 
     apportioned based on each State's percentage of railway-
     highway crossings.


 SEC. 1402. WORKER INJURY PREVENTION AND FREE FLOW OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

     House Bill
       Sec. 1402.
       The Secretary shall, within one year, issue regulations 
     requiring workers whose duties place them in close proximity 
     to a Federal-aid highway to wear high visibility garments.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1408.
       This section ensures increased worker safety and assists 
     with the free flow of vehicular traffic.
       This section directs the Secretary to promulgate 
     regulations recommending workers near a Federal-aid highway 
     to wear high-visibility clothing, and to recommend any other 
     worker-safety measures that the Secretary deems necessary to 
     minimize worker injuries and maintain the free flow of 
     vehicular traffic.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision and finds the 
     provisions in both the House and Senate to be substantially 
     equivalent.


           SEC. 1403. TOLL FACILITIES WORKPLACE SAFETY STUDY

     House Bill
       Sec. 1807.
       This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
     determine the safety of highway toll collection facilities 
     for toll collectors who work in and around such facilities. 
     It requires the Secretary to submit within 1 year a report on 
     the results of the study and recommendations for improving 
     workplace safety at toll facilities to the congressional 
     committees of jurisdiction.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7214.
       This program is reauthorized for FYs 2006 through 2009 at 
     an average annual funding level of $142 million. These 
     programs focus on the research and development of safety 
     countermeasures related to impaired driving, occupant 
     protection, traffic law enforcement and criminal justice, 
     licensing, motorcycle, pedestrian, bicycle, teen drivers and 
     emergency medical services. The States use this research to 
     model their safety programs for the most impact on saving 
     lives and reducing injuries. This section also would provide 
     $24 million a year to NHTSA to launch national advertising 
     campaigns to increase seat belt use and reduce drunk driving 
     during holiday periods. Launching these advertising campaigns 
     at the national level is much more cost effective than 
     individual States buying advertising at the local level.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision. It is the intent 
     of the conference that those agencies operating such toll 
     facilities shall, at the request of the Secretary, provide 
     data as necessary to adhere to this provision.


                SEC. 1404. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1122(a).
       This section establishes two new programs--a Safe Routes to 
     School Program and a Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot 
     Program.
       Subsection (a) establishes a Safe Routes to School Program 
     for the benefit of children in primary and middle schools. 
     The purposes of the program are to enable and encourage 
     children, including those with disabilities, to walk and 
     bicycle to school; to make bicycling and walking to school a 
     safer and more appealing transportation alternative, thereby 
     encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; 
     and to facilitate the planning, development and 
     implementation of projects and activities that will improve 
     safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air 
     pollution in the vicinity of schools.
       Funding is made available by formula to state departments 
     of transportation on the basis of student enrollment in 
     primary and middle schools. No state will receive less than 
     $2 million annually. Funds will be used by the state to 
     provide financial assistance to state, local and regional 
     agencies, including nonprofit organizations, which 
     demonstrate an ability to meet the requirements of this 
     section.
       The program funds two distinct types of projects: 
     infrastructure projects and non- 
     infrastructure related activities. States should be 
     encouraged to create competitive application forms, criteria, 
     and evaluations that are appropriate for the two different 
     types of projects.
       The creation of a state level safe routes to school 
     coordinator position provides a central point of contact for 
     the program. Funding for the state level safe routes to 
     school coordinator position is not included in the 10 to 30 
     percent of funds required to be used for non-infrastructure 
     related activities under this subsection. The state 
     coordinator's position is to be funded from the balance of 
     the state's safe routes to school funds.
       The safe routes to school clearinghouse provides an 
     important opportunity to insure successful implementation of 
     the program. As a new program, states will be interested in 
     guidance on implementing the program effectively and 
     efficiently. The clearinghouse can provide case studies, 
     gather and disseminate information, track implementation, and 
     monitor the program.
       Given the broad scope of safe routes to school activities, 
     the Committee acknowledges the need to include a broad range 
     of agencies and organizations in the Task Force authorized by 
     this section. In addition to representatives from federal 
     agencies, additional task force members could include 
     representatives from state and local agencies as well as 
     relevant non-profit organizations and associations including 
     organizations or associations that represent automobile 
     drivers.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1405.
       This section creates a new Safe Routes to Schools Program, 
     section 150 of title 23. The Secretary shall establish and 
     carry out a safe routes to schools program for the benefit of 
     children who walk and bicycle to school.
       The Safe Routes to Schools program works towards this goal 
     by making bicycling and walking a safer and more appealing 
     transportation alternatives. For this program, the Secretary 
     shall set-aside $65,704,024 from section 148 to facilitate 
     the planning, development, and implementation of projects and 
     activities that will improve safety within two miles of 
     primary and secondary schools. The Secretary shall distribute 
     these funds using the formula established in section 148.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a 
     modification to reduce the minimum state apportionment to $1 
     million.


     SEC. 1405. ROADWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR OLDER DRIVERS AND 
                              PEDESTRIANS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1401.
       As part of the Highway Safety Improvement Program, 
     $23,465,723 is authorized for projects to improve traffic 
     signs and pavement markings in a manner consistent with the 
     recommendations included in the publication of the Federal 
     Highway Administration entitled ``Guidelines and 
     Recommendations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians 
     (FHWA-RD-01-103)''.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with a 
     modification to authorize such sums as necessary for the 
     eligible projects.


        SEC. 1406. SAFETY INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR USE OF SEAT BELTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1405.
       This section authorizes $112,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2004 and 2005 for grants to States that have met 
     certain requirements with regards to seatbelts.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


SEC. 1407. SAFETY INCENTIVES TO PREVENT OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY 
                          INTOXICATED PERSONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1406.
       Subsection (a) codifies the penalty against States for not 
     enacting and enforcing a 0.08 drunk driving law. This penalty 
     was originally enacted in the 2001 DOT appropriations bill.
       Subsection (b) authorizes $110,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2004 and 2005 for grants to States that have enacted 
     0.08 laws.
       Subsection (c) repeals the appropriations language that 
     enacted the penalty in 2001.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


 SEC. 1408. IMPROVEMENT OR REPLACEMENT OF HIGHWAY FEATURES ON NATIONAL 
                             HIGHWAY SYSTEM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1408.
       This section instructs the Secretary to conduct a 
     rulemaking to determine the standards to which a State should 
     replace or repair damaged highway features after they have 
     been damaged.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications. The Secretary is required to issue guidance 
     when choosing to

[[Page 18778]]

     improve or replace highway features on the NHS in lieu of a 
     rulemaking. The conferees deleted the word ``repair'' that 
     was in the House provision. Only planned capital projects to 
     ``replace'' or ``improve'' NHS features are covered by the 
     conference provision.


                   SEC. 1409. WORK ZONE SAFETY GRANTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1809.
       This section directs the Secretary to establish a work zone 
     safety grant program to provide training to prevent or reduce 
     highway work zone injuries and fatalities.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to adopt the House provision with a 
     modification to subsection (d) Construction Work in Alaska.


     sec. 1410. national work zone safety information clearinghouse

     House Bill
       Sec. 1823.
       This section provides grants to establish and operate a 
     National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                       sec. 1411. roadway safety

     House Bill
       Sec. 1125.
       Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to enter into an 
     agreement with an organization to develop a public service 
     campaign to educate transportation officials, public safety 
     officials, and motorists regarding the extent to which road 
     hazards and design features are a factor in motor vehicle 
     crashes.
       Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to make grants to an 
     organization to operate a national bicycle and pedestrian 
     clearinghouse, to disseminate techniques and strategies for 
     improving bicycle and pedestrian safety, and to develop 
     information and educational programs related to pedestrian 
     activities and cycling.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1607.
       This section makes minor amendments to section 217 of Title 
     23.
       These changes explicitly allow the use of STP and CMAQ 
     funds for non-construction pedestrian safety programs whereby 
     current law only mentions bicycle safety. It also explicitly 
     mentions pedestrian use on bridges, whereby current law only 
     mentions bicycle use.
       The current practice of charging user fees for shared-use 
     paths is now explicitly allowed. The fees collected by a 
     State must be used for maintenance and operation of shared 
     use paths within the State. This provision restricts the 
     application of a user fee to shared-use paths not within a 
     highway right-of-way and prohibits extension of user fees to 
     sidewalks or bicycle lanes.
       In order to address concerns regarding bicycle and 
     pedestrian safety, the national bicycle and pedestrian 
     clearinghouse first authorized in section 1212(i) of TEA-21 
     is reauthorized. A new subsection (i) provides funding and 
     contract authority for these safety efforts for fiscal years 
     2004 through 2009.
       This section also provides that the bicycle and safety 
     grants are to be funded by a set-aside from the Surface 
     Transportation Program.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


   SEC. 1412. IDLING REDUCTION FACILITIES IN INTERSTATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

     House Bill
       Sec. 1828.
       This section includes a definition for Advanced Truck Stop 
     Electrification Systems in Title 23 and clarifies that such 
     systems are eligible under CMAQ.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1608.
       This section creates an exception to the prohibition of the 
     placement of commercial establishments in rest and recreation 
     areas, and in safety rest areas, constructed or located on 
     rights-of-way of the Interstate System.
       The purpose of this exception allows States (either 
     directly or through contracts) to place electrification or 
     other idling reduction facilities in rest areas that can be 
     used to provide heating, air conditioning, electricity, and 
     communication to motor vehicles used for commercial purposes. 
     Through these facilities, operators of such motor vehicles 
     are able to receive these services without turning on their 
     engines, thereby reducing vehicle emissions. States, other 
     public agencies, and private entities that are already 
     allowed to operate on the Interstate System, may charge for 
     the services provided under this authority.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopted both the House and Senate provision 
     with modifications.

            Subtitle E--Construction and Contract Efficiency


                    sec. 1501. program efficiencies

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1804.
       This section amends 23 U.S.C. 115, Advance construction, 
     and 23 U.S.C. 118, Availability of funds.
       Section 115 is amended to remove the restriction that a 
     State must obligate all of its allocated or apportioned 
     funds, or demonstrate that it will use all obligation 
     authority allocated to it for Federal-aid highways and 
     highway safety construction prior to approval of advance 
     construction projects.
       The revisions clarify that advance construction procedures 
     can be used for all categories of Federal-aid highway funds 
     and that when a project is converted to a regular Federal-aid 
     project, any available Federal-aid funds may be used to 
     convert the project.
       This section further modifies section 115 to remove the 
     requirement that the Secretary must first approve an 
     application of the State prior to authorizing the payment of 
     the Federal share of the cost of the project when additional 
     funds are later apportioned or allocated to the State. The 
     new provision allows the Secretary to obligate the Federal 
     share or a portion of the Federal share of cost of the 
     project by executing a project agreement.
       Section 118 of Title 23, is amended to clarify the method 
     used by FHWA to account for Federal-aid funds and determine 
     amounts subject to lapse. This revision results in no change 
     to current practice but simplifies the language to reduce 
     ambiguity.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


               sec. 1502. highways for life pilot program

     House Bill
       Sec. 1504.
       The Committee intends with this pilot program to 
     incentivize the use of innovative technologies and practices 
     in the construction of highways and bridges. The Committee 
     expects that safe, efficient highways and bridges can be 
     built faster, and with greater durability, if innovative 
     practices and technologies are utilized. This pilot 
     authorizes the Secretary to allocate funds for projects 
     deemed to satisfy the requirements of the project. The 
     selection criteria are designed to identify projects that 
     employ material and technique innovations which will produce 
     more quickly constructed, longer lasting, high-quality and 
     cost-effective projects.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to accept the House provision with a 
     modification to allow 15 projects at the most each fiscal 
     year.


                        sec. 1503. design-build

     House Bill
       Sec. 1501.
       Subsection (a) amends section 112 of title 23 with the 
     intent of clarifying and improving the design-build authority 
     provided. During the rulemaking process for the design-build 
     regulation required by section 1307 of TEA 21, which also 
     amended 23 U.S.C. 112, FHWA received several comments 
     regarding the restrictive nature of the ``qualified project'' 
     definition with respect to the project cost threshold. 
     Approximately 85 percent of the design-build projects that 
     have been evaluated under the FHWA experimental contracting 
     program (Special Experimental Project No. 14 (SEP-14--
     Innovative Contracting) are too small to meet the definition 
     of ``qualified project.'' Based on the Haw's experience with 
     design-build projects under SEP-14, there is no need to limit 
     design-build projects to those costing more than $5 million 
     in the case of a project that involves installation of an 
     intelligent transportation system and to those costing more 
     than $50 million in the case of any other project.
       Subsection (b) similarly amends section 112 of title 23 
     making clear the parameters of the authority for the use of 
     project evaluation criteria. The subsection also makes clear 
     that this amendment does not disturb any other authority that 
     the Secretary has under current law or that is being carried 
     out by the Secretary as of the date of enactment.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1803.
       This section amends section 112(b)(3) of title 23, to 
     include intermodal facilities in the definition of qualified 
     projects.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision. The Conferees 
     intend that the Secretary's required concurrence is based in 
     part on a determination that activities a state of local 
     transportation agency plans to undertake will not influence 
     the environmental review of those activities under NEPA.

                          Subtitle F--Finance


  sec. 1601. transportation infrastructure finance and innovation act 
                               amendments

     House Bill
       Sec. 1601.
       This section makes programmatic changes to the TIFIA 
     program.

[[Page 18779]]

       Subsection (a) makes technical changes to the definitions 
     in Section 181 of title 23.
       Subsection (b) amends section 182 of title 23 to clarify 
     the requirements regarding statewide and metropolitan 
     planning. This subsection also decreases the minimum eligible 
     project costs to $50,000,000 and to $15,000,000 for ITS 
     projects.
       Subsection (c) makes technical changes to the project 
     selection process in section 182 of title 23.
       Subsection (d) makes technical changes to section 183 of 
     Title 23. The change to section 183(a)(4) codifies a DOT 
     regulation that requires the project's senior obligations to 
     receive an investment-grade rating in order to execute a 
     secured loan agreement. The change to section 183(b)(2) 
     ensures that the amount of the TIFIA credit instrument may 
     not exceed that of the senior project obligations. The 
     elimination of section 183(c)(3) deletes the description of 
     sources of repayment funds because the subject is already 
     covered in section 183(b)(3).
       Subsection (e)(1) makes changes to section 184(b)(3) to 
     ease the restrictions on funding draws on a line of credit in 
     order to help a borrower avoid a payment default. The changes 
     to section 184(b)(4) conform the interest rate setting 
     mechanism for the line of credit with that for secured loans. 
     The change to section 184(b)(5) has the same purpose as the 
     changes to sections 183(b)(3) and 182(a)(4).
       Subsection (e)(2) makes changes to Section 184(c) to 
     clarify language regarding the scheduling of principal and 
     interest repayments. The elimination of section 184(c)(3) 
     deletes the description of sources of repayment funds because 
     the subject is already covered in section 184(b)(5)(A)(i).
       The changes to sections 185(a), 185(b), and 185(c) in 
     subsection (f) clarify that the Secretary may establish fees 
     to cover the cost of servicing TIFIA credit instruments. The 
     change to section 185(d) clarifies that the program may 
     retain outside counsel to assist in the underwriting and 
     servicing of TIFIA credit instruments.
       Subsection (g) sets the funding levels for the TIFIA 
     program, including administrative expenses and limitations on 
     credit amounts.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1303.
       This section makes amendments to the TIFIA program under 
     sections 181 through 189 of title 23.
       The change to section 181(8)(D), as redesignated, expands 
     the definition of freight-related projects eligible for TIFIA 
     assistance. The provision also allows for a group of such 
     related projects to be eligible, each of which individually 
     might not meet the threshold requirements to apply for TIFIA 
     credit assistance.
       The change to section 182(a)(1) clarifies the provision 
     regarding statewide and metropolitan planning requirements. 
     The existing provision contained language that could be 
     misinterpreted to constrain TIFIA assistance in the case of a 
     project with a construction timetable that extended beyond 
     the typical three-year approved State Transportation 
     Improvement Program (STIP).
       The changes to section 182(a)(3) lowers the threshold cost 
     for eligible projects to $50 million, and also allows to be 
     eligible projects that are equal to or exceed 20 percent of 
     the Federal highway funds apportioned to that State in the 
     most recently completed fiscal year.
       The change to section 183(a)(4) codifies current regulation 
     requiring a project's senior obligations to receive an 
     investment-grade rating in order to execute a secured loan 
     agreement.
       The changes to section 184(b)(4) conform the interest rate 
     setting mechanism for the line of credit with that for 
     secured loans. This change allows the Department to execute 
     both agreements on the same date at the same interest rate if 
     a borrower utilizes both a secured loan and a line of credit 
     for the same project.
       Section 188(a)(2) allows all collected fees to be available 
     to the Secretary without further appropriation to carry out 
     this section.
       Section 188(a)(3) maintains the limit on administrative 
     costs.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to adopt provisions from both the 
     House and Senate. This section makes programmatic changes to 
     the TIFIA program. Subsection (a) makes technical changes to 
     the definitions in Section 181 of title 23.
       The conferees eliminated section 181(7) to reflect the 
     Department's decision not to use local servicers to perform 
     the enumerated duties on behalf of the Secretary. Conferees 
     also believe that ongoing servicing of TIFIA loans should be 
     managed by a single entity as it has done so to date.
       These provisions also expand the definition of freight-
     related projects eligible for TIFIA assistance to allow 
     private rail facilities that serve a public benefit for 
     highway users. The provision also makes eligible a group of 
     such related projects, each of which separately might not 
     meet the threshold requirements, to apply for TIFIA 
     assistance.
       Subsection (b) amends Section 182 of title 23 to clarify 
     the requirements regarding statewide and metropolitan 
     planning. This subsection also decreases the minimum eligible 
     project costs to from $100 million to $50 million, 
     $50,000,000 and to $15,000,000 for ITS projects, and changes 
     clause (ii) by striking 50 and inserting 33.3 to ensure that 
     smaller states have the opportunity to benefit from this 
     program as well.
       Subsection (d) makes technical changes to Section 183 of 
     Title 23. The change to section 183(a)(4) codifies a DOT 
     regulation that requires the project's senior obligations to 
     receive an investment-grade rating in order to execute a 
     secured loan agreement. The change to section 183(b)(2) 
     ensures that the amount of the TIFIA credit instrument may 
     not exceed that of the senior project obligations. The 
     elimination of section 183(c)(3) deletes the description of 
     sources of repayment funds because the subject is already 
     covered in section 183(b)(3). It was the intent of the 
     conference to allow agreements to refinance long-term project 
     obligations or Federal credit instruments, if such 
     refinancing provides additional funding capacity for the 
     completion enhancement or expansion of any project selected 
     under section 602 or that otherwise meets the requirements of 
     section 602.
       The changes to section 184(b) conform the interest rate 
     setting mechanism for the line of credit with that for 
     secured loans. This change allows the Department to execute 
     both agreements on the same date at the same interest rate if 
     a borrower utilizes both a secured loan and a line of credit 
     for the same project. The changes to this section also 
     eliminate the 20% cap on what a borrower can draw. It is the 
     conference's understanding that the line of credit tool has 
     not been widely used and the elimination of this cap could 
     incentivize this credit instrument.
       The changes in section 185 clarify that the Secretary may 
     establish, collect and spend fees to cover the cost of 
     servicing TIFIA credit instruments. This section also 
     clarifies that the program may retain outside counsel to 
     assist in the underwriting and servicing of TIFIA credit 
     instruments.
       Sections 181-189 are redesignated to 601-609.


                 SEC. 1602. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANKS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1602.
       Subsection (a) of this section codifies a state 
     infrastructure bank (SIB) program in Section 189 of title 23.
       Subsection (a) of section 189 provides definitions for the 
     SIB program. Subsection (b) permits the Secretary to enter 
     into a cooperative agreement with a State for the 
     establishment of a SIB. Subsection (c) allows two or more 
     States to enter into a cooperative agreement with the 
     Secretary to establish a multi-state SIB. Subsection (d) 
     establishes funding requirements for SIBs, restricting the 
     amount of federal funding that a State can deposit in their 
     highway, transit, and rail SIB accounts. Subsection (e) 
     establishes the forms of assistance that a SIB can offer. 
     Subsection (f) describes the eligible projects that are 
     allowed to be funded by the SIB.
       Subsection (g) establishes the requirements that a State 
     must adhere to when establishing a SIB. Subsection (h) speaks 
     to the applicability of Federal law in the SIBs program. 
     Subsection (i) states that the United States is not obligated 
     by any commitment made by a state SIB. Subsection (k) limits 
     the amount of federal funds that can be used to administer 
     the state SIB to 2 percent of the federal funds contributed 
     to the SIB.
       Subsection (b), (c), (d), and (e) of Section 1602 
     establishes a new chapter 6 in title 23 for infrastructure 
     finance.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1306.
       This section amends 1511(b)(1)(A) of TEA-21, which named 
     the following States: Missouri, Rhode Island, California, and 
     Florida. This change extends the program to any State that 
     seeks to establish a State infrastructure bank.
       This bill reauthorizes the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) 
     program under which all States are authorized to enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the Secretary to set up 
     infrastructure revolving funds eligible to be capitalized 
     with Federal transportation funds authorized for the FY 2005-
     2009 period.
       The SIB program gives States the capacity to increase the 
     efficiency of their transportation investment and 
     significantly leverage Federal resources by attracting non-
     Federal public and private investment. The program provides 
     greater flexibility to the States by allowing other types of 
     project assistance in addition to the traditional 
     reimbursable grant.
       SIBs provide various forms of non-grant assistance to 
     eligible projects, including at or below-market rate 
     subordinate loans, interest rate buy-downs on third party 
     loans, and guarantees and other forms of credit enhancement. 
     Any debt that the SIB issues or guarantees must be of 
     investment grade caliber.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


     SEC. 1603. USE OF EXCESS FUNDS AND FUNDS FOR INACTIVE PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1106.
       This section allows states to audit projects funded with 
     apportionments under sections

[[Page 18780]]

     104 and 144 of title 23 to determine whether there are excess 
     project funds. If the audit reveals that there are excess 
     funds, the state may develop a plan for spending the 
     apportionment for the design or construction of other similar 
     eligible projects. The state must certify to the Secretary 
     that an audit was conducted and has developed a plan. Excess 
     funds used to carry out a project under this section are 
     subject to the requirements of this title that are applicable 
     to the program for which the funds were originally 
     apportioned.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1106.
       This provision allows States to convert demonstration 
     projects that were designated prior to 1998 to the Surface 
     Transportation Program (STP). This section also requires 
     States to certify to the Secretary that inactive funds will 
     not be used in order to reobligate them under STP.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications. States can convert demonstration projects that 
     were designated prior to 1991 in public law or a report 
     accompanying public law and reprogram them under STP. States 
     can also convert funds from projects that have no 
     expenditures during any 1-year period or if a State certifies 
     that a project is unlikely to be advanced, it can be 
     converted to STP.
       The Secretary is required to submit to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report on what each state has reprogrammed.
       It is the Sense of the Congress that funds released from 
     demonstration projects are required to reprogram those funds 
     into the same geographic area for which they were originally 
     allocated.


                           SEC. 1604. TOLLING

       The Conference agrees to combine all tolling programs under 
     one section.
     House Bill
       Sec. 1209.
       This section amends the congestion pricing pilot program 
     established under the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Equity Act of 1991 to expand the authority to conduct such 
     projects to all States, although the number of congestion 
     pricing pilot projects is limited to 25. The limit of 25 
     projects includes all projects previously approved under this 
     section (prior to the enactment of TEA LU) that collect 
     tolls. This section also requires that any congestion pricing 
     toll programs include a program for low-income drivers to pay 
     a reduced toll. This section also sets aside $3 million a 
     year for congestion pricing programs that do not include 
     tolls.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1827.
       This section amends section 1012(b) of ISTEA by continuing 
     the program for fiscal year 2005 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to continue the 15 tolling programs 
     under current law and set aside one third of the total 
     funding for the 15 programs to go toward non-tolling 
     programs.
     House Bill
       Sec. 1603.
       This section establishes an interstate system 
     reconstruction and rehabilitation pilot program similar to 
     the one authorized in TEA 21. The new program is limited to 
     three facilities and requires states to show that tolling is 
     the most efficient and economical way to finance the project. 
     The previous program required that states prove that tolling 
     was the only way to finance the interstate reconstruction or 
     rehabilitation project. The new program also requires that 
     the state agency collect tolls electronically and that the 
     agency include a program to permit low-income drivers to pay 
     a reduced toll amount.
     Senate Bill
       This section amends section 1216(b) or TEA-21 to expand the 
     criteria by which states can apply. It is further amended by 
     only allowing the state of Virginia to be eligible for 
     funding under this program if accepted.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to drop both provisions and continue 
     current law.
     House Bill
       Sec. 1604.
       This section establishes a new pilot program for projects 
     involving the construction of new interstate facilities. The 
     program is limited to three facilities (multi-state corridor 
     projects may be considered as one facility) and states must 
     show that tolling is the most efficient and economical way to 
     finance the project. The new program also requires that the 
     state agency collect tolls electronically and that the agency 
     include a program to permit low-income drivers to pay a 
     reduced toll amount.
       It is the Committee's intent that this program be used only 
     for the construction of new interstate facilities and that 
     the pilot program authorized in Section 1603 be used only for 
     rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing interstate 
     facilities.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.
       Sec. 1609.
     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       This section modifies the Interstate System Reconstruction 
     and Rehabilitation Program and establishes a new Fast and 
     Sensible Toll Lanes Program. The Interstate System 
     Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, established 
     in TEA-21 is amended to ease the eligibility criteria for 
     participation in the pilot program. The Fast and Sensible 
     Lanes Program replaces the Value Pricing Pilot Program under 
     TEA-21.
       The change to the Interstate System Reconstruction and 
     Rehabilitation Pilot Program eases the requirement for States 
     to demonstrate that financing the improvements through tolls 
     is the most efficient, economical, or expeditious way to 
     advance the project. It is the intent of the committee that 
     States may use variable pricing under this program. The pilot 
     program remains limited to 3 facilities in 3 different 
     States. A modification to this section designates that one of 
     the facilities be located in Virginia.
       This section also establishes the Fast and Sensible Toll 
     (FAST) Lanes program to manage congestion, reduce emissions 
     in a nonattainment or maintenance area, or to finance the 
     addition of one or more lanes to an interstate to reduce 
     congestion. The Secretary may permit a State to place tolls 
     on highway, bridge or tunnel that are facilities that 
     currently collect tolls, existing HOV facilities, or 
     facilities that are upgraded for additional tolled capacity. 
     Revenues may be used for debt service on highway or transit 
     projects, a reasonable return on investment of any private 
     financing, operational and maintenance costs, or any other 
     purpose related to highway or transit projects under titles 
     23 or 49. The program also allows for the States to vary in 
     price a toll according to time of day or level of traffic, as 
     appropriate to manage congestion or improve air quality. To 
     be eligible to participate in this program, a State must 
     provide to the Secretary a description of the congestion and 
     air quality problems to be addressed, a description of the 
     congestion and air quality problems to be addressed, and the 
     goals to be achieved. The committee realizes that commercial 
     trucks utilize more capacity on roads than other vehicles, 
     and States may toll trucks under this program to fairly 
     reflect the additional capacity that they utilize on a 
     facility. It is not the intent of the committee for States to 
     unfairly charge trucks under a variable toll pricing program.
       This section also permits any State or public authority 
     currently operating under the authority of a cooperative 
     agreement developed under the value pricing pilot program 
     from TEA-21 to continue under the terms of that agreement and 
     states that any State or public authority shall be allowed to 
     continue tolling under that authority.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to the Senate provision with a 
     modification that this program will be a pilot program. The 
     name of this program is changed to ``EXPRESS Lanes''.

                   Subtitle G--High Priority Projects


               SEC. 1701. HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1701.
       This section updates the current high priority projects 
     program to reflect the funding and year-by-year allocations 
     provided in TEA LU.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version.


                   SEC. 1702. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1702.
       This section lists the State, project description, and 
     dollar amount for each high priority project.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with additional 
     projects listed.


           SEC. 1703. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO TEA-21 PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1822.
       This section makes changes to projects authorized in TEA-
     21.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1835, Sec. 1836.
       These sections make changes to projects authorized in TEA-
     21.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to accept all technical changes 
     provided in the sections from both bodies.

[[Page 18781]]



                        Subtitle H--Environment


  SEC. 1801. CONSTRUCTION OF FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES

     House Bill
       Sec. 1114.
       Subsections (a) and (b) codify the existing Ferry Boat 
     Discretionary Program authorized in Section 1064 of ISTEA. 
     Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to establish a national 
     ferry database. It is the Committee's intent that the 
     information collected and maintained in this database will be 
     used as part of the decision making process for funding 
     allocations under this program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1204.
       This bill codifies the Ferry Boat Program and requires the 
     Secretary to carry out a program for the construction of 
     ferry boats and ferry facilities in accordance with section 
     129(c). The section specifies projects to be given priority.
       In allocating these funds, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to ferry boat services that carry the greatest 
     number of passengers and vehicles, as well as those that 
     provide critical access to areas that are not well-served by 
     other modes of transportation.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to accept and merge both provisions.


               SEC. 1802. NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1602.
       This section amends section 162 of title 23, the National 
     Scenic Byways Program.
       Section 162 of title 23 is amended to recognize that the 
     Secretary already promotes a collection of National Scenic 
     Byways and All-American Roads as `America's Byways.' If State 
     and byway representatives reach consensus on establishing a 
     single designation category, then these amendments will 
     provide the Secretary with the authority to use any of the 
     three terms--National Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, or 
     America's Byways--as the single designation.
       A new subsection is added to authorize the Secretary to 
     form public-private partnerships to carry out technical 
     assistance, marketing, market research, and promotion with 
     respect to National Scenic Byways, All-American Roads, or 
     America's Byways. The National Scenic Byways and All-American 
     Roads currently are promoted collectively as America's 
     Byways.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with the 
     modification to drop subsection (d) Research, Technical 
     Assistance, Marketing, and promotion.


              SEC. 1803. AMERICA'S BYWAYS RESOURCE CENTER

     House Bill
       Sec. 1811.
       This section reauthorizes the America's Byways Resource 
     Center. The Byways Resource Center provides technical support 
     and conducts educational activities for the National Scenic 
     Byways program. Technical support and educational activities 
     will provide local officials and organizations with 
     proactive, technical, and on-site customized assistance, 
     including training, communications (including a public 
     awareness series), publications, conferences, on-site 
     meetings, and other assistance considered appropriate to 
     develop and sustain Scenic Byways and All-American Roads.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


        SEC. 1804. NATIONAL HISTORIC COVERED BRIDGE PRESERVATION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1812.
       This section authorizes the Secretary to make grants to 
     States for covered bridges that are listed or eligible for 
     listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
       Subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     Secretary shall make grants to States demonstrating a need 
     for assistance in carrying out 1 or more historic covered 
     bridge projects described in this section.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


    SEC. 1805. USE OF DEBRIS FROM DEMOLISHED BRIDGES AND OVERPASSES

     House Bill
       Sec. 1820.
       This section specifies that any debris from a demolished 
     Federal-aid bridge or overpass can be used for beneficial 
     public use by Federal, State, and local governments.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a 
     modification.


 SEC. 1806. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR STATES 
                        WITH INDIAN RESERVATIONS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1826.
       Section 1826 increases funding for roads that are adjacent 
     to or provide access to Indian reservations.
       This section increases funds that supplement maintenance 
     funds provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 
     $1,500,000 to $1,607,547 for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. 
     The committee intends these funds to be shared equally by 
     States (except Arizona) that have Indian reservations larger 
     than 10 million acres. These funds shall be used for roads 
     that are adjacent to or provide access to Indian 
     reservations, as well as roads used by a school bus to 
     transport children to a school or Headstart program.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


          SEC. 1807. NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PILOT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1122(b).
       This section establishes two new programs--a Safe Routes to 
     School Program and a Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot 
     Program.
       Subsection (b) establishes a Nonmotorized Transportation 
     Pilot Program to construct a network of nonmotorized 
     transportation infrastructure facilities in four communities 
     to demonstrate the extent to which bicycling and walking can 
     carry a significant part of the transportation load. This 
     program is designed to develop the statistical information 
     necessary to properly evaluate the impact of investments in 
     nonmotorized travel and increases in pedestrian and bicycle 
     trips on congestion, energy usage, clean air and public 
     health. It recognizes that only complete, comprehensive and 
     connected networks of nonmotorized transportation facilities 
     will provide the opportunity for the pedestrian and bicycle 
     usage needed for the measurement of impacts.
       In making grants, the Secretary may select public agencies 
     that are suitably equipped and organized to carry out the 
     requirements of this subsection. An agency that receives a 
     grant under this subsection may work with and provide grant 
     funds to a nonprofit organization to assist in carrying out 
     the program.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a 
     modification to name four communities to carry out the pilot 
     program. The Minnesota Department of Transportation shall 
     provide funds for the Minneapolis non-motorized pilot program 
     grant to Transit for Livable Communities.


             SEC. 1808. ADDITION TO CMAQ-ELIGIBLE PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1210.
       This section clarifies that transportation system 
     management and operations are an eligible activity under this 
     program.
       Sec. 1833.
       This section specifies that advanced truck stop 
     electrification system is an eligible activity under CMAQ.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1612.
       Subsection (a) of section 1612 makes the following projects 
     and programs eligible activities under the CMAQ program: the 
     purchase of alternative fuel (as defined in the Energy Policy 
     Act of 1992) and biodiesel fuel; the purchase of integrated, 
     interoperable emergency communications equipment; diesel 
     retrofit technologies for on-road vehicles and non-road 
     vehicles and engines used in construction projects located in 
     ozone or particulate matter nonattainment or maintenance 
     areas and funded in whole or in part under Title 23; and 
     outreach activities to provide information and technical 
     assistance to the owners and operators of diesel equipment 
     and vehicles.
       Subsection (b) of this section ensures that States that 
     receive the minimum apportionment can use CMAQ money to fund 
     projects for the purpose of congestion mitgation or improving 
     air quality, instead of only being able to use CMAQ dollars 
     for projects that can be funded under the surface 
     transportation program.
       Subsection (c) of this section provides for reducing air 
     emissions from the construction equipment used in projects 
     funded under Title 23 by requiring emission reduction 
     strategies. The subsection includes requirements and 
     limitations to be applied in these strategies, but does not 
     affect a State's current authority under the Clean Air Act. 
     EPA is directed to publish guidance to support the 
     development of the strategies. Finally, the subsection 
     establishes a funding priority for diesel retrofits and other 
     cost-effective emission reduction activities identified in 
     the strategies developed under the section.
       Subsection (d) authorizes the State of Maine to use CMAQ 
     funds for the operation

[[Page 18782]]

     of passenger rail service between Boston, Massachusetts, and 
     Portland, Maine.
       Subsection (e) authorizes the State of Montana to use CMAQ 
     funds for the operation of public transit activities that 
     serve a nonattainment or maintenance area.
       Currently, CMAQ funds can be used for a wide array of 
     purposes designed to improve air quality, including 
     improvements to transit systems, capital improvements to ITS 
     projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic flow 
     improvements, alternative fuel infrastructure, inspection and 
     maintenance programs, and shared ride services. The Clean Air 
     Act (CAA) and EPA encourage the use of alternative fuels to 
     assist areas in reducing criteria pollutants. CMAQ provisions 
     in TEA-21/ISTEA include a specific subsection authorizing the 
     use of CMAQ funds on alternative fuel infrastructure. Section 
     1612 further facilitates the use of alternative fuels by also 
     allowing purchase of alternative fuels with CMAQ funds. The 
     purchase of integrated, interoperable emergency 
     communications equipment with CMAQ funds is also authorized 
     under this subsection.
       Subsection (b) of this section remedies an oversight that 
     exists in the current law by providing States that receive 
     the minimum amount of CMAQ funding the ability to use the 
     money for air quality and congestion mitigation projects, if 
     they so choose. States that receive the minimum apportionment 
     either do not have nonattainment and maintenance areas, or 
     have a nonattainment or maintenance area with a small enough 
     population that they would only receive the guaranteed 
     minimum \1/2\ of 1 percent based on the population 
     apportionment formula. This section of the bill allows these 
     States to fund CMAQ-type projects with their CMAQ funds. It 
     allows these areas to fund projects that would otherwise be 
     eligible under section 149(b), regardless of the fact that 
     section 149(b) specifically states that the eligible projects 
     may only be funded in nonattainment or maintenance areas. 
     This change is in keeping with the overall purpose of the 
     CMAQ program.
       Just as the bill adjusts the CMAQ apportionment formula to 
     reflect the importance of reducing fine particulate matter 
     (PM2.5), section 1612(c) adjusts the list of eligible 
     activities to include cost-effective means of reducing PM2.5. 
     Specifically, this subsection addresses emissions from 
     construction equipment (both on-road and non-road) used in 
     Federally-funded highway projects. Reducing emissions from 
     long-term construction activities in the middle of a non-
     attainment area will provide great improvements to the 
     immediate non-attainment area. For example, in 2000, the 
     Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
     estimated that in five years the diesel retrofit program 
     instituted at the Central Artery Tunnel Project in Boston 
     would reduce construction emissions, including PM2.5, by an 
     amount equivalent to eliminating 96 million truck miles or 
     removing 1,300 diesel-powered public buses for a year.
       These activities are also very cost-effective, particularly 
     as compared to the cost-effectiveness of other CMAQ-eligible 
     projects. For example, early estimates by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency are that retrofitting a diesel engine 
     bulldozer costs $15,000-20,000 per ton of fine particulate 
     matter reduced. In contrast, the Transportation Research 
     Board reported in its 2002 assessment of the CMAQ program 
     that traditional CMAQ activities cost significantly more per 
     ton of pollution reduced (bicycle and pedestrian facilities 
     at $84,100 per ton; telework programs at $251,800 per ton; 
     and park-and-ride lots at $43,000).
       The Senate is also aware that some confusion remains in DOT 
     and EPA field and regional offices regarding whether projects 
     to control the extended idling of vehicles, such as advanced 
     truck stop electrification projects, are eligible for CMAQ 
     funding. Such confusion has led to delays in project 
     approvals. Advanced truck stop electrification projects 
     dramatically reduce emissions, and therefore improve air 
     quality, by allowing long-haul drivers to turn off their 
     engines during extended stops (e.g., during USDOT-mandated 
     rest periods); mitigate congestion by providing drivers 
     timely information regarding road congestion and alternative 
     routes; enhance energy independence by reducing diesel fuel 
     consumption; enhance highway safety by providing drivers a 
     quieter, more restful sleep environment; and reduce noise 
     impacts to nearby neighborhoods. Furthermore, advanced truck 
     stop electrification projects can qualify for CMAQ funding, 
     whether they are implemented through public-private 
     partnerships; involve private ownership of land, project 
     facilities or other physical assets, emission reduction 
     credits and offsets; or are located on public or private land 
     or rights-of-way. Such programs are clearly authorized under 
     section 108(f)(1)(A)(xi) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7408(f)(1)(A)(xi) and associated Federal guidance (65 Fed. 
     Reg. 9040 (Feb. 23, 2000)). Therefore, the committee directs 
     the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to issue guidance to all 
     appropriate Federal, State and local agencies that interpret 
     and implement CMAQ and/or Clean Air Act programs informing 
     such agencies as to the foregoing.
       Section 1613 requires the Secretary to encourage States and 
     metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to consult with 
     State and local air quality agencies in nonattainment and 
     maintenance areas on the estimated emissions reductions from 
     proposed congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     programs and projects.
       The purpose of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
     Improvement program is to help States meet their air quality 
     goals of attaining or maintaining the air quality standards. 
     This section has been added to acknowledge that State and 
     local air quality agencies have valuable input with regard to 
     which projects can best serve this purpose in their 
     particular areas, and their participation in selecting 
     projects, while not mandated, is to be encouraged. States, 
     MPOs, and transit agencies, in consultation with State and 
     local air quality agencies, are encouraged to work 
     cooperatively in developing criteria for project selection 
     and in making decisions over which projects and programs to 
     fund under the CMAQ program.
       Section 1614 requires DOT to evaluate and assess a 
     representative sample of CMAQ projects in consultation with 
     EPA, maintain and disseminate a database of CMAQ projects, 
     and consider the recommendations and findings of the NAS CMAQ 
     report in consultation with EPA.
       Evaluation and information sharing are important aspects of 
     the CMAQ program, and should be used to direct CMAQ funding 
     toward the most cost-effective projects and programs. CMAQ 
     funding can be used to innovative projects that contribute to 
     improved air quality. If a particular type of project is 
     successful in achieving emissions reductions, the goals of 
     the program are furthered if that information is shared 
     widely with other nonattainment and maintenance areas. DOT, 
     in consultation with EPA, must consider the NAS report 
     recommendations and finding to improve the operation and 
     evaluation of the program. The committee's interest is to 
     ensure that the information from previous effort and expense 
     is used wisely.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts Senate provisions with additions and 
     modifications. First, the Conference includes authorization 
     to use CMAQ funds in areas that are required to prepare and 
     file with the Administrator maintenance plans under the Clean 
     Air Act. This provision is intended to benefit those areas 
     that were designated nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone 
     standard, which was revoked in June 2005, but are designated 
     attainment for the new 8-hour ozone standard. These areas 
     still must file maintenance plans for a period of time and 
     while that is a requirement, the areas will be eligible to 
     receive CMAQ funds.
       The adopted language amends the eligibility requirements to 
     limit eligibility of transportation control measures and 
     projects under section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act to 
     those that are likely to contribute to a high level of 
     effectiveness in reducing air pollution, where sufficient 
     information is available in the database established by this 
     section to make a determination of their relative 
     effectiveness. The language also clarifies that only 
     transportation systems management and operations that 
     mitigate congestion and improve air quality are eligible 
     activities.
       The requirement for States to develop emission reduction 
     strategies, with the accompanying considerations, limitations 
     and EPA guidance to support the strategies, is not adopted. 
     EPA is still directed to publish guidance regarding diesel 
     retrofit technologies and supporting technical information.
       The Senate language establishing a CMAQ funding priority is 
     amended to include cost-effective congestion mitigation 
     activities, in addition to diesel retrofits and other cost-
     effective emission reduction activities. The substitute 
     clarifies that the priority need only apply to funds a State 
     receives based on its population in nonattainment or 
     maintenance areas. A State receiving the minimum 
     apportionment under the program need not consider the 
     priority when determining how to distribute that portion of 
     CMAQ funds apportioned to the State to raise the State's 
     funding to the minimum apportionment level. The priority is 
     further clarified to ensure that governmental agencies retain 
     existing authorities and roles in making final project 
     selections. These clarifications to the original Senate 
     priority language are intended to retain needed flexibility 
     in utilizing CMAQ funds while providing States with direction 
     to focus on cost-effectiveness as an important consideration 
     in distributing program funds.
       The Conference retains Senate language encouraging 
     interagency consultation on the estimated emission reductions 
     from proposed CMAQ projects and requiring the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, to evaluate and assess a representative 
     sample of CMAQ projects for their effectiveness.
       The Conference adopts several CMAQ eligibility provisions 
     for certain States authorizing: use in Montana of CMAQ funds 
     for the operation of public transit activities that serve a 
     nonattainment or maintenance area; use in Missouri, Iowa, 
     Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio of CMAQ 
     funds for

[[Page 18783]]

     the purchase of alternative fuel (as defined in section 301 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211)) or 
     biodiesel; use in Michigan of CMAQ funds for the operation 
     and maintenance of intelligent transportation system 
     strategies that serve a nonattainment or maintenance area; 
     use in Maine of CMAQ funds to support operation of passenger 
     rail service between Boston, Massachusetts, and Portland, 
     Maine; and use in Oregon of CMAQ funds to support operation 
     of passenger rail service between Portland, Oregon and 
     Eugene, Oregon.

                       Subtitle I--Miscellaneous


  SEC. 1901. INCLUSION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS IDENTIFYING FUNDING 
                          SOURCES IN TITLE 23

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1903.
       Section 154 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1987 (23 
     U.S.C. 101 note; 101 Stat. 209) establishes the basis for 
     erecting signs at Federally assisted highway projects 
     identifying the source and amount of funding being used. This 
     section transfers the provision to 23 U.S.C. 321 and makes a 
     needed conforming amendment.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                    SEC. 1902. DONATIONS AND CREDITS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1820.
       Section 323 of title 23 is amended to give States and local 
     governments additional flexibility to match Federal funds and 
     expedite project implementation.
       This provision expands section 323 to include the value of 
     donated services provided by local government employees to be 
     credited to the non-Federal share for projects funded under 
     title 23 funds.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


      SEC. 1903. INCLUSION OF BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENTS IN TITLE 23

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1904.
       This section sets forth the ``Buy America'' provision and 
     designates it as 23 U.S.C. 321. The provision makes non-
     substantive, conforming amendments to the text needed because 
     of the transfer, simplifies the text, and deletes an executed 
     report requirement.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees with language from both the House and 
     Senate bills.


                  SEC. 1904. STEWARDSHIP AND OVERSIGHT

     House Bill
       Sec. 1105.
       This section amends the Financial Plan portion of section 
     106 of title 23 requiring states with a project that costs 
     $500 million or more to submit an annual financial plan.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1802.
       This section requires the Secretary to establish an 
     oversight program to monitor the effective and efficient use 
     of funds authorized under title 23, with a specific focus on 
     financial integrity and project delivery.
       The Secretary shall require the States to annually certify 
     the adequacy of their financial management systems and 
     project delivery systems to meet all requirements for 
     financial integrity. As part of the financial integrity 
     oversight, the Secretary is required to develop minimum 
     standards for estimating project costs and to periodically 
     evaluate States' practices for estimating project costs, 
     awarding contracts, and reducing project costs. States are 
     required to determine that subrecipients of Federal funds 
     have sufficient accounting controls and project delivery 
     systems.
       Under section 1802, recipients of Federal financial 
     assistance are required to prepare an annual financial plan 
     for projects that receive $100,000,000 or more in Federal 
     financial assistance and that are not subject to the 
     requirements for major projects.
       This section also mandates debarment of contractors who 
     have been convicted of fraud related to Federal-aid highway 
     or transit programs and suspension of contractors who have 
     been indicted for offenses relating to fraud. In addition, it 
     requires that portions of monetary judgments won in Federal 
     criminal and civil cases against contractors pertaining to 
     Federal-aid highway and transit program fraud be shared with 
     the State or local transit agency injured by the fraud.
       Finally, this section requires a value engineering 
     analysis, as defined in this section, for all projects over 
     $25 million and bridge projects over $20 million.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to accept provisions from both the 
     House and Senate with modifications. The Secretary is 
     required to establish an oversight program to monitor the 
     effective and efficient use of funds with a specific focus on 
     financial integrity and project delivery. States will have to 
     annually certify their financial management systems and 
     project delivery systems to meet all requirements for 
     financial integrity.
       The conference adopted the House provision to require a 
     project sponsor who receives Federal financial assistance and 
     who has a total project cost of $500,000,000 or more be 
     required to submit a project management plan and an annual 
     financial plan for projects to the Secretary or for any 
     project as determined by the Secretary.
       Finally, this section requires a value engineering analysis 
     for any project on the Federal-aid system with an estimated 
     cost of $25 million or more, for bridge projects $20 million 
     or more, or for any other project the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate.


             SEC. 1905. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CREDITS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1841.
       This provision allows states to use toll credits toward the 
     states' match of a project.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


         SEC. 1906. GRANT PROGRAM TO PROHIBIT RACIAL PROFILING

     House Bill
       Sec. 1810.
       On February 27, 2001, in the Address to a Joint Session of 
     Congress, President George W. Bush declared that racial 
     profiling is ``wrong and we will end it in America''. The 
     President issued a Memorandum for the Attorney General that 
     directed the Attorney General to review the use of Federal 
     law enforcement authorities use of race in conducting stops, 
     searches, and other investigative procedures. In particular, 
     the President asked the Attorney General to work with 
     Congress to develop methods or mechanisms to collect any 
     relevant data from Federal law enforcement agencies and to 
     work in cooperation with state and local law enforcement 
     agencies in order to asses the extent and nature of any such 
     policies.
       In response to the efforts of the President to end the use 
     of racial profiling, this section establishes a new incentive 
     grant program to encourage states to enact and to enforce 
     laws that prohibit the use of racial profiling in the 
     enforcement of traffic laws on Federal-aid highways. The 
     incentive grant program will assist the states with the 
     compilation of data to support efforts to eliminate the use 
     of race or ethnicity as a key factor in whether to make a 
     traffic stop.
       Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary to make a grant to 
     a State that has enacted and is enforcing a law that 
     prohibits the use of racial profiling in the enforcement of 
     traffic laws on Federal-aid highways. To be eligible for a 
     grant, a State must maintain and allow public inspection of 
     statistical information for each motor vehicle stop in the 
     state showing the race and ethnicity of the driver and any 
     passengers. Also, a State may receive a grant if the State 
     provides assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that the 
     State is undertaking activities that will lead to compliance 
     with the requirements to this section.
       Subsection (b) authorizes the eligible activities for which 
     a grant may be used by the State. In the case of a state 
     eligible for a grant under subsection (a) (1), the grant may 
     be used for: collecting and maintaining of data on traffic 
     stops; evaluating the results of the data; and developing and 
     implementing programs to reduce the occurrence of racial 
     profiling. An eligible State receiving a grant by providing 
     assurances to the Secretary that the State is undertaking 
     activities that will lead to compliance with this section may 
     use the grant for any eligible activity under this section. 
     The collection, maintenance, and evaluation of data relating 
     to traffic stops could be used to determine whether race has 
     been a key factor in motor vehicle stops. According to the 
     report published by the Comptroller General entitled Racial 
     Profiling, more information is needed to determine the extent 
     to which race, as opposed to other factors, is a key factor 
     for traffic stops.
       Subsection (c) clarifies the meaning of racial profiling as 
     it pertains to making routine or spontaneous law enforcement 
     decisions, such as ordinary traffic stops. The racial 
     profiling provisions under this section is not intended to 
     affect the ability of law enforcement officers from 
     considering race or ethnicity whenever there is trustworthy 
     information available that links persons of a particular race 
     or ethnicity to an identified criminal incident, scheme, or 
     organization.
       Subsection (d) limits the maximum amount for which a state 
     may receive a grant to not more than 5 percent of the amount 
     authorized in a fiscal year to carry out this section. A 
     state that provides assurances to the Secretary that the 
     state is undertaking activities that will lead to compliance 
     with the requirements of this section may not receive a grant 
     in more than two fiscal years.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.

[[Page 18784]]


     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


       SEC. 1907. PAVEMENT MARKING SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1808.
       This section directs the Secretary to conduct demonstration 
     projects in Alaska and Tennessee to study the impacts of 
     increasing the minimum width for pavement markings from four 
     inches to six inches and report the results to Congress by 
     June 30, 2009.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


SEC. 1908. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM 
                                AND NHS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1839.
       This section amends 1105 (e)(5) of ISTEA to designate US 41 
     in Wisconsin as I-41.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       This provision was added in conference to makes two changes 
     to section 1105 of ISTEA and to designate segments of the 
     Interstate System and routes on the National Highway System.


           SEC. 1909. FUTURE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1123.
       This section establishes two commissions, one to study 
     future revenue sources to support the Highway Trust Fund and 
     another to study the future of the Interstate Highway System. 
     Both commissions are established using the same criteria for 
     the selection of the members. This section also amends 
     section 101 of title 23 to include a declaration of policy 
     regarding the study of the Interstate Highway System.
       The Commission on Future Revenue Sources to Support the 
     Highway Trust Fund will study alternative short-term sources 
     of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, as well as evaluating 
     alternative long-term sources of revenue to support the 
     Highway Trust Fund. When studying the long-term sources, the 
     Commission is directed to consider the findings, conclusions, 
     and recommendations of a recent study completed by the 
     Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of 
     Sciences on alternatives to the user fee to support highway 
     financing.
       The Commission is directed to develop ways to generate 
     revenues to accomplish the requirements of section 1125; 
     oversee a comprehensive investigation of alternatives to 
     replace the user fee as the principal source of revenue for 
     the Highway Trust Fund; consult with the Secretaries of 
     Transportation and Treasury to ensure that their views 
     concerning essential revenue alternatives are understood; 
     consider State transportation agencies views on alternative 
     revenue sources for the Highway Trust Fund; and make specific 
     recommendations regarding their findings and necessary 
     actions to Congress.
       When considering alternative sources of revenue, the 
     Commission shall address the advantages or disadvantages of 
     alternative revenue sources and identify the most promising 
     revenue sources to support long-term financing requirements. 
     The Commission shall also establish a time frame for which 
     the necessary actions must be taken and a broad transition 
     strategy to move from the current user fee base to new 
     funding mechanisms, including the time frame for the 
     transition strategy.
       Not later than September 30, 2005, the Commission shall 
     transmit to Congress a report on revenues to support actions 
     necessary to meet the requirements of section 1125. The 
     Commission has until September 30, 2006 to transmit to 
     Congress a report on the alternative long-term sources of 
     revenue for the Highway Trust Fund.
       The Commission on the Future of the Interstate Highway 
     System will study the current condition and future of the 
     Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and 
     Defense Highways (the ``Interstate System''). The study will 
     include a conceptual plan with alternative approaches for the 
     future of the Interstate System and will assure that the 
     Interstate System will continue to serve its National needs.
       The Commission is directed to consider the views of State 
     transportation agencies and make specific recommendations 
     regarding design standards, Federal policies, and legislative 
     changes that must be made to assure that national interests 
     in meeting future needs are addressed.
       When conducting the study, the Commission is specifically 
     directed to address all issues that could impact the 
     Interstate system including, demographics; usage; natural 
     disasters; design standards; system-wide needs; potential 
     expansion, upgrades, or other changes; community values; 
     environmental issues; and system performance.
       The Commission has until September 30, 2006 to transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1202.
       Actions under this section shall address the future 
     transportation needs in the interest of preserving and 
     enhancing the surface transportation system to meet the needs 
     of the United States for the 21st Century.
       Section 101 of title 23 is amended by changing the 
     declaration of policy to include additional language to 
     support the transportation needs of the 21st century. The 
     Secretary shall conduct a complete investigation and study of 
     the current conditions and the future needs of the surface 
     transportation system. This section describes the specific 
     issues to be addressed and what shall be reported to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts language from both the House and 
     Senate provisions. This section establishes a 12 member 
     commission comprised of individuals with knowledge and 
     experience in the area of surface transportation policy and 
     revenue who will make recommendations to Congress about the 
     future transportation policy considerations that will need to 
     be considered in future legislation. The Commission will 
     conduct a comprehensive, thorough study of current and future 
     needs of the surface transportation system, short and long 
     term revenue sources and alternatives, other forms of revenue 
     that might be needed, and the impact changing dynamics will 
     have upon the Highway Trust Fund and other revenue sources. A 
     plan to address these needs will be presented in coordination 
     with the Secretary and other government entities across the 
     United States.


  SEC. 1910. MOTORIST INFORMATION CONCERNING FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1803.
       This section requires the Secretary to do a rulemaking to 
     determine whether to give priority to full service 
     restaurants on at least two of the panels for highway food 
     service signs.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


   SEC. 1911. APPROVAL AND FUNDING FOR CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1829.
       This provision allows the State of Georgia to receive 
     project approval by the Secretary for the project stated in 
     the bill. This project was previously listed on the State's 
     Transportation Improvement Plan and was erroneously removed, 
     subsequently, not eligible for project approval.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                   SEC. 1912. LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 1819.
       This section specifies that a specific agency in California 
     be the lead agency for a highway project authorized in 1991.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


              SEC. 1913. BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, NORTH DAKOTA

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1832.
       This provision increases the Federal share for a specific 
     bridge project in North Dakota from 80 percent to 90 percent.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                SEC. 1914. MOTORCYCLIST ADVISORY COUNCIL

     House Bill
       Sec. 1831.
       This section establishes an advisory council to address 
     relevant highway infrastructure issues as they relate to 
     motorcyclists.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                      SEC. 1915. LOAN FORGIVENESS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1818.
       This section specifies that a loan has satisfied its 
     repayment obligations.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.

[[Page 18785]]




                    SEC. 1916. TREATMENT OF OFF RAMP

     House Bill
       Sec. 1817.
       This section specifies that an off-ramp in California meets 
     the requirements of title 23 that govern the approval of the 
     placement of ramps off a Federal-aid Highway.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to the House provision. It is the 
     Committee's intent that notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the New Harbor Boulevard North Off-Ramp project along 
     the Interstate 405 Collector-Distributor Road in Costa Mesa, 
     California (Susan Street Slip Ramp) is hereby deemed to 
     satisfy all Federal requirements, and the California State 
     Department of Transportation shall authorize any final 
     environmental, engineering, or design analyses necessary to 
     approve, as expeditiously as possible, construction of the 
     project consistent with applicable California State 
     Operational and Safety standards.


                 SEC. 1917. OPENING OF INTERSTATE RAMPS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1212.
       This section provides for opening a ramp connecting I-495 
     and Arena Drive in the State of Maryland.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference agrees to House provision with a 
     modification to that the State DOT certifies to the Secretary 
     that the opening of this ramp does not present a safety risk.


    SEC. 1918. CREDIT TO STATE OF LOUISIANA FOR STATE MATCHING FUNDS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1828.
       This provision allows the State of Louisiana to receive a 
     credit in an amount equal to the cost of any planning, 
     engineering, design, or construction work carried out by the 
     State on any project numbered 202 under section 1602 of TEA-
     21.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                       SEC. 1919. ROAD USER FEES

     House Bill
       Sec. 1813.
       The issue of future financing of the Highway Trust Fund is 
     a critical one that Congress must begin to address. The Trust 
     Fund is currently financed primarily through fuel excise 
     taxes and certain truck taxes. When the Trust Fund was 
     established in the 1950s, it was legitimate to have the gas 
     tax serve as a surrogate for road usage and be the basis for 
     the user-pays system of the federal highway program. But with 
     the advent of hybrid cars, alternative fuels, the potential 
     for fuel cell technology, increased fuel efficiency and other 
     technological developments, the relationship between the gas 
     tax and road usage is diminishing.
       On July 16, 2002, the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, 
     and Pipelines held a hearing on this and related topics. 
     Testimony was received from representatives of the Public 
     Policy Center of the University of Iowa regarding research 
     that was then in progress, though now completed, to develop a 
     new approach for charging vehicles that travel on the public 
     roads. A consortium of the Federal Highway Administration and 
     15 state departments of transportation funded the study. The 
     purpose of the study was to evaluate how intelligent 
     transportation system technology (GPS and on-board computers, 
     smart cards and collection centers) can be used to assess 
     mileage-based road user charges.
       This section provides funding and authorization for the 
     Secretary to conduct a pilot project to test the technology 
     and feasibility of the system. It is contemplated that 
     various cars will be equipped with the technology in 
     different regions of the country with a diverse set of 
     drivers. An important element of the study is measuring the 
     public acceptance of such a system and to ensure that privacy 
     concerns of drivers are met.
       The finding of this study will provide useful information 
     as the Congress strives to identify a funding source to 
     finance the federal-aid highway programs that is stable, 
     accurate, fairer and more flexible than the current gas tax.
     Senate Bill
       The Senate has a comparable provision in title V of the 
     Senate passed bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


        SEC. 1920. TRANSPORTATION AND LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 1836.
       This section expresses the sense of the Congress that 
     Federal transportation projects should facilitate and 
     encourage the collaboration between interested persons to 
     help leverage scarce training and community resources and to 
     help encourage local participation in the building of 
     transportation projects.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                   SEC. 1921. UPDATE OF OBSOLETE TEXT

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1901.
       Letting of Contracts: This amendment deletes the obsolete 
     exception.
       Fringe and Corridor Parking Facilities: The amendment would 
     substitute a meaningful reference for the obsolete term.
       Repeal of obsolete sections of title 23: This section 
     repeals obsolete sections of title 23: Priority Primary 
     Routes (23 U.S.C. 147); Development of a National Scenic and 
     Recreational Highway (23 U.S.C. 148); and Access Highways to 
     Public Recreational Areas on Certain Lakes (23 U.S.C. 155).
     Conference Substitute
       The Conferees adopts the Senate provision.


      SEC. 1922. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO NONDISCRIMINATION SECTION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1905.
       This section makes several technical amendments to section 
     140 of title 23.
       Technical changes made include:
       Eliminating gender-based language;
       Clarifying that funding made available to carry out this 
     section has the same broad availability as the source from 
     which the funds are made available (an STP takedown);
       Removing the $2.5 million funding cap on highway 
     construction and technology training programs established for 
     fiscal year 1976 as no longer necessary;
       Correcting a typographical error; and
       Clarifying the purpose and intent of subsection (d) by 
     modifying the title to remove the reference to Indian 
     contracting.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


       SEC. 1923. TRANSPORTATION ASSETS AND NEEDS OF DELTA REGION

     House Bill
       Sec. 1806.
       This section authorizes the Secretary to contract with the 
     Delta Regional Authority (DRA) to conduct a study on the 
     Delta region's transportation assets and needs for all modes 
     of transportation, including passenger and freight 
     transportation. This section also directs the DRA to report 
     to Congress the results of the study and establish a regional 
     strategic plan to implement the report's recommendations.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                  SEC. 1924. ALASKA WAY VIADUCT STUDY

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1831.
       This provision requires the Secretary to study and report 
     to Congress the damage of the Viaduct from the Nisqually 
     earthquake in Seattle, WA.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                 SEC. 1925. COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT STUDY

     House Bill
       Sec. 1835.
       This section directs the Secretary to make a grant to, or 
     enter into a cooperative agreement or contract with, a 
     national organization representing architects who have 
     expertise in the design of a wide range or transportation and 
     infrastructure projects to conduct a study on the role of 
     well-designed transportation projects in promoting community 
     enhancement.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1833.
       This section directs the Secretary to make a grant to, or 
     enter into a cooperative agreement or contract with, a 
     national organization who have expertise in the design of a 
     wide range or transportation and infrastructure projects to 
     conduct a study on the role of well-designed transportation 
     projects in promoting community enhancement.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                    SEC. 1926. BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 1801.
       This section requires the Department of Transportation and 
     each agency therein to submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation

[[Page 18786]]

     and Infrastructure a budget justification concurrently with 
     the President's Annual Budget submission.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a 
     modification to add the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works to also receive a copy of the budget justification.


  SEC. 1927. 14TH AMENDMENT HIGHWAY AND 3RD INFANTRY DIVISION HIGHWAY

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1524.
       This provision requires the Secretary to conduct a study 
     and report on the construction of a route linking cities in 
     Georgia to cities in Mississippi and Tennessee.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


           SEC. 1928. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUY AMERICA

     House Bill
       Sec. 1834.
       The Committee is concerned that the intent of Congress in 
     the original Buy America (P.L. 97-424 Sec. 165) is being 
     misinterpreted on federally funded bridge projects. The Buy 
     America provision provides that domestic iron and steel be 
     used in federal transportation projects unless its use would 
     increase the ``overall project contract'' by more than 25 
     percent. The problem that is emerging in the highway bridge 
     industry is that project managers are attempting to 
     circumvent the Buy America requirement by breaking bridge 
     projects into component parts and applying the 25% test 
     separately to each of the component parts, rather than to the 
     entire bridge project as required by law. The intent of the 
     Buy America/domestic content law was to ensure that when 
     taxpayer money is invested on direct federal government 
     procurement and infrastructure projects, these expenditures 
     stimulate U.S. production and employment. This provision is 
     intended to end any confusion or misinterpretation of the law 
     by making clear that it is the Sense of Congress that the Buy 
     America test applies to the overall bridge project.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Committee is concerned that the States are 
     inconsistently interpreting certain Buy America provisions of 
     Federally-funded highway projects. To clear up these 
     inconsistencies, we are reiterating our intent concerning the 
     proper application of the ``minimal use'' exception to Buy 
     America in these projects.
       ``Minimal use'' of foreign steel and iron materials is only 
     allowed on a project using Federal highway funds when the 
     cost of the steel and iron materials does not exceed the 
     higher of (a) 0.1 percent of the total contract cost or (b) 
     $2,500. For the purpose of determining compliance with this 
     ``minimal use'' exception, the ``combined project cost'' of 
     the materials is to be used. ``Combined project cost'' is the 
     unit cost as shown in the executed contract, multiplied by 
     the quantity of units on the project. The contractor's cost 
     of the actual material is irrelevant and is not to be 
     considered. This procedure is to be followed with respect to 
     procurements involving both prime contractors and 
     subcontractors, so that the cost to the subcontractor of 
     materials supplied to a prime contractor under a project is 
     not to be considered, but rather, the amount being charged to 
     the prime contractor by the subcontractor for the materials.
       For the purpose of this provision, if a contract contains a 
     quantity of five units of a particular bid item, if even one 
     of the units is of foreign origin, the total ``combined 
     project cost'' of all five units is to be used to determine 
     compliance with the ``minimal use'' requirement. In addition, 
     if any component of a bid item is foreign, the entire bid 
     item is considered foreign. In turn, the unit cost as shown 
     in the executed contract, multiplied by the quantity of units 
     used on the project, is to be used to determine compliance 
     with the ``minimal use'' requirement.
       For the purpose of this provision, the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has no effect. Iron and steel 
     products from Canada and Mexico are considered to be of 
     foreign origin.


  SEC. 1929. DESIGNATION OF DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1205.
       This section designates Interstate Highway 86 in the State 
     of New York as the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Interstate Highway 
     and the 3 mile segment of Interstate 86 between New York 
     State Route 15 in the vicinity of Painted Post, New York and 
     State Route 352 in the vicinity of Corning, New York as the 
     Amo Houghton Bypass.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with a 
     modification to provide a separate section in law for each of 
     these requests.


    SEC. 1930. DESIGNATION OF THOMAS P. ``TIP'' O'NEILL, JR. TUNNEL

     House Bill
       Sec. 1814.
       This section designates that, in honor of his service to 
     the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to the United States, 
     and in recognition of his contributions toward the 
     construction of the Central Artery project in Boston, 
     Massachusetts, the Central Artery Tunnel should be named as 
     the ``Thomas P. 'Tip' O'Neill, Jr. Tunnel''.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


              SEC. 1931. RICHARD NIXON PARKWAY, CALIFORNIA

     House Bill
       This section designates the segment of the Imperial Highway 
     located between California State Route 91 and Esperanza Road 
     to be known and designated as the Richard Nixon Parkway.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                     SEC. 1932. AMO HOUGHTON BYPASS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1838.
       This provision designates a 3-mile segment in New York as 
     the Amo Houghton Bypass.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1205(b).
       This provision designates a 3-mile segment in New York as 
     the Amo Houghton Bypass. Any reference in any way to this 
     highway segment shall be deemed to be a reference to the Amo 
     Houghton Bypass.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                 SEC. 1933. BILL TAUZIN ENERGY CORRIDOR

                 SEC. 1934. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision.
     Conference Substitute
       This provision was added in conference to provide states 
     with such sums as necessary as required in this provision in 
     order to carry out projects in the table contained in 
     subsection (c) of this program.


                     SEC. 1935. PROJECT FLEXIBILITY

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference added this provision to provide States with 
     the flexibility to transfer funds from projects allocated 
     under this section to any other project in the state so long 
     as the funding for each project in this section is not 
     ultimately reduced.


                          SEC. 1936. ADVANCES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference added this provision to allow states to 
     obligate funds from 104(b) to carry out any project 
     designated in any of sections 1301 (Projects of National and 
     Regional Significance), 1302 (Corridors), 1306 (Freight 
     Intermodal Pilot) and 1933 (Transportation Projects) as well 
     as for sections 117 (High Priority Projects) and 144(g) 
     Bridge Discretionary of title 23. The amount authorized to 
     obligate under this section shall not exceed the amount 
     authorized for that project and it can only be funded by 
     programs by which the project would be eligible. These funds 
     must be restored from funds allocated for that project.


                   SEC. 1937. ROADS IN CLOSED BASINS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference included this provision to require the 
     Secretary to provide advancement or reimbursement under the 
     emergency relief program to North Dakota for the State to 
     carry out the construction of necessary improvements at 
     Devils Lake. These improvements shall be in accordance with 
     the options and needs identified in the ``Roadways Serving as 
     Water Barriers'' report dated May 2000, any needs relating to 
     Devils Lake identified after May 2000, and any monitoring, 
     study, or design or preliminary engineering associated with 
     evaluating or constructing the measures.

[[Page 18787]]




                         SEC. 1938. TECHNOLOGY

     House Bill
       Sec. 1829.
       This section encourages states to consider using a new 
     technology to detect cracks in bridges.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                            RV-FRIENDLY LOGO

       The conference applauds the FHWA for their commitment to 
     alleviating the concerns of RV users by alerting them to 
     facilities equipped to accommodate their special needs 
     through the use of an RV-friendly logo. The conference is 
     aware that states are beginning to enact regulations 
     concerning RV-friendly signage and believes it is important 
     for the FHWA to establish uniform road signs. The conference 
     encourages the FHWA to expedite approval of the new RV-
     friendly signage by immediately issuing an interim rule and 
     completing the process by September 30, 2006.


                          SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

       This section amends the Solid Waste Disposal to require the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and each 
     agency head to take necessary actions to implement fully all 
     procurement requirements and incentives that provide for the 
     use of cement and concrete incorporating recovered mineral 
     component in cement or concrete projects. An agency head is 
     required to give priority to achieving greater use of 
     recovered mineral component for which it has not been 
     historically used or used minimally. This section also 
     requires the Administrator, in cooperation with the 
     Secretaries of Transportation and Energy, to conduct a study 
     to determine the extent to which current procurement 
     requirements may realize energy savings and environmental 
     benefits attainable with the substitution of recovered 
     mineral component in cement used in cement or concrete 
     projects. Additionally, this section requires the 
     Administrator, in consultation with other agency heads, to 
     establish criteria for the safe and environmentally 
     protective use of granular mine tailings from the Tar Creek, 
     Oklahoma Mining District, known as `chat', for cement or 
     concrete projects, and transportation projects, including 
     those that use asphalt, that are carried out using Federal 
     funds. In establishing the criteria, the Administrator is 
     required to consider current and previous uses of `chat,' and 
     any environmental and public health risks and benefits 
     derived from removal, transportation and use of `chat.'


                         CLARIFICATION OF DATE.

       This section restates, as a calendar date, a date in title 
     23 that currently is expressed as a reference to a date of 
     enactment of law, making it difficult to understand. No 
     change in the actual date is made.


                         DISCRETIONARY BRIDGES

       Of the amounts appropriated to the Bridge Discretionary 
     Program Section 1114(e) for the State of Vermont, Congress 
     intends that the State shall allocate $1,000,000 for the 
     Community Center Bridge in Springfield, VT; $5,000,000 for 
     the River Street Bridge in Rutland City; $4,500,000 for 
     Bridge 4 in Tunbridge, VT; $3,000,000 for Bridge 30 in 
     Stockbridge, VT; $2,100,000 for Bridge 1 in Reading, VT; 
     $6,000,000 for the bridge over the New Haven River on VT RT 
     116 in Bristol, VT; $4,000,000 for Bridge 9 in Cornwall, VT; 
     $3,900,000 for Bridge 31 in Bethel, VT; and $2,500,000 for 
     the East Street Bridge in Huntington, VT.


                      STREETSCAPE, TRAIL AND ROAD

       Of the amounts appropriated in section 1934 for item # to 
     the State of Vermont for streetscape, multi-use trail, and 
     road improvements in Lamoille, Caledonia, Grand Isle and 
     Chittenden Counties, Congress intends that the State allocate 
     $500,000 for planning and construction of pedestrian walkways 
     in Morrisville, VT; $835,000 for construction of pedestrian 
     walkways in Stowe, VT; $1,000,000 for construction of a 
     multi-use trail in Hardwick, VT; $750,000 for streetscape 
     improvements in Jericho, VT; $330,000 for downtown street 
     improvements in Alburg, VT; and $585,000 for improvements to 
     Hogback Road in Waterville, Cambridge, and Johnson, VT.


                             SMALL BRIDGES

       Of the amounts appropriated in section 1934 for item # to 
     the State of Vermont for small bridge improvements, Congress 
     intends that the State shall allocate $500,000 for Bridge 15 
     in Granville, VT; $1,100,000 for Bridge 48 in Lincoln, VT; 
     $660,000 for Bridge 17 in Ripton, VT; $1,500,000 for Bridge 
     14 in Sunderland, VT; $940,000 for Bridge 31 in Readsboro, 
     VT; $1,600,000 for Bridge 16 and Bridge 17 in Burke, VT; 
     $770,000 for Bridge 24 in Montgomery, VT; $1,000,000 for 
     Bridge 3 in Stowe, VT; $730,000 for Bridge 30 in Albany, VT; 
     $1,290,000 for Bridge 61 in Barton, VT; $650,000 for Bridge 
     16 in Charleston, VT; $750,000 for Bridge 50 in Wallingford, 
     VT; $600,000 for Bridge 37 in Shrewsbury, VT; $730,000 for 
     Bridge 24 in Clarendon, VT; $760,000 for Bridge 37 in Cabot, 
     VT; $890,000 for Bridge 56 in Guilford, VT; $640,000 for 
     Bridge 33 in Jamaica, VT; $1,600,000 for Bridge 17 in 
     Newfane, VT; $2,700,000 for Bridge 50 in Woodstock, VT; 
     $490,000 for Bridge 8 in Barnard, VT; $2,000,000 for the 
     bridge on Bridge Street over the Stevens Branch of the 
     Winooski River in Barre Town, VT; $1,700,000 for Bridge 29 in 
     Saint Johnsbury, VT; $1,140,000 for Bridge 45 in Cavendish, 
     VT; $320,000 for Bridge 20 in Vershire, VT; $680,000 for 
     Bridge 25 in Reading, VT; $1,340,000 for Bridge 26 in New 
     Haven and Weybridge, VT; $810,000 for Bridge 63 in Chester, 
     VT; $980,000 for Bridge 34 in Corinth, VT; and $1,130,000 for 
     Bridge 22 in Bradford, VT.


                         WESTERN RAIL CORRIDOR

       Of the amounts appropriated in Section 1934 for item # to 
     the State of Vermont for improvements to the Western Rail 
     Corridor between Alburg, St Albans, Burlington, Middlebury, 
     Rutland, Manchester, Bennington and west to Hoosick Junction, 
     New York, priority shall be given to completing the 
     Middlebury Rail Spur, upgrading the rail line for passenger 
     service between Manchester, Rutland and Charlotte and 
     improving the movement of freight rail through major cities, 
     including Rutland.


                   GATEWAY RURAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

       Section 1946 authorizes a new Gateway Rural Improvement 
     Program in Vermont to demonstrate the impact of a freight 
     transportation gateway program on a rural rail corridor. 
     Funding preferences shall be given to a corridor in Western 
     Vermont that includes, but is not limited to, the Middlebury 
     Rail Spur, Rutland rail improvements, St. Albans intermodal 
     facilities, and the Albany, Bennington, Rutland, Burlington & 
     Essex rail upgrades. User fees may be used to provide part or 
     all of the cost of a project under this section.


                            COVERED BRIDGES

       Of the amounts appropriated in section 1934 for item # to 
     the State of Vermont for the rehabilitation of historic 
     covered bridges, Congress intends that the State shall 
     allocate $450,000 for the Creamery/West Hill Covered Bridge 
     in Montgomery, VT; $450,000 for the Bowers Covered Bridge in 
     West Windsor, VT; $500,000 for the Quinlan Covered Bridge in 
     Charlotte, VT; $500,000 for the Gifford Covered Bridge in 
     Randolph, VT; $500,000 for the Worrall Covered Bridge in 
     Rockingham, VT; $450,000 for the Kingsbury Covered Bridge in 
     Randolph, VT; $1,500,000 for the Taftsville Covered Bridge in 
     Woodstock, VT; and $1,800,000 on the Pulp Mill Covered Bridge 
     in Middlebury-Weybridge, VT.


                      HIGHWAY DISCHARGE MITIGATION

       Of the amounts appropriated in section 1934 item # to the 
     State of Vermont, the Secretary shall allocate $3,000,000 for 
     the Vermont Local Roads Program in Colchester, VT for the 
     purpose of providing financial assistance grants to towns, 
     cities and villages in Vermont for projects to reduce water 
     pollution generated by, or directly associated with existing 
     public roads and road maintenance activities; and $3,000,000 
     for the Champlain Water District in Vermont for the purpose 
     of providing financial assistance to towns, cities and 
     villages in Chittenden County for water quality improvements 
     through projects to mitigate water pollution associated with 
     existing town roads, federal aid highways and road 
     maintenance activities.


                                TOLLING

       The provisions of the Express Lanes Program are intended to 
     give State departments of transporation maximum flexibility 
     to toll facilities on the Interstate System in order to (a) 
     manage high levels of congestion; (b) reduce emissions in 
     areas in nonattainment or maintenance for the Clean Air Act; 
     and, (c) finance the expansion of a highway, for the purpose 
     of reducing traffic congestion.


                       CMAQ EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY

       This provision provides the State of Montana with expanded 
     ability to use CMAQ funds for transit operating assistance. 
     In addition to all currently eligible projects, Montana CMAQ 
     funds may be used for the operation of public transit 
     activities that serve a nonattainment or maintenance area 
     beyond the current US Department of Transportation 
     restriction of three years. In addition, as referenced in 
     this provision, activities that serve a nonattainment or 
     maintenance area include activities that are undertaken 
     partly within and partly outside a nonattainment or 
     maintenance area.


                         GOING-TO-THE-SUN ROAD

       The $50 million in funding provided by this section for 
     work to resurface, repair, rehabilitate, and reconstruct the 
     Going to the Sun Road is intended to accelerate completion of 
     the needed reconstruction work on that important park road. 
     These funds are not sufficient to complete the project, 
     however, and these funds are intended to supplement, not 
     supplant funding from the park roads and parkways program for 
     this important project.


                           BEARTOOTH HIGHWAY

       This provision provides flexibility for the State of 
     Montana to use funds allocated for the development and 
     construction of the US 212 Red Lodge North highway in this 
     bill to first be used for the emergency repair of the 
     Beartooth Highway. The Beartooth Highway has suffered extreme 
     damage from 13

[[Page 18788]]

     mudslides in the spring of 2005. The Montana Department of 
     Transportation has submitted and obtained approval for 
     federal Emergency Relief (ER) funding--estimated to be $24 
     million for this project. It is intended that the use of the 
     funds on the Beartooth Highway will not require a non-Federal 
     match, as they are being applied to an emergency relief 
     project. Upon reimbursement by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, a match will be required when the funds are 
     applied to the US 212 project.
       Upon reimbursement of the ER application by the Federal 
     Highway Administration, this provision allows the reimbursed 
     funds to then be transferred to the US 212 Red Lodge North 
     project for use in the development and construction of that 
     highway.


                PRIORITIES PROVISION IN DIESEL RETROFIT

       Under new 49 USC 149(f)(3) States shall give priority to 
     certain listed items in distributing CMAQ funds apportioned 
     to them under 23 USC 104(b)(2)(B) and (C) or new 23 USC 
     104(b)(2)(D). This paragraph does not apply to the use of 
     funds apportioned under the CMAQ minimum apportionment 
     provision (former 23 USC 104(b)(2)(D)) or to the use of any 
     other funds.
       The listed priorities are: (1) cost-effective diesel 
     retrofits and other cost-effective emission reduction 
     activities, taking into consideration air quality and health 
     effects; and (2) cost-effective congestion mitigation 
     activities that provide air quality benefits. Each of these 
     items, to qualify for priority, must be ``cost-effective.'' 
     If a State determines that it does not have cost-effective 
     opportunities to undertake the listed activities, the 
     priorities do not apply. The State could then use applicable 
     CMAQ funds for other CMAQ eligible activities, such as 
     particulate reduction or transit initiatives.
       Moreover, even if a State has the opportunity to pursue 
     cost effective activities listed in this paragraph, it does 
     not mean that the State must expend all or most of its 
     applicable CMAQ funds on those activities, to the exclusion 
     of other possible uses of those funds. Conferees expect that 
     other priorities can still be pursued with applicable funds. 
     Priority is not absolute and exclusive. That is one reason 
     why the paragraph also includes language establishing that 
     this paragraph is not intended to disturb existing 
     authorities and roles in making project selections.
       In short, this new provision on CMAQ priorities is intended 
     to give more funding focus to the listed priorities while 
     continuing to provide states needed flexibility in utilizing 
     the funds that are subject to this paragraph.


                        NIGHT-TIME CONSTRUCTION

       Presently the federal government is investing more than $30 
     billion annually on roadway construction projects. This 
     significant investment is creating increased motorist 
     exposures to roadway work zones. Since 1997 the number of 
     fatalities in roadway work zones for both motorists and 
     construction workers has grown by over 70 percent. With 
     nearly 1,200 fatalities and 40,000 injuries occurring 
     annually in roadway construction zones, work zone safety is a 
     serious public health concern.
       Since most road work today involves reconstruction, 
     rehabilitation and maintenance of existing roadways, it is 
     conducted adjacent to traffic. As a result, more and more 
     jurisdictions across the country are looking to night-time 
     construction as a way to reduce motorist delay and 
     inconvenience by scheduling work when traffic is lighter.
       The Committee is concerned about the impact of night-time 
     construction on motorists, workers and communities. Current 
     information is not comprehensive or well communicated to 
     public and private entities and individuals that need it 
     most.
       The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to 
     conduct and compile research on many aspects of night-time 
     road construction, including:
        Comparisons between work zone-related crash rates 
     daytime and night-time construction operations;
        Rates and frequencies of incidents caused by 
     drivers under the influence of alcohol, drugs and/or other 
     substances causing driver impairment;
        Rates and frequencies of incidents caused by 
     drivers and workers who are tired or sleep deprived;
        Impacts on worker health and welfare;
        Impacts on adjacent communities;
        Impacts on construction quality and work 
     schedules; and
        General impact on roadway construction worker 
     safety.
       The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to 
     report to the Committee two years after passage of this 
     legislation on the results of its research.


                    CATHODIC BRIDGE PROTECTION STUDY

       The issue of the increased cost to repair/replace concrete 
     bridges due to the corrosion of steel rebar in bridges caused 
     by exposure to a chlorine environment is a critical one that 
     Congress must begin to address. The Committee directs the 
     Secretary to study the application of cathodic protection 
     technology to concrete bridges in order to extend the life of 
     the bridge and reduce future repair costs.
       The Committee also directs the Secretary to report to 
     Congress on the results of any study.


              TRAFFIC CONTROL AT HIGHWAY-RAILWAY CROSSINGS

       With respect to increasing safety at grade crossings, the 
     Committee notes that 1,431 people have been killed in 11,860 
     accidents at public crossings with crossbuck devices during 
     the past ten years. The size, weight, and design of trains 
     prevent them from being able to stop and start as quickly as 
     an automobile or truck. Given the importance of safety at 
     highway-rail crossings, the Committee urges the Secretary of 
     Transportation to revise the Manual of Uniform Traffic 
     Control Devices and such other regulations and agreements of 
     the Federal Highway Administration as may be necessary to 
     require ``yield'' signs be installed at all public highway-
     rail crossings without automatic traffic control, save for 
     those crossings which, in the judgment of the roadway 
     authority, require ``stop'' signs, together with appropriate 
     advance warning signs at all crossings.
       In October of 2004, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
     was requested to issue an interim order amending the Manual 
     on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to include a standard that 
     ``yield'' signs be installed at all public crossings with 
     passive devices, except at those which the roadway authority 
     deemed to require a ``stop'' sign based on an exhaustive 
     study contained in National Cooperative Highway Research 
     Program (NCHRP) Report 470. Considering that the NCHRP Report 
     470 was completed in at the end of 2001, the Committee urges 
     the Secretary to act immediately consider appropriate changes 
     to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.


               HIGHWAY-TRANSIT FUNDING TRANSFER AUTHORITY

       In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
     Act (ISTEA) provided additional authority for states to 
     transfer Federal funds between highway and transit programs. 
     In 1998, Congress continued and expanded this transfer 
     authority. Many States have actively used this authority to 
     transfer Federal funds between highway and transit programs. 
     The committee believes it is important to review how the 
     States and public transit authorities have used this transfer 
     authority and directs the Government Accountability Office to 
     report to Congress on the use of this transfer authority by 
     the States and public transit authorities, the highway and 
     transit projects funded with these funds, and the U.S. 
     Department of Transportation administrative mechanisms to 
     track the use of these transferred funds. This report should 
     be completed as soon as practicable and no later than two 
     years after the date of enactment.


                    REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

       The Committee notes that, in the Design Standards Manual 
     for construction of Interstates and their improvement, the 
     requirements for control of access at ramp terminals in urban 
     areas is 100 feet and 300 feet in rural areas. The Committee 
     instructs the Federal Highway Administrator within 180 days 
     to provide an explanation to the Committee for the different 
     treatment of rural and urban access control at ramp 
     terminals.

                        TITLE II--HIGHWAY SAFETY


               SEC. 2001. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 2001.
       This section authorizes funds for section 402 highway 
     safety grant program; occupant protection incentive grants 
     under section 405; alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 
     incentive grants under section 410; state traffic safety 
     information improvements under section 412; the national 
     driver register; and the high visibility enforcement program.
       The Secretary is provided the flexibility to transfer any 
     amounts remaining available under the occupant protection 
     incentive grant program, the alcohol-impaired driving 
     countermeasures program, and the state traffic safety 
     information system improvements program to ensure, to the 
     maximum extent possible, that each state receives the maximum 
     amount of incentive grants under these programs for which the 
     state is eligible.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7212.
       This section would authorize amounts from the Highway Trust 
     Fund for safety programs administered by NHTSA. The aggregate 
     proposed authorization is approximately $696 million for FY 
     2006, $711 million for FY 2007, $728 million for FY 2008, and 
     $746 million for FY 2009. In addition, this section provides 
     that, if revenue to the Highway Trust Fund for a given fiscal 
     year is lower than the amounts authorized in subtitle A, such 
     a reduction would not affect the highway safety programs 
     provided for in this bill. Finally, this section would 
     provide for a proportional increase for NHTSA's grant 
     programs if revenue to the Highway Trust Fund increases above 
     currently authorized amounts.
     Conference Substitute
       This section authorizes funds for section 402 highway 
     safety grant program; highway safety research and development 
     under section 403, occupant protection incentive grants under 
     section 405; safety belt performance grants under section 
     406; state traffic

[[Page 18789]]

     safety information improvements under section 408; alcohol-
     impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants under 
     section 410; the national driver register; the high 
     visibility impaired driving and seat belt enforcement 
     program; motorcyclist safety; child safety and child booster 
     seat safety incentive grants; and administrative expenses.
       The Secretary is provided the flexibility to transfer any 
     amounts remaining available under the occupant protection 
     incentive grants, alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 
     program, and the state traffic safety information system 
     improvements program to ensure, to the maximum extent 
     possible, that each state receives the maximum amount of 
     incentive grants under these programs for which the state is 
     eligible.


                   sec. 2002. highway safety programs

     House Bill
       Sec. 2009.
       This section adds driver fatigue to the list of safety 
     factors that must be included in state highway safety 
     programs in accordance with uniform guidelines promulgated by 
     the Secretary under section 402. The Committee wishes to 
     acknowledge the contribution of ``Maggie's Law'' to its 
     deliberations on this issue.
       Sec. 2014.
       This section adds `11-15 passenger vans used for school 
     transportation purposes' to the list of safety factors that 
     must be included in state highway safety programs in 
     accordance with uniform guidelines promulgated by the 
     Secretary under section 402.
       Sec. 2016.
       This section increases the minimum State apportionments of 
     402 funds from one-half of one percent to three-quarters of 
     one percent.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7213.
       This program is reauthorized for FYs 2006 through 2009 at 
     an average annual funding level of $217 million, a 40 percent 
     increase from the TEA-21 level, and increases the minimum 
     share of Indian tribes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     from \3/4\ of one percent to 2 percent. These grants, 
     allocated according to a formula, fund States' safety 
     programs, such as safety belts, drunk driving, motorcycle, 
     pedestrian and bicycle safety, emergency medical services, 
     traffic law enforcement and roadway safety.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference incorporates House provisions into Senate 
     structure with modifications, including removal of ``15 
     passenger van'' language and consolidation of House and 
     Senate ``driver fatigue'' language. Senate language is also 
     modified for ``unsafe driving behavior,'' ``administration of 
     state programs,'' and ``law enforcement chase training.'' 
     Minimum 402 funding for Indian tribes and States is 
     increased.


        sec. 2003. highway safety research and outreach program

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7214.
       This program is reauthorized for FYs 2006 through 2009 at 
     an average annual funding level of $142 million. These 
     programs focus on the research and development of safety 
     countermeasures related to impaired driving, occupant 
     protection, traffic law enforcement and criminal justice, 
     licensing, motorcycle, pedestrian, bicycle, teen drivers and 
     emergency medical services. The States use this research to 
     model their safety programs for the most impact on saving 
     lives and reducing injuries. This section also would provide 
     $24 million a year to NHTSA to launch national advertising 
     campaigns to increase seat belt use and reduce drunk driving 
     during holiday periods. Launching these advertising campaigns 
     at the national level is much more cost effective than 
     individual States buying advertising at the local level.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with the 
     addition of motorcycle safety to the list of research 
     priorities and moves the national advertising campaigns to a 
     new stand alone section.


            sec. 2004. occupant protection incentive grants

     House Bill
       Sec. 2002.
       This section extends the occupant protection incentive 
     grant program through the term of the legislation. A state 
     may become eligible for these grants by either having a 
     seatbelt usage rate of at least 85 percent or by implementing 
     at least four of the six safety incentives under the program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7216.
       This is a new program funded at an average annual level of 
     $154 million. The program would grant money to States that 
     enact a new primary seat belt law and to States that have 
     already enacted a primary seat belt law. States that have 
     already enacted a primary seat belt law would receive a one-
     time grant over the life of the bill equal to 250 percent of 
     their FY 2003 grant from section 402. States that enact a new 
     primary seat belt law after December 31, 2002 would receive a 
     one-time grant over the life of the bill equal to 500 percent 
     of their FY 2003 grant from section 402. Most of this grant 
     money may be used for highway safety construction purposes.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts elements of both the House and Senate 
     provisions by creating two seat belt related programs. This 
     provision outlines an extension of the current 405 Occupant 
     Protection Incentive Grants Program.


           sec. 2005. grants for primary safety belt use laws

     House Bill
       Sec. 2002.
       This section extends the occupant protection incentive 
     grant program through the term of the legislation. A state 
     may become eligible for these grants by either having a 
     seatbelt usage rate of at least 85 percent or by implementing 
     at least four of the six safety incentives under the program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7216.
       This is a new program funded at an average annual level of 
     $154 million. The program would grant money to States that 
     enact a new primary seat belt law and to States that have 
     already enacted a primary seat belt law. States that have 
     already enacted a primary seat belt law would receive a one-
     time grant over the life of the bill equal to 250 percent of 
     their FY 2003 grant from section 402. States that enact a new 
     primary seat belt law after December 31, 2002 would receive a 
     one-time grant over the life of the bill equal to 500 percent 
     of their FY 2003 grant from section 402. Most of this grant 
     money may be used for highway safety construction purposes.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts elements of both the House and Senate 
     provisions by creating two seat belt related programs. This 
     section adopts the Senate provision for one-time grants to 
     states that pass or have passed primary seat belt laws with 
     the modification to allow a state to also become eligible for 
     the grant by demonstrating at least 85 percent seat belt use 
     rates for two consecutive years and by changing the grant 
     amounts to 200 percent for the FY 2003 section 402 grant for 
     states with existing primary belt laws and 475 percent for 
     states that enact new laws.


    sec. 2006. state traffic safety information system improvements

     House Bill
       Sec. 2004.
       This section authorizes a new section 412 program for state 
     traffic safety information system incentive grants to 
     encourage states to adopt and implement effective safety data 
     systems. The Secretary is required to determine the model 
     data elements necessary to analyze trends in crash 
     occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances. To receive a 
     grant, a state must comply with safety data system 
     requirements under this section and use the grant only to 
     implement such requirements.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7221.
       This is a new discretionary grant program, funded at a $45 
     million level each FY 2006 through 2009 to encourage States 
     to improve their traffic records systems by increasing the 
     efficiency and uniformity of data collection and access 
     through upgrading data collection systems. The purpose is to 
     develop a more accurate database of vehicle crash 
     characteristics that will allow traffic safety professionals 
     to better identify traffic safety problems, and develop 
     effective countermeasures on a more timely basis.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision modified to 
     remove the requirement for data audit/assessment as a 
     requirement for eligibility in the first year.


          sec. 2007. alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures

     House Bill
       Sec. 2003.
       This section extends the alcohol-impaired driving 
     countermeasures program over the term of the legislation. The 
     criteria for eligibility under the Basic Grant A program is 
     expanded to included states that have an alcohol-related 
     fatality rate of 0.5 or less per 100 million vehicle miles 
     traveled. The eligibility criteria for Basic Grant A is 
     amended, under the administrative license revocation 
     requirement, to permit a state to allow a first time offender 
     who has had his or her license suspended to operate a motor 
     vehicle, after a 15-day suspension period, to and from 
     employment, school, or an alcohol treatment program if an 
     ignition interlock device is installed on the vehicle. 
     Similarly, a state may allow a repeat offender who has had 
     his or her license suspended or revoked to operate a motor 
     vehicle, after a 45-day suspension or revocation period, to 
     and from employment, school, or an alcohol treatment program 
     if an ignition interlock device is installed on the vehicle.
       Under the Basic Grant A criteria, four new eligibility 
     requirements are added in lieu of eliminating the young adult 
     drinking awareness program. The new requirements are a 
     judicial and prosecutorial outreach program,

[[Page 18790]]

     a self-sustaining drunk driving prevention program, programs 
     for effective alcohol rehabilitation, and a program for 
     impounding vehicles of drunk drivers. States may become 
     eligible for Basic Grant A by implementing at least six 
     eligibility criteria for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 and at 
     least seven criteria for the following fiscal years.
       The criteria for the eligibility for a Basic Grant B is 
     amended to permit a state to receive a grant if its alcohol-
     related fatality rate is 0.8 or more per 100 million vehicle 
     miles traveled and the state establishes a task force to 
     evaluate and recommend changes to the state's drunk driving 
     programs. The supplemental grant program is repealed.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7220.
       This program is reauthorized for FYs 2006 through 2009 at 
     an average annual funding level of $132 million. States can 
     qualify for a grant by enacting four out of the following 
     seven criteria in FY 2006 and FY 2007, and by enacting five 
     out of the following seven criteria in FY 2008 and FY 2009. 
     States may choose from the following menu of policy options: 
     (1) impaired driving check points and saturation patrols; (2) 
     outreach to judges and prosecutors to improve prosecution of 
     drunk driving cases; (3) create an information system for 
     government use that tracks drunk driving arrests and 
     convictions; (4) reduce for two years in a row the percentage 
     of fatally injured drivers with a blood alcohol content of 
     0.08 percent; (5) a program that returns State and local 
     fines collected for drunk driving offenses back into drunk 
     driving prevention programs; (6) enact a law that creates 
     greater penalties for drivers convicted of driving with a 
     blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent or higher; and (7) 
     create specialized courts for handling only impaired driving 
     cases. The ten States with the highest rate of impaired 
     driving fatalities will be eligible for a separate grant.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference combines elements from both the House and 
     Senate provisions, establishing a program whereby States are 
     eligible for grants by either achieving an alcohol- related 
     fatality rate of 0.5 or less per 100 million vehicle miles 
     traveled, or by carrying out 3 programs in 2006; 4 programs 
     in 2007, and 5 programs in 2008 and 2009. The list of 
     programs includes: check point, saturation patrol; 
     prosecution and adjudication outreach; BAC testing; high-risk 
     drivers; alcohol rehabilitation and DWI courts; underage 
     drinking; administrative license revocation; self-sustaining 
     impaired driving program. Additionally, the ten States with 
     the highest rate of impaired driving fatalities will be 
     eligible for a separate grant by implementing a plan approved 
     by the Secretary to reduce impaired driving. The grant for 
     these 10 states each year is intended to be working capital 
     to reinvigorate their impaired driving enforcement programs, 
     and for those states not already receiving the basic grant to 
     work towards eventually qualifying for the basic grant in 
     future years by reaching the fatality rate goal or 
     implementing the programs in (c).


                    SEC. 2008. NHTSA ACCOUNTABILITY

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7222.
       This section would create a framework for advancing NHTSA's 
     management of its grant programs and its program 
     recommendations to the States. It would require a review of 
     each State highway safety program at least once every three 
     years along with recommendations on how each State may 
     improve the management and oversight of its grant activities. 
     It would also develop management and program review 
     guidelines for the NHTSA Regional Offices. The General 
     Accounting Office will conduct a study on the effectiveness 
     of the advice and recommendations given to the States by 
     NHTSA. In addition, this section would increase NHTSA's 
     accountability to the public by requiring the agency to post 
     for public review on its website documents such as the NHTSA 
     management review and program review guidelines.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


             SEC. 2009. HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 2005.
       The Secretary is required to establish a program to support 
     national impaired driving mobilization and enforcement 
     efforts and national safety belt mobilization and enforcement 
     efforts, including the purchase of national paid 
     advertisements to support such efforts.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7214(b).
       This subsection of Section 403 would provide funding for 
     NHTSA to launch national advertising campaigns to increase 
     seat belt use and reduce drunk driving during holiday 
     periods. Launching these advertising campaigns at the 
     national level is much more cost effective than individual 
     States buying advertising at the local level.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision as a stand-alone 
     program, including a subsection that requires that funds only 
     be used for specified national law enforcement campaigns, 
     advertising, and annual evaluations. Nothing in this section 
     prohibits additional money later appropriated by Congress, or 
     additional funds from NHTSA, from being used for additional 
     support for the national campaigns.


                     SEC. 2010. MOTORCYCLIST SAFETY

     House Bill
       Sec. 2008.
       This section establishes a motorcycle safety incentive 
     grant program for states that adopt and implement effective 
     programs to reduce the number of single- and multi-vehicle 
     crashes involving motorcycles.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7224.
       This section would create a new section 414 of title 23 
     U.S.C. to provide grants to States to implement motorcycle 
     safety training programs based on specific criteria, 
     including improvements to motorcyclist safety training, 
     program delivery, public awareness.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision modified to 
     include Senate language on minimum grant amounts to eligible 
     states and a requirement for the Secretary to develop model 
     language for educating drivers on how to safely share roads 
     with motorcyclists.


       SEC. 2011. CHILD SAFETY AND BOOSTER SEAT INCENTIVE GRANTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 2007.
       This section authorizes a child safety and child booster 
     seat incentive grant program for the benefit of states that 
     enact or enforce a law requiring children riding in passenger 
     vehicles to be secured in child safety seats or child booster 
     seats. States may use grants under this section only to carry 
     out child safety seat and child booster seat programs, 
     including education, training, enforcement, and the purchase 
     and distribution of child restraints to families that cannot 
     otherwise afford them. Each state to which a grant is made 
     under this section must transmit a report to the Secretary 
     indicating how the grant funds were expended and identifying 
     the specific programs supported by the grant.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7223.
       This section would authorize grants to States to implement 
     Anton's Law, which is aimed at increasing the use of booster 
     seats for small children.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a change to 
     allow no more than 50 percent of funding to be used for 
     purchasing safety restraints. The purchase of child safety 
     restraints is directed at helping low-income families.


                         SEC. 2012. SAFETY DATA

     House Bill
       Sec. 2011.
       This section requires the Secretary to collect data and 
     compile statistics on accidents involving motor vehicles 
     being backed up that result in fatalities and injuries. The 
     Secretary is required to transmit a report to Congress not 
     later than January 1, 2009, on these accidents and any 
     recommendations regarding measures to be taken.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7254.
       This section requires NHTSA to study technologies for 
     automobiles that would reduce injuries and deaths caused by 
     cars and trucks backing up.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


              SEC. 2013. DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING ENFORCEMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 2013.
       This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study on 
     drug impaired driving and to develop a model statute for 
     States. The section also requires the Secretary to submit a 
     report to Congress regarding the research and findings not 
     later than 18 months after enactment.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7214(b)(1).
       This section requires NHTSA to conduct a study on the 
     effects of controlled substances on driving.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications including the definition of ``illicit 
     substances'' and requiring the Secretary and the National 
     Institutes of Health to jointly provide a report to Congress 
     on the problem of drug-impaired driving.

[[Page 18791]]




           SEC. 2014. FIRST RESPONDER VEHICLE SAFETY PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7605.
       This section requires the Secretary to develop a program 
     and list of best practices to promote compliance with State 
     and local laws to increase the safe and efficient operation 
     of first responder vehicles.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with a change 
     from the Secretary ``shall'' to ``should.''


                  SEC. 2015. DRIVER PERFORMANCE STUDY

     House Bill
       Sec. 2012.
       This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study on 
     the risks associated with glare to oncoming drivers and to 
     submit a report of findings and recommendations to Congress 
     not later than 18 months after enactment.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


 SEC. 2016. RURAL STATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES OPTIMIZATION PILOT 
                                PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 2015.
       This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study on 
     the use of geo-coded data for highway accidents and injuries 
     in order to improve EMS resource allocation and distribution 
     in rural areas.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


        SEC. 2017. OLDER DRIVER SAFETY; LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7217.
       This section would amend section 406 by adding an older 
     driver research and demonstration program and a law 
     enforcement training program to train law enforcement 
     personnel in police chase techniques that are consistent with 
     guidelines issued by the International Association of Chiefs 
     of Police.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision but makes 
     language a stand-alone provision rather than a codified 406 
     program. Language for police chase training is modified to 
     reflect that NHTSA shall provide ``guidance and support'' for 
     the training.


                     SEC. 2018. SAFE INTERSECTIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 2017.
       This section outlines penalties for the unauthorized sale 
     or use of traffic signal preemption transmitters.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1410.
       This section outlines penalties for the unauthorized sale 
     or use of traffic signal preemption transmitters.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with technical 
     modifications to make language consistent with Title 18, 
     United States Code.


    SEC. 2019. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TECHNICAL 
                               CORRECTION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7215.
       This section would make a minor technical correction to 
     section 404(d) of title 23 U.S.C.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


     SEC. 2020. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1411.
       Sense of the Senate in support of establishing a 
     Presidential Commission on Alcohol-Impaired Driving to 
     further change the culture of alcohol-impaired driving on our 
     Nation's highways.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision modified to make 
     the provision a sense of the Congress, to include the 
     motorcycle industry on the proposed Commission, and to change 
     appropriate references from ``drunk'' to ``alcohol-impaired'' 
     driving.


    SEC. 2021. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED PUBLIC 
AWARENESS OF BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION LEVELS AND DANGERS OF ALCOHOL-
                            IMPAIRED DRIVING

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1412.
       Sense of the Senate in Support of Increased Public 
     Awareness of Blood Alcohol Concentration Levels and Dangers 
     of Alcohol-Impaired Driving.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision modified to make 
     the provision a sense of the Congress and to change 
     appropriate references of ``drinking and driving'' to 
     ``alcohol-impaired driving.''

           TITLE III--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS


                         SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE

     House Bill
       Sec. 3001.
       Subsection (a) provides that this title be cited as the 
     Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005. Subsection (b) 
     provides that amendments in this title, unless otherwise 
     specified, are made to title 49 of the United States Code.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6001.
       The title to be cited as the Federal Public Transportation 
     Act of 2005.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts Senate proposal.


    SEC. 3002. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE; UPDATED 
                              TERMINOLOGY

     House Bill
       Sec. 3001.
       Subsection (b) amends chapter 53 of title 49, United States 
     Code by striking ``mass transportation'' and replacing it 
     with ``public transportation'', reflecting the broader 
     applicability of transit services beyond urban areas.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6002.
       Subsection (a) provides that amendments in this title, 
     unless otherwise specified, are made to title 49 of the 
     United States Code. Subsection (b) amends chapter 53 of title 
     49, United States Code by striking ``mass transportation'' 
     and replacing it with ``public transportation.''
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts Senate proposal.


              SEC. 3003. POLICIES, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSES

     House Bill
       Sec. 3002.
       This section and subsequent sections of the bill change the 
     terminology used to describe the federal transit programs, 
     which have grown far beyond the original mission and 
     orientation of ``urban renewal'' in the Federal Transit 
     Administration's organic statute, the Urban Mass 
     Transportation Act of 1964. Today, the federal transit 
     programs also provide vital transportation services to rural 
     and other non-urban constituencies. The title change and 
     subsequent legislative changes to chapter 53, title 49 United 
     States Code in which the terms ``mass transit'' or ``mass 
     transportation'' are replaced by ``public transportation'' 
     reflect this evolution.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6003.
       Section 5301(a) states that it is in the economic interest 
     of the United States to encourage and promote the development 
     of transportation systems because they maximize mobility and 
     minimize transportation-related fuel consumption and air 
     pollution. The findings in section 5301(b) are updated to 
     reflect Census 2000 data. Subsection 5301(e) is amended to 
     apply current requirements to preserve the environment and 
     important historical and cultural assets throughout chapter 
     53, rather than only to capital programs carried out under 
     sections 5309 and 5310. Terms throughout the section are 
     updated for clarity.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House language in subsection 5301(a) with the 
     inclusion of economic interest. The Census updates from the 
     Senate language are adopted. The remaining provisions of the 
     section are the same in both bills.


                         SEC. 3004. DEFINITIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3003.
       This section includes amendments to definitions that apply 
     generally to chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code. 
     These changes include adding new eligibilities for federal 
     capital transit funding. Newly eligible uses for these 
     capital funds include: (1) acquiring, constructing, 
     relocating, and renovating intercity bus stations and 
     terminals; (2) crime prevention and security projects 
     (including security training for personnel and conducting 
     emergency response drills); (3) establishing a debt service 
     reserve fund for bond payments when such bonds are used for 
     the purpose of financing an eligible transit project; and (4) 
     mobility management activities and projects. Mobility 
     management activities and projects improve the coordination 
     among public transportation and other transportation service 
     providers through short-range planning and management 
     activities, such as buying computer software that matches 
     public transportation riders and non-emergency medical and 
     other human services clients to transportation services. 
     Directly providing public transportation services is not an 
     eligible capital expense under this definition. The 
     definition of

[[Page 18792]]

     ``urbanized area'' is revised to reflect the Department of 
     Commerce's role in designating urbanized areas via the 
     decennial Census. Under current law, the terms ``mass 
     transportation,'' ``public transportation,'' and ``transit'' 
     are interchangeable. Under the changes made in this section, 
     these three terms are still synonymous. However, ``public 
     transportation'' becomes the principal defined term.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6004.
       This section includes amendments to definitions that apply 
     generally to chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code. 
     These changes include adding new eligibilities for federal 
     capital transit funding. Newly eligible uses for these 
     capital funds include: (1) acquiring, constructing, 
     relocating, and renovating intercity bus stations and 
     terminals; (2) crime prevention and security projects 
     (including security training for personnel and conducting 
     emergency response drills); and (3) establishing a debt 
     service reserve fund for bond payments when such bonds are 
     used for the purpose of financing an eligible transit 
     project. The Senate Banking Committee believes that improved 
     integrated, interoperable, emergency communications 
     infrastructure is one way for transit operators to improve 
     the response to emergency situations, and that such 
     expenditures are eligible capital expenditures under chapter 
     53. The Senate bill includes mobility management activities 
     under the section 5307 urbanized area formula grant program. 
     As defined in this section, mobility management activities 
     and projects tailor public transportation services to 
     specific markets and manage demand for public transportation 
     to help enhance ridership in a cost-effective and efficient 
     manner. The definition of public transportation is amended to 
     codify current practice of providing transportation service 
     that serves a specific urbanized or rural area and its 
     environs. Except for specific exceptions, such as the 
     expanded eligibility of intercity bus facilities for capital 
     funding and the ongoing intercity bus service under section 
     5311(f), intercity bus or rail services are not public 
     transportation. The definition of ``urbanized area'' is 
     revised to reflect the Department of Commerce's role in 
     designating urbanized areas via the decennial Census. Under 
     current law, the terms ``mass transportation,'' ``public 
     transportation,'' and ``transit'' are interchangeable. Under 
     the changes made in this section, these three terms are still 
     synonymous. However, ``public transportation'' becomes the 
     principal defined term.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House language regarding new eligibilities for 
     federal capital transit funding, including the more limited 
     definition of mobility management activities and projects as 
     being directly related to improved coordination among public 
     transportation and other transportation service providers. 
     These new capital eligibilities apply to all programs under 
     chapter 53. The conferees believe that improved integrated, 
     interoperable, emergency communications infrastructure are 
     one way for transit operators to improve the response to 
     emergency situations, and that such expenditures are eligible 
     capital expenditures under this chapter. The definition of 
     public transportation has been amended to mean transportation 
     by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general 
     or special transportation to the public, but does not include 
     schoolbus, charter, or intercity bus transportation (except 
     under programs where intercity bus projects are made 
     specifically eligible), or intercity passenger rail 
     transportation provided by Amtrak or its successor entities. 
     The definition of ``urbanized area'' is revised to reflect 
     the Department of Commerce's role in designating urbanized 
     areas via the decennial Census. ``Public transportation,'' 
     ``mass transportation,'' and ``transit'' remain 
     interchangeable and synonymous. However, ``public 
     transportation'' becomes the principal defined term, in 
     recognition that the federal public transportation program 
     has evolved over time, and now covers rural and other non-
     urban constituencies, as well as urbanized areas.


            SEC. 3005. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

     House Bill
       Sec. 3004.
       The House bill consolidates current law metropolitan 
     planning provisions under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 49, 
     U.S.C. and under section 134 of title 23, U.S.C. into a 
     unified planning title for both transit and highways under 
     chapter 52 of title 49, U.S.C. For ease of reference, 
     subsection 5303(a) of title 49, U.S.C. is amended to reflect 
     that grants made under sections 5307-5311, 5316 and 5317 are 
     to be carried out in accordance with chapter 52. Subsection 
     5303(b) requires the Secretary to certify that metropolitan 
     planning organizations (MPOs) in transportation management 
     areas comply with all planning and other applicable 
     requirements in law in their transportation planning 
     activities. However, the Secretary may not withhold 
     certification of a transportation plan based on private 
     enterprise participation. This is a standing limitation in 
     existing law under section 5305(e)(3).
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6005.
       The Senate bill consolidates all provisions for 
     metropolitan planning under section 5303 of title 49. The 
     bill maintains the requirement for separate transportation 
     plans and transportation improvement programs and requires 
     certification of the planning process every four years. The 
     Senate repeals the current law provision that allows a plan 
     to be certified by the Secretary regardless of the policies 
     and criteria an MPO or transit recipient establishes for 
     deciding the feasibility of private enterprise participation. 
     However, language is added under section 5306(a) of title 49 
     to clarify that local criteria will be the basis for such 
     decisionmaking. The current law provisions regarding the 
     scope of the planning process are amended to provide more 
     detail on how protection of the environment is to be 
     considered and adds a reference to planned growth patterns. A 
     new participation plan is established to afford parties who 
     participate in the metropolitan planning process a specific 
     opportunity to comment on the plan before its approval. MPOs 
     must certify that they have complied with their participation 
     plan before the transportation plan can be approved. A new 
     provision is added that requires the secretary to issue rules 
     regarding the publication of the projects in the 
     transportation improvement program for which funds have 
     actually been obligated. Section 5305 of title 49, U.S.C. is 
     repealed because provisions regarding Transportation 
     Management Areas are incorporated into metropolitan 
     transportation planning.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the Senate proposal, without the requirement that 
     MPOs must certify that they have complied with their 
     participation plan before the transportation plan can be 
     approved.


              SEC. 3006. STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

     House Bill
       Sec. 3005.
       The House bill consolidates the metropolitan and statewide 
     planning provisions currently under title 23, U.S.C. and 
     chapter 53, title 49, U.S.C. into a unified planning title 
     for both transit and highways under chapter 52 of title 49, 
     U.S.C. For ease of reference, section 5304 of title 49, 
     U.S.C. is amended to reflect that grants made under sections 
     5307-5311, 5316 and 5317 are to be carried out in accordance 
     with chapter 52. Under current law (section 5323(l)), 
     statewide transit planning was subject to statewide highway 
     planning processes outlined in section 135 of title 23, 
     U.S.C.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6006.
       The Senate bill includes statewide planning requirements 
     explicitly under 49 U.S.C. 5304, rather than by reference to 
     section 135 of title 23 U.S.C. A new subsection (c) is added 
     to allow States to enter into compacts or agreements for the 
     purpose of formal planning cooperation and coordination for 
     projects with multi-State implications. A requirement is 
     added for States to consider the economic vitality for rural 
     areas as well as urbanized areas in statewide transportation 
     planning. The joint consideration of safety and security 
     factors in planning is broken out as separate factors, to 
     highlight heightened concerns with security at all levels of 
     Government. The current law provisions regarding the scope of 
     the planning process are amended to provide more detail on 
     how protection of the environment is to be considered. An 
     expanded publication of the statewide plan is required. The 
     update cycles for development and approval of statewide 
     transportation plans are set at 4 years.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the Senate proposal.


                      SEC. 3007. PLANNING PROGRAMS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3006.
       Metropolitan planning and statewide planning funding 
     provisions contained in current law sections 5303(g) and 
     5313(b) are moved into a unified section on planning programs 
     as the amended section 5305 of 49 U.S.C. The current law 
     section 5305 pertains to metropolitan planning requirements 
     for transportation management areas. These provisions are 
     included under the unified metropolitan planning sections of 
     chapter 52.
       Subsections 5305(a), (b) and (c) establish the general 
     planning grant authority and purposes. The current law 
     definition of a State is retained (a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). 
     Subsection (d) describes the metropolitan planning grant 
     apportionment process. Subsection (e) describes the state 
     planning and research grant apportionment process. Subsection 
     (f) sets the Government's share of planning grant activity 
     costs at 80 percent. Subsection (g) describes the allocation 
     of planning funds made available under funding authorization 
     section 5338(c) between metropolitan planning and statewide 
     planning, using the same percentages set in current law 
     section 5338(c)(2)(C) (82.72 percent for metropolitan 
     planning and 17.28 percent for state planning and research). 
     In subsection (h), funds remain available for three years 
     after the fiscal year in which the funds

[[Page 18793]]

     are authorized, the same period of availability as under 
     current law.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6010.
       The Senate bill merges the existing Clean Fuels Formula 
     Program into the Bus and Bus Facilities Program and sets the 
     consolidated metropolitan and statewide planning grant 
     programs under 49 U.S.C. 5308. The current law limitation on 
     the definition of State is deleted, providing transportation 
     planning funds and responsibilities for the first time to the 
     U.S. Territories. A new planning capacity building program of 
     $5 million a year is established for metropolitan planning 
     organizations and transportation operators to plan, develop 
     and implement innovations and enhancements that support and 
     strengthen the planning process. This program is also 
     authorized and funded under the highway title and will be 
     carried out jointly by FTA and FHWA. The bill provides $20 
     million a year for alternatives analysis activities that are 
     now funded from the 49 U.S.C. 5309 New Starts program. The 
     Senate believes that it is inappropriate to fund alternatives 
     analysis under New Starts because that presumes that the 
     result of the locally preferred alternative will, in fact, be 
     a New Start. After these two new set-asides, the remaining 
     planning funds are distributed as by current law, with 82.72 
     percent for metropolitan planning and 17.28 percent for state 
     planning and research. The Government's share for planning 
     grant activities is set at 80 percent, and funds remain 
     available for three years after the fiscal year in which the 
     funds are authorized, the same period of availability as 
     under current law.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House language restricting planning funds and 
     responsibilities to U.S. States, the District of Columbia, 
     and Puerto Rico. Adopts House language defining the prompt 
     allocation of planning funds by States to metropolitan 
     planning organizations to be made available within 30 days 
     after allocation to the State. Does not include an 
     alternatives analysis set-aside under the Planning Programs, 
     although a new stand-alone alternatives analysis program is 
     established under section 5339 of title 49, United States 
     Code. Planning funds will continue to be distributed as under 
     current law, with 82.72 percent for metropolitan planning and 
     17.28 percent for state planning.


              SEC. 3008. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE PARTICIPATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 3007.
       This section title has been shortened to more clearly 
     reflect the provisions within. The text of section 5306 of 
     title 49, United States Code is not amended.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6008.
       Current language that prohibits decertification for failure 
     to meet the private sector participation requirements in 49 
     U.S.C. 5306 is not reenacted. The Senate bill adds clarifying 
     language to make clear that local criteria are to be the 
     basis for deciding on how to involve the private sector. A 
     rulemaking is required to implement all of the changes to the 
     statute made throughout the Senate bill on private sector 
     participation, including enhancements to the role of private 
     transportation providers in the planning process, changes in 
     funding eligibility, and funding allocations.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the Senate proposal clarifying that local criteria 
     are to be the basis for deciding how to involve the private 
     sector.


                SEC. 3009. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3008.
       This section amends section 5307 of title 49, United States 
     Code, which contains provisions governing the eligibility and 
     procedures for urbanized area formula grants to transit 
     providers in areas of 50,000 and more in population. Two 
     existing law subsections are deleted. Subsection 5307(h) is 
     deleted as a technical cleanup, because streamlined 
     administrative procedures for track and signal equipment 
     certification have already been promulgated as directed in 
     the subsection. Subsection 5307(k) regarding transit 
     enhancement activities is also deleted, but the requirement 
     that one percent of urbanized area formula grant funds for 
     recipients in areas of over 200,000 be invested on 
     enhancement activities is retained, and added to the list of 
     grant recipient requirements in subsection 5307(d)(1).
       In paragraph (2), the existing extension of operating 
     flexibility in urbanized areas that were less than 200,000 
     under the 1990 Census, but increased to more than 200,000 in 
     the 2000 Census, is further extended through the end of 
     fiscal year 2004.
       Currently under subsection 5307(d), recipients are required 
     to certify that they have the legal, financial, and technical 
     capacity to carry out the program of projects for which they 
     are applying as an urbanized area formula grant. This is 
     amended in subparagraph (d)(1)(A) to additionally require 
     that recipients certify such legal, financial, and technical 
     capacity for the safety and security aspects of their program 
     of projects.
       Subsection 5307(e) regarding the Government's share of 
     costs is amended by deleting the 1985 baseline limitation on 
     local match revenues resulting from the sale of advertising 
     or concessions. Additionally, recipients are authorized to 
     use amounts received under service agreements with a State, 
     local social service agency, or private social service 
     organizations as local match. This creates an incentive to 
     transit agencies to better coordinate transportation services 
     with human service agencies that provide transportation 
     services.
       Section 5307(i) is redesignated as section 5307(h) and 
     amended to give the Secretary discretion to require annual 
     audits rather than mandate them.
       Subsection 5307(l) as redesignated, Relationship to Other 
     Laws, strikes subparagraph (1) and moves the provision 
     contained therein to the General Provisions on Assistance 
     under section 5323, to make the prohibition on making false 
     or fraudulent statements to the Government (18 U.S.C. section 
     1001) applicable to any Federal public transportation grant 
     program. A new paragraph (2) is added that exempts non- 
     supervisory transit employees from the Hatch Act limitations 
     relating to public election procedures for government 
     employees, if the Hatch Act applies only because the 
     employees' salaries are funded through Federal grants under 
     this section. This exemption will apply only to employees in 
     urbanized areas under 200,000 in population, where up to 50 
     percent of the net project cost may be derived from Federal 
     grant funds. This codifies existing Federal transit law.
       Subsection 3008(h) adds a new subsection 5307(m) regarding 
     the treatment of the United States Virgin Islands, which 
     shall be treated as an urbanized area for the purposes of 
     apportionments under section 5307.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6009.
       Private companies engaged in public transportation are 
     eligible subrecipients of Federal grants. Subsection 5307(a) 
     is revised to include definitions for `subrecipient,' as well 
     as `designated recipient.' A subrecipient includes any entity 
     receiving funding from the designated recipient. This will 
     facilitate private sector participation in public 
     transportation.
       Mobility management is made an eligible expense. Subsection 
     (b) is amended to state more explicitly the general authority 
     for grants under Section 5307. Eligibility is expanded to 
     include `mobility management' as defined in Subsection 
     5302(a)(7a). Paragraph (4) is struck since separate 
     eligibility for reconstructing or rehabilitating rolling 
     stock is no longer needed, since these terms have been 
     included in the definition of capital project in Subsection 
     5303(a).
       Currently, urbanized areas over 200,000 may not use funds 
     from the urbanized area formula program for operating 
     assistance. A number of urbanized areas' status changed 
     unexpectedly as a result of the 2000 census, due to changes 
     in the Census Bureau's definitions and procedures for 
     defining urbanized areas. These areas were allowed to 
     continue to use funds for operating assistance for 2003 by 
     P.L. 107-232, for 2004 by the Surface Transportation 
     Extension Act of 2003, and for the first eight months of 2005 
     by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V. 
     These provisions are extended for the remainder of 2005 as 
     currently enacted. For 2006 and 2007, these provisions are 
     phased out. Urbanized areas covered by these provisions would 
     be allowed to use 50 percent of their current limits on 
     operating assistance in 2006 and 25 percent in 2007. This 
     should provide these areas with more than ample time to 
     develop and implement transition plans. The Senate strongly 
     opposes continuing these provisions beyond 2007 and believes 
     the more appropriate role for the Federal Government is in 
     capital investment.
       Section 5307(g)(4) is deleted to remove an obsolete 
     standard for setting interest rates on advance construction 
     projects. TEA-21 included a provision which required that the 
     interest rate be set based on the most favorable terms 
     available to the recipient and thus this is unnecessary.
       The eligibility requirements for local match within this 
     section are streamlined to include all advertising revenue as 
     well as contracts with social service organizations.
       Certain urbanized areas which grew to a population of over 
     200,000 can use funds for operating assistance in 2006 
     through 2007, with the amounts progressively phased down.
       Currently, Subsection 5307(h) requires streamlined 
     administrative procedures for track and signal improvements. 
     This subsection is deleted because separate treatment for 
     track and signal projects is no longer needed.
       Currently, Subsection 5307(j) requires that grantees submit 
     annual reports on sales of advertising and concessions. This 
     subsection is deleted because it is redundant with a similar 
     requirement of the National Transit Database.
       Transit enhancements program is administered as a 
     certification rather than as a set-aside. Subsection 5307(k) 
     dealing with `transit enhancement activities' is mainstreamed 
     into a new subparagraph (K) in Section 5307(d)(1). Currently, 
     that subsection allows for a one percent set-aside for 
     transit enhancements and requires a report listing the 
     projects. Under new subparagraph (K), a recipient with at 
     least a population of 200,000 in its urbanized area could 
     instead certify that one percent of its Section 5307 funds 
     has been expended on transit enhancements.

[[Page 18794]]

       Under current law, Section 5307(n)(1) states that 18 U.S.C. 
     1001, regarding false or fraudulent statements, applies only 
     to certificates or submissions provided pursuant to Section 
     5307, `Urbanized Area Formula Grants.' This paragraph is 
     moved to Section 5323, General Provisions on Assistance. 
     Under Section 5223, 18 U.S.C. 1001 applies to any Federal 
     public transportation grant program.
       A technical amendment is made to Subsection 5307(k)(2) to 
     provide a complete list of requirements with which grant 
     recipients must comply. In addition, a provision is added to 
     Subsection 5307(k) to clarify that the Hatch Act does not 
     apply to non-supervisory employees of grant recipients. This 
     provision was included in the former Section 5 of the Urban 
     Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. However, it was 
     inadvertently not included in Chapter 53 when the Urban Mass 
     Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, was codified.
     Conference Substitute
       The conferees adopted the Senate language providing for a 
     phase-out of operating eligibility for urbanized areas which 
     crossed over 200,000 in population for the first time in the 
     2000 census.
       The conference agreement provides that transit enhancement 
     program will be administered as a certification, rather than 
     a set-aside, and that grant recipients must submit an annual 
     report of transit enhancement projects.
       The conferees agreed to delete the 1985 baseline limitation 
     on local match revenues resulting from the sale of 
     advertising or concessions. Additionally, the conferees 
     agreed to allow recipients to use amounts received under 
     service agreements with a State, local social service agency, 
     or private social service organizations as local match in 
     order to foster coordination with other agencies that provide 
     transportation services.
       The conferees made a number of technical changes to Section 
     5307. Subsection (b) is amended to state more explicitly the 
     general authority for grants under Section 5307. In addition, 
     the conferees agreed that recipients must certify legal, 
     financial, and technical capacity for the safety and security 
     aspects of their program of projects. The conferees agreed to 
     delete subsections (b)(4), (g)(4), (h), (j), and (k) as 
     redundant or obsolete. The definition of associated capital 
     maintenance was reorganized. A technical amendment is made to 
     Subsection 5307(k)(2) to provide a complete list of 
     requirements with which grant recipients must comply. In 
     addition, a provision is added to Subsection 5307(k) to 
     codify existing transit law which states that the Hatch Act 
     does not apply to non-supervisory employees of grant 
     recipients. The conferees deleted the reference to 18 U.S.C. 
     1001, regarding false or fraudulent statements, from Section 
     5307, because Section 5323 is amended to apply 18 U.S.C. 1001 
     to the entire federal transit program.
       The conference agreement adopts the House provision 
     regarding the treatment of the United States Virgin Islands 
     as an urbanized area for the purposes of apportionments under 
     section 5307.


                  SEC. 3010. CLEAN FUELS GRANT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 3009.
       Section 3009 amends section 5308 of title 49, United States 
     Code, regarding the clean fuels formula grant bus procurement 
     program. Funds are apportioned to recipients in urbanized 
     areas that are designated as nonattainment areas for ozone or 
     carbon monoxide under section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act or 
     are maintenance areas for ozone or carbon monoxide. These 
     grant funds can be used to purchase or lease clean fuel 
     buses, construct or lease vehicle-related equipment 
     supporting such clean fuel buses, and construct new or 
     improve existing facilities to accommodate clean fuel buses. 
     Clean fuel buses include those powered by clean diesel, 
     compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biodiesel 
     fuels, batteries, alcohol-based fuels, hybrid electric power 
     systems, fuel cells, or other low or zero emission 
     technologies. Not more than 25 percent of the funds made 
     available under the clean fuels formula grant program may be 
     used for clean diesel bus technology. The apportionment 
     formula is weighted such that two-thirds of the funds go to 
     recipients serving urbanized areas with a population of 
     1,000,000 or more and one-third of the funds go to recipients 
     serving urbanized areas of less than 1,000,000. The formula 
     is also weighted by the severity of nonattainment in the 
     urbanized area being served.
       The Committee intends that the Secretary shall encourage 
     recipients of clean fuels formula grants to adequately invest 
     in infrastructure facilities to accommodate the needs of 
     these alternatively fueled vehicles.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference report retains the House clean fuels grant 
     program, but makes the program discretionary in nature rather 
     than a formula grant program.


                  SEC. 3011. CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3010.
       This section amends section 5309 of title 49, United States 
     Code, which authorizes capital investment grants for new 
     fixed guideway capital projects (``new starts''), fixed 
     guideway modernization (``rail modernization''), and bus and 
     bus-related facilities. All references in the current law 
     section heading and text to ``capital investment loans'' are 
     deleted from section 5309. Historically, only capital 
     investment grants have been awarded under this section.
       Subsection 5309(c), concerning major capital investment 
     grants of $75 million or more includes the new starts program 
     requirements and FTA evaluation and rating criteria found in 
     current law subsection 5309(e). The term describing all new 
     starts and small starts projects is changed from the current 
     law ``capital project for a new fixed guideway system or 
     extension of an existing fixed guideway system'' to ``new 
     fixed guideway capital project'' for the sake of brevity. The 
     new term is defined in subsection (n) as a minimum operable 
     segment of a capital project for a new fixed guideway system 
     or extension to an existing fixed guideway system, which is 
     the same definition for new starts projects as under current 
     law subsection 5309(p). Subsection 5309(c) pertains only to 
     those new fixed guideway capital projects that will require 
     $75 million or more of Federal assistance provided under the 
     authority of Section 5309. Such projects are defined as 
     ``major'' new starts as opposed to small starts, which 
     involve less than $75 million in such funds and are 
     authorized under subsection (d).
       Major new starts projects must be carried out through a 
     full funding grant agreement with the Secretary. The full 
     funding grant agreement is based upon the evaluations and 
     ratings required under subsection 5309(c). The baseline 
     requirements for a project to secure a grant under this 
     subsection is that the project proposal must be based on the 
     results of alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering; 
     justified based on a comprehensive review of the project's 
     benefits; and supported by an acceptable degree of local 
     financial commitment. The project justification and local 
     financial commitment evaluation criteria are outlined in 
     detail, consistent with the current law criteria. In 
     assessing the local financial commitment for a new starts 
     project, the FTA is authorized to consider the extent to 
     which the project sponsor has overmatched the statutory local 
     match requirement of 20 percent. However, the authority to 
     consider a higher local match as part of the assessment of a 
     project's local financial commitment does not allow the 
     Secretary to require a higher local match than 20 percent.
       Proposed new starts projects under subsection (c) are 
     authorized to advance from alternatives analysis to 
     preliminary engineering, and from preliminary engineering to 
     final design and construction, if the Secretary finds that 
     the project meets the requirements of this section. In making 
     these findings, the Secretary is directed to evaluate and 
     rate the project as ``highly recommended'', ``recommended'', 
     or ``not recommended'' based on the results of alternatives 
     analysis, the project justification criteria, and local 
     financial commitment.
       Subsection 5309(d) regarding capital investment grants of 
     less than $75 million authorizes a new program under Capital 
     Investment Grants. These ``small starts'' fall into two 
     subcategories--those involving between $25 million and $75 
     million in funds under section 5309, and those that are less 
     than $25 million. New fixed guideway capital projects with a 
     section 5309 Federal share of less than $25 million are not 
     subject to the requirements of this subsection regarding 
     project evaluation and rating and do not enter into a long-
     term financial contract with the Secretary (called a 
     ``project construction grant agreement'' in the small starts 
     program). Under the small starts program, lower-cost fixed 
     guideway projects such as streetcars, bus rapid transit, and 
     commuter rail projects will be advanced through an expedited 
     and streamlined evaluation and rating process. As the Federal 
     Transit Administration develops administrative and regulatory 
     guidance for the implementation of the small starts program, 
     the process and procedures adopted should be representative 
     of the relative size and scope of the projects.
       Project justifications for the small starts program are 
     based on five criteria: consistency with local land use 
     policies and likelihood to achieve local developmental goals; 
     cost effectiveness of the project at the time revenue service 
     is initiated; degree of positive impact on local economic 
     development; reliability of cost and ridership forecasts; and 
     other factors the Secretary considers appropriate to carry 
     out this subsection. The Secretary is also required to 
     analyze and consider the results of planning and the 
     alternatives analysis for the project. The small starts 
     evaluation process should consider the economic benefits of 
     the project, including the level of private sector investment 
     associated with the advancement of the project. The small 
     starts local financial commitment evaluation is a streamlined 
     version of the new starts financial evaluation process. The 
     Secretary is directed to require that each proposed local 
     source of capital and operating financing is stable, 
     reliable, and available within the proposed project 
     timetable, and that there be an acceptable degree of

[[Page 18795]]

     local financial commitment. This provision gives the 
     Secretary the authority to consider a higher local match as 
     part of the assessment of a project's local financial 
     commitment, but does not allow the Secretary to require a 
     higher local match than 20 percent.
       The project development process is also simplified. The new 
     starts project development process involves four discrete 
     steps: (1) planning and alternatives analysis, (2) 
     preliminary engineering, (3) final design, and (4) entering 
     into a full funding grant agreement and construction. The 
     small starts program involves three steps: (1) planning and 
     alternatives analysis, (2) project development, and (3) 
     entering into a project construction grant agreement and 
     construction. Small starts projects may advance from planning 
     and alternatives analysis to project development and 
     construction only after the Secretary finds that the project 
     meets the requirements of this subsection and the local 
     metropolitan planning organization adopts the locally 
     preferred alternative into its long-range transportation 
     plan. Small starts projects are evaluated based on project 
     justification criteria and local financial commitment and are 
     rated as ``recommended'' or ``not recommended'' based on the 
     results of the FTA's analysis. Only small starts projects 
     that are authorized for construction and rated 
     ``recommended'' may enter into a project construction grant 
     agreement.
       Another important difference between the new starts program 
     and the small starts program is that, under the small starts 
     program, fixed guideway capital projects have a broader 
     definition that includes corridor-based public transportation 
     bus projects if the majority of the project's right-of-way is 
     dedicated alignment. However, the program is written to be 
     ``mode neutral''--any fixed guideway capital project fitting 
     the broader definition under small starts is eligible to be 
     funded under this category if it is less than $75 million in 
     section 5309 Federal funds, whether it is a bus rapid transit 
     project, a streetcar or trolley project, commuter rail, or 
     light rail. However, all small starts projects must be 
     included under the new starts authorization list in section 
     3037 of this bill to receive funds in subsequent 
     appropriations bills within this authorization period.
       Subsection 5309(g) outlines the Government's share of the 
     net project cost for all projects authorized under section 
     5309. The Administration had proposed to decrease the 
     Government's share for new start projects to 50 percent. The 
     Committee has rejected this proposal, and retains the 
     provision under subsection 5309(h) in current law that the 
     Federal share for a project shall be 80 percent, unless the 
     grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage. New 
     language is included clarifying that nothing in section 5309, 
     including the language that specifically directs the FTA to 
     consider in its evaluation of a project the extent to which a 
     project has a higher local match than required by law, shall 
     be construed as authorizing the Secretary to require a local 
     match higher than 20 percent of the net capital project cost.
       Subsection 5309(i) directs the Secretary to submit an 
     annual new starts report to the House and Senate authorizing 
     committees on the first Monday in February, which includes 
     the Administration's funding proposals for new starts 
     projects in the coming fiscal year, and evaluations and 
     ratings for all new starts projects authorized in section 
     3037 of this Act. The current law requirement under 
     subsection 5309(o)(2) regarding an August supplemental report 
     is deleted. The Committee directs that the FTA shall forward 
     letter updates to the House and Senate authorizing committees 
     when a project advances to preliminary engineering or to 
     final design after the publication of the annual new starts 
     report. In subsection 5309(i)(2), the U.S. General Accounting 
     Office is directed to conduct an annual review of FTA's 
     processes and procedures for evaluating, rating, and 
     recommending new starts projects and how the agency 
     implements such processes and procedures. This review shall 
     be submitted to the Congress by May 31 of each year.
       Subsection 5309(k), regarding bus and bus facility grants, 
     amends the existing law language under subsection 5309(m)(3). 
     The current language regarding consideration of the age of 
     buses, bus fleets, related equipment, and bus-related 
     facilities when making grants is retained. Current law 
     provisions that set aside funds for the bus testing facility 
     in Altoona, Pennsylvania and for the section 5308 Clean Fuels 
     formula program are deleted, as both these programs are now 
     funded as set-asides from formula grants.
       Subsection 5309(l) is a new provision making bus and bus 
     facilities and new starts grant funds available for three 
     fiscal years (including the year in which the amount is made 
     available or appropriated). Funds that remain unobligated 
     after three years shall be deobligated and may be used by the 
     Secretary for any purpose under this section.
       Subsection 5309(m) directs the allocation of amounts made 
     available for programs authorized under section 5309. The 
     existing formula of 40 percent for new starts, 40 percent for 
     rail modernization, and 20 percent for bus and bus facilities 
     is retained, after the funding levels authorized for small 
     starts are set aside from the total amount made available for 
     section 5309 programs. The current law set-aside of $10.4 
     million a year for ferryboats and ferry terminal facilities 
     in Alaska or Hawaii is retained. A provision is added 
     establishing a new set-aside for the national fuel cell bus 
     technology development program, and a new ferryboat and ferry 
     terminal set-aside of $10 million per year is established.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6011.
       The General Authority section is amended to limit the 
     program to focus on three activities: New Starts, fixed 
     guideway modernization, and buses and bus facilities. Non-
     fixed guideway corridor improvements are eligible for New 
     Starts funds for projects under $75 million. Current 
     procedures and criteria apply to New Starts projects over $75 
     million in New Starts share while simplified procedures and 
     criteria apply to New Starts projects under $75 million in 
     New Starts share. The current exemption for projects under 
     $25 million is eliminated.
       The Bus, New Starts and Fixed Guideway Modernization 
     programs continue in the Capital Investment Programs; funds 
     are split approximately 23% bus, 40% New Starts and 37% Fixed 
     Guideway Modernization.
       Bus funds going to private non-profit organizations or 
     rural transit systems as subrecipients are administered under 
     the requirements of the Elderly and Disabled and Rural 
     programs, respectively. The requirements for statewide 
     transit providers depend on where the project is located. 
     Funding for Alternatives Analysis is made available from the 
     Planning Program rather than the Capital Investment Program.
       The current three level rating system (Highly Recommended, 
     Recommended, Not Recommended) is replaced by a five level 
     system (High, Medium-High, Medium, Medium-Low, Low).
       The maximum New Starts share is retained at 80 percent. A 
     higher than requested share can be provided for projects 
     which keep cost and ridership estimates within 10 percent of 
     the forecasts used as the basis for establishing the Locally 
     Preferred Alternative.
       Grantees will be allowed to keep a portion of the cost 
     savings in the case where projects are completed under 
     budget.
       The New Starts Report and Supplemental Report are replaced 
     by reports issued three times a year focusing on changes to 
     ratings and an annual report on budget recommendations.
       References to `capital investment loans' are deleted from 
     Section 5309 since, historically, only capital investment 
     grants have been awarded pursuant to this section.
       A new Subsection 5309(e)(8) is added to require periodic 
     publication of the policies and procedures used in rating 
     projects. This will help improve the transparency and 
     predictability of the rating process.
       The Committee is seeking to identify cost drivers for 
     critical, complex, and capital intensive transit New Starts 
     projects. Public Private Partnerships (PPP) may provide an 
     important way to achieve significant savings. These 
     partnerships with qualification-based selection and 
     performance-based contracting integrate risk sharing, 
     streamline project development, engineering, and 
     construction, and preserve the integrity of the NEPA process, 
     which results in the potential for significant schedule and 
     cost advantages over traditional infrastructure development. 
     The Committee expects the Secretary to initiate the pilot 
     program as soon as practicable after enactment, in order that 
     the benefits of PPP's may be understood and potentially 
     applied to other transit New Starts projects.
       A new statutory requirement for `Before and After Studies' 
     as part of Full Funding Grant Agreements is added in Section 
     5309(g). Such studies are already required by the regulation 
     implementing Section 5309(e) and are an essential part of 
     improving the New Starts program. By better understanding the 
     actual costs and benefits of New Starts projects, especially 
     the early planning stages when the Locally Preferred 
     Alternative (LPA) is chosen, the planning process can be 
     improved, and future projects can be based on estimates of 
     costs and benefits which are more accurate. In addition, FTA 
     would be required to produce an annual report each year that 
     would summarize the results of these studies.
       Section 5309(i)(3) would continue to set aside $10,400,000 
     each year for Alaska and Hawaii ferryboats, the same amount 
     as is in TEA-21. The factors in Section 5309(i)(6) to be 
     considered by the Secretary in selecting bus and bus 
     facilities grants is expanded to include both the age and 
     condition of the buses, fleets, and facilities.
       In lieu of establishing a new program for intermodal 
     facilities as proposed by the Administration, $75 million is 
     set aside each year from the bus discretionary program for 
     these facilities. Eligibility for the intercity portion of 
     intermodal terminals is established by the amendment to 
     Section 5302.
       The Federal Transit Administration is required to issue a 
     `Contractor Performance Assessment Report' (CPAR). This 
     report will analyze the consistency and accuracy of cost and 
     ridership estimates made by contractors to public 
     transportation agencies developing major capital investments. 
     This would provide public transportation agencies with a

[[Page 18796]]

     tool to assist in choosing contractors with the highest 
     success rates in predicting cost and ridership.
     Conference Substitute
       This section amends section 5309 of title 49, United States 
     Code, which authorizes capital investment grants for new 
     fixed guideway capital projects (``new starts''), fixed 
     guideway modernization (``rail modernization''), and bus and 
     bus-related facilities. All references in the current law 
     section heading and text to ``capital investment loans'' are 
     deleted from section 5309. Historically, only capital 
     investment grants have been awarded under this section.
       Subsection 5309(d) regarding capital investment grants of 
     less than $75 million authorizes a new program under Capital 
     Investment Grants. Under the small starts program, lower-cost 
     fixed guideway and non-fixed guideway projects such as bus 
     rapid transit, streetcars, and commuter rail projects will be 
     advanced through an expedited and streamlined evaluation and 
     rating process. Non-fixed guideway corridor improvements are 
     eligible for New Starts funds for projects under $75 million. 
     This can be demonstrated by a substantial fixed guideway or 
     by a substantial investment in a defined corridor. Project 
     justifications for the small starts program are based on five 
     criteria: consistency with local land use policies and 
     likelihood to achieve local developmental goals; cost 
     effectiveness of the project at the time revenue service is 
     initiated; degree of impact on local economic development; 
     reliability of cost and ridership forecasts; and other 
     factors the Secretary considers appropriate to carry out this 
     subsection. The Secretary is also required to analyze and 
     consider the results of planning and the alternatives 
     analysis for the project to ensure that sufficient effort has 
     been made to perform a true exploration of alternatives 
     analysis. The small starts local financial commitment 
     evaluation is a streamlined version of the new starts 
     financial evaluation process. The Secretary is directed to 
     require that each proposed local source of capital and 
     operating financing is stable, reliable, and available within 
     the proposed project timetable, and that there be an 
     acceptable degree of local financial commitment.
       Current procedures and criteria apply to New Starts 
     projects over $75 million in New Starts share while 
     simplified procedures and criteria apply to New Starts 
     projects under $75 million in New Starts share. The current 
     exemption for projects under $25 million is eliminated, once 
     the FTA has promulgated regulations required under the small 
     starts program.
       The current three level rating system for New Starts 
     (Highly Recommended, Recommended, Not Recommended) is 
     replaced by a five level system (High, Medium-High, Medium, 
     Medium-Low, Low). The maximum New Starts share is retained at 
     80 percent.
       Grantees will be allowed to keep a portion of the cost 
     savings in the case where projects are completed under 
     budget.
       A higher than requested share can be provided for projects 
     which keep cost and ridership estimates within 10 percent of 
     the forecasts used as the basis for establishing the Locally 
     Preferred Alternative. Transit projects that make a concerted 
     effort to produce valid and reliable estimates have the 
     potential to be rewarded.
       Subsection 5309(g) outlines the Government's share of the 
     net project cost for all projects authorized under section 
     5309. The Administration had proposed to decrease the 
     Government's share for new start projects to 50 percent. The 
     Conference has rejected this proposal, and retains the 
     provision under subsection 5309(h) in current law that the 
     Federal share for a project shall be 80 percent, unless the 
     grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage. In 
     assessing the local financial commitment for a new starts 
     project, the FTA is authorized to consider the extent to 
     which the project sponsor has overmatched the statutory local 
     match requirement of 20 percent. However, the authority to 
     consider a higher local match as part of the assessment of a 
     project's local financial commitment does not allow the 
     Secretary to require a higher local match than 20 percent.
       The Conference is seeking to identify cost drivers for 
     critical, complex, and capital intensive transit New Starts 
     projects. Public Private Partnerships (PPP) may provide an 
     important way to achieve significant savings. These 
     partnerships with qualification-based selection and 
     performance-based contracting integrate risk sharing, 
     streamline project development, engineering, and 
     construction, and preserve the integrity of the NEPA process, 
     which results in the potential for significant schedule and 
     cost advantages over traditional infrastructure development. 
     The Committee expects the Secretary to initiate the pilot 
     program as soon as practicable after enactment, in order that 
     the benefits of PPP's may be understood and potentially 
     applied to other transit New Starts projects.
       In lieu of establishing a new program for intermodal 
     facilities as proposed by the Administration, $35 million is 
     set aside each year from the bus discretionary program for 
     these facilities. Eligibility for the intercity portion of 
     intermodal terminals is established by the amendment to 
     Section 5302.
       A new statutory requirement for `Before and After Studies' 
     as part of Full Funding Grant Agreements is added in Section 
     5309(g). Such studies are already required by the regulation 
     implementing Section 5309(e) and are an essential part of 
     improving the New Starts program. By better understanding the 
     actual costs and benefits of New Starts projects, especially 
     the early planning stages when the Locally Preferred 
     Alternative (LPA) is chosen, the planning process can be 
     improved, and future projects can be based on estimates of 
     costs and benefits which are more accurate. In addition, FTA 
     would be required to produce an annual report each year that 
     would summarize the results of these studies.
       The Federal Transit Administration is required to issue a 
     `Contractor Performance Assessment Report' (CPAR). This 
     report will analyze the consistency and accuracy of cost and 
     ridership estimates made by contractors to public 
     transportation agencies developing major capital investments. 
     The CPAR will provide public transportation agencies with an 
     informational tool, allowing them to better identify 
     contractors able to perform accurate estimates of cost and 
     ridership figures. Additionally, consulting the CPAR as a 
     condition of Federal assistance will help ensure the 
     reliability of estimates used in awarding FFGAs. In 
     considering the performance of individual contractors, the 
     Secretary may take into consideration extenuating factors 
     outside the control of a contractor that may have had an 
     adverse impact on the accuracy of estimates.


SEC. 3012. FORMULA GRANTS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS OF ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS AND 
                     INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

     House Bill
       Sec. 3011.
       This section amends section 5310 of title 49, United States 
     Code, which authorizes formula grants to States for public 
     transportation projects and services that meet the special 
     needs of elderly and disabled individuals. The definition of 
     grant recipient is amended in paragraph 5310(a)(2) by adding 
     a definition for subrecipients, which is consistent with 
     current practice. A 10 percent limitation is included on the 
     amount of a State's grant funds that may be used for 
     recipient or for subrecipient administrative expenses and 
     technical assistance. This codifies current FTA 
     administrative practice.
       Subsection 5310(b) describes the apportionment and transfer 
     processes, which follows current law, except that an 
     adjustment is made to the apportionment formula for 
     particularly low density States. In low density States, 
     providing essential public transportation is particularly 
     challenging, especially to special needs populations, because 
     of the distances involved. When providing services over these 
     long distances, operating costs are higher and farebox 
     recovery is lower. This formula adjustment may enable low 
     density States to continue providing essential public 
     transportation services to a sector of the population that is 
     particularly dependent on transit--the elderly and disabled.
       Subsection (c) amends current law regarding the 
     Government's share of costs. The current Federal match of 80 
     percent for capital projects is retained, except in cases 
     where a State has a very high percentage of Federally-owned 
     public lands. In such cases, the ``sliding scale'' Federal 
     match under section 120(b) of title 23, United States Code, 
     is used. Operating expenses are also made eligible for 
     section 5310 elderly and disabled grant funding, limited to 
     50 percent of net operating costs. Two new sources of local 
     match funding are authorized: proceeds from a service 
     agreement with a State, local social service agency, or 
     private social service organization; and other Federal funds 
     from non-Department of Transportation agencies that can be 
     expended for transportation (e.g., Temporary Assistance for 
     Needy Families, Medicaid, job training program funds, or 
     Welfare to Work grants). Using these related human service 
     grants funds as a local match for transit projects leverages 
     the Federal investment and increases coordination among 
     Federal agencies that provide transportation services.
       Subsection (d) regarding grant requirements changes the 
     general applicability of requirements for the elderly and 
     disabled grant program from current law, which ties the 
     program to section 5309, to the requirements under section 
     5307, to the extent the Secretary considers appropriate. A 
     new requirement is added that, beginning in fiscal year 2007, 
     the State must certify that projects funded under this 
     section are derived from coordinated public transit-human 
     services transportation plans with public input. The current 
     law requirement that the State certify allocations of funds 
     were made on a fair and equitable basis is retained.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6012.
       Currently, under Section 5310, the Secretary may provide 
     grants for the special needs of elderly individuals and 
     individuals with disabilities directly (1) to a State or 
     local Government authority; or (2) to the

[[Page 18797]]

     chief executive office of the State for allocation to private 
     non-profit corporations or associations when such service is 
     unavailable or insufficient, or (3) to Governmental 
     authorities approved by the State to coordinate services for 
     these two population groups, if there are no non-profit 
     corporations readily available to provide the service. 
     Section 5310 is amended to authorize grants through the 
     States, which would then allocate the funds to private non-
     profit organizations or Governmental authorities under the 
     same conditions required in current law.
       Persons with disabilities are particularly in need of 
     service beyond that provided in response to the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act. The program is expanded and renamed to 
     include activities which provide access to persons with 
     disabilities, in addition to that which is necessary to meet 
     the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
     Funding for Section 5310 is expanded and explicit eligibility 
     is provided for Governmental authorities providing services 
     in excess of that provided by the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act. This will help fulfill the goals of the President's New 
     Freedom Initiative, without creating a new program. In 
     addition, language is added to clarify that a priority of 
     Section 5310 program funds is the provision of access to 
     medical care.
       Section 5310(a)(3) allows a State to use up to 15 percent 
     of the amounts it receives under this section to administer, 
     plan, and provide technical assistance. This additional 
     authority makes this program consistent with the Section 5311 
     program, so that both state-administered programs essentially 
     have similar structures.
       Consistent with existing Section 5310, grants would be made 
     for capital public transportation projects planned, designed, 
     and carried out to meet the special needs of this population 
     and could include the acquisition of public transportation 
     services as a capital expense. The Federal share cannot 
     exceed 80 percent of the net capital costs of the projects, 
     as determined by the Secretary. The remainder of the funds 
     could be provided from a variety of other sources, including 
     undistributed cash surpluses, or from amounts appropriated or 
     made available for transportation from any other Federal 
     department or agency other than the Department of 
     Transportation, except for Federal Lands Highway funds, as 
     well as contract revenue received from human service 
     agencies. This section is also amended to allow for a sliding 
     scale approach to the match requirements for capital expenses 
     for those states that have a large percentage of public 
     lands, and as a result, have a lower tax base from which to 
     draw resources to fund the matching requirement mandated by 
     these programs. It is similar in nature to a provision 
     already in current law in the highway program.
       As is current practice, funds under Subsection (b)(1) are 
     apportioned to States based on a formula administered by the 
     Secretary. In administering this formula, the Secretary will 
     consider the number of elderly individuals and individuals 
     with disabilities in a State. Under current law, unobligated 
     Section 5310 funds available during the fourth quarter of 
     each fiscal year may be transferred to Urbanized Area or 
     Other Than Urbanized Area Formula Grant programs in order to 
     supplement funds apportioned under those sections. Subsection 
     (b)(2) allows recipients of grants under this section to 
     transfer Section 5310 funds to those programs at any time 
     provided that the funds are used for the purposes originally 
     authorized. This would eliminate the artificial fourth 
     quarter requirement since States typically budget for such 
     transfers in the beginning of each fiscal year. In addition, 
     States could make funds available to a subrecipient in a 
     single transaction that included several FTA program-funding 
     sources.
       Under Subsection (d), a recipient of a grant is subject to 
     all Section 5307 grant requirements to the extent the 
     Secretary deems appropriate. Recipients would be required to 
     certify that the projects for which funds are requested are 
     drawn from a plan for human service transportation 
     coordination. The effect of this provision and those included 
     in the non-urbanized formula program and the Jobs Access and 
     Reverse Commute Program will be to enhance coordination 
     between these programs and with programs of other 
     Departments, such as Health and Human Services, Labor, and 
     Education. The Committee expects that FTA will give grantees 
     an appropriate opportunity to develop these plans by phasing 
     in this requirement during FY 2006. Finally, recipients are 
     required to certify that allocations made to subrecipients 
     were distributed in a fair and equitable manner.
       Subsections (e) through (i) are the same as in current law.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference agreement maintains the current law program 
     for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with 
     disabilities and does not incorporate New Freedom activities, 
     as the Senate bill did. Because of strong interest from 
     States in extending the authority to use section 5310 grant 
     funds for operating assistance, a new seven-state pilot 
     program is established for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to 
     determine whether this expanded authority improves services 
     to elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities.


        SEC. 3013. FORMULA GRANTS FOR OTHER THAN URBANIZED AREAS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3012.
       This section amends section 5311 of title 49, United States 
     Code, regarding the apportionment of formula grant funds for 
     non-urbanized areas. Subsection (a) amends the definition 
     provisions under section 5311(a) to define an eligible 
     recipient and sub-recipient of other than urbanized area 
     funds.
       Subsection (b) amends the general authority provisions that 
     allow other than urbanized areas to use formula grant funds 
     for capital transportation projects, or operating assistance 
     projects (including the acquisition of transportation 
     services) provided the projects are contained in a state 
     program of public transportation service projects. Under 
     subsection 5311(b)(3), the rural transportation assistance 
     program (RTAP), a national technical assistance, training and 
     support program for rural public transportation providers, is 
     funded with a 2 percent set-aside of the section 5311 grant 
     funds. From the amounts made available for the RTAP 
     activities, up to 15 percent may be used by the Secretary to 
     carry out projects of a national scope to sustain ongoing 
     national activities. Under current law, the RTAP is funded 
     out of the Research program.
       Subsection 5311(c) describes the apportionment process, 
     which follows current law, except that an adjustment is made 
     to the apportionment formula for particularly low density 
     States. In low density States, providing essential public 
     transportation is particularly challenging because of the 
     distances involved. When providing services over these long 
     distances, operating costs are higher and farebox recovery is 
     lower. This formula adjustment may enable low density States 
     to provide essential public transportation services by 
     establishing a level of funding that will support a baseline 
     program.
       In subsection (e), an amendment is made to 5311(f) that 
     requires States to consult with affected intercity bus 
     service providers before certifying to the Secretary that 
     intercity bus service needs of the State are being adequately 
     met without making the 15 percent allocation of funds to such 
     services. Such consultation would help ensure the State's 
     awareness of any intercity bus service needs.
       Subsection (f) amends section 5311(g) to retain the 
     existing Federal share for any capital project at 80 percent 
     or less of the net project cost, as determined by the 
     Secretary; except in cases where a State has a very high 
     percentage of Federally owned lands. In such cases, the 
     ``sliding scale'' Federal match under section 120(b) of title 
     23, United States Code, is used. Also retained is the Federal 
     share for operating assistance at 50 percent or less of the 
     net costs of an operating project, as determined by the 
     Secretary. The remainder of the net project costs may be 
     provided from a number of different sources, including 
     amounts appropriated to or made available to a department or 
     agency of the Federal government, other than the Department 
     of Transportation (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy 
     Families, Medicaid, job training program funds, or Welfare to 
     Work grants). Using these related human service grants funds 
     as a local match for transit projects leverages the Federal 
     investment and increases coordination among Federal agencies 
     that provide transportation services.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6013.
       A new formula tier is established based on land area to 
     address the needs of low-density states. The remaining 80 
     percent of funds are to be allocated using the current 
     formula. Matching funds may come from contracts with human 
     service agencies (as in current law) or from other Federal 
     programs.
       Section 5311(a) defines an eligible recipient and 
     subrecipient of other than urbanized area program funds. 
     Indian tribes are established as direct recipients. Private 
     operators engaged in public transportation are made eligible 
     as subrecipients of 5311 funds, providing for opportunities 
     for involvement of the private sector, as was the original 
     intent when the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 was 
     first enacted.
       Recipients must submit data on service levels, costs, and 
     revenues to the National Transit Database. Currently, 
     urbanized area program grant recipients must submit data on 
     service levels, costs, and revenues, in accordance with 
     requirements of the National Transit Database. Current law is 
     amended to require a simplified version of these data 
     collection requirements for the other than urbanized area 
     program. Given the large growth in funding for this program, 
     it is crucial that recipients report basic information on the 
     effectiveness of this program. The Committee expects that the 
     data collection requirements will be tailored to the smaller 
     size of the typical public transportation system in rural 
     areas, while still providing enough information to judge the 
     condition and performance of our Nation's network of rural 
     public transportation services.

[[Page 18798]]

       The Rural Transit Assistance Program becomes a 2 percent 
     takedown from the program. Under current law, recipients of 
     grants and contracts for transportation research, technical 
     assistance, training, or related support services, such as 
     those given under the Rural Transportation Assistance Program 
     (RTAP), must compete annually for National Planning and 
     Research funds. Section 5311(b)(3), as redesignated, provides 
     up to two percent of Section 5311 funds to carry out RTAP 
     activities. This amendment better correlates funding for RTAP 
     with the amount of funding for rural service overall, thereby 
     stabilizing the program.
       Indian tribes become eligible direct recipients of program 
     funds, with a portion of funding set aside for tribes 
     beginning in FY 2006. An increasing amount of funding is set 
     aside for Indian Tribes each fiscal year beginning in fiscal 
     year 2006. Of the remainder, eighty percent of the Section 
     5311 program amount is apportioned to States pursuant to the 
     same formula currently being used and now set forth in 
     Section 5311(c)(3), which uses population in non-urbanized 
     areas to allocate funds. The remaining twenty percent is 
     apportioned on land area in non-urbanized areas. Section 
     5311(f)(2) requires the State to consult with affected 
     intercity bus service providers before certifying that the 
     State's intercity bus service needs are being adequately met.
       Subsection 5311(g) is amended to allow for a sliding scale 
     approach to the match requirements for capital expenses under 
     this section for those states that have a large percentage of 
     public lands, and as a result, have a lower tax base from 
     which to draw resources. It is similar in nature to a 
     provision already in current law in the highway program. The 
     match for operating assistance is set at \5/8\ of the match 
     for capital projects.
     Conference Substitute
       The conferees agreed to define eligible recipients and 
     subrecipients of Section 5311 funds. Indian tribes are added 
     as eligible recipients.
       The general authority to make grants under the 5311 program 
     is rewritten to explicitly include both capital and operating 
     grants; thus, subsection (h) is deleted as unnecessary.
       The conferees agreed to fund the rural transportation 
     assistance program (RTAP), a national technical assistance, 
     training and support program for rural public transportation 
     providers, with a 2 percent set-aside of the section 5311 
     grant funds, rather than from the Research program, as in 
     current law. The conferees adopted the House provision 
     specifying that from the amounts made available for RTAP, up 
     to 15 percent may be used by the Secretary to carry out 
     projects of a national scope to sustain ongoing national 
     activities.
       The conference report includes the Senate provision 
     requiring recipients of Section 5311 funds to submit data on 
     service levels, costs, and revenues to the National Transit 
     Database. The conferees expect that the data collection 
     requirements will be tailored to the smaller size of the 
     typical public transportation system in rural areas, while 
     still providing enough information to judge the condition and 
     performance of our Nation's network of rural public 
     transportation services.
       The conference report adopts the Senate provision setting 
     aside a portion of funding each year for Indian tribes. The 
     funds set aside for Indian tribes are not meant to replace or 
     reduce funds that Indian tribes receive from states through 
     the Section 5311 program.
       A new formula tier based on land area is established to 
     address the needs of low-density states; twenty percent of 
     Section 5311 funds are distributed through this tier. The 
     remaining 80 percent of funds are to be allocated using the 
     existing formula.
       The conferees agreed that States must consult with affected 
     intercity bus service providers before certifying to the 
     Secretary that intercity bus service needs of the State are 
     being adequately met without making the 15 percent allocation 
     of funds to such services.
       The conferees agreed to apply the sliding scale federal 
     match under section 120(b) of title 23 United States Code, 
     for cases in which a state has a very high percentage of 
     federal lands. The federal match for operating assistance is 
     set at \5/8\ of the match for capital projects. The remainder 
     of the net project costs may be provided from a number of 
     different sources, including amounts appropriated to or made 
     available to a department or agency of the Federal 
     government, other than the Department of Transportation 
     (except for Federal Lands Highway funds). The conferees 
     believe that using these related human service grants funds 
     as a local match for transit projects will increase 
     coordination among Federal agencies that provide 
     transportation services.
       The conference report adopts the Senate provision codifying 
     current practice by requiring the Secretary of Labor to use a 
     Special Warranty to comply with the requirements of Section 
     5333(b).


    SEC. 3014. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT 
                                PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3013.
       Currently, section 5312 of title 49, United States Code 
     does not address deployment of emerging technologies, and 
     inappropriately includes training provisions. As amended, 
     section 5312 would authorize research, development, 
     demonstration, and deployment projects, and would move the 
     training provisions in subsections (b) and (c) to section 
     5322 (Human Resource Program). Under this subsection, the 
     terms ``other transactions'' is included and is used to 
     replace the terms ``other agreements'' to provide the Federal 
     government with discretion to enter into project agreements 
     under terms that would encourage private parties to 
     participate in Federally assisted projects.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6014.
       Currently, Section 5312 does not address deployment of 
     emerging technologies, and inappropriately includes training. 
     As amended, Section 5312 authorizes public transportation 
     service planning, and research, development, demonstration, 
     and deployment projects.
       The former University Research and Fellowships programs 
     authorized by Subsections (b) and (c) are repealed, as these 
     programs have not been funded for many years.
       Throughout the Federal Government, the term `other 
     transactions' is used to provide executive branch agencies 
     with broad discretion to enter into project agreements under 
     terms that would encourage private parties to participate in 
     Federally-assisted projects. Since the term `other 
     agreements' in Section 5312(b)(2), as redesignated, provides 
     the same authority, this section is amended to replace that 
     term with `other transactions,' for consistency.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the Senate language, except the term ``other 
     transactions'' is not adopted. Instead, the broader current 
     law authority for ``other agreements'' (as utilized under the 
     joint partnership program) is extended to all transit 
     research programs. The current law authority to make grants 
     for fellowships is moved to section 5322, as proposed by the 
     House.


            SEC. 3015. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 3014.
       Amendments made to section 5313 of title 49, United States 
     Code provide the correct authorization citation for the 
     research programs and moves subsection (b) to the state 
     planning section under Chapter 52 of title 49.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6015.
       The Transit Cooperative Research Program remains unchanged.
       Amendments to Section 5313 provide the correct funding 
     authorization citation. Subsection (b) is stricken and the 
     title of Section 5313 is changed to reflect the fact that 
     only the Transit Cooperative Research Program is authorized 
     by this section.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate proposal.


          SEC. 3016. NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3015.
       Section 5314 of title 49, United States Code is amended to 
     delete the word ``Planning'' in the heading because the focus 
     of the section is on research and to include ``Technology'' 
     in the heading to reflect the activities carried out under 
     this subsection. Other amendments under this subsection 
     correct the funding authorization citations and eliminate 
     references to the planning sections of the title. The 
     Secretary is required to continue to make funds available to 
     help public transportation providers comply with the 
     Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Under this section, 
     the term ``other transactions'' is included to provide the 
     Federal government with discretion to enter into project 
     agreements under terms that encourage private parties to 
     participate in federally assisted projects. The Industry 
     Technical Panel composed of transportation suppliers and 
     others involved in technology development is eliminated 
     because the panel is no longer needed.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6016.
       Project Action is continued at current funding levels.
       Operational demonstration contracts are allowed under 
     conditions set by the Secretary.
       Section 5314(a)(3) is amended to relieve the compliance 
     requirement with Section 5333(b).
       Current Section 5314(a)(4)(B) requires FTA to establish an 
     Industry Technical Panel composed of transportation suppliers 
     and others involved in technology development. This provision 
     is deleted.
       A new Subsection (a)(6) is added to establish a program of 
     medical transportation demonstration grants. These grants 
     will be focused on improving methods of transportation for 
     persons in need of kidney dialysis.
       A new National Technical Assistance Center for Senior 
     Transportation would be established in a new Section 5314(c). 
     Similar to Project Action, the Center would undertake

[[Page 18799]]

     research, provide technical assistance, and make 
     demonstration grants on methods to improve transportation for 
     elderly individuals.
       A study is required by Section 5314(d) on how to increase 
     the use of alternative fuels in public transportation.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House proposal, and changes the term ``other 
     transactions'' to ``other agreements''. The Senate's medical 
     transportation demonstration grants program, the National 
     Technical Assistance Center for Senior Transportation, and 
     the alternatives fuel study are adopted.


                 SEC. 3017. NATIONAL TRANSIT INSTITUTE

     House Bill
       Sec. 3016.
       Section 5315 of title 49, United States Code is amended by 
     striking references to mass transportation because public 
     transportation is defined to mean mass transportation under 
     the transit program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6017.
       The National Transit Institute will be continued at Rutgers 
     University.
       Currently, Section 5315(a) requires establishment of the 
     National Transit Institute (NTI) at Rutgers University. This 
     subsection would continue the Institute at this location for 
     the new authorization period. The Committee is concerned 
     about the effectiveness of programs at the NTI and directs 
     the Federal Transit Administration to exercise careful 
     oversight over its operation to assure that the Institute is 
     producing benefits commensurate with the investment being 
     made. The requirement in Section 5315(b) for the Secretary to 
     delegate all authority to NTI to develop and conduct 
     education and training programs is deleted.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the Senate proposal.


        SEC. 3018. JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE FORMULA GRANTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3017.
       This section codifies under 49 U.S.C. 5316 the Job Access 
     And Reverse Commute (JARC) program authorized under section 
     3037 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. 
     The program was established to assist welfare recipients and 
     low-income individuals in getting to and from jobs.
       The program establishes a formula for JARC funds that 
     apportions 60 percent of the funds to designated recipients 
     in urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more in a 
     ratio reflecting the number of eligible low-income and 
     welfare recipients in each urbanized area with a population 
     of 200,000 or more; 20 percent of the funds are apportioned 
     among the states in a ratio reflecting the number of eligible 
     low-income and welfare recipients in urbanized areas with 
     populations of less than 200,000 in each state; and 20 
     percent of the funds are apportioned among states in a ratio 
     reflecting the number of low-income individuals and welfare 
     recipients in other than urbanized areas in each state.
       The funds must be used for eligible projects in the 
     designated areas, except funds made available in urbanized 
     areas with populations less than 200,000 and nonurbanized 
     areas may be transferred for projects anywhere in the state 
     if the state has established a statewide program for meeting 
     the objectives of this section and the Governor of the state 
     certifies that all of the objectives of this section are 
     being met in the specific area. The recipient of JARC funds 
     in an urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more 
     must conduct a competitive process for an areawide 
     solicitation for applications for grants to the recipients 
     and subrecipients. Statewide solicitations must be conducted 
     in urbanized areas of less than 200,000 and in nonurbanized 
     areas for applications for grants to the recipients and 
     subrecipients. All grants shall be awarded on a competitive 
     basis.
       A JARC grant is subject to section 5307 formula grant 
     requirements and a recipient of a grant must certify to the 
     Secretary that allocations of the grant to subrecipients are 
     distributed on a fair and equitable basis. The Federal share 
     for capital projects may not exceed 80 percent of the net 
     capital cost and for operating assistance the Federal share 
     may not exceed 50 percent of the net operating costs. The 
     non-Federal share may be provided from a variety of sources, 
     including other Federal funds (other than from the Department 
     of Transportation). Funds made available through the Social 
     Security Act may also be used for the remainder of the cost 
     of the project.
       The Comptroller General is required to conduct a study to 
     evaluate the JARC grant program and transmit the results to 
     the Congress. The study must begin within one year after the 
     enactment of the Federal Transportation Act of 2005, and 
     every two years thereafter. Not later than three years after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary must 
     conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of recipients 
     making grants to subrecipients and transmit the report to 
     Congress.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6038.
       The JARC program continues as a competitive discretionary 
     program. The coordination requirements are amended to conform 
     to the changes made in Sections 5307, 5310, and 5311. Section 
     3037(b)(2) is amended to clarify that funds can be used for 
     the provision of service as well as the development of 
     service.
       Section 3037(b) is amended to expand the definition of 
     `eligible low-income individual' to allow States the 
     flexibility to use JARC funds to assist the same individuals 
     as assisted under the State-administered Temporary Assistance 
     to Needy Families program (TANF).
       The Senate requires projects to be drawn from a human 
     service transportation coordination plan. Section 3037(j) is 
     amended to change the terms and conditions of JARC grants to 
     match the type of recipient. Under current law, all JARC 
     grants are subject to the terms and conditions of Section 
     5307, including those to recipients in other than urbanized 
     areas, or recipients who are private non-profit 
     organizations. This represents a significant burden to these 
     recipients, since the requirements are tailored to public 
     agencies in urbanized areas.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House proposal, establishing the job access and 
     reverse commute grants program as a formula program, rather 
     than a competitive discretionary grants program. Current law 
     labor protections are retained. The conferees are aware that 
     the Federal Transit Administration has recognized the 
     challenges of providing public transportation services to 
     individuals transitioning from welfare to work, particularly 
     in rural areas. The conferees expect the FTA to continue its 
     practice of providing maximum flexibility to job access 
     projects that are designed to meet the needs of individuals 
     who are not effectively served by public transportation, 
     consistent with the use of funds described in the Federal 
     Register, Volume 67 (April 8, 2002).


                     SEC. 3019. NEW FREEDOM PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 3018.
       This section authorizes a new program requested by the 
     Administration to address the transportation needs of persons 
     with disabilities at all income levels. The New Freedom 
     Program is codified as section 5317 of title 49, United 
     States Code, a section that is repealed under current law. 
     Under the New Freedom Program, the Secretary would make 
     grants to a recipient for new transportation services and 
     public transportation alternatives beyond the Americans With 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to assist individuals with 
     disabilities with transportation needs.
       With the passage of the ADA, it has become a civil rights 
     violation to deny access to persons with disabilities to 
     public transportation. The New Freedom formula grant program 
     was proposed by the administration and has been included in 
     this legislation to provide additional tools to overcome 
     existing barriers facing Americans with disabilities seeking 
     integration into the work force and full participation in 
     society. Lack of adequate transportation is a primary barrier 
     to work for people with disabilities. The 2000 Census showed 
     that only 60 percent of people between the ages of 16 and 64 
     with disabilities are employed. The New Freedom formula grant 
     program will expand the transportation mobility options 
     available to persons with disabilities beyond the 
     requirements of the ADA. Examples of projects and activities 
     that might be funded under the program include, but are not 
     limited to:
        Purchasing vehicles and supporting accessible 
     taxi, ride-sharing, and vanpooling programs.
        Providing paratransit services beyond minimum 
     requirements (3/4 mile to either side of a fixed route), 
     including for routes that run seasonally.
        Making accessibility improvements to transit and 
     intermodal stations not designated as key stations.
        Supporting voucher programs for transportation 
     services offered by human service providers.
        Supporting volunteer driver and aide programs.
        Supporting mobility management and coordination 
     programs among public transportation providers and other 
     human service agencies providing transportation.
       A state may use up to 10 percent of the amount it receives 
     under this section to administer, plan, and provide technical 
     assistance. Funds would be apportioned based on a formula 
     that apportions 60 percent of the funds to designated 
     recipients in urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or 
     more in a ratio reflecting the number of individuals with 
     disabilities in each such urbanized area; 20 percent of the 
     funds are apportioned among the states in a ratio reflecting 
     the number of individuals with disabilities in urbanized 
     areas with a population of less than 200,000; and 20 percent 
     of the funds are apportioned among the states in a ratio 
     reflecting the number of individuals with disabilities in 
     non-urbanized areas in each state.
       The Secretary requires a recipient of a grant to coordinate 
     the New Freedom program activities with other related program 
     activities of other Federal agencies. Also a

[[Page 18800]]

     recipient that transfers funds to the urbanized area formula 
     grant program must certify that the project for which funds 
     are requested had been coordinated with nonprofit providers 
     of services. Beginning in fiscal year 2007, a recipient will 
     also be required to certify that projects selected were 
     derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-
     human services transportation plan and that the plan was 
     developed through a process that involved individuals of the 
     public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human 
     services providers.
       The Federal share for the net project capital cost of a 
     project may be up to 80 percent, and not more than 50 percent 
     of the net operating cost of a project.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House proposal, establishing a new formula 
     grants program that will provide funds for new transportation 
     services and public transportation alternatives beyond the 
     Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to assist 
     individuals with disabilities with transportation needs. 
     Section 5333 labor protections are not extended in this new 
     program.


                    SEC. 3020. BUS TESTING FACILITY

     House Bill
       Sec. 3019.
       This section amends section 5318 of title 49, United States 
     Code, to delete the requirement for the Secretary to 
     establish one bus testing facility because the facility has 
     already been established in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The 
     Secretary is required to maintain the facility. The 
     provisions under section 5318 that establishes a revolving 
     loan fund for expenses related to operating and maintaining 
     the facility are deleted because the bus testing facility 
     relies on state resources to pay for those costs, and has 
     never requested a loan. The provision concerning the 
     acquisition of new bus models is moved to this section from 
     section 5323(c) for clarity.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6018.
       Special testing requirements for `New Model' buses are 
     continued.
       Technical changes are made in the requirements for the 
     testing of new model buses.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the Senate provision, maintaining the current law 
     funding and requirements of the bus testing facility.


    SEC. 3021. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IN PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3021.
       This section establishes a new program to provide for 
     public transportation in units of the National Park System, 
     to be administered by the Secretary of Transportation in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. The 
     definition of public transportation for the pilot program 
     means general or special transportation to the public by a 
     conveyance that is publicly or privately owned. The 
     definition does not include school bus or charter 
     transportation, but does include sightseeing transportation. 
     Within 90 days after the enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior 
     must enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to 
     establish a transit in the parks pilot program to encourage 
     and to promote the development of transportation systems to 
     improve visitor mobility and enjoyment, reduce pollution and 
     congestion, and enhance resource protection through the use 
     of public transportation.
       The Secretary of Transportation will administer the pilot 
     program in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. 
     The MOU entered into between the Secretaries must be 
     consistent with the planning processes required under Chapter 
     52 of title 49 and include descriptions of programs and 
     activities eligible for assistance under the pilot program. 
     The Secretary of the Interior may carry out eligible 
     transportation projects as permitted under the interagency 
     agreements. The Government's share for any capital project or 
     activity carried out under the pilot program is 100 percent 
     of the net project costs. Operating assistance grants may not 
     exceed 50 percent of the net operating costs of the project.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6040.
       This section funds, for the first time, a program to 
     provide funding for public transportation in National Parks 
     and public lands at a level of $25 million per year. The 
     Departments of Transportation and Interior will work 
     cooperatively to develop and select capital projects.
       Under this program, the Departments of Transportation and 
     Interior will work cooperatively to select capital projects 
     for funding within and in the vicinity of sites in the 
     National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, Federal 
     recreational areas, and other public lands, including 
     National Forest System lands. This program will help the 
     parks make investments in traditional public transportation, 
     such as shuttle buses or trolleys, or other types of public 
     transportation appropriate to a park setting, such as 
     waterborne transportation or bicycle and pedestrian 
     facilities.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate proposal, with 
     modifications to make National Forest System lands explicitly 
     eligible and to add bicycle and pedestrian projects to the 
     definition of alternative transportation. In addition, 
     language was added to ensure that projects carried out under 
     this program are consistent with other transportation 
     policies of the Department of the Interior and other federal 
     land management agencies. Section 5333 labor protections are 
     not extended in this new program.


                  SEC. 3022. HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3022.
       Sections 5312(b) and (c) regarding grants to higher 
     learning institutions and fellowships would be moved to 
     sections 5322(b) and (c) to better fit the organization of 
     the revised section 5312 of title 49, United States Code.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts House language that allows the 
     Secretary to award fellowship grants.


              SEC. 3023. GENERAL PROVISIONS ON ASSISTANCE

     House Bill
       Sec. 3023.
       Amendments are made to section 5323 of title 49, United 
     States Code in this section.
       Subsection 3023(c) regarding conditions on charter bus 
     transportation service amends section 5323(d) by striking the 
     existing law subsection (d)(2) regarding violations of 
     agreements and inserting new language which directs the 
     Secretary to investigate all complaints about violations of 
     the charter service agreement and decide whether a violation 
     has occurred; if a violation has occurred, to correct the 
     violation; and, if a pattern of violations is found, to bar 
     the recipient from receiving funds in an amount the Secretary 
     considers appropriate. Under existing law, the Secretary did 
     not have the flexibility to adjust the amount withheld--the 
     recipient would be barred from receiving further Federal 
     assistance. This overly-broad authority was never used, 
     whereas a more flexible authority to penalize charter 
     violators will encourage a more realistic and responsive 
     approach to charter enforcement by the FTA. The Committee is 
     aware that both public transportation providers and private 
     charter bus providers have expressed strong concerns about 
     the 1987 FTA rule enforcing section 5323(d) regarding charter 
     bus service. The Committee directs the FTA to initiate a 
     rulemaking seeking public comment on the regulations 
     implementing section 5323(d), and to consider certain issues. 
     Consideration of any changes to the current regulation shall 
     not disturb the current law provisions under section 5323(f) 
     regarding school bus transportation.
       A new subsection is included that makes revenue bond 
     proceeds eligible for use as local match for federal transit 
     grants and that authorizes recipients to establish debt 
     service reserves using up to 10 percent of their federal 
     grant funds. The authority to use bond proceeds as local 
     match was established in section 3011 of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), and FTA has 
     reported that this authority has been beneficial to transit 
     operators. This subsection also permits the Secretary to 
     reimburse recipients for deposits in a debt service reserve 
     established for the purpose of financing transit capital 
     projects, pursuant to section 5302(a)(1)(K). Such 
     reimbursements are capped at 10 percent of the recipient's 
     annual apportionment from section 5307 urbanized area formula 
     grants.
       Subsection 5323(f) regarding school bus transportation is 
     amended to allow the Federal Transit Administration to assess 
     fines and withhold grant funds if public transportation 
     agencies violate the narrowly defined conditions under which 
     public transportation providers can provide school bus 
     transportation.
       Section 5323(j) regarding Buy America is amended by adding 
     a new requirement that FTA provide a detailed written 
     justification when the agency issues a public interest 
     waiver. Additionally, a new provision is added stating that 
     parties adversely affected by FTA action on Buy America 
     decisions may seek judicial review under the Administrative 
     Procedures Act. The general regulatory waivers for Chrysler 
     15-passenger vans and wagons from the requirement that public 
     transportation vehicles be assembled in the United States are 
     repealed. Section 3023(g)(5) adds a freestanding legislative 
     provision requiring the Secretary to issue a final rule 
     within 180 days of enactment on FTA's implementation of the 
     Buy America requirements. Specifically, the agency is 
     directed to clarify that any waiver issued for microcomputer 
     equipment under the general waiver in subsection (d) of 
     Appendix A of section 661.7 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, be applied solely to devices that are used to 
     process or store data, and not extend to products containing 
     a microprocessor, computer, or microcomputer. In directing 
     the Secretary to issue new regulations regarding 
     microprocessors, computers, or

[[Page 18801]]

     microcomputers, there is no intent to change the existing 
     regulatory treatment of software or of microcomputer 
     equipment.
       Under current law, section 5323(l) requires state-managed 
     transit grant programs be subject to State transportation 
     planning requirements in section 135 of title 23, United 
     States Code. Since all transportation planning programs are 
     now addressed under chapter 52 of title 49, U.S.C., section 
     3042 contains a new provision amending section 5323(l) that 
     broadens the applicability of section 1001 of title 18, 
     prohibiting fraudulent statements to the Government, to all 
     certificates, submissions, or statements provided to DOT 
     under Chapter 53 of Title 49. This language is intended to 
     provide a direct tie between 18 U.S.C. 1001 and the punitive 
     recourse of ending financial assistance provided for in the 
     second sentence of new subsection 5323(l). This language is 
     not intended to, and should not be construed to, exclude by 
     implication from the application of 18 U.S.C. 1001 any other 
     matter to which such section would otherwise apply.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6022.
       Environmental and public hearing requirements are revised 
     to conform with the applicable cross-cutting statutes.
       The provisions of Section 5323(b) are edited to mesh the 
     statutory requirements of Federal transit law more closely 
     with current practice under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act (NEPA).
       Section 5323(b) is amended to provide the same 
     consideration to comments submitted by mail or electronic 
     means, as the consideration given to comments transcribed at 
     a hearing. In addition, non-English speaking persons or 
     hearing-impaired persons are provided the opportunity to 
     comment through special arrangements.
       This section eliminates the two-step process for announcing 
     a hearing. Under the current process, the applicant announces 
     the opportunity for a hearing and then waits for a response. 
     The Senate requires that a hearing be held whenever the 
     project affects significant social, economic, or 
     environmental interests in the community, regardless of 
     whether one has been requested.
       Special terms and conditions for technology deployment 
     projects will be allowed. A new Section 5323(e) allows grants 
     for new technology, including the integration of innovative 
     techniques, subject to the requirements of Section 5309, but 
     only to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate. Revised 
     Subsection (c) strengthens and leverages private sector 
     participation by permitting the Secretary to establish 
     appropriate terms and conditions for projects involving the 
     integration of new innovative or improved products, 
     techniques, or methods.
       Section 3011(a) of TEA-21 allows a recipient of an 
     urbanized area formula grant under Section 5307 or a major 
     capital investment grant under Section 5309 to use proceeds 
     from the issuance of revenue bonds as a local match. This 
     provision is codified in Section 5323(f)(1).
       Debt Service Reserve Funds are made an eligible project 
     activity. Under Section 5323(f)(2), the Secretary could allow 
     a recipient to use Section 5307 or 5309 dollars to reimburse 
     it for deposits made to the debt service reserve. Because 
     Federal transit funds are typically viewed as higher 
     creditworthy revenues, transit bond ratings would be 
     strengthened and interest costs reduced.
       Public transportation agencies can receive land which 
     becomes available as a result of base closures. Subsection 
     (h) is revised to provide for the transfer of lands or 
     interests in lands owned by the United States. The Department 
     of Defense regulations (32 CFR Parts 90 and 91) provide for 
     the disposition of surplus land resulting from the Defense 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act to be transferred free to 
     `grantees' that have Federal sponsors with Federal land 
     transfer statutes.
       Section 5323(m) would be amended to eliminate pre-award and 
     post-delivery audit requirements for private non-profit 
     organizations and grantees serving urbanized areas with fewer 
     than one million people. All manufacturers and suppliers 
     would have to continue to certify compliance with Buy America 
     during the bidding process, and they would remain bound by 
     their original certification. The vast majority of vehicles 
     purchased will still undergo the audits.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the Senate proposal regarding interests in property 
     and notice and public hearings. The current law provision 
     under section 5310 states that public transportation 
     operators are not required to charge elderly individuals and 
     individuals with disabilities a fare is expanded to apply to 
     all programs under this chapter.
       Adopts the House proposal regarding conditions on charter 
     bus transportation service. The conferees are aware that both 
     public transportation providers and private charter bus 
     providers have expressed strong concerns about the 1987 FTA 
     rule enforcing section 5323(d) regarding charter bus service. 
     The conferees direct the FTA to initiate a negotiated 
     rulemaking seeking public comment on the regulations 
     implementing section 5323(d), and to consider the issues 
     listed below:
       1. Are there potential limited conditions under which 
     public transit agencies can provide community-based charter 
     services directly to local governments and private non-profit 
     agencies that would not otherwise be served in a cost-
     effective manner by private operators?
       2. How can the administration and enforcement of charter 
     bus provisions be better communicated to the public, 
     including use of internet technology?
       3. How can the enforcement of violations of the charter bus 
     regulations be improved?
       4. How can the charter complaint and administrative appeals 
     process be improved?
       Adopts the House proposal regarding the new eligibility to 
     use bond proceeds as local matching funds, including a 
     maintenance of effort clause. New authority for section 5307 
     funds to be deposited in a debt service reserve is 
     established under a pilot program for 10 eligible recipients, 
     and is established generally for section 5309 funds and a 
     report is directed to be submitted outlining the status and 
     effectiveness of the debt service reserve pilot program.
       The House and Senate both carried identical provisions 
     regarding more effective enforcement of schoolbus 
     transportation violations. This language is adopted. The 
     general provisions regarding a 90 percent government share of 
     costs for Americans with Disabilities Act and Clean Air Act 
     related equipment is expanded to incorporate facilities.
       Adopts the House language regarding updated Buy America 
     regulations. In the final rule, the FTA is directed to define 
     the term ``end product'' for purposes of part 661 of title 
     49, CFR, and to provide that such definition include a list 
     of representative items that are subject to the Buy America 
     requirements, similar to the list of such items under the 
     rolling stock procurements regulations. The purpose of 
     developing such a list and more clearly defining the term end 
     product is to ensure that major system procurements are not 
     used to circumvent the Buy America requirements.
       Adopts the Senate language regarding relationship to other 
     laws, which broadens the applicability of section 1001 of 
     title 18, prohibiting fraudulent statements to the 
     Government, to all certificates, submissions, or statements 
     provided to DOT under Chapter 53 of Title 49.
       Amends the Senate proposal to waive preaward and 
     postdelivery audits for rolling stock to allow procurements 
     of 20 or fewer vehicles being purchased in rural and small 
     urbanized areas under 200,000 in population to be subject to 
     an expedited postdelivery process that does away with the 
     requirement to have an on-site inspector at manufacturers' 
     facilities.
       Adopts the House proposal to allow incidental use of 
     alternative fueling facilities by nontransit users as long as 
     the incidental use does not interfere with the recipient's 
     public transportation operations, and all costs are fully 
     recaptured by the recipient. Revenues under this authority 
     can be used for planning, capital or operating expenses.


           SEC. 3024. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3024.
       This section makes very minor amendments to section 5324 of 
     title 49, United States Code and changes the title of the 
     section from ``Limitations on discretionary and special needs 
     grants and loans'' to ``Special provisions for capital 
     projects,'' which is more descriptive of the provisions 
     contained therein regarding relocation program requirements 
     and consideration of economic, social, and environmental 
     interests.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6023.
       Environmental and relocation assistance requirements are 
     revised to conform to applicable cross-cutting statutes (NEPA 
     and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act).
       Section 5324(a) is amended to reference the relevant 
     sections of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
     Property Acquisition Policies Act (`the Act'), 42 U.S.C. 4601 
     et seq., directly, rather than referencing only two of the 
     numerous conditions contained in the Act.
       Section 5324(b) continues to allow protective and hardship 
     acquisitions as defined in 23 CFR 771.117, but it also allows 
     advance acquisition where the strict requirements associated 
     with a protective acquisition are not met. This provision 
     allows for the acquisition when market forces dictate, and 
     thereby avoids multiple transactions on the same property and 
     the associated escalation in cost. A strictly limited number 
     of such advance acquisitions is allowed without prejudice to 
     the consideration of alternative locations or alternative 
     projects.
       Section 5324(c) addresses FTA's current practice of 
     allowing the acquisition of pre-existing railroad right of 
     way (ROW) in advance of any specific project decisions on how 
     the ROW will be used. Any changes in the use of the railroad 
     ROW are subject to appropriate environmental review prior to 
     the change.
       Section 5324(d) (formerly Section 5324(b)) meshes the 
     statutory requirements of Federal transit law more closely 
     with current FTA practice under NEPA, and 49 U.S.C. 303 
     (commonly called `Section 4(f)'), and other environmental 
     laws. Reference to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and 
     Human

[[Page 18802]]

     Services, and Housing and Urban Development are removed since 
     these agencies rarely have any interest in transit projects.
       The amendment deletes Council on Environmental Quality 
     (CEQ) and substitutes the Administrator of EPA. The Council 
     on Environmental Quality has delegated its routine project 
     review responsibilities to the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA). Section 5324(d) would no longer single out the 
     hearing transcript for greater attention than other valid 
     forms of public comment on a project.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference report includes a rewritten provision that 
     applies the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance 
     and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 to all 
     financial assistance for capital projects under this chapter. 
     Adopts House language regarding consideration of economic, 
     social, and environmental interests. Adopts the Senate 
     proposal to allow acquisition of railroad right-of-way before 
     the completion of environmental reviews, if the acquisition 
     is otherwise permitted under Federal law. A railroad corridor 
     purchased in advance under this authority may not be 
     developed before the project has completed all required 
     environmental reviews.


                    SEC. 3025. CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3025.
       This section consolidates sections 5325 ``Contract 
     Requirements'' and 5326 ``Special Procurements'' of title 49, 
     United States Code, since the provisions of section 5326 fall 
     within the scope of conditions set on contracts that utilize 
     federal funds provided under chapter 53 of title 49, United 
     States Code. Under the revised subsection 5325(a) and (b), 
     recipients of such funds are expressly required to conduct 
     procurements using full and open competition and to use 
     standard architectural, engineering, and design contract 
     award procedures. A new subsection 5325(d) is added that is 
     identical to existing law section 5326(a), except that the 
     term ``turnkey'' is replaced with the more commonly used term 
     ``design-build'', and references to design-build 
     ``demonstration projects'' are deleted, since design-build 
     contracting has matured beyond the demonstration phase. In 
     addition, design-build contracting does not necessarily 
     result in lower project costs or new technologies and, as a 
     result, this concept as expressed under section 5326(a)(2) in 
     current law is removed.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6024.
       Current provisions regarding procurement and contracts are 
     consolidated in a single section.
       Grantees must refer to the Contractor Performance 
     Assessment Report when selecting contractors to do work on 
     projects seeking FFGAs.
       Competition in all procurements is explicitly established 
     as the presumptive standard. Existing Section 5307 requires 
     the use of competitive procurement as defined or approved by 
     the Secretary in carrying out procurement under that section. 
     Section 5325(a) is amended to expressly require the use of 
     competitive procurement procedures for any procurement 
     carried out under Chapter 53. The revised language in 
     redesignated Section 5325(b)--referred to as `The Brooks 
     Act'--clarifies that program management is limited to 
     architectural, engineering, and design contracts. Also, the 
     reference to 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(2)(C) through (F), which deals 
     with performance and audit standards and indirect cost rates, 
     is removed. Instead, Subsection (b) is revised specifically 
     to include these provisions.
       TEA-21 allowed for turnkey system projects, also known as 
     design-build contracting, in Federally funded public 
     transportation projects, including demonstration projects. 
     Section 5325(d) (existing Section 5326(a)), replaces the term 
     `turnkey' with the more commonly used term `design-build.'
       Currently, FTA and the Comptroller General can inspect 
     contract records for capital projects receiving Federal 
     transit assistance, but only in cases of `noncompetitive 
     bidding.' New Subsection 5325(g), `Examination of the 
     Records,' strengthens oversight by allowing FTA or the 
     Comptroller General to inspect all contract documents. The 
     `grant prohibition' provision, dealing with contract 
     requirements, was erroneously included under Section 5323, 
     `General Provisions On Assistance,' and is relocated under 
     Section 5325(h).
       A new provision is added to Section 5325(i) to strengthen 
     the requirements that contractors to public transportation 
     agencies must have adequate technical and financial capacity 
     to carry out a proposed contract. This elevates already 
     existing FTA and OMB requirements on third-party contracting 
     to a statutory requirement.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House language regarding architectural, 
     engineering, and design contracts, including the provision 
     that allows State qualifications-based requirements for 
     contracting architectural, engineering, and design services 
     to be employed in lieu of Federal contracting procedures if 
     an equivalent State qualifications-based requirement is 
     established before the date of enactment of the Federal 
     Public Transportation Act of 2005.
       Adopts the House proposal regarding design-build projects 
     and the House language regarding multiyear rolling stock. 
     Both the House and Senate bills included a provision stating 
     that no State law requiring buses to be purchased through in-
     State dealers shall apply to vehicles purchased with a grant 
     under this chapter. This provision is adopted. The Senate's 
     language strengthening the requirements that contractors to 
     public transportation agencies have adequate technical and 
     financial capacity to carry out a proposed contract is also 
     adopted.


           SEC. 3026. PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW

     House Bill
       Sec. 3026.
       This section amends section 5327 of title 49, United States 
     Code regarding project management oversight activities. The 
     Secretary is authorized to use .5 percent of section 5311 
     funds, .75 percent of section 5307 funds, and 1 percent of 
     section 5309 funds to make contracts for oversight of major 
     transit construction projects, and to review and audit 
     recipients' compliance with federal requirements and provide 
     technical assistance to correct deficiencies identified in 
     such reviews and audits. This is an increase in the amount 
     set aside for such activities above levels set under current 
     law, which provides for .5 percent of section 5307 and 
     section 5311 funds and up to .75 percent for section 5309 
     funds. Comprehensive agency oversight, compliance review, and 
     technical assistance are necessary for all major grant 
     programs, and particularly important for major capital grants 
     such as new starts and rail modernization.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6025.
       The takedown for oversight is increased to 1 percent in all 
     programs.
       Given the new security concerns--and in keeping with actual 
     practice in the field--Section 5327(a) is revised to require 
     that a project management oversight (PMO) plan include 
     `safety and security management.'
       The section also provides new authority for the use of 
     oversight funds to conduct analyses which cut across multiple 
     projects. At present, oversight funds may be used only to 
     review each project in isolation. Cross-cutting analyses 
     could help identify major problems which need attention and 
     could help develop best-practice methods which could be 
     gleaned from a review of a set of similar projects.
     Conference Substitute
       Adds safety and security to PMO plans. Authorizes the 
     Secretary to use 0.5% of Section 5305 funds, 0.75% of 5307 
     funds, 1% of 5309 funds, 0.5% of Section 5310 funds, 0.5% of 
     Section 5311 funds, and 0.5% of Section 5320 funds to make 
     contracts for oversight of major transit construction 
     projects, and to review and audit recipients' compliance with 
     federal requirements and provide technical assistance to 
     correct deficiencies identified in such reviews and audits. 
     This is an increase in the amount set aside for such 
     activities above levels set under current law, which provides 
     for .5 percent of section 5307 and section 5311 funds and up 
     to .75 percent for section 5309 funds. Comprehensive agency 
     oversight, compliance review, and technical assistance are 
     necessary for all major grant programs, and particularly 
     important for major capital grants such as new starts and 
     rail modernization.


                       SEC. 3027. PROJECT REVIEW

     House Bill
       No Comparable Provision in House Bill
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6026.
       The schedules for FTA review of projects in the New Starts 
     process are updated to clarify the relationship to the New 
     Starts process and criteria; the advancement of projects is 
     not automatic, but rather depends on meeting the requirements 
     of that section.
       The concept of Programs of Interrelated Projects is not 
     continued.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the Senate proposal, but retains current law 
     provision regarding programs of interrelated projects.


     SEC. 3028. INVESTIGATIONS OF SAFETY HAZARDS AND SECURITY RISKS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3027.
       This section amends section 5329 of title 49, United States 
     Code regarding the Secretary's authority to investigate 
     safety and security risks associated with public 
     transportation equipment, facilities, or operations financed 
     under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code. The 
     Secretary may withhold any amount of a recipient's Federal 
     assistance until a plan to eliminate, mitigate, or correct 
     the hazard has been approved and carried out.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6027.
       FTA investigation authority is expanded expressly to 
     include security issues. Section 5329 authorizes FTA to 
     investigate `safety hazards,' but does not authorize FTA 
     expressly to investigate `security' matters.

[[Page 18803]]

     This section is amended to promote active cooperation between 
     FTA and its grantees on security matters, by clarifying that 
     FTA may assist grantees on security matters and investigate 
     security concerns without notice of a specific breach of 
     security at a transit system.
       The penalty for failure to address issues is modified. The 
     existing section also contains an `all or nothing' provision 
     that authorizes the Secretary to withhold `further financial 
     assistance' upon a transit system's failure to correct a 
     safety hazard. Section 5329 allows the Secretary to determine 
     the amount of funding to be withheld.
       A new requirement is added for a Memorandum of 
     Understanding between the Departments of Transportation and 
     Homeland Security specifying the details of how the agencies 
     would cooperate on setting national security standards for 
     public transportation, would establish funding priorities for 
     DHS grants to public transportation agencies, and would 
     coordinate with each other and public transportation agencies 
     on security matters.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference report adopts a modified version of the 
     Senate provision. In addition to the original Senate security 
     provisions authorizing security and safety investigations and 
     penalties, the conference report requires an annex to the 
     memorandum of understanding signed by the Departments of 
     Transportation and Homeland Security on September 28, 2004 to 
     define and clarify the respective transit security roles and 
     responsibilities of each Department. The conference report 
     also mandates a joint rulemaking outlining the requirements 
     and characteristics of any public transportation security 
     grants, including funding priorities and eligible 
     expenditures.


                   SEC. 3029. STATE SAFETY OVERSIGHT

     House Bill
       Sec. 3028.
       This section amends section 5330 of title 49, United States 
     Code by changing the heading from ``Withholding amounts for 
     noncompliance with safety requirements'' to reflect the more 
     commonly used title of ``State safety oversight.'' Under this 
     section, a State is required to establish and carry out a 
     safety program plan for rail-based new starts projects. 
     Commuter rail systems that operate on the general railway 
     system are subject to the safety rules and oversight of the 
     Federal Railroad Administration. Amendments to subsection 
     5330(a) ensure that safety is considered well before a rail-
     based new start project begins revenue service. In subsection 
     5330(d), rail-based new start projects that operate in two or 
     more States are required to have a unified safety program 
     plan.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6028.
       Safety oversight is required during the design phase of New 
     Starts.
       States can designate a single agency to handle oversight of 
     systems serving more than one State.
       Section 5330 is amended to change the heading to 
     `Withholding Amounts for Non-Compliance with State Safety 
     Oversight Requirements' the better to reflect the 
     requirements in this section.
       Amendments to Section 5330 ensure that safety is considered 
     well before a rail fixed-guideway system begins revenue 
     service, i.e., during the design phase of the project.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House proposal.


      sec. 3030. controlled substances and alcohol misuse testing

     House Bill
       Sec. 3029.
       This section amends section 5331 of title 49, United States 
     Code regarding drug and alcohol testing of public 
     transportation employees, allowing the Secretary to apply a 
     single agency's drug and alcohol testing regime if a 
     particular transportation provider is subject to more than 
     one agency's rules. Currently, section 5331 authorizes the 
     Secretary to exclude from FTA drug and alcohol testing those 
     public transportation providers that are adequately covered 
     by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or the 
     Federal Railroad Administration testing statutes. The 
     amendment to subsection 5331(a) expands the Secretary's 
     authority to exclude from FTA testing those public 
     transportation providers that are adequately covered under 
     other Federal or Departmental testing, such as the U.S. Coast 
     Guard's testing provisions applicable to ferryboat employees.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6030.
       Section 5331 is amended to expand the Secretary's authority 
     to exclude from FTA testing requirements, those public 
     transportation providers that are adequately covered under 
     other Federal or Departmental testing statutes or 
     regulations, such as the U.S. Coast Guard's testing 
     provisions applicable to ferryboat employees.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version.


              sec. 3031. employee protective arrangements

     House Bill
       Sec. 3030.
       This section amends Section 5333 of title 49, United States 
     Code making conforming changes to ensure that all federal 
     public transportation grant programs are subject to fair 
     labor standards and employee protective arrangements.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6031.
       The time for severance pay and benefits for transit workers 
     is reduced to four years to comport with existing rail worker 
     protections for Class III railroads. The Senate notes that 
     this change does not alter requirements for severance pay for 
     workers covered under other laws, such as those governing the 
     rights of railroad workers or the collective bargaining 
     process.
       The Senate language harmonizes competitive bidding 
     requirements under Federal law with Federal labor law 
     governing transportation workers. This bill provides that 
     13(c) requirements do not automatically attach to newly 
     solicited contracts, or require that an identical workforce 
     or identical workplace management rules be maintained under 
     new contracts. Carrying over benefits from contractor to 
     contractor was not envisioned when Section 13(c) was enacted 
     and as such, this restores the original intent of Section 
     13(c). The bill codifies the Department of Labor's decision 
     (commonly referred to as the `Las Vegas' decision), which 
     found that a change in contractors would not extinguish 
     obligations under prior Section 5333(b) arrangements. Thus, 
     this provision is not intended to extend, expand, or contract 
     labor protection collective bargaining terms and conditions 
     applicable to subsequent contracts.
       Grants for purchase of like-kind equipment or facilities do 
     not have to be referred by the Department of Labor prior to 
     certification. In addition, the Senate language establishes 
     in law a Special Warranty now applied by administrative 
     practice in the Section 5311 program for other-than-
     urbanized-areas and applies it in the Job Access and Reverse 
     Commute Program.
       Sec. 6031.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference report adopts the Senate proposal to 
     establish in law a special warranty for Section 5311 
     programs.
       In addition, the conference report adopts the Senate 
     proposal regarding like kind grants with a modification to 
     limit the provision to certify without referral to situations 
     that do not materially revise or amend an existing assistance 
     agreement.
       The Senate bill included changes to 49 USC 5333(b) 
     regarding rights afforded to employees under this section 
     when one private contractor replaces its predecessor as a 
     result of competitive bidding. The Conferees agree that the 
     so-called contractor-to-contractor issues were addressed in 
     the Department of Labor's Las Vegas decision dated September 
     21, 1994, as clarified by the supplemental ruling dated 
     November 7, 1994. The Conferees expect that when the 
     Department of Labor (DOL) is called upon to resolve such 
     issues in similar bus transit situations, the agency shall 
     apply the principles, as applied to the facts, set forth in 
     the Department's Las Vegas rulings, without otherwise 
     affecting existing protective arrangements. This affirmation 
     of existing DOL policy shall not serve as a basis for 
     objections under 29 CFR 215.3(d).
       Finally, Section 5333(b) is not applied to the new programs 
     created in conference report, Section 5317 (New Freedom) and 
     Section 5320 (Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public 
     Lands) programs.


                  sec. 3032. administrative procedures

     House Bill
       Sec. 3031.
       This section amends section 5334 of title 49, United States 
     Code regarding the Secretary of Transportation and Federal 
     Transit Administration's authority to administer programs 
     carried out under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code. 
     The Secretary is prohibited from regulating public 
     transportation provider's routes, schedules, and rates, 
     except in the case of a national or regional emergency. A new 
     subsection 5334(c)(5) has been added that requires the FTA to 
     subject non-regulatory substantive policy statements to a 60-
     day public review notice and comment period. Currently, FTA 
     circulars, letters, or other policy statements can be issued 
     without the benefit of the same public review and comment 
     process that is required under the regulatory process. 
     However, such documents often carry the same weight and 
     penalties as regulations. An example of this ``unwritten 
     rule'' is the $500 million per project limitation FTA has 
     placed on the Federal commitment on a full funding grant 
     agreement issued under the authority of section 5309. 
     Although such a project cost limitation might be a valid 
     policy, it has not been published in a form that allows for 
     comment from the affected transit community. The provision 
     added in subsection (c)(5) will add transparency to FTA's 
     administrative procedures and provide opportunity for public 
     review and feedback.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6032.
       Amends Section 5334(a) to clarify that FTA has explicit 
     authority to issue regulations.

[[Page 18804]]

       Current Section 5324(c), `Prohibitions Against Regulating 
     Operations and Charges,' is moved to Section 5334, 
     `Administrative Provisions,' as a new Subsection (b). It is 
     appropriate to house this prohibition in the `Administrative 
     Provisions' section and make it expressly applicable chapter-
     wide, rather than on capital projects only. While it has been 
     the practice of FTA to forego any regulation of operations or 
     charges with respect to any grant based on legislative 
     history, current law is ambiguous. Moving this provision will 
     clarify that FTA may not regulate operations or charges, 
     except in emergencies. The appropriate Federal role in public 
     transportation is to provide financial assistance only, and 
     not to regulate operations. Also, this provision is amended 
     to specify that the Secretary is prohibited from regulating a 
     recipient's routes, schedules, rates, fares, tolls, and 
     rentals, just as this provision had specified prior to the 
     recodification of the Federal Transit Act into 49 U.S.C. 
     Chapter 53 in 1994. In light of the September 11 terrorist 
     attacks, this provision is further amended to allow the 
     Secretary of Transportation, under direction by the 
     President, to regulate the operation of and charges for 
     public transportation systems for purposes of national 
     defense or in the event of a national or regional emergency.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House proposal. The provision regarding 
     nonregulatory substantive policy statements is amended to 
     apply more narrowly to agency statements that impose a 
     binding obligation on recipients of Federal assistance under 
     this chapter. Such statements shall be subject to rulemaking 
     procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act.


                  sec. 3033. national transit database

     House Bill
       Sec. 3032.
       This section amends Section 5335 of title 49, United States 
     Code by striking subsection (b) regarding a transferability 
     report that was completed in 1993. The section header is 
     amended from the current law title ``Reports and audits'' to 
     ``National transit database'' to reflect the revised contents 
     of the section.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6033.
       Section 5335(b), requiring that the Comptroller General 
     submit `transferability reports' to Congress, is removed, as 
     the report is no longer needed on a recurring basis. 
     Information on the use of flexible funding under Title 23 is 
     readily available.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the Senate provision. Beginning in 2006, the 
     national transit database will be funded as a takedown from 
     the formula grants programs at $3,500,000 a year.


              sec. 3034. apportionments of formula grants

     House Bill
       Sec. 3040.
       This section establishes a new set-aside program from the 
     section 5307 urbanized area formula grants that provides a 
     small bonus grant payment to urbanized areas under 200,000 in 
     population that operate at a level of service above the 
     industry average level of service in similarly-sized 
     urbanized areas in one or more of six performance categories: 
     passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue mile, passenger 
     miles traveled per vehicle revenue hour, vehicle revenue 
     miles per capita, vehicle revenue hours per capita, passenger 
     miles traveled per capita, and passengers per capita. These 
     performance categories and a methodology established for 
     providing bonus grants were established in the September 2000 
     FTA report to Congress called ``The Urbanized Area Formula 
     Program and the Needs of Small Transit Intensive Cities.''
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6034
       For basic apportionments, the existing urbanized area 
     formula continues as in current law.
       The `Transit Intensive Cities' tier would allocate funds to 
     small urbanized areas with transit service levels 
     (represented by revenue vehicle hours) per capita greater 
     than the per capita service levels in areas with population 
     of 200,000 to 1,000,000 on the basis of transit service 
     levels. Funds from this tier are available for capital 
     purposes only.
       A provision is added to require a study of incentives which 
     might be added to the urbanized area and other-than-urbanized 
     area formula programs. In light of numerous questions about 
     how such a program as proposed by the Administration would 
     work, the factors to be considered, and the manner in which 
     grants could be used, the Senate instead calls for a study of 
     the issues involved in establishing such a program. The 
     report should address the possibility of rewarding 
     improvements in ridership (as was proposed by the 
     Administration) as well as improvements in efficiency (cost 
     per unit of service provided), effectiveness (service 
     utilization per unit of service provided), and cost-
     effectiveness (cost per unit of service utilization).
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House version of the ``Small Transit Intensive 
     Cities'' formula program, with annual funding at one percent 
     of the total amount made available for formula programs. 
     Adopts the Senate's incentives in formula programs study and 
     provides that 60 percent of the directional route mileage of 
     the Alaska Railroad system be attributable to that system.


       sec. 3035. apportionments based on fixed guideway factors

     House Bill
       Sec. 3033.
       This section amends Section 5337 of title 49, United States 
     Code regarding apportionment formulas for the fixed guideway 
     modernization program. The provision regarding route segments 
     to be included in the apportionment formula is amended to 
     delete the ``1997 Standard'' that held eligible rail system 
     mileage to the number of miles a system reported in fiscal 
     year 1997.
     Senate Bill
       No similar provision.
     Conference Substitute
       Does not adopt the House elimination of the 1997 Standard. 
     Makes an adjustment to a small urbanized area with a fixed 
     guideway system to treat the system as a large urbanized area 
     for purposes of apportionments based on fixed guideway 
     factors.


                       sec. 3036. authorizations

     House Bill
       Sec. 3034.
       This section amends Section 5338 of title 49, United States 
     Code, making FTA program funds available on an annual basis 
     for the fiscal year 2004-2009 authorization period. The major 
     FTA programs are Formula Grants, Capital Investment Grants, 
     Planning, Research, and Administrative Expenses. A new 
     organizational structure is adopted to separate the fiscal 
     year 2004 funding, which splits every account's funding 
     between the Mass Transit Account and the general fund at an 
     80:20 ratio (current law structure), from funding for fiscal 
     years 2005-2009, which is either 100 percent trust funded or 
     100 percent general funded. The programs that will be 100 
     percent trust funded in fiscal years 2005-2009 are Formula 
     Grants and Planning, as well as the bus and bus related 
     facilities grants and the fixed guideway modernization grants 
     under Capital Investment Grants. The programs that will be 
     100 percent general funded in fiscal years 2005-2009 are 
     Research, Administration, and the new starts and small starts 
     programs under Capital Investment Grants. This restructuring 
     of the program financing will prevent an accounting problem 
     with the spending rate of the Mass Transit Account. By not 
     split-funding any programs, each program will outlay at its 
     actual spending rate.
       The Formula Grants programs comprise 54 percent of the 
     total transit programs. There are a number of allocations 
     made from the total formula grants funding for: new bus model 
     testing, grants to the Alaska Railroad, over-the-road bus 
     accessibility equipment costs, the new Transit in the Parks 
     pilot program, the transit portion of funding for the non-
     motorized transportation pilot program authorized in section 
     1121(b) of the bill, the New Freedom program, the Job Access 
     and Reverse Commute grant program, and the Clean Fuels grant 
     program. After these allocations of funds have been made, the 
     remainder of the aggregate amount is allocated in the 
     following percentages: 2.5 percent to the elderly and 
     disabled formula grant program, 8 percent to the nonurbanized 
     formula grant program, and 89.5 percent to the urbanized area 
     formula grant program. The percentage shares for the elderly 
     and disabled program grants and for the nonurbanized formula 
     grants have been increased over such shares under current 
     law.
       The Capital Investment Grants programs comprise 43 percent 
     of the total transit programs. The four Capital Investment 
     Grant programs (fixed guideway modernization, new starts, 
     small starts, and bus and bus-related facilities) receive 
     funding allocations under section 5309(m).
       Planning grant fund apportionments to metropolitan areas 
     and states are provided under subsection 5338(c). For fiscal 
     year 2004, the funding is split-funded and for fiscal years 
     2005-2009, the funding is derived from the Mass Transit 
     Account. The percentage of planning funds allocated to 
     metropolitan areas is 82.72 percent and 17.28 percent is 
     apportioned to states for state planning activities, the same 
     percentages as provided under current law.
       The Research program is funded under subsection 5338(d). 
     For fiscal year 2004, the funding is split-funded, and for 
     fiscal years 2005-2009, the funding is authorized to be 
     appropriated from the general fund. There are a number of 
     allocations made from the total formula grants funding for: 
     the transit cooperative research program, management of the 
     national transit database, the National Transit Institute 
     transit training facility at Rutgers University, and Project 
     Action, a national technical assistance program for providers 
     of transportation services to the disabled. The remainder of 
     funds under this subsection are available for the national 
     research and technology programs. In subsection 5338(e), 
     funding is authorized for university transportation research. 
     This complements funding made available for these programs 
     under the Federal-aid Highway program in Title V of the bill.

[[Page 18805]]

       Funding for administration of the Federal transit programs 
     is provided under subsection 5338(f). For fiscal year 2004, 
     the funding is split-funded, and for fiscal years 2005-2009, 
     the funding is authorized to be appropriated from the general 
     fund.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6036.
       Section 5338 authorizes amounts from the General Fund, and 
     makes available amounts from the Mass Transit Account of the 
     Highway Trust Fund, to carry out Federal public 
     transportation programs in Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009. 
     Funds from the Mass Transit Account are provided as `contract 
     authority.'
       Section 5338(a), provides funds for all programs for Fiscal 
     Year 2005 in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations 
     Act.
       Section 5338(b) Formula Grants and Research, provides funds 
     for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009 from the Mass Transit 
     Account to carry out Sections 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309 (bus and 
     fixed-guideway modernization), 5310-5318, 5322, 5335 and 5505 
     of Title 49, and Sections 3037 and 3038 of Pub. L. 105-178. 
     It also provides for a takedown for grants to the Alaska 
     Railroad for improvements to its passenger operations under 
     Section 5307.
       Section 5338(c), Major Capital Investment Program Grants, 
     authorizes appropriations from the General Fund in Fiscal 
     Years 2006 through 2009 to carry out Section 5309 (New 
     Starts). Section 5338(c) authorizes funds from the Trust Fund 
     for administrative expenses. Amounts available under 
     Subsections (a) and (b) remain available until expended and 
     grants financed from amounts derived from the Mass Transit 
     Account or through advance appropriations under those 
     subsections would be contract authority.
       Grants for both planning programs are mainstreamed into 49 
     U.S.C. 5308. Funding for the planning programs are authorized 
     as a takedown from the Urbanized Area Public Transportation 
     Formula Grants account.
       The bill provides that 1.75 percent of the funds are 
     available for planning in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009. 
     This percentage represents a minimal increase over previous 
     Fiscal Years. The amount proposed in fiscal year 2005 takes 
     into account that this fiscal year will be the first year of 
     reauthorization and is based on the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act.
       The bill provides funding for the National Transit Database 
     (NTD) authorized under Section 5335 in fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009. The NTD workload has increased substantially 
     with the advent of monthly reporting on safety and security 
     and with the new requirements for the phased in rural and 
     asset condition reporting.
     Conference Substitute
       Section 5338 authorizes amounts from the General Fund, and 
     makes available amounts from the Mass Transit Account of the 
     Highway Trust Fund, to carry out Federal public 
     transportation programs in Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009. 
     Funds from the Mass Transit Account are provided as `contract 
     authority.'
       Section 5338(a) provides funds for all programs for Fiscal 
     Year 2005 in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations 
     Act.
       Section 5338(b), Formula and Bus Grants, provides funds for 
     Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009 from the Mass Transit Account 
     to carry out all programs except New Starts, Research 
     (including University Transportation Centers), and FTA 
     Administration. Amounts are specified for each program for 
     each fiscal year.
       The bill provides funding from the Trust Fund in Section 
     5338(b) for the National Transit Database (NTD) authorized 
     under Section 5335 in fiscal years 2006 through 2009. The NTD 
     workload has increased substantially with the advent of 
     monthly reporting on safety and security and with the new 
     requirements for the phased in rural and asset condition 
     reporting.
       Grants for both planning programs are mainstreamed into 49 
     U.S.C. 5305. Funding for the planning programs are authorized 
     as specified amounts from the Formula Grants account.
       Section 5338(c), Major Capital Investment Grants, 
     authorizes appropriations from the General Fund in Fiscal 
     Years 2006 through 2009 to carry out New Starts, including 
     Small Starts, under Section 5309.
       Section 5338(d), Research and University Research Centers, 
     authorizes appropriations for the Research Programs, 
     including University Transportation Centers. Specific amounts 
     are provided for the Transit Cooperative Research Program, as 
     well as Project Action and the new Center for Senior 
     Transportation.
       Section 5338(e), Administration, authorizes appropriations 
     for administrative expenses.
       Amounts available under Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) 
     remain available until expended. Grants financed from amounts 
     derived from the Mass Transit Account under subsections (a) 
     or (b) or through advance appropriations under those 
     subsections as well as subsections (c), (d), or (e) would be 
     contract authority.


                SEC. 3037. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS GRANTS

     House Bill
       No provision.
     Senate Bill
       No provision.
     Conference Substitute
       Establishes a new program explicitly for grants to States, 
     metropolitan planning organizations, and local governmental 
     authorities to develop alternatives analyses. This 
     eligibility for new fixed guideway capital project planning 
     and alternatives analysis resides under section 5309 in 
     current law. Because the conferees have eliminated this 
     eligibility under the New Starts program, a stand-alone 
     program is established for such activities.


   SEC. 3038. APPORTIONMENTS BASED ON GROWING STATES FORMULA FACTORS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6037.
       A new Section 5340 is added to allocate funds to Growing 
     and High Density States. For this section, the term `State' 
     is defined only to mean the 50 States.
       The new Section 5340 allocates funds based on the 
     population forecasts for fifteen years after the date of that 
     census. Forecasts are based on the trend between the most 
     recent decennial census and Census Bureau population 
     estimates for the most current year. Funds allocated to the 
     States are then sub-allocated to urbanized and non-urbanized 
     areas based on forecast population, where available. If 
     forecasted population data at the urbanized level is not 
     available, funds are allocated to current urbanized and non-
     urbanized areas on the basis of current population. Funds 
     allocated to urbanized areas are included in their Section 
     5307 apportionment. Funds allocated for non-urbanized areas 
     are included in the States' Section 5311 apportionments.
       For States with population densities in excess of 370 
     persons per square mile, funds are allocated based on the 
     amount by which their population exceeds the product of their 
     land area and the percentage of total State population in 
     urbanized areas as determined by the most recent Decennial 
     Census.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts Senate Proposal with a modification 
     to flow high density funds through urbanized areas. These 
     funds will be distributed to urbanized areas in their Section 
     5307 apportionments on the basis of their share of urbanized 
     population. The Conferees expect that FTA will publish single 
     urbanized and rural apportionments that show the total amount 
     for 5307 and 5311 programs that includes both apportionments 
     under 5336 and 5311 formulas together with 5340.


           SEC. 3039. OVER-THE-ROAD BUS ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 3035.
       This section amends Section 3038 of TEA-21 regarding the 
     over-the-road bus accessibility program, which provides 
     grants to intercity and charter bus providers for incremental 
     costs of equipment to reach compliance with the Americans 
     with Disabilities Act. The TEA-21 provision regarding Federal 
     share is amended by increasing the Federal share for such 
     project costs from 50 percent to 80 percent.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6039.
       Continues Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House proposal but specifies that the Federal 
     share for grants under this program is 90 percent.


                     SEC. 3040. OBLIGATION CEILING

     House Bill
       Sec. 3045
       This section sets the annual obligation ceiling for Federal 
     Transit Administration programs authorized by this Act for 
     fiscal years 2004-2009, including both amounts made available 
     from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and 
     general funds from the U.S. Treasury. The total obligation 
     authority for each fiscal year is guaranteed to be provided 
     in the fiscal year for which it is set under the budgetary 
     firewalls established in section VIII of the bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6041.
       This section establishes the obligation ceiling for each 
     fiscal year, equal to the total amounts authorized.
     Conference Substitute
       Establishes the obligation ceiling for fiscal years 2006 
     through 2009, and sets a ceiling on the amount that can be 
     made available from the Mass Transit Account.


              SEC. 3041. ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

     House Bill
       Sec. 3046
       This section provides for the funding reconciliation of 
     apportionments and allocations made to transit grant 
     recipients under this Act with the levels of funding already 
     made available under the Surface Transportation Extension 
     Act.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6042.
       This section provides that the amounts for Fiscal Year 2005 
     are in lieu of, and not in addition to, the amounts 
     authorized for the

[[Page 18806]]

     first eight months of Fiscal Year 2005 by the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004. In addition, the 
     section provides for an adjustment to the calculations of 
     apportionments for the fixed-guideway modernization program, 
     since that formula assumes a full year of funding.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference report reconciles apportionments and 
     allocations made under this Act with the funding already made 
     available under the Surface Transportation Extension Act. 
     This section also contains an adjustment to the calculation 
     of apportionments for the fixed guideway modernization 
     program.


SEC. 3042. TERRORIST ATTACKS AND OTHER ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PUBLIC 
                         TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6029.
       The term `mass transportation' is changed to `public 
     transportation' throughout Chapter 53 of Title 49, U.S.C. 
     Section 1993 of Title 18 is amended to replace the term `mass 
     transportation' with `public transportation.'
       Section 1993(a)(5) makes it a Federal crime to interfere 
     with anyone `dispatching, operating, or maintaining a mass 
     transportation vehicle or ferry.' The statute does not 
     address those who `control' such vehicles, and arguably 
     excludes rail system `controllers' (central command employees 
     who control the movement of rail cars). Although such 
     controllers `operate' vehicles in some cases, and thus may 
     fall within the statute, the statute does not expressly cover 
     them. The amendment to Section 1993(a)(5) explicitly provides 
     that interference with a rail controller constitutes a 
     Federal crime.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate proposal.


   SEC. 3043. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS FOR NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY CAPITAL 
                                PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3037.
       This section lists the projects that are authorized under 
     the section 5309 new starts and small starts programs for 
     fiscal years 2004-2009. Existing full funding grant 
     agreements are listed separately from projects authorized for 
     final design and construction and those authorized for 
     alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering.
       In subsection 3037(a), 26 new start projects originally 
     authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act (ISTEA) or in TEA-21 have continued 
     authorizations with the amount specified by fiscal year that 
     remains outstanding under the schedule of Federal funds for 
     the project (or ``schedule 6'') attached to each project's 
     full funding grant agreement contract with the FTA. The first 
     responsibility of the Appropriations Committees in providing 
     funds for new fixed guideway capital projects must be to 
     ensure that each project under a full funding grant agreement 
     receives the full amount specified for the fiscal year in 
     which it is programmed. Under-funding full funding grant 
     agreements is very damaging to the financial management of 
     the project and to the overall capital and operating budget 
     of the sponsoring agency, and may jeopardize private 
     financing for the local share of such project costs.
       In subsection 3037(b), new fixed guideway capital projects 
     that are ongoing projects in the new starts pipeline and are 
     currently in preliminary engineering or final design are 
     authorized for final design and construction.
       In subsection 3037(c), new fixed guideway capital projects 
     that have not yet been approved for preliminary engineering 
     by the FTA or that were not previously authorized under TEA-
     21 are authorized for alternatives analysis and preliminary 
     engineering.
       Subsection 3038(d) sets out rules relating to new starts 
     and small starts funding for the life of the authorization. 
     In general, all projects that are authorized under subsection 
     (a) may expend Federal funds only for final design and 
     construction activities. Projects that are authorized under 
     subsection (b) may expend Federal funds for final design and 
     construction, and for alternatives analysis and preliminary 
     engineering activities. Projects that are authorized under 
     subsection (c) may expend Federal funds only on alternatives 
     analysis and preliminary engineering activities. However, on 
     October 1, 2007, projects authorized under subsection (c) 
     shall also be authorized for final design and construction. 
     Minimum funding levels are established for appropriations for 
     each fiscal year in the full funding grant agreement category 
     (subsection a) and the final design and construction category 
     (subsection b), and maximum funding levels are established 
     for each fiscal year in the alternatives analysis and 
     preliminary engineering category (subsection c). Subsection 
     3037(b) projects authorized for final design and construction 
     that execute a full funding grant agreement with FTA after 
     the date of enactment of this Act are to be given the full 
     amount indicated in the schedule of Federal funds for the 
     project for each fiscal year under the agreement.
       Subsection 3037(e) amends the project description for the 
     New Jersey Urban Core project originally authorized in 
     section 3031(d) of ISTEA. This authorization was expanded in 
     TEA-21 and is further amended in this legislation.
       Subsection 3037(f) directs that project elements of the New 
     Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor that have been advanced 
     with 100 percent non-Federal funds shall be given 
     consideration by the FTA when evaluating the local share of 
     the project in the new starts rating process, including the 
     purchase of bi-level rail equipment.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The House proposal is adopted. In subsection (d), the 
     Senate includes authorizations for new fixed guideway 
     projects with funding amounts, subject to the requirements of 
     section 5309(d) and (e) of title 49, U.S.C.
       Bi-County Transitway.--It is the intent of the managers 
     that any alignment of the Bi-County Transitway along the 
     Georgetown Branch right of way should be designed and 
     constructed in a manner to ensure a safe and accessible 
     pedestrian-bicycle trail. The Maryland Transit Administration 
     should consider a range of options to include placing the 
     rail line underground through cut and cover.


SEC. 3044. PROJECTS FOR BUS AND BUS-RELATED FACILITIES AND CLEAN FUELS 
                             GRANT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 3038.
       This section lists bus and bus facilities projects and 
     associated funding levels for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 
     2008. Each year's designated funding represents one half of 
     the authorized amount for section 5309 bus and bus facility 
     projects for that fiscal year.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       This section lists bus and bus facilities projects and 
     associated funding levels for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 
     and 2009. Both the House and Senate combined amount of 
     funding for each fiscal year represents one half of the 
     authorized amount for section 5309 bus and bus facility 
     projects for that fiscal year.


    SEC. 3045. NATIONAL FUEL CELL BUS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 3039.
       This section authorizes a new fuel cell bus technology 
     development program for hydrogen fuel cell and liquid 
     methanol fuel cell bus technologies, in order to facilitate 
     the development of commercially viable fuel cell bus 
     technology and related infrastructure. The program is limited 
     to three recipients, at a Federal share of 50 percent.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House proposal.


  SEC. 3046. ALLOCATIONS FOR NATIONAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

     House Bill
       Sec. 3041.
       This section establishes seven specific research areas 
     within the Federal Transit Administration's national research 
     and technology program, and allocates funding levels in each 
     fiscal year of the authorization period for these research 
     areas. These research focus areas were developed through 
     conferring with the FTA and reflecting priorities established 
     in the agency's Research and Technology Strategic Plan. The 
     programmatic structure and funding floors for each research 
     area will help ensure that adequate funding is provided 
     throughout the authorization period to establish and carry 
     out meaningful programs with depth and continuity.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference report does not break out specific research 
     areas within the national research and technology program. 
     Program designations are made for several national research 
     projects and University Transportation Centers.


               SEC. 3047. FORGIVENESS OF GRANT AGREEMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 3043.
       Forgives certain debts of the Lane County Transit District.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       Forgives certain debts of the Lane County Transit District 
     and the Pee Dee Regional Transit Authority.


                   SEC. 3048. COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 3044.
       This section directs the Secretary to review the practice 
     of cooperative procurement of transit rolling stock, such as 
     buses and rail cars. A pilot program is currently underway at 
     the Federal Transit Administration to determine the benefits 
     of encouraging cooperative procurement of major capital 
     equipment. The program consists of

[[Page 18807]]

     three competitively selected grantees, consortiums of 
     grantees, or members of the private sector acting as agents 
     of grantees, who will develop cooperative specifications and 
     conduct joint procurements. For this program, the Federal 
     share was increased from 80 percent to 90 percent. The 
     Secretary is also directed to consider information gathered 
     from grantees about cooperative procurement, whether or not 
     related to the pilot program. The Secretary is directed to 
     notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 
     the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     of the results of the cooperative procurement review, and 
     make a finding of whether this program has sufficient merit 
     to be formally incorporated in the Federal public 
     transportation program.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       Adopts the House proposal.


         SEC. 3049. TRANSIT PASS TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFITS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6044.
       The Senate bill includes two provisions related to 
     transportation fringe benefits. Section 6004(a) requires the 
     Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of tax-free 
     transit benefits and ways to promote improved access to and 
     increased usage of such benefits at Federal agencies in the 
     National Capital Region (NCR). Executive Order #13150 
     requires such benefits to be offered at executive agencies in 
     the NCR, and the study is designed to determine how agencies 
     are implementing that requirement and what the impact has 
     been on congestion and pollution in the NCR.
       Section 6004(b) would remove the restriction that prohibits 
     a Federal agency from operating a shuttle service to a 
     transit facility. By improving access to commuting 
     alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a 
     benefit to their employees that will also help to reduce 
     congestion and improve air quality across the nation.
     Conference Substitute
       The conferees replaced the transit benefit study from the 
     Senate bill with language codifying Executive Order #13150 
     and extending it to include the legislative and judicial 
     branches and independent agencies. As a result, all qualified 
     Federal employees in the National Capital Region will receive 
     tax-free transit benefit to cover their commuting costs up to 
     the maximum allowed by law.
       The conferees adopted the Senate provision regarding 
     shuttle service with modifications. The language was 
     clarified to make clear that the decision to provide shuttle 
     service rests with the agency head. In addition, language was 
     added to specify that an employee riding in a shuttle would 
     not be considered to be within the scope of his or her office 
     simply by virtue of the fact that the employee was using the 
     shuttle service. Finally, language was added to make clear 
     that time during which an individual uses the shuttle service 
     should not be considered when calculating the hours of work 
     or employment for that individual for purposes of Title 5 of 
     the U.S. Code, including chapter 55 of that title. However, 
     the conferees do not intend for this language or an 
     employee's use of the shuttle service to be the basis for any 
     disciplinary action.


                        SEC. 3050. COMMUTER RAIL

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 6046.
       The Senate provision is intended to ensure timely 
     completion of Rhode Island's commuter rail projects, which 
     were authorized in TEA-21. Owing to the fact that commuter 
     rail in Rhode Island is carried on Amtrak owned track, 
     progress on completion of 2 new commuter stations requires 
     Amtrak consent. The Senate bill ensures that the Secretary of 
     Transportation has the authority to ensure that the projects 
     authorized under Section 3030(c) (1)(A)(xliv) of the Federal 
     Transit Act of 1998 and section 1214(g) of the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century (16 U.S.C. 668dd note) are 
     successfully completed.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate proposal.


               SEC. 3051. PARATRANSIT SERVICE IN ILLINOIS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       This provision clarifies the authority of a regional or 
     State agency in the State of Illinois to provide coordinated 
     paratransit services and for the Federal Transit 
     Administration to hold such provider accountable under the 
     requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In May 
     2005, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation that 
     will consolidate in one agency the paratransit services in 
     the six-county Chicagoland region. Because FTA regulations do 
     not contemplate that regional agencies would directly provide 
     coordinated services in the manner set forth in this new 
     State law, this provision sets forth explicit authority for 
     FTA to audit the services provided by a regional or State 
     agency, make recommendations, and take enforcement action if 
     necessary against that agency.

                     TITLE IV--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

              Subtitle A--Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety

       The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) 
     (P.L. 106-159) established the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration (FMCSA) within the Department of 
     Transportation (DOT) on January 1, 2000. Prior to the 
     enactment of MCSIA, commercial motor vehicle-related crashes 
     resulting in fatalities and injuries had been steadily 
     climbing and it was determined that the creation of a 
     separate modal administration within the DOT would improve 
     truck and bus safety. According to data compiled by the DOT, 
     large trucks\1\ represent about three percent of registered 
     vehicles; however, they account for 7 percent of the vehicle-
     miles traveled on our Nation's highways, and are involved in 
     about 11 percent of all fatal crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Large truck is defined as a commercial motor vehicle with 
     a gross vehicle weight of 10,001 pounds or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       FMCSA's primary responsibility is to enforce the Federal 
     motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations, 
     including the requirements governing Mexico-domiciled 
     commercial motor vehicles operating in the United States. 
     FMCSA also administers the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) 
     program, oversees the interstate transportation of household 
     goods, and all aspects of hazardous materials transportation 
     via highway. FMCSA has been directed to accomplish these 
     responsibilities through increased enforcement of the safety 
     regulations, expedited completion of rulemaking proceedings, 
     scientific research, and improved commercial driver's 
     licensing programs.
       FMCSA has set a goal of reducing the rate of fatalities in 
     large truck crashes by 39 percent between 1999, the year 
     prior to the agency's creation, and 2008, from a rate of 2.7 
     fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to a 
     rate of 1.65. The commercial motor vehicle fatality rate, 
     factoring in increases in VMT, was reduced to 2.28 in 2002, a 
     reduction of 7 percent from 2001 when the rate was 2.45. The 
     commercial motor vehicle fatality rate reduction in 2002 
     marked the fifth consecutive year the rate had been reduced. 
     While the fatality rate has improved, in 2003, 4,986 people 
     were killed in truck crashes, an increase of 47 deaths over 
     2002, and 122,000 people were injured. In addition, 723 truck 
     drivers were killed in 2003, an increase of nearly 5 percent 
     over the number of 2002 fatalities.


               SEC. 4101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4101.
       From the day of burro-drawn wagons moving our goods to the 
     current day intermodal, just-in-time delivery system, 
     commercial vehicles have always played an important role in 
     our Nation's economy. This section provides funding from the 
     Highway Trust Fund, other than the Mass Transit Account, for 
     FMCSA to implement safety programs for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009. Funding for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
     Program is authorized in section 4102 of this title. This 
     bill authorizes FMCSA and its programs to be funded through 
     contract authority. Under the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (TEA-21), the agency's administrative 
     expenses were funded through a deduction of the Federal 
     Highway Administration's (FHWA) administrative expenses. This 
     set-aside of Federal-aid funds is called a ``takedown''. The 
     Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (P.L. 
     106-159) amended TEA-21 by increasing the takedown to one-
     third of 1 percent from the FHWA's administrative expenses to 
     administer FMCSA activities. Other than the first year of 
     enactment, the takedown has proven to be ineffective for 
     funding the motor carrier safety program adequately. In 
     addition, the takedown has not been able to respond to 
     additional safety and program needs created with the 
     implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 
     and the security improvements needed in response to the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Therefore, it is 
     appropriate to create new contract authority for FMCSA 
     expenses. In addition to authorizing administrative expenses, 
     this section also authorizes three grant programs for 
     commercial driver's license improvement, border enforcement, 
     and performance and registration system management, as well 
     as an authorization to carry out the commercial vehicle 
     information systems and networks development program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7103.
       This section would authorize the following appropriations 
     from the Highway Trust Fund for FMCSA safety programs 
     (excluding MCSAP) for FYs 2006 through 2009.

[[Page 18808]]

       For administrative expenses of the Federal Motor Carrier 
     Safety Administration: FY 2006 $211,400,000; FY 2007 
     $217,500,000; FY 2008 $222,600,000; and FY 2009 $228,500,000.
       Border Enforcement Grants: FY 2006 $33,000,000; FY 2007 
     $34,000,000; FY 2008 $35,000,000; and FY 2009 $36,000,000.
       Performance and registration information system management 
     grants program: $4,000,000 for each FYs 2006 through 2009.
       Commercial driver's license and driver improvement program 
     grants: FY 2006 $23,000,000; FY 2007 $23,000,000; FY 2008 
     $24,000,000; and FY 2009 $25,000,000.
       Commercial vehicle information systems and networks 
     deployment program: $25,000,000 for each FYs 2006 through 
     2009.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts authorizing funds for FMCSA and its 
     grant programs for FYs 2005 through 2009. For Motor Carrier 
     Safety Grants: FY 2005 $188,480,000; FY 2006 $188,000,000; FY 
     2007 $197,000,000; FY 2008 $202,000,000; and FY 2009 
     209,000,000.
       For administrative expenses of the Federal Motor Carrier 
     Safety Administration: FY 2005 $254,849,000; FY 2006 
     $213,000,000; FY 2007 $223,000,000; FY 2008 $228,000,000; and 
     FY 2009 $234,000,000.
       Commercial Driver's License Program Improvement Grants: 
     $25,000,000 for each FYs 2006 through 2009.
       Border Enforcement Grants: $32,000,000 for each FYs 2006 
     through 2009.
       Performance and Registration Information System Management 
     Grants Program: $5,000,000 for each FYs 2006 through 2009.
       Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks 
     Deployment program: $25,000,000 for each FYs 2006 through 
     2009.


SEC. 4102. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR OUT-OF-SERVICE VIOLATIONS AND FALSE 
                                RECORDS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4108.
       Subsection (a) doubles the penalties for recordkeeping 
     violations under 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B) up to $1,000 for each 
     day the offense continues, or up to $10,000 for an offense 
     that misrepresents a non-recordkeeping violation. Subsection 
     (b) increases to a maximum of $25,000 the civil penalty for a 
     motor carrier that knowingly orders a driver to proceed 
     despite an OOS order. Subsection (b) also increases a 
     driver's penalty for a first offense to a 180-day 
     disqualification and a civil penalty of at least $2,500, and, 
     for a second offense, to a two- to five-year disqualification 
     and a civil penalty of up to $5,000.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7113.
       The civil penalties for recordkeeping violations are $500 
     for each day the offense continues, up to a maximum of 
     $5,000, or $5,000 for each recordkeeping violation that can 
     be shown to have misrepresented a fact constituting a non-
     recordkeeping violation. Subsection (a) would double these 
     penalties to up to $1,000 for each day the offense continues, 
     or up to $10,000 for an offense that misrepresents a non-
     recordkeeping violation. Recordkeeping violations frequently 
     have no other purpose than to conceal a safety violation, and 
     they often succeed. Higher penalties should reduce both the 
     number of recordkeeping violations and, indirectly, the 
     number of safety violations as well. The current penalties 
     for a driver who violates an out-of-service (OOS) order are, 
     for a first offense, a 90-day disqualification from operating 
     a CMV and a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and for a second 
     offense, disqualification for one to five years and a civil 
     penalty of at least $1,000. An employer who knowingly allows 
     or requires a driver to violate an OOS order is subject to a 
     civil penalty of up to $10,000. OOS orders can be issued for 
     a variety of reasons: for failure to pay civil penalties on 
     schedule; for having an unsatisfactory safety rating; for 
     violating the agency's hours-of-service or equipment 
     regulations; or because the motor carrier constitutes an 
     imminent hazard. Enforcement officers cannot afford to spend 
     hours monitoring a single OOS vehicle, and tracking possible 
     movements of an entire OOS fleet is even more difficult. As a 
     result, many OOS orders are violated. One effective deterrent 
     to violating an OOS order is to raise the cost to violators. 
     Subsection (b) would increase to a maximum of $25,000 the 
     civil penalty for a motor carrier that knowingly orders a 
     driver to proceed despite an OOS order. An employer who 
     knowingly and willfully ignores OOS orders is liable to 
     imprisonment for up to a year or a fine of up to $100,000 if 
     the violation did not result in death, or up to $250,000 if 
     it did result in death, or both. The section also would 
     increase penalties for drivers who decide on their own to 
     ignore an OOS order. Subsection (b) would increase a driver's 
     penalty for a first offense to a 180-day disqualification and 
     a civil penalty of at least $2,500, and, for a second 
     offense, to a two to five year disqualification and a civil 
     penalty of up to $5,000.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach. The conference 
     also adopts the House approach found in Sec. 4213 of the 
     House bill, which permits imprisonment, under Title 18, if an 
     employer knowingly and willfully allows an employee to 
     operate a CMV out-of-service.


           SEC. 4103. PENALTY FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS TO RECORDS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4106.
       This provision creates the new section, 521(b)(2)(E), which 
     creates a financial penalty to dissuade any uncooperative 
     carriers or shippers from denying or impeding FMCSA's 
     legitimate access to records.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7109.
       FMCSA investigators have broad authority to inspect and 
     copy motor carrier and shipper records and most carriers and 
     shippers readily grant access to requested records. Some, 
     however, deliberately impede the investigative process by 
     refusing to set an audit date, or, after setting a date, by 
     ordering investigators off the premises, occasionally with a 
     show of force. Others take a more subtle approach, feigning 
     illness or declaring an emergency during the audit, pleading 
     inability to produce records because of the absence of key 
     personnel, or delivering documents at a pace designed to 
     prolong the audit beyond the time available to the 
     investigator. While investigators can issue an administrative 
     subpoena for documents, refusal to comply requires the agency 
     to file an action in Federal court to enforce the subpoena. 
     This process, though effective, is relatively slow and labor-
     intensive, and the cost to a carrier or shipper who does not 
     seriously contest the action is minimal. This section would 
     create a financial penalty to dissuade uncooperative carriers 
     and shippers from denying or impeding FMCSA's legitimate 
     access to records.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate approach, with the 
     inclusion of the House penalty amounts.


              SEC. 4104. REVOCATION OF OPERATING AUTHORITY

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill


                               Sec. 7116.

       This section would authorize the Secretary to suspend the 
     registration of a motor carrier, a freight forwarder, or a 
     broker for failing to comply with safety regulations 
     established by the Secretary. In addition, the Secretary 
     would be required to revoke the registration of a motor 
     carrier that has failed to comply with Federal safety fitness 
     requirements. The Secretary also would be required to revoke 
     the registration of a motor carrier whose operations are an 
     imminent hazard to public health or property. In order to 
     suspend or revoke a registration, the Secretary must give 
     prior notice to the registrant.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate approach.


            SEC. 4105. STATE LAWS RELATING TO VEHICLE TOWING

     House Bill
       Sec. 4136.
       This section permits states to create laws requiring towing 
     companies to have prior written consent by the property or 
     the property owner or lessee be present at the time the 
     vehicle is towed.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7129.
       This section permits states to create laws requiring towing 
     companies to have prior written consent by the property or 
     the property owner or lessee be present at the time the 
     vehicle is towed. Also, the Secretary of Transportation must 
     conduct a review of Federal, State, and local regulations 
     relating to tow truck operations and conduct a study to 
     identify issues related to the protection of consumer rights 
     and identify potential remedies.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House and Senate provisions to 
     allow states to make laws requiring towing companies to have 
     prior written consent or require the property owner or lessee 
     to be present during a tow. The conference also agreed to 
     require the Secretary of Transportation to study the issues 
     relating to consumer protection of those who are towed and 
     potential remedies.


                 SEC. 4106. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4102.
       Subsection (a) of this section reauthorizes MCSAP, with a 
     number of changes. In addition to increases in authorized 
     funding levels, the program would be amended to require the 
     States to include five new requirements in their annual 
     commercial vehicle safety plans: the implementation of 
     performance-based activities, the establishment of a program 
     ensuring accurate, complete, and timely motor carrier safety 
     data is collected, reports, and corrected if incorrect, 
     States including in their training manuals, for all drivers' 
     licensing examinations, information about best practices for 
     safely sharing the road with trucks and cars, enforcing the 
     registration requirements of section 13902, of title 49, 
     United States Code, by removing

[[Page 18809]]

     from service vehicles that are unregistered or operating 
     beyond the scope of their registration, and States conducting 
     highly visible traffic enforcement programs in locations or 
     corridors that have been identified as having a high 
     incidence of truck crashes.
       Subsection (b) of this section details the new activities, 
     such as enforcement of non-commercial motor vehicles when 
     behavior of the drivers increases the risk of crashes, which 
     States can use funds provided under the MCSAP. The Committee 
     intends this new MCSAP authority to be used in direct 
     relation to conducting highly visible roadside enforcement 
     activities in high crash corridors. Subsection (c) of this 
     section authorizes funding for the MCSAP. This funding is for 
     the basic grant program, high priority grants, and the new 
     entrant program. This bill does not continue the incentive 
     program for MCSAP.
       Subsection (d) of this section provides FMCSA the authority 
     to provide grants without a matching requirement to the 
     States to conduct safety audits of new entrant motor 
     carriers. This subsection also increases the current amount 
     of MCSAP funding available for high priority activities to 10 
     percent of the total funds authorized. In addition, this 
     subsection also allows the Secretary to use up to $15,000,000 
     each fiscal year to conduct safety audits of new entrant 
     motor carriers described in subsection (c).
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7107.
       This section provides language that ensures that 
     inspections on motor carriers of passengers are conducted at 
     stations, terminals, border crossings, or maintenance 
     facilities, except in the case of an imminent or obvious 
     hazard. It will provide that the training manual for the 
     licensing examination to drive a motor vehicle of the State 
     will include information on best practices for driving safely 
     in the vicinity of motor vehicles. It also provides that the 
     State will suspend the operation of any vehicle found to be 
     operating without registration or beyond the scope of its 
     registration. Under this section there are grants for 
     activities carried out in conjunction with an appropriate 
     inspection of a CMV to enforce Government or State 
     regulations, including regulating commercial motor vehicle 
     size and weight limitations at locations other than fixed 
     weight facilities, at ports, or at other specific locations 
     and for the detection of unlawful presence of controlled 
     substance in a commercial motor vehicle or on any occupant of 
     the vehicle. These grants are also for enforcement of State 
     traffic laws and regulations designed for the safe operation 
     of commercial motor vehicles. The Secretary may allocate new 
     entrant motor carrier audit funds to States and local 
     governments without requiring a matching contribution from 
     such States or local governments. This section authorizes the 
     following amounts from the Highway Trust Fund to carry out 
     section 31102:
        2006 $193,620,000
        2007 $197,490,000
        2008 $201,440,000
        2009 $205,470,000
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House section (a) State Plan 
     Contents and adds a modified version of the Senate's 
     paragraph (U) regarding the location of bus inspections. The 
     conference adopts the House section (b) Use of Grants to 
     Enforce Other Laws with a modification of paragraph (c)(2). 
     The conference agrees the states may not use more than 5% of 
     the base amount the state receives for non-commercial motor 
     vehicle enforcement. The state must maintain its level of 
     inspection effort equal to the average amount from FY 2003, 
     2004, and 2005.
       The Conference supports the use of new technologies, such 
     as the Hazmat Trucking Enforcer, that enable inspectors to 
     conduct inspections in a more effective manner. The Committee 
     notes that States must be in substantial compliance with a 
     number of requirements under 49 U.S.C. 31102 as a condition 
     of receiving MCSAP funding, including requirements to deploy 
     technology to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of 
     commercial motor vehicle safety programs under 49 U.S.C 
     31102(b)(1)(A), as amended.


      SEC. 4107. HIGH PRIORITY ACTIVITIES AND NEW ENTRANTS AUDITS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7107.
       As under current law, up to $15,000,000 for each FY 2006 
     through 2009 of MCSAP grant funds could be set aside for high 
     priority activities that improve commercial motor vehicle 
     safety and are national in scope. The section would require 
     that at least 80 percent of funds set aside for high priority 
     projects be awarded to State and local agencies. Although DOT 
     has broad discretion to determine the details of the program, 
     the Secretary would be required, at a minimum, to focus on 
     reductions in the number and rate of fatal accidents 
     involving CMVs. The Secretary is also required to designate 
     up to $29,000,000 for audits of new entrant motor carriers 
     and can withhold these funds from a State or local government 
     that is unable to use government employees to conduct these 
     audits. Should they be unable to do so, the Secretary would 
     be authorized, but not be required, to expend the funds 
     directly to carry out new entrant audits in those 
     jurisdictions. The Secretary may also designate $2,000,000 in 
     FY 2006 and up to $6,000,000 for FY 2007 through 2009 for the 
     modernization of the commercial driver's license information 
     system. This section also would clarify that funds provided 
     for border enforcement grants are to go to States that share 
     a border with another country. Grant recipients could not use 
     Federal funds to replace State funds. As a condition of 
     receiving a border enforcement grant, States would be 
     required to maintain their own expenditures at a level at 
     least equal to the average level of expenditure by the State 
     for the two years before October 1, 2005.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate approach.


                  SEC. 4108. DATA QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 4115.
       This section adds language to the current information 
     systems requirements to ensure that the data FMCSA receives 
     from the States is complete, timely, and accurate.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       This section aims to ensure the safety data FMCSA receives 
     from States is complete, timely, and accurate. This section 
     was initiated because the Conferees' concern regarding the 
     quality of the safety data in the motor carrier safety status 
     measurement system (SafeStat) and the unresolved material 
     weaknesses in the SafeStat data, as confirmed in a 2004 
     report of the Department's Inspector General. In addition, 
     the Conferees are concerned that data quality issues 
     affecting the MCMIS database may constrain its usefulness for 
     certain purposes beyond general internal review and 
     screening. The Conferees urge the Secretary to revisit this 
     issue to determine if there are more accurate factors that 
     could be utilized when determining whether to issue safety 
     permits.


                SEC. 4109. PERFORMANCE AND REGISTRATION

                     INFORMATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 4114.
       Subsection (a) updates the current statute to more closely 
     follow how the performance and registration information 
     systems management (PRISM) program is currently administered. 
     Subsection (b) establishes a new separate grant program for 
     PRISM. These grants do not require a State match.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7120.
       The Performance and Registration Information System 
     Management Program (PRISM) is a voluntary program in which 
     States can participate to identify motor carriers and hold 
     them responsible for the safety of their operations. The 
     program includes two major processes: a commercial vehicle 
     registration process, through which States ensure that no 
     vehicle is plated without identifying the carrier responsible 
     for the vehicle's safety during the registration year, and a 
     motor carrier safety improvement process, designed to improve 
     the safety performance of motor carriers with demonstrated 
     poor safety performance. As of March 2004, 27 States 
     participated in the PRISM program, also the States of Alaska 
     and New York have also provided the FMCSA with a Letter of 
     Intent to implement the PRISM program. PRISM is an effective 
     enforcement tool that enables the States to deny, suspend, or 
     revoke a motor carrier's commercial motor vehicle 
     registrations when FMCSA determines that the carrier has 
     become unfit to operate CMVs safely. By itself, an out-of-
     service (OOS) order from FMCSA sometimes has little effect. 
     However, when the State simultaneously confiscates the motor 
     carrier's CMV license plates, the carrier's ability to 
     continue operating without detection is greatly reduced. 
     Grants to implement PRISM are authorized by section 103 of 
     the bill. This section would establish in statute certain 
     requirements for participation in the program. In order to 
     participate, States would have to comply with uniform 
     standards set by the Secretary and have the legal authority 
     to impose CMV registration sanctions on the basis of a 
     Federal safety fitness determination. Another condition for 
     participation in the program would be that States cancel the 
     motor vehicle registration, and seize the plates, of an 
     employer who knowingly allows an employee to operate a CMV in 
     violation of an OOS order.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts both the House and Senate approach. 
     The conference combined and clarified both the House and 
     Senate language in the Conditions for Participation section.


                  SEC. 4110. BORDER ENFORCEMENT GRANTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4103.
       Subsection (a) deletes contract authority funding for 
     information systems by striking

[[Page 18810]]

     the section 31107 of title 49, U.S.C., where it currently is 
     located. Funding for information systems is now included in 
     the administrative expenses. Subsection (a) also creates a 
     new grant program for border enforcement activities under the 
     same section.
       This grant program is for State enforcement activities at 
     the Canadian and Mexican borders. No Federal activity would 
     be conducted using this money. States would be authorized to 
     use the grants for virtually anything related to Commercial 
     Motor Vehicles (CMV) safety enforcement and compliance with 
     State and Federal CMV requirements involving foreign motor 
     carriers, including the purchase of land and buildings. Grant 
     recipients could not use Federal funds to replace State funds 
     and they would be required to maintain the average level of 
     border-related expenditures during fiscal years 2003-2004. It 
     is intended, and quite possible, that this money will not be 
     distributed to every State that shares a border with another 
     Country, but will only be distributed to States with an 
     identified need. These grants do not require a State match.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7107(b).
       This section also would clarify that funds provided for 
     border enforcement grants are to go to States that share a 
     border with another country. Grant recipients could not use 
     Federal funds to replace State funds. As a condition of 
     receiving a border enforcement grant, States would be 
     required to maintain their own expenditures at a level at 
     least equal to the average level of expenditure by the State 
     for the two years before October 1, 2005.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach, and the Senate 
     approach regarding Noncompliance with CDL Requirements.


        SEC. 4111. MOTOR CARRIER RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 4112.
       This section authorizes a comprehensive FMCSA research and 
     technology program under section 31108 of title 49, U.S.C. 
     The Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under 
     a cooperative research and development agreement could not 
     exceed 50 percent, except if there is substantial public 
     interest or benefit, the Secretary could approve a greater 
     Federal share.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7118.
       This section would establish a motor carrier research and 
     technology program. The goal is to support, through 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants, research 
     designed to produce innovative advances in motor carrier, 
     driver, and passenger safety. Equally critical, however, 
     would be the transfer of promising results, whether technical 
     or operational, to potential users and rapid deployment of 
     the fruits of research and development. The Federal share of 
     the cost of activities carried out under a cooperative 
     research and development agreement will not exceed 50 
     percent, except when there is substantial public interest or 
     benefit, as determined by the Secretary. Research, 
     development, or use of a technology under a cooperative 
     research and development agreement, including the terms under 
     which the technology may be licensed and the resulting 
     royalties may be distributed, would be subject to the 
     Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach with clarification 
     of language in the Research, Development, and Technology 
     Transfer Activities section.


         SEC. 4112. NEBRASKA CUSTOM HARVESTERS LENGTH EXEMPTION

     House Bill
       Sec. 4138.
       This section allows the State of Nebraska to permit the 
     length of commercial motor vehicles used exclusively for 
     hauling custom harvesters to 81 feet, 6 inches.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference
       The conference adopts the House approach.


  SEC. 4113. PATTERN OF SAFETY VIOLATIONS BY MOTOR CARRIER MANAGEMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 4111.
       Some motor carrier managers and brokers order, encourage, 
     or tolerate widespread regulatory violations and, when 
     caught, declare bankruptcy, rename the company and reshuffle 
     the managers' titles, sell its assets to a pre-existing shell 
     corporation owned and managed by the same people, or 
     otherwise attempt to evade the payment of civil penalties, 
     obscure the identity of the company and thus its violation 
     record, and perpetuate a casual indifference to regulatory 
     compliance and public safety. Although the total number of 
     such managers and brokers are small, their actions create 
     risks disproportionate to their numbers.
       This section addresses these problems. It amends 49 U.S.C. 
     31135 to authorize the Secretary to suspend, amend, or revoke 
     the registration of a for-hire motor carrier if any of its 
     officers has engaged in a pattern or practice of avoiding 
     compliance, or concealing non-compliance, with Federal 
     standards. The Secretary could also deny an application to 
     register as a for-hire motor carrier if any of the proposed 
     officers of the company has engaged in a pattern of non-
     compliance. In this context, ``officer'' means owner, chief 
     executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial 
     officer, safety director, vehicle maintenance supervisor, 
     driver supervisor, and any person exercising controlling 
     influence over operations of a motor carrier.
       This provision does not apply to all officers whose 
     companies are found to be in violation of the Federal safety 
     rules. Rather, it is intended to authorize the Secretary to 
     force out of the industry those few who have shown unusual 
     and repeated disregard for compliance.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7117.
       Some motor carrier managers order, encourage, or tolerate 
     widespread regulatory violations and, when caught, declare 
     bankruptcy, rename the motor carrier, and reshuffle the 
     managers' titles, sell its assets to a pre-existing shell 
     corporation owned and managed by the same people, or 
     otherwise attempt to evade the payment of civil penalties, 
     obscure the identity of the motor carrier and thus its safety 
     record. Although the total number of such managers is small, 
     their actions create a risk disproportionate to their 
     numbers. The section would address these problems by 
     authorizing the Secretary to suspend, amend, or revoke the 
     registration of a for hire motor carrier if any of its 
     officers has engaged in a pattern or practice of avoiding 
     compliance, or concealing non-compliance, with Federal motor 
     carrier safety standards. In this context, ``officer'' means 
     owner, director, chief executive officer, chief operating 
     officer, chief financial officer, safety director, vehicle 
     maintenance supervisor, and driver supervisor of a motor 
     carrier. This provision would not apply to all motor carrier 
     officers whose companies are found to be in violation of the 
     Federal safety rules. Rather, it is intended to authorize the 
     Secretary to force out of the industry those few motor 
     carrier officers who have shown unusual and repeated 
     disregard for safety compliance. It is expected that the 
     Secretary would use this authority only in the most serious 
     cases.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House provisions without the 
     Regulations and Cross Reference paragraphs.


     SEC. 4114. INTRASTATE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4110.
       In order to simplify and rationalize the analysis of 
     accident data and provide a complete picture of the safety of 
     motor carrier operations, subsection (a) requires the 
     Secretary, in the course of determining the safety fitness of 
     commercial motor vehicle (i.e., interstate) owners and 
     operators, to consider the accident and inspection record of 
     such owners and operators both on interstate and intrastate 
     trips. In addition, owners and operators of commercial motor 
     vehicles who are determined to be unfit and prohibited from 
     operating in interstate commerce, are also prohibited by 
     subsection (b) from operating commercial motor vehicles in 
     intrastate commerce until they are able to demonstrate their 
     fitness. Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to place all 
     interstate operations of a motor carrier out of service if a 
     State has placed out of service the intrastate operations of 
     a carrier that has its principal place of business in that 
     State.
       This subsection also provides the Secretary the authority 
     to make grants to the States to conduct new entrant safety 
     audits. This funding requires no State match; however, if the 
     Secretary determines that a State is unable to use government 
     employees to conduct these activities, the Secretary may 
     utilize the funding to conduct new entrant audits with 
     Federal resources.
       Sec. 4133.
       This provision permits DOT to determine whether a motor 
     carrier or operator is fit to operate a commercial motor 
     vehicle by considering their safety record while operating in 
     interstate, intrastate, and Canadian and Mexican commerce.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7114.
       As defined in 49 U.S.C. 31132(1), a vehicle is not a CMV 
     unless it operates in interstate commerce. One of the 
     implications of the definition is that the Secretary's 
     authority to determine the safety fitness of CMV owners and 
     operators encompasses the accident and safety inspection 
     record of such companies or individuals on interstate trips, 
     but not on intrastate trips. Most interstate motor carriers 
     also have substantial intrastate operations. For safety 
     purposes, it is artificial and counterproductive to create 
     two classes of accidents and safety inspection data (one 
     subject to Federal jurisdiction, the other not) when both 
     classes typically involve the same vehicles, drivers, 
     dispatchers, mechanics, and safety management controls, and 
     may be involved in the same

[[Page 18811]]

     kind of accidents or violations. In examining a motor 
     carrier's accident and inspection data, it is often 
     difficult, and sometimes impossible, to determine whether the 
     vehicle involved was making an interstate or intrastate trip. 
     This has produced significant variation and potential for 
     inaccuracy in the accident rates and Motor Carrier Safety 
     Status Measurement System scores calculated for motor 
     carriers, and thus in DOT's ability to hold all carriers to 
     the same standard. In order to simplify and rationalize the 
     analysis of accident data and provide a more complete picture 
     of the safety of motor carrier operations, subsection (a) 
     would require the Secretary, in the course of determining the 
     safety fitness of CMV owners and operators, to consider the 
     accident and inspection record of such owners and operators 
     both on interstate and intrastate trips. In addition, owners 
     and operators of CMVs who are determined to be unfit and 
     prohibited from operating in interstate commerce, also would 
     be prohibited from operating CMVs in intrastate commerce 
     until they are able to demonstrate their fitness. There is no 
     good reason to allow an unfit interstate carrier to narrow 
     its operations to a single State, and thus visit its safety 
     deficiencies upon the residents of that State alone. Finally, 
     the Secretary would be directed to place all interstate 
     operations of a motor carrier out of service if a State has 
     placed out of service the intrastate operations of a carrier 
     that has its principal place of business in that State. A 
     Federal safety determination that an interstate motor carrier 
     is unfit would thus halt both its interstate and intrastate 
     operations, while a State safety determination that an 
     intrastate carrier is unfit will halt both its intrastate and 
     any interstate operations.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate General section and the 
     House Prohibited Transportation and Determination of 
     Unfitness by a State section.


                     SEC. 4115. TRANSFER PROVISION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7108.
       This section codified certain motor carrier regulation 
     provisions in Title 49, United States Code.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate position with 
     modification. The Conference agreed to transfer this 
     provision to a section of the Motor Carrier Safety 
     Improvement Act of 1999.


                       SEC. 4116. MEDICAL PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 4107.
       This section requires FMCSA to establish a Medical Review 
     Board to serve as a source of up-to-date medical advice for 
     FMCSA on matters related to driver qualification rules, 
     guidelines for medical examiners, and standards for medical 
     exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b). This section also 
     includes a provision to establish a five-member Medical 
     Review Board to make recommendations on medical standards for 
     commercial drivers, medical examiner education, and medical 
     research.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7110.
       Section 110 would create a five-member Medical Review Board 
     to provide FMCSA medical advice and recommendations on driver 
     qualification medical standards and guidelines, medical 
     examiner education, and medical research. The Secretary, with 
     the advice of the Medical Review Board, would be required to 
     develop medical standards for CMV drivers, requirements for 
     periodic physical examinations, requirements for current 
     valid medical certificates, courses for medical examiners, 
     requirements for electronic transmittal of applicant and 
     numerical identifier for any completed medical examination 
     report, and to periodically review a representative sample of 
     the medical examinations reports. Every CMV driver would be 
     required to have a current valid medical certificate. A 
     national registry of medical examiners would be established 
     and only physicians listed on the registry could perform CMV 
     driver physical exams and issue medical certificates.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provisions with 
     modifications. The Conference adopts the Senate provision 
     establishing the Medical Review Board and the Chief Medical 
     Officer with technical modifications. The Conference adopts 
     the Senate provision on medical standards and requirements, 
     but modifies the provision to require, at a minimum, self-
     certification by medical examiners to ensure they have 
     completed required training in the physical and medical 
     examination standards set by the Secretary of Transportation. 
     The Conference does not adopt the Senate provision requiring 
     the Secretary to issue medical certificates until such 
     authority has been delegated to qualified medical examiners. 
     The Conference adopts the Senate provisions creating the 
     National Registry of Medical Examiners with a modification 
     allowing the Secretary to make participation in the Registry 
     voluntary if such a change will enhance the safety of 
     operators of commercial motor vehicles. The Conference adopts 
     the definition of ``medical examiner''.


            SEC. 4117. SAFETY PERFORMANCE HISTORY SCREENING

     House Bill
       Sec. 4127.
       In order to improve motor carrier safety, this provision 
     requires the Secretary to provide companies conducting pre-
     employment screening services for motor carrier employers, 
     electronic access to commercial motor vehicle accident 
     reports involving a driver-applicant that are collected and 
     maintained by FMCSA in its Motor Carrier Management 
     Information System (MCMIS). The accidents reported to FMCSA 
     must meet the accident definition found in 49 CFR 390.5.
       This provision also requires the Secretary to provide 
     electronic access to roadside safety inspection reports 
     involving a driver-applicant that resulted in a serious 
     driver-related safety violation. This electronic access may 
     be accomplished only after the prospective employer obtains 
     written consent of the driver applicant. This safety 
     compliance and performance information is unique to MCMIS 
     and, therefore, is not found on any other national database. 
     Prohibiting the release of this driver safety information 
     unless expressly authorized or required by law protects 
     driver privacy. The Secretary may require a fee from 
     companies conducting pre-employment screening services to 
     cover necessary administrative costs to implement this 
     screening service.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7124.
       This section requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
     provide electronic access of commercial motor vehicle 
     accident report information and all driver safety violations 
     contained in the Motor Carrier Management Information System 
     to companies conducting pre-employment screening services for 
     the motor carrier industry. The information released to these 
     companies will require the written consent of the driver 
     applicant, be in accordance with all Federal laws, and will 
     ensure the information is only made available to an 
     authorized company or individual. The use of this pre-
     screening process is not mandatory and may be used only 
     during the pre-employment assessment of a driver-applicant.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach.


                         SEC. 4118. ROADABILITY

     House Bill
       Sec. 4128.
       This section directs the Secretary to initiate a rule-
     making to ensure that equipment used to transport intermodal 
     chassis are safe. The rulemaking must be completed no later 
     than 1 year after enactment of this bill and must address a 
     way to identify the equipment owner, a civil penalty 
     structure, a petition process, and an inspection system.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7127.
       This Senate provision would require the Secretary, not 
     later than 1 year after enactment, to issue regulations 
     establishing a program to ensure that intermodal equipment 
     used to transport intermodal containers is safe and 
     systematically maintained. The provision places the 
     maintenance responsibility on the companies that provide the 
     equipment and control the daily disposition of it. The 
     provision would require the Secretary to promulgate certain 
     regulations as a subpart of the regulations of the Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration, including identifying 
     intermodal equipment providers responsible for the inspection 
     and maintenance of intermodal equipment and a requirement to 
     match intermodal equipment to the equipment provider through 
     a unique identifying number. A rulemaking proceeding for 
     regulations under this section shall be established within 
     120 days after enactment of the Act. Under this section, any 
     intermodal equipment determined under this section that fails 
     to comply with applicable safety regulations may be placed 
     out of service and the Secretary, or an employee of the DOT 
     designated by the Secretary may inspect intermodal equipment 
     and copy related maintenance and repair records. The 
     provision preempts any law, regulation, order or other 
     requirement of a State, political subdivision of the State, 
     or tribal organization and defines several terms.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate provision with technical 
     modifications.
       The conference supports an inspection system that shall 
     maximize the use of available technologies, including 
     electronically verified visual inspections, whenever 
     appropriate.


                  SEC. 4119. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 4113.
       This section authorizes the Secretary, and thus FMCSA, to 
     engage in international activities. This kind of authority is 
     necessary to aid in implementing the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement and to carry on discussions with U.S. trading 
     partners concerning a variety of safety issues.

[[Page 18812]]


     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7119.
       This section would authorize the Secretary to participate 
     in international activities to enhance motor carrier safety. 
     FMCSA needs this authority to aid in implementing the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and to carry on 
     discussions with U.S. trading partners concerning a variety 
     of safety issues.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach, which has the 
     same intent as the Senate language.


     SEC. 4120. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRIVATE MOTOR CARRIERS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7112.
       The section would extend to private motor carriers the 
     existing requirement for for-hire motor carriers to maintain 
     minimum levels of financial responsibility to cover public 
     liability and property damage for the transportation of 
     passengers or goods. The Secretary may require private 
     carriers to file the same evidence of financial 
     responsibility that is required of for-hire carriers.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference agrees to include not-for-hire motor 
     carriers and passenger carriers in the requirement for 
     minimum financial responsibility.


 SEC. 4121. DEPOSIT OF CERTAIN CIVIL PENALTIES INTO HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

     House Bill
       Sec. 4119.
       This section amends current law to deposit all civil 
     penalties collected from motor carriers for violations of the 
     Federal insurance requirements into the Highway Trust Fund, 
     other than the Mass Transit Account.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach.


                SEC. 4122. CDL LEARNER'S PERMIT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7152.
       Pursuant to recommendations made by the DOT Inspector 
     General, this section would require that individuals pass a 
     written test to obtain a CMV license learner's permit. 
     Learner's permits would be incorporated into the CDLIS 
     database.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate approach.


SEC. 4123. COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM MODERNIZATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 4125.
       This section creates a grant program to be used to 
     modernize the commercial driver's license information system 
     (CDLIS). Since the creation of CDLIS, improvements to the 
     database and operability of the system have not kept up with 
     improvements in technology. This program helps to modernize 
     the system and improve the State licensing and Federal 
     enforcement personnel's ability to access necessary 
     information.
       This section also allows the Secretary to conduct a pilot 
     project in 3 States to evaluate a program for sharing 
     information about all drivers' licenses, both commercial and 
     non-commercial, between States.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7154.
       This section would require the Secretary of Transportation 
     to establish an account to be known as the ``Information 
     System Modernization Account'' (ISMA). Fees in excess of the 
     costs of operating the information system collected for any 
     fiscal year beginning after FY 2006 by the Secretary of 
     Transportation, or an organization that represents the 
     interests of the States would be credited to the ISMA. These 
     funds would be available only for the purpose of modernizing 
     the information system. This section would also require the 
     Secretary to establish a comprehensive plan for modernization 
     of the information system and set a date by which each State 
     must convert to the new information system. Also, within one 
     year of enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Transportation shall perform a baseline audit 
     of the information system that includes an assessment of the 
     validity of the data in the information system, an assessment 
     of the extent to which convictions are validly posted on a 
     driver's record, recommendations to the Secretary of 
     Transportation on how to update the baseline audit annually 
     to ensure that any shortcomings in the information system are 
     addressed, and a methodology for conducting the update, and 
     any recommendations the Inspector General feels necessary to 
     improve the integrity of the data collected.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach and includes 
     additional Senate criteria for the modernization plan. The 
     plan requires states to fund future efforts to modernize the 
     commercial driver's information system. The pilot program is 
     not included in the conference agreement. The Senate's 
     Baseline Audit provision is adopted.


          SEC. 4124. COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE IMPROVEMENTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4104.
       Subsection (a) creates a new program for commercial 
     driver's license improvement grants. These grants enable 
     States to improve the implementation of their commercial 
     driver's license programs. Unlike the border grants, these 
     funds may not be used to purchase land or buildings. In order 
     to apply for a grant, a State must first conduct a self-
     assessment and identify deficiencies in their commercial 
     driver's license program. Based on these assessments, the 
     State will then apply for the appropriate amount of funding 
     to correct these issues. The State must also maintain an 
     average level of commercial driver's license expenditures 
     during the fiscal years 2003-2004. The government share for 
     these grants is 80 percent. Five percent of these funds will 
     be set aside for high priority commercial driver's license 
     activities.
       Subsection (c) authorizes the Secretary to redirect up to 5 
     or 10 percent of the funds a State receives under this 
     program, if the State is found to be in serious non-
     compliance with the commercial driver's license program. The 
     penalty provisions found in the CDL statutes have been 
     amended to encourage the Secretary, through more flexibility, 
     to assess penalties for non-compliance.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7153.
       This section would allow the Secretary to make a grant to a 
     State to improve the implementation of the commercial 
     driver's license program, providing that the State is making 
     a good faith effort toward substantial compliance with the 
     requirements made in this bill. The State may use this grant 
     for expenses related to its commercial driver's license 
     program, but the grant may not be used to rent, lease, or buy 
     land or buildings.
       The Secretary would reimburse a State for no more than 80 
     percent of the cost of the improvements and each State would 
     be required to maintain its previous level of CDL 
     expenditures. The Secretary could designate up to 10 percent 
     of the funds available under this subsection for high-
     priority grants. The Secretary could also designate up to 10 
     percent of the CDL grant funds for discretionary allocations 
     to State agencies, local governments, or other persons to 
     deal with emerging problems. Up to 0.75 percent of the funds 
     available for CDL grants could be deducted for administrative 
     expenses.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House approach.


                          SEC. 4125. HOBBS ACT

     House Bill
       Sec. 4105.
       Subsection (a) amends the Hobbs Act to make explicit the 
     interpretation given to that act by a series of decisions of 
     the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. The Courts reviewed 
     whether an action by FMCSA pursuant to the safety authority 
     transferred in 1966 could still be reviewed by the Courts of 
     Appeal, since section 2342(3)(A) applied to the commercial 
     statutes, while section 2342(5) applied to actions of the 
     STB. Subsection (a) ensures that both of these issues would 
     be covered by inserting in section 2342(3)(A) a reference to 
     ``subchapter III of chapter 311, chapter 313, and chapter 315 
     of Part B of subtitle VI of title 49.'' FMCSA's safety 
     statutes are codified there, including statutes enacted after 
     1966. All safety statutes would thus be subject to exclusive 
     review by the Courts of Appeal.
       Subsections (b) and (c) simply replace the term ``Federal 
     Highway Administration'' with ``Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration'' in 49 U.S.C. 351(a) and 352.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7108.
       Subsection (a) would amend the Hobbs Act to make clear that 
     all safety statutes are subject to exclusive review by the 
     U.S. Courts of Appeal.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts both the House and Senate provision 
     which clarify safety statutes and Court of Appeals 
     jurisdiction.


    SEC. 4126. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS 
                               DEPLOYMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 4109.
       This section transfers the commercial vehicle information 
     system and networks deployment program from FHWA to FMCSA in 
     order to streamline the grant process. This streamlined 
     process is intended to ensure the completion of the core 
     deployment of commercial vehicle information systems and 
     networks. Subsection (a) provides general direction to carry 
     out the commercial vehicle information systems and networks 
     deployment program. Subsection (b) describes the overall 
     purpose of the commercial vehicle information systems and 
     networks deployment program.
       Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to make grants of up 
     to $2.5 million for the core deployment of commercial vehicle 
     information systems and networks. A State that has

[[Page 18813]]

     previously received funding for the core deployment of 
     commercial vehicle information systems and networks would 
     receive a grant that has been reduced by the amount of funds 
     previously received for core deployment. States that have not 
     previously received funding for core deployment would receive 
     a grant of $2.5 million.
       Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary to make grants to 
     States for the expanded deployment of commercial vehicle 
     information systems and networks. The amount of the grants is 
     determined by the amount of funds that remain after the core 
     deployment grants have been made and by the number of States 
     that request an expanded deployment grant. The maximum 
     expanded deployment grant that may be given to a State in a 
     fiscal year would be $1 million. Only States that have 
     completed core deployment would be eligible for an expanded 
     deployment grant. Subsection (e) describes the eligibility 
     requirements to receive these grants.
       Subsection (f) provides that the Federal share of grant 
     funds under this section is 50 percent. The Federal share for 
     funds used for commercial vehicle information systems and 
     networks from all eligible sources would be 80 percent.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7121.
       This section would provide State grants to complete core 
     deployment of the CVISN. The purpose of this program is to 
     provide technological advances in commercial vehicle 
     operations. ``Core deployment means the deployment of systems 
     necessary to provide safety information exchange to 
     electronically collect and transmit commercial vehicle and 
     driver inspection data at a majority of inspection sites; to 
     connect to the Safety and Fitness Electronic Records (SAFER) 
     system for access to interstate carrier and commercial 
     vehicle data, summaries of past safety performance, and 
     commercial vehicle credentials information; and to exchange 
     carrier data and commercial vehicle safety and credentials 
     information within the State and connect to SAFER for access 
     to interstate carrier and commercial vehicle data.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach, with the 
     inclusion of the Senate Purpose and Federal Share provision.


                   SEC. 4127. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 4120.
       This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct an 
     outreach and education program through the FMCSA and NHTSA to 
     promote highway safety. Elements of the program shall include 
     a comprehensive national effort to educate commercial motor 
     vehicle and passenger vehicle drivers about how to share the 
     road safely with each other, as well as an emphasis on 
     traffic enforcement aimed at reducing the most common driving 
     behaviors that cause or contribute to crashes, similar to 
     such programs as ``Click It or Ticket'' and drunk driving 
     awareness campaigns. The Secretary is required to provide an 
     annual report each year demonstrating the programs and 
     activities carried out under this section.
       The Committee has significantly increased the funding for 
     the outreach and education program currently conducted by 
     FMCSA, but with this legislation, the outreach program will 
     be jointly managed by FMCSA and NHTSA. Although the Committee 
     believes a strong enforcement program is important for 
     improving commercial motor vehicle and highway safety, 
     combining enforcement activities with a robust outreach and 
     education program is necessary to maximize the results. Also, 
     consistent with the recommendations in the U.S. General 
     Accounting Office report GAO-03-680, the Committee recommends 
     that the outreach and education activities conducted by FMCSA 
     are directly linked to the program's goal and establish a 
     systematic process for evaluating the effectiveness of the 
     program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7122.
       The section would authorize FMCSA and NHTSA to undertake 
     outreach and education initiatives. The ``Share the Road 
     Safely'' program would be jointly managed by the agencies and 
     a total of $1 million would be authorized for the program for 
     FY 2004.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach.


               SEC. 4128. SAFETY DATA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 4124.
       This section establishes a grant program to the States 
     dedicated to improving the accuracy, timeliness, and 
     completeness of the data provided to the Secretary. Prior to 
     receiving a grant under this section, the State must complete 
     an audit of its safety data system and develop a plan 
     recognizing the needs and goals for improving its safety data 
     system. The Secretary must provide a report every two years 
     on the results of the program carried out under this section.
       The Safety Data Improvement program is intended to address 
     safety data problems identified in the DOT Inspector 
     General's audit of FMSCA's database. FMSCA's limited 
     resources require focusing on the motor carriers who are 
     considered most ``at risk''. In order to do this, the data 
     FMCSA uses for selecting carriers must be accurate, and 
     timely. The Committee is concerned that without additional 
     funding, the States may have trouble improving their data 
     reporting.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House approach.


 SEC. 4129. OPERATION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES BY INDIVIDUALS WHO 
                 USE INSULIN TO TREAT DIABETES MELLITUS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4121.
       This section requires the Secretary to allow individuals 
     who use insulin to treat their diabetes to operate commercial 
     motor vehicles in interstate commerce without requiring the 
     individual to have experience operating a commercial motor 
     vehicle while using insulin.
       The Committee directs FMCSA to issue a final rule to amend 
     the current exemption program to allow individuals who use 
     insulin to treat their diabetes to operate commercial motor 
     vehicles in interstate commerce that is consistent with the 
     findings of the expert medical panel report issued in July 
     2000. That report concluded that individuals could be 
     qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle following a 
     one- to two-month period of adjustment to insulin use. This 
     provision is intended to preempt FMSCA's notice of final 
     disposition issued September 3, 2003, which requires an 
     individual to have three years of experience operating a 
     commercial motor vehicle in intrastate commerce while using 
     insulin for treatment of diabetes before the individual could 
     qualify to drive in interstate commerce. According to the 
     American Diabetes Association, approximately 20 States do not 
     have an intrastate exemption program for insulin-dependant 
     commercial drivers, therefore, these drivers would never be 
     able to meet the Federal requirement to drive in interstate 
     commerce. The Committee is concerned that by issuing a notice 
     of final disposition that is inconsistent with the finding of 
     FMCSA's own expert medical panel, qualified drivers may not 
     be able to get employed or stay employed.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7111.
       This section would require the Secretary to issue a final 
     rule that will allow individuals who use insulin to treat 
     their diabetes to operate CMV in interstate commerce. The 
     final rule may not require that an individual have experience 
     operating a CMV while using insulin. However, the Secretary 
     may require a minimum period of insulin use, consistent with 
     the findings of FMCSA's expert medical panel made in July, 
     2000.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate's Revision of Final Rule 
     and No Period of Commercial Driving While Using Insulin 
     Required for Qualification and the House's Minimum Period of 
     Insulin Use and Limitations.


SEC. 4130. OPERATORS OF VEHICLES TRANSPORTING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES 
                           AND FARM SUPPLIES

     House Bill
       Sec. 4134.
       This section continues to allow for operators of vehicles 
     transporting agricultural commodities and farm supplies to 
     not be subject to federal, State, and local laws, rules, 
     regulations, or standards that limit the number of hours 
     motor vehicle operators may remain on duty. This applies to 
     operators transporting agricultural commodities during 
     planting and harvest periods within a 100 air mile radius 
     from the location of the distribution point for the farm 
     supply.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7128.
       This section would cause the regulations regarding maximum 
     driving and on-duty time for drivers used by motor carriers 
     to not apply during planting and harvesting periods, as 
     determined by the States, to drivers transporting 
     agricultural commodities or farm supplies for agricultural 
     purposes in a State, if the transportation is limited to an 
     area within a 100 mile radius from the source of commodities 
     or the distribution site for the farm supplies. This section 
     also provides a definition for the terms ``agricultural 
     commodity'' and ``farm supplies''.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House language as the base for 
     this section, but uses the Senate definition of 
     ``Agricultural Commodity.''


SEC. 4131. MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR OPERATORS OF GROUND WATER WELL 
                             DRILLING RIGS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4126.
       For operators of commercial motor vehicles transporting 
     ground water well drilling rigs, this section preserves the 
     24-hour restart provision enacted in the NHS Designation Act 
     and provides that no additional off-duty time (greater than 
     10 hours) shall be required to operate the vehicle.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7140.
       The Senate bill contains a similar provision to the House 
     bill.

[[Page 18814]]


     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House position modified to be 
     consistent with section 4115 of the Conference Report.


 SEC. 4132. HOURS OF SERVICE FOR OPERATORS OF UTILITY SERVICE VEHICLES

     House Bill
       Sec. 4131.
       This section provides an exemption for drivers of utility 
     service vehicles from federal, State, and local laws, rules, 
     regulations, or standards that limit the number of hours 
     operators of utility service vehicles may remain on duty.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7128.
       The section also clarifies the regulations regarding 
     commercial motor vehicles providing transportation of 
     property or passengers to or from a theatrical or television 
     motion picture production and also for utility service 
     vehicles.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach.


       SEC. 4133. HOURS OF SERVICE RULES FOR OPERATORS PROVIDING 
                TRANSPORTATION TO MOVIE PRODUCTION SITES

     House Bill
       Sec. 4135.
       This section permits operators of commercial motor vehicles 
     transporting property or passengers to or from a movie or 
     television production site to be regulated by the Hours of 
     Service regulations in effect on April 27, 2003.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7128.
       The section also clarifies the regulations regarding 
     commercial motor vehicles providing transportation of 
     property or passengers to or from a theatrical or television 
     motion picture production.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the identical language found in the 
     House and Senate bills.


    SEC. 4134. GRANT PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4122.
       This section establishes a grant program to train drivers 
     and future drivers of commercial motor vehicles to operate 
     such vehicles in a safe manner.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1413.
       This section establishes a grant program to commercial 
     driver training schools for the purpose of providing 
     financial assistance to entry level drivers.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House approach.


                       SEC. 4135. CDL TASK FORCE

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7151.
       This section would require the Secretary to convene a task 
     force to study and report on the need for improvements to the 
     CDL program in order to improve safety. The task force would 
     be required to address such issues as State enforcement 
     practices, operational procedures to detect and deter fraud, 
     needed improvements for seamless information-sharing between 
     States, updated technology, and timely notification from 
     judicial bodies of traffic and criminal convictions involving 
     CDL holders. The task force would be required to submit a 
     report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure within two years following 
     enactment.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate approach.


                  SEC. 4136. INTERSTATE VAN OPERATIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4130.
       This section directs the Secretary to extend the Federal 
     motor carrier safety regulations found in 49 Code of Federal 
     Regulations, Parts 387, 390 through 399 to all operations of 
     commercial motor vehicles designed to transport between nine 
     and fifteen passengers (including the driver), regardless of 
     their operational distance. This section amends the final 
     rule issued by the DOT on August 12, 2003.
       The Committee intends the Secretary to address this 
     situation through the rule- making process. As part of the 
     rulemaking, the Secretary shall amend the final rule 
     addressing commercial motor vehicles transporting nine to 
     fifteen passengers to specifically exempt vanpool operations 
     as defined by section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. 
     The rulemaking also exempts stretch sedan limousines that are 
     designed to seat nine to fifteen passengers. The rule-making 
     does not exempt SUV stretch limousines, or super stretch 
     sedan limousines that are designed to seat sixteen or more 
     passengers (including the driver).
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7106.
       This section requires the Secretary to require that a 
     safety audit be immediately changed to a compliance review 
     and appropriate actions be taken if there are any safety 
     violations by a new motor carrier entrant. It also ensures 
     that the Secretary enforces Federal motor carrier safety 
     regulations that apply to interstate CMVs designed to 
     transport between 9-15 passengers, regardless of distance 
     traveled.
     Conference Substitute
  The conference adopts the identical House and Senate language 
applying the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to interstate van 
operations. Further, the conference agrees to exempt vanpool operations 
from this regulation.


                           SEC. 4137. DECALS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7126.
       This section requires that FMCSA abide by the agreement it 
     has with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) to the 
     extent possible in accordance with the law, that CVSA shall 
     not restrict the sale of commercial motor vehicle safety 
     inspection decals to FMCSA. CVSA and FMCSA have a long-
     standing and successful partnership in ensuring the safety of 
     commercial motor vehicles. A recent dispute regarding safety 
     inspection decals between the two entities suggests that 
     processes for resolving disputes should be improved. While 
     the Committee expects FMCSA to live up to its commitments 
     with CVSA, the Committee also believes that inspection decals 
     should not be unilaterally withheld from the Federal agency 
     responsible for ensuring motor carrier safety.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate approach.


            SEC. 4138. HIGH RISK CARRIER COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

     House Bill
       No provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7104.
       The Senate bill requires the Secretary to ensure that 
     safety compliance reviews of motor carriers are completed for 
     carriers that have demonstrated that they pose the highest 
     safety risk. A single compliance review is required for any 
     motor carrier that is rated as category A or B for two 
     consecutive months.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with a 
     modification to clarify that multiple compliance reviews are 
     not required for carriers that are rated as category A or B 
     for more than two consecutive months.


              SEC. 4139. FOREIGN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7123.
       The Senate bill requires the Administrator of the Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration to conduct outreach and 
     training to state safety enforcement personnel on the 
     enforcement of operating authority requirement for motor 
     carriers. The Senate bill requires a study and a report by 
     the Administrator on the degree to which Canadian and Mexican 
     commercial motor vehicles currently expected to operate in 
     the United States comply with U.S. federal motor vehicle 
     safety standards.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


 SEC. 4140. SCHOOL BUS DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS AND ENDORSEMENT KNOWLEDGE 
                                  TEST

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7155 and Sec. 7606
       The Senate bill requires the Secretary to recognize school 
     bus drivers who pass an approved test as having met a certain 
     requirement. The Senate bill also delays the effective date 
     of a requirement for school bus drivers until September 30, 
     2006.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                SEC. 4141. DRIVEWAY SADDLEMOUNT VEHICLES

     House Bill
       Sec. 4116.
       This section creates a new national standard for the 
     maximum length of drive-away saddlemount with fullmount 
     vehicle transporter combinations operated on the Interstate 
     Highway System.
     Senate Bill
       No provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House provision.

[[Page 18815]]




    SEC. 4142. REGISTRATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS AND FREIGHT FORWARDERS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4118.
       This section harmonizes the jurisdictional reach of the 
     commercial and the safety statutes by eliminating the 
     requirement for motor carriers to register if they are not 
     subject to the Federal motor carrier safety regulations.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House version.


         SEC. 4143. AUTHORITY TO STOP COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Section 7115.
       The section would authorize FMCSA officials to order trucks 
     on the road to stop for inspection. Today, State MCSAP 
     officers, but not FMCSA officials, have such authority. With 
     the opening of the Mexican border, however, Federal 
     inspectors will play an expanded role in roadside 
     enforcement. In addition, there is no guarantee that State or 
     local police officers will always be available at border 
     facilities or at other vehicle inspection facilities 
     throughout the nation to order trucks to stop for an FMCSA 
     inspection.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


           SEC. 4144. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

     House Bill
       Sec. 4123.
       This section requires the establishment of a commercial 
     motor vehicle safety advisory committee to provide advice and 
     recommendations on a range of commercial motor vehicle safety 
     issues. Members are appointed by the Secretary and include 
     representatives of industry, drivers, safety advocates, 
     manufacturers, safety enforcement officials, representatives 
     of law enforcement agencies from border States, and other 
     individuals affected by rulemakings. No one interest may 
     constitute a majority. The advisory committee should provide 
     advice to the Secretary on commercial motor vehicle safety 
     regulations and other matters relating to activities and 
     functions of FMCSA.
     Senate Bill
       No provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House version with modifications.


                    sec. 4145. technical corrections

     House Bill
       Sec. 4132.
       Subsection (a) adds the Administrator as a member of the 
     Intermodal Transportation Advisory Board.
       Subsection (b) changes the reference from ``Regional 
     Director'' to ``Field Administrator'', that position's 
     correct title since the creation of the FMCSA in the Motor 
     Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts this clarification of the code.


              sec. 4146. exemption during harvest periods

     House Bill
       No provision.
     Senate Bill
       No provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference agrees the maximum driving and on-duty time 
     for a driver will not apply in the area west of Interstate 81 
     in New York during the harvest period and within 150-air mile 
     radius from where grapes are picked or distributed.


      sec. 4147. emergency condition requiring immediate response

     House Bill
       No provision.
     Senate Bill
       No provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference agrees regulations prescribed under 31136 or 
     31502 of 49 U.S.C. will not apply to a driver of a CMV which 
     is used to transport propane winter heating fuel or a motor 
     vehicle used to respond to a pipeline emergency if such 
     regulations would prevent the driver from responding to an 
     emergency condition requiring immediate response. ``Emergency 
     condition requiring immediate response'' is also defined.


                sec. 4148. substance abuse professionals

     House Bill
       Sec. 4129.
       This section requires the Secretary to update the current 
     regulatory definition of a substance abuse professional to 
     include State licensed or certified mental health counselors, 
     as well as individuals certified as addiction specialists by 
     the American Academy of Health Care Providers in the 
     Addictive Disorders.
     Senate Bill
       No provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House provision with 
     modification.


                   sec. 4149. office of intermodalism

     House Bill
       No provision.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7601.
       The Senate provision allows the Director of the Office of 
     Intermodalism to use funds made available for grants to the 
     States under section 5504 of Title 49, United States Code to 
     provide technical assistance for intermodal data collection. 
     The provision also instructs the Director to develop a plan 
     to improve the national intermodal transportation system and 
     to do a progress report on such improvements. Additionally, 
     the Director, in conjunction with the Director of the Bureau 
     of Transportation Statistics, shall develop common measures 
     to compare transportation investments across modes and to 
     formulate new methodology for measuring the impacts of 
     intermodal transportation.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate position with 
     modifications.

               Subtitle B--Household Goods Transportation

       Oversight of the interstate household goods moving industry 
     had been the responsibility of the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission (ICC) prior to the ``sun-setting'' of the ICC by 
     the ICC Termination Act of 1995. Most Federal oversight 
     responsibilities for the transportation of household goods 
     were transferred to the FHWA and later transferred to FMCSA 
     upon enactment of MCSIA in 1999. FHWA, and then FMCSA, 
     focused their limited resources on its primary mission of 
     highway safety, rather than on consumer protection. The lack 
     of Federal oversight has permitted unscrupulous ``rogue'' 
     household goods movers to exploit this regulatory gap. 
     Subtitle B of title IV of this bill provides greater 
     protection to consumers shipping their household goods via 
     motor carrier. However, these provisions only relate to the 
     movement of household goods motor carriers and brokers.


                         sec. 4201. short title

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       This section provides a Short Title.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate approach.


           sec. 4202. definitions; application of provisions

     House Bill
       Sec. 4212.
       This section defines household goods motor carrier as in 
     the business of providing transportation of household goods, 
     and offering some or all of the following services: binding 
     and nonbinding estimates, inventorying, protective packing 
     and unpacking of individual items, and loading and unloading 
     at personal residences.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7402.
       This section provides that the terms ``carrier'', 
     ``household goods'', ``motor carrier'', ``Secretary'', and 
     ``transportation'' have the meaning specified in section 
     13102 of title 49, United States Code. This section defines 
     household goods motor carrier as in the business of providing 
     transportation of household goods, and offering some or all 
     of the following services: binding and nonbinding estimates, 
     inventorying, protective packing and unpacking of individual 
     items at personal residences, and loading and unloading at 
     personal residences. The provision applies a limited service 
     exclusion indicating a motor carrier solely providing 
     transportation of household goods entirely packed in, or 
     unpacked from, one or more containers of trailers by the 
     individual shipper of an agent thereof is excluded from this 
     definition.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate approach along with a 
     modification to the Limited Service Exclusion. This section 
     differentiates between household goods carriers and freight 
     motor carriers.


                      sec. 4203. payment of rates

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7403.
       Under current law, a carrier must give up possession of the 
     property being transported upon receipt of payment (49 U.S.C. 
     13707(a)). This section codifies existing regulations that 
     require a carrier to give up possession of the household 
     goods so long as the shipper pays the mover 100 percent of a 
     binding estimate of the charges or 110 percent of a non-
     binding estimate of the charges. Shippers are not required, 
     as a condition of delivery, to pay unforeseen additional 
     charges not included in a binding or non-binding estimate

[[Page 18816]]

     that are necessary to complete the move. This section also 
     provides that a mover may only charge a prorated share of 
     charges (based on either a binding or non-binding estimate) 
     for the partial delivery of a shipment. Under current law, 
     movers may require a shipper to pay 100 percent of the 
     charges in a binding estimate or 110 percent of the charges 
     of a non-binding estimate at the time of delivery even if 
     part of the shipment is lost or destroyed. The section also 
     states that the charges collected at delivery for 
     impracticable operations can not exceed 15 percent of all 
     other charges due at delivery. Post-contract services 
     requested by a shipper after the contract is executed are not 
     covered by this provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate approach.


 sec. 4204. additional registration requirements for motor carriers of 
                            household goods

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7415.
       This section requires that the Secretary may only register 
     a person to provide transportation of household goods only 
     after that person has provided evidence of participation in 
     an arbitration program; identified its tariff and provided a 
     copy of the notice of the availability of that tariff for 
     inspection; provided evidence that it has access to, has 
     read, is familiar with, and will observe all laws relating to 
     consumer protection, estimating, consumers' rights and 
     responsibilities, and options for limitations of liability 
     for loss and damage; disclose any relationship involving 
     common stock, common ownership, common management, or common 
     familial relationships between that person and any other 
     motor carrier within the last 3 years.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate approach.


              sec 4205. household goods carrier operations

     House Bill
       Sec. 4210.
       This section requires household goods motor carriers to 
     provide written estimates for shipments of household goods. 
     When providing these estimates, the motor carrier must 
     conduct a physical survey of the household goods to be 
     transported. A shipper may waive the on-site survey, but a 
     copy of the waiver must accompany the estimate and remain as 
     an addendum to the bill of lading.
       This section also provides definitions of binding, and non-
     binding, estimates. The binding estimate guarantees the total 
     cost of the move based upon the quantities and services shown 
     on the estimate.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7404.
       This section requires that, at the time a written estimate 
     is provided, the carrier must provide the shipper a copy of 
     DOT's pamphlet ``Ready to Move?''. Further, before a contract 
     for service is executed, the carrier must provide the shipper 
     a copy of DOT's booklet ``Your Rights and Responsibilities 
     When You Move''. The written estimate may be either binding 
     or nonbinding, and must be based on a visual inspection of 
     the household goods if they are located within a 50 mile 
     radius of the location of the carrier's household goods agent 
     preparing the estimate.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference combines the House and Senate approach for 
     the writing requirement and estimates. The Conference also 
     adopts the Senate approach of providing education material to 
     shippers and potential shippers.


  sec. 4206. enforcement of regulations related to transportation of 
                            household goods

     House Bill
       Sec. 4201.
       This section confers authority to a State attorney General 
     of any state to bring a civil action on behalf of its 
     residents in an appropriate district court of the United 
     States to compel a motor carrier to relinquish possession of 
     a household goods shipment or to pay a civil penalty assessed 
     under section 14915.
       For purposes of bringing any civil action under this 
     section, nothing in this section shall prevent a State 
     Attorney General from exercising the powers conferred on the 
     Attorney General by the laws of such State to conduct 
     investigations or to administer oaths or to compel the 
     attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary and 
     other evidence.
       Whenever a civil action has been instituted on a defendant 
     by, or on behalf of, the Secretary for violation of any 
     provision specified in this section, a State may not 
     institute a civil action under this section. A civil action 
     under this section may be brought in the district in which 
     the defendant is found, resides, or transacts business or 
     whenever venue is proper under section 1391 of title 28.
       This section allows State attorneys general to pursue civil 
     penalties in any appropriate district court of the United 
     States in cases where a ``rogue mover'' committed repeated 
     violations of holding household goods hostage. This ability 
     to enforce Federal law by State officials will be a huge step 
     towards improving the consumer protection that has been 
     lacking since the termination of the ICC, and will help 
     augment the limited Federal resources currently available. 
     Although, this additional power may be seen by some as an 
     infringement on the long-standing ``Carmack'' amendment, the 
     Committee was careful not to touch upon any more than was 
     necessary to ensure proper enforcement at the State level.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7407.
       This section allows a State authority that regulates the 
     intrastate movement of household goods to enforce Federal 
     laws and regulations with respect to the transportation of 
     household goods in interstate commerce. Fines or penalties 
     imposed as a result of State enforcement of Federal law would 
     accrue to the State. A State attorney general would be 
     authorized to bring a civil action in Federal court when the 
     attorney general believes the interests of the residents of 
     the State are being threatened by a carrier or broker. The 
     State would be required to give the DOT or the STB written 
     notice when an action is about to be filed. The DOT or the 
     STB would be authorized to intervene in the action and file 
     petitions for appeal. The venue for a civil action would be 
     the judicial district where the carrier or broker operates, 
     or where the carrier or broker is authorized to provide 
     transportation, or where the defendant is found. Consistent 
     with current law, nothing prohibits States from prosecuting 
     for violations of a State criminal statute. Application of 
     these provisions are limited to individual shippers, as 
     defined in this section.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate approach, except the 
     concept of substituting the Secretary of the Department of 
     Transportation for the State in Federal Court.


  SEC. 4207. LIABILITY OF CARRIERS UNDER RECEIPTS AND BILLS OF LADING

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7405.
       This section would change the standard liability for loss 
     and damage to full value protection, defined as the 
     replacement cost in the event of loss or damage up to the 
     pre-declared total value of the shipment. Movers would be 
     allowed to offer ``released rates'' only if the shipper opts 
     out, in writing, of full value protection.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate approach.


                  SEC. 4208. ARBITRATION REQUIREMENTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4202.
       This section requires household goods carriers to offer 
     shippers arbitration on all matters related to loss and 
     damage, including disputes about charges. This section also 
     increases the threshold for binding arbitration from $5,000 
     to $10,000. These two changes will provide the consumer with 
     more options for settling disputes when they arise.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7406.
       This section requires movers to offer shippers arbitration 
     and raises the threshold for bidding arbitration from the 
     current $5,000 to $10,000. Within 18 months following 
     enactment, the Secretary is required to complete a review of 
     the results and effectiveness of arbitration programs and 
     submit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure. In preparing the 
     review, the Secretary is required to provide an opportunity 
     for public comment. The purpose is to investigate whether 
     arbitrators are truly independent of both parties involved in 
     a dispute.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House approach.


  SEC. 4209. CIVIL PENALTIES RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD GOODS BROKERS AND 
                      UNAUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 4203.
       This section creates civil penalties for household goods 
     brokers who provide estimates prior to entering into a 
     contract with a household goods mover. This section also 
     creates a civil penalty for anyone who transports household 
     goods in interstate commerce without having the authority to 
     conduct that activity.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7412.
       This section makes a broker liable for a civil penalty of 
     at least $10,000 if the broker is found to have made a cost 
     estimate for a carrier to transport household goods without 
     first entering into an agreement with the carrier to provide 
     the service. Any person found to have provided the 
     transportation of household goods or broker services without 
     being registered to provide these services would be liable 
     for a civil penalty of at least $25,000.

[[Page 18817]]


     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House approach.


        SEC. 4210. PENALTIES FOR HOLDING HOUSEHOLD GOODS HOSTAGE

     House Bill
       Sec. 4204.
       This section creates civil penalties for anyone who holds a 
     person's household goods hostage once full payment (up to 110 
     percent of the estimate) has been made. The civil penalty for 
     holding household goods hostage shall not be less than 
     $10,000, and if the person holding the goods hostage is a 
     motor carrier, the carrier's operating authority will be 
     suspended for 6 months.
       This legislation codifies existing regulations that require 
     a carrier to give up possession of a household goods shipment 
     provided the shipper pays the mover 100 percent of a binding 
     estimate of the charges, or 110 percent of a non-binding 
     estimate of the charges.
       One of the most important parts of Subtitle B of Title IV, 
     is the new definition and penalties for the practice of 
     holding household goods hostage. This situation arises when a 
     household goods motor carrier informs the shipper that the 
     charges for shipping or unloading the shipper's possessions 
     have doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled, and the only way 
     the carrier will unload the goods is upon payment of these 
     higher charges. These actions, conducted primarily by ``rogue 
     movers,'' have gone largely unchecked in recent years. With 
     the addition of civil penalties, Federal and State 
     enforcement personnel have tremendous powers to prosecute 
     these individuals.
       Sec. 4214.
       This section creates a criminal penalty for a household 
     goods motor carrier who knowingly and willfully holds 
     household goods hostage by falsifying documents or demanding 
     payment of charges for services that were not performed or 
     were not necessary.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7413.
       The section defines the term ``failed to give up possession 
     of household goods'' as willfully refusing to relinquish 
     possession of a shipment of household goods for which the 
     shipper has tendered payment described in 49 U.S.C. 13707. A 
     carrier violating this provision is subject to a civil 
     penalty of at least $10,000, for every day the shipment is 
     held hostage constituting a separate violation, as well as a 
     twelve to thirty-six month suspension of the carrier's DOT 
     registration. A carrier convicted of holding household goods 
     hostage by falsifying documents or demanding payment for 
     charges not performed is subject to a fine under Title 18, 
     imprisonment up to five years, or both.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts portions of both bills' penalty 
     structure. The Conference agrees to a civil penalty of 
     $10,000 per violation, with a separate violation for each day 
     the violation occurs. The Conference also adopts the Senate 
     position on registration requirements. The Conference adopts 
     the Senate definition of ``failure to give up possession of 
     household goods'' and the criminal penalty language, with the 
     House criminal penalty of not more than two years.


              SEC. 4211. CONSUMER HANDBOOK ON DOT WEB SITE

     House Bill
       Sec. 4206.
       This section requires the Secretary to publish a handbook 
     about consumer's rights in readily understandable language 
     and display it prominently on the DOT website.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House approach.


        SEC. 4212. RELEASE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS BROKER INFORMATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 4207.
       This section requires the Secretary to modify the 
     regulations to require household goods brokers to provide 
     shippers, or potential shippers, with information about the 
     motor carriers the broker uses, the broker's DOT 
     identification number, the general information handbook, and 
     a statement that the broker is not a motor carrier.
       The Committee intends to deter the current practice of some 
     brokers who advertise over the Internet, providing a low 
     estimate without seeing the items to be shipped, then trying 
     to find a carrier to transport the household goods without 
     regard to the rate the broker quoted the shipper.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7409.
       Within one year after the date of enactment, the Secretary 
     is required to modify regulations to require household goods 
     motor carriers and brokers to maintain a website that 
     displays their DOT assigned number and the DOT publication 
     entitled ``Your Rights and Responsibilities When You Move''. 
     Brokers also have to provide a list of all motor carriers 
     used by the broker and a statement that the broker is not a 
     motor carrier.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House approach.


SEC. 4213. WORKING GROUP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES TO 
                    ENHANCE FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4205.
       This section requires the Secretary to create a working 
     group of State attorney generals, State consumer protection 
     administrators and Federal and local law enforcement 
     officials for the purpose of developing uniform enforcement 
     procedures with respect to interstate transportation of 
     household goods. Also, this working group is exempted from 
     the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7408.
       This section requires the Secretary to establish a working 
     group of State Attorneys General, State authorities that 
     regulate the movement of household goods, and Federal and 
     local law enforcement officials to develop practices and 
     procedures to enhance the Federal-State partnership in 
     enforcement efforts, exchange of information, and 
     coordination of enforcement efforts, as well as to make 
     recommendations for legislative and regulatory changes. The 
     working group is required to consult with industries involved 
     in the transportation of household goods, the public, and 
     other interested parties.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House approach as modified with 
     Senate language to include the public and other interested 
     parties in the consultation.


               SEC. 4214. CONSUMER COMPLAINT INFORMATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 4208.
       This section requires the Secretary to establish a system 
     for logging consumer complaints about household goods movers 
     in a database accessible to the public. This section also 
     requires the Secretary to establish a way for carriers to 
     correct any incorrect information on the database. The 
     Secretary is encouraged to use this information when 
     determining which carriers should be the subject of a 
     commercial investigation.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7410.
       This section directs the Secretary to establish a publicly 
     accessible database of complaints related to motor carrier 
     transportation of household goods. Complaints must be 
     forwarded to the carrier involved, and the carrier is 
     afforded an opportunity to challenge the information in the 
     database. The Secretary is required to submit an annual 
     report detailing the complaints that were filed and logged 
     over that year.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House approach along with the 
     Senate concept of providing public access to the complaint 
     database.


               SEC. 4215. REVIEW OF LIABILITY OF CARRIERS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4209.
       This section directs the Secretary to review current 
     regulatory requirements regarding insurance coverage provided 
     by household goods motor carriers to shippers. The review 
     should determine whether the current regulations provide 
     adequate protection, whether the shipper should purchase 
     insurance as opposed to the carrier, and whether there are 
     abuses of the current regulations that leave shippers 
     unprotected.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7411.
       Within one year after the date of enactment, the STB is 
     required to complete a review of the Federal regulations 
     regarding the level of liability protection provided by 
     carriers to determine if current regulations provide adequate 
     protection; whether shippers benefit from purchasing 
     supplemental insurance coverage; and whether shippers are 
     sometimes left unprotected. The STB also is required to make 
     recommendations as to whether the current limitations on 
     liability, known as the ``Carmack Amendment'', should be 
     modified with respect to household goods movers.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate approach as modified to 
     strike the review of the ``Carmack Amendment''.


  SEC. 4216. APPLICATION OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS TO CERTAIN 
                        HOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIERS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4211.
       This section requires the GAO to conduct a study of the 
     impact on motor carriers and shippers of household goods if 
     State Attorneys General and consumer protection agencies were 
     allowed to enforce their State consumer protection laws and 
     regulations with respect to interstate transportation of 
     household goods. The GAO shall provide a report to Congress 
     on the results of this study within 18 months after the date 
     of enactment.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7414.
       Not later than one year after the date of enactment, the 
     Secretary is required to report to Congress on the progress 
     made in implementing the provisions of this title.

[[Page 18818]]


     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House approach.

          Subtitle C--Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005


                         SEC. 4301. SHORT TITLE

     House Bill
       No provision.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7131.
       The subtitle may be cited as the ``Unified Carrier 
     Registration Act of 2005''.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate provision.


                 SEC. 4302. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS

     House Bill
       No provision.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7132.
       The section would clarify that the subtitle is not intended 
     to prohibit a State from enacting or enforcing any law or 
     regulation with respect to motor carriers that is not 
     otherwise prohibited by law.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate provision.


       SEC. 4303. INCLUSION OF MOTOR PRIVATE AND EXEMPT CARRIERS

     House Bill
       No provision.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7133.
       This section would amend 49 U.S.C. 13905 to define 
     ``registration'' for purposes of the UCRS and the UCRS Plan 
     and Agreement as the filing by a carrier of a MCS Form 150 to 
     obtain a DOT identification number. Registration includes 
     those carriers who have obtained operating authority from the 
     FMCSA, as well as those carriers exempt from the provisions 
     of that chapter, such as intermodal carriers, transporters of 
     agricultural products, private carriers, freight forwarders, 
     brokers, and leasing companies. Although not affecting the 
     levels or types of insurance required by private or for-hire 
     carriers, the section extends the requirement to file 
     evidence of financial responsibility in the amounts currently 
     required by 49 U.S.C. 31138 and 31139 to all ''registered'' 
     carriers. It does not affect the levels or types of insurance 
     required by registered carriers. The section also would 
     require the Secretary to prescribe the form of evidence that 
     will be required of motor private carriers.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate provision.


             SEC. 4304. UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION SYSTEM

     House Bill
       Sec. 4117.
       This section repeals the single state registration system 
     and requires FMCSA to complete a rule-making for an on-line 
     registration system to replace the old registration system 
     originally administered by the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission. This rule- making must be completed within one 
     year.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7134.
       This section would direct the Secretary, in cooperation 
     with States and industry representatives, to develop a 
     single, on-line system, within one year following enactment, 
     containing all records of motor carriers registered with DOT, 
     including their safety data, DOT identification number (which 
     will be replacing the MC number for all motor carriers), 
     evidence of financial responsibility, and the service of 
     process agents. Federal and State agencies, carriers, 
     shippers and the public would have access to the system. The 
     UCRS would replace the SSRS. The section also would require 
     the Secretary to adopt procedures enabling a carrier to 
     correct any erroneous data contained anywhere in the UCRS and 
     sets the parameters for a fee system with respect to the 
     filing and retrieval of information from the UCRS. The fee 
     for a new registrant would be required as nearly as possible 
     to cover the costs of processing the registration and 
     conducting the safety audit or examination, if required, but 
     could not exceed $300. The fee for filing evidence of 
     financial responsibility could not exceed $10 per filing.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate provision.


          SEC. 4305. REGISTRATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS BY STATES

     House Bill
       No provision.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7135.
       The section would make it an unreasonable burden on 
     interstate commerce for any State or political subdivision to 
     impose, enact, or enforce any requirement or levy any fee on 
     for-hire and private interstate motor carriers for: (1) 
     registering the carrier's interstate operations with a State, 
     (2) filing evidence of financial responsibility with a State, 
     (3) filing the name of the local agent for service of process 
     with a State, or (4) renewing intrastate authority, insurance 
     filings, or other filing requirements if the carrier is 
     registered with FMCSA and in compliance with other applicable 
     State laws. Item (4) would not apply to certain carrier 
     operations that are specifically exempted from preemption 
     provisions, such as purely intrastate bus operations, 
     intrastate transportation of household goods, non-consensual 
     towing, and the transportation of waste and recyclables. The 
     section would preserve the exemption for interstate carriers 
     from State sales taxes and other fees if a State provides 
     such an exemption to intrastate carriers. The section would 
     not limit State fuel taxes or vehicle registration fees. The 
     section also would establish a 15-member Board of Directors 
     comprised of the Secretary of Transportation, representatives 
     of participating States, and representatives of the trucking 
     industry to govern the new program. The Board would be 
     required to develop the rules and regulations that will 
     govern UCRS and submit the rules and regulations to the 
     Secretary for approval. States wishing to participate in UCRS 
     would be required to submit a plan to the Secretary, within 
     three years following enactment, identifying the State agency 
     that will administer UCRS and containing assurances that an 
     amount at least equal to the revenue derived from UCRS will 
     be devoted to motor carrier safety. States declining to 
     participate would lose the right to share in UCRS revenues. 
     UCRS fees would be determined by the UCRS Board of Directors 
     with the approval of the Secretary and be based on the size 
     of a carrier's commercial vehicle fleet. At least four, but 
     no more than six, ranges of fleet size could be established 
     by the Board for purposes of the fee structure. Brokers, non-
     vehicle operating freight forwarders, and leasing companies 
     would pay the fee established for smallest carrier fleet. The 
     level of fees could be adjusted if the revenues are deficient 
     or exceed those needed to cover the systems cost and the 
     revenues to which the States are entitled. Fees would be paid 
     to the carrier's base-State, generally the State in which the 
     carrier maintains its principal place of business. States 
     that currently participate in the SSRS and choose to 
     participate in UCRS would be guaranteed the revenues they 
     derived from SSRS during the last fiscal year ending prior to 
     enactment of this Act. States that did not participate in 
     SSRS but opt to join UCRS would be entitled to annual 
     revenues of not more than $500,000. The UCRS Board of 
     Directors would determine the amount of UCRS revenues to 
     which a State is entitled, with the approval of the 
     Secretary. Each participating State would be entitled to 
     retain funds equivalent to the revenues to which it is 
     entitled. Excess funds would be deposited in a designated 
     repository for distribution on a pro rata basis to those 
     States which do not collect the full amount of the revenues 
     to which they are entitled. Remaining funds would be used to 
     offset the cost of the operation of UCRS. Any remaining funds 
     after distribution to the States and payment of costs would 
     be held in the repository and the next year's fees would be 
     reduced accordingly. The section would allow the Secretary to 
     request the Attorney General to bring a civil action to 
     enforce the terms of the Plan and Agreement, including 
     injunctive relief. States could impose fines and other 
     penalties against any party that does not submit the required 
     information or pay the required fees. States would be 
     prohibited from requiring a carrier from having any indicia 
     or other document as evidence of compliance. Finally, the 
     section would allow a State to elect to apply the provision 
     of UCRS to carriers that operate solely in intrastate 
     commerce.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


                 SEC. 4306. IDENTIFICATION OF VEHICLES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7136.
       Section 7136 would prohibit a State or political 
     subdivision from requiring a motor carrier, motor private 
     carrier, or freight forwarder to display any additional form 
     of identification on or in a commercial vehicle. The 
     prohibition would not apply to credentials required under the 
     International Registration Plan or the International Fuel Tax 
     Agreement, or in connection with Federal hazardous materials 
     regulations or Federal vehicle inspection standards.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


       SEC. 4307. USE OF UCR AGREEMENT REVENUES AS MATCHING FUNDS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7137.
       UCRS revenues may be used to meet a State's match for MCSAP 
     funds.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate provision.


                         SEC. 4308. REGULATIONS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.

[[Page 18819]]


     Senate Bill
       This section allows the Secretary to establish regulations 
     to carry out this subtitle.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate approach.

                           TITLE V--RESEARCH

                          Subtitle A--Funding


               sec. 5101. authorization of appropriations

     House Bill
       Sec. 5101.
       This section provides authorizations for the programs in 
     the Research Title. The Surface Transportation Research 
     Program and the Technology Deployment program, which were 
     separate programs in the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century (TEA 21), are now merged into one program--the 
     Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment 
     Program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2001.
       This section authorizes sums out of the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) for Surface 
     Transportation Research, the Surface Transportation-
     Environmental Cooperative Research Program, Training and 
     Education, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, ITS 
     Standards, Research, Operational Tests and Development, and 
     University Transportation Centers. It provides for the period 
     of availability of funds for obligation and the Federal share 
     of project cost.
     Conference Substitute
       This section reauthorizes programs in the Research title 
     including the Surface Transportation Research, Development, 
     and Deployment Program; Training and Education; Bureau of 
     Transportation Statistics; University Transportation 
     Research; and ITS Research.


                     sec. 5102. obligation ceiling

     House Bill
       Sec. 5102.
       This section establishes the obligation ceiling for fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2009.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2002.
       This section sets limits on obligations for spending under 
     Title II for Transportation Research.
     Conference Substitute
       This section sets the obligation ceiling for spending under 
     this Title.


                          sec. 5103. findings

     House Bill
       Sec. 5103.
       This section includes congressional findings related to the 
     importance of transportation research and development.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.

            Subtitle B--Research, Technology, and Education


             sec. 5201. research, technology and education

     House Bill
       Sec. 5201.
       This section establishes basic principles for 
     transportation research, including the federal responsibility 
     and role, stakeholder input, competition, and performance 
     review. This section provides the Secretary with authority to 
     enter into cooperative agreements and establishes a mechanism 
     to facilitate ``pooled funding'' of projects when several 
     states wish to fund a research project of common interest to 
     those states.
       One of the principles governing research and technology 
     investments directs that the Federal highway research program 
     would become more oriented toward exploratory advanced 
     research. The 20-year Long-Term Pavement Performance Program, 
     initiated in the late 1980's will be continued to its 
     conclusion in 2009. The role and function of the Turner-
     Fairbank Highway Research Center is codified in law.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 502.
       This subsection authorizes the Secretary to carry out 
     research, development, testing, and technology transfer 
     activities. The Secretary may, independently or in 
     cooperation with others, carry out activities in research, 
     development, and technology transfer activities. In addition, 
     the Secretary may test, develop, or assist in testing and 
     developing any material, invention, patented article, or 
     process. Research activities must be consistent with the 
     strategic plan required under section 508. All parties 
     entering into contracts, cooperative agreements, or other 
     transactions with the Secretary to perform research or 
     provide technical assistance shall be selected on a 
     competitive basis and on the basis of a peer review. The 
     Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under a 
     cooperative research and development agreement shall not 
     exceed 50 percent, unless otherwise approved by the 
     Secretary.
       The subsection establishes a new Advanced Long-Term 
     Research program. Also established are a high-performance 
     concrete bridge research program, a high-performing steel 
     bridge program, and a biobased transportation research 
     program. The high-performance concrete bridge research 
     program includes funding to carry out demonstration projects 
     involving the use of ultra-high performance concrete with 
     ductility. The Seismic Research Program, Long-Term Pavement 
     Performance Program (LTPP), and the Infrastructure Investment 
     Needs Report are continued. The subsection concludes the LTPP 
     on September 30, 2009. The due dates for the infrastructure 
     needs report is changed from January 31 to July 31. This 
     subsection also requires the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security, to develop a 5-year 
     strategic plan for research and technology transfer and 
     deployment activities pertaining to the security aspects of 
     highway infrastructure and operations aspects.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications and additions from the Senate provision.
       Congress encourages the Department to use the Volpe Center 
     as a source for transportation research and development and 
     related activities. The Volpe Center is uniquely positioned 
     to assist Executive Branch agencies in fulfilling 
     transportation research and development initiatives, solving 
     challenges related to integrating transportation and homeland 
     security issues and achieving the letter and intent of 
     legislative mandates associated with the continued 
     authorization of Departmental activities.


  sec. 5202. long-term bridge performance program; innovative bridge 
                    research and deployment program

     House Bill
       Sec. 5202.
       This section establishes a 20-year Long-Term Bridge 
     Performance Program, modeled on the Long-Term Pavement 
     Performance Program. An Innovative Bridge Research and 
     Deployment program to demonstrate innovative designs and 
     construction methods for the construction, repair and 
     rehabilitation of bridges is established.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with some 
     modifications and additions, including steel bridge testing. 
     Programs under Senate section 2101, including high-
     performance steel bridge research and technology transfer 
     program are added to the provision.


                    sec. 5203. technology deployment

     House Bill
       Sec. 5204.
       This section establishes an Innovative Pavement Research 
     and Deployment program to demonstrate innovative pavement 
     technologies, practices, and performance. The goals of this 
     program include new, cost-effective designs to extend 
     pavement life and performance, and the reduction of both 
     initial cost and life-cycle cost of pavements. A Safety 
     Innovation Deployment Program is established to foster the 
     deployment and evaluation of safety technologies and 
     innovations at State and local levels.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 503.
       This subsection amends the Technology Deployment 
     Initiatives and Partnerships Program and the Innovative 
     Bridge Research and Construction Program under section 503, 
     Title 23, USC. The Technology Application Initiatives and 
     Partnerships Program is established to accelerate the 
     transportation community's adoption of innovative 
     technologies. As amended, the focus on bridge structures 
     under the Innovative Surface Transportation Infrastructure 
     Research and Construction Program is expanded to include all 
     highway structures.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with some 
     modifications. Alternative materials, asphalt, and alkali 
     silica reactivity (ASR) authorized under Senate section 2001 
     are added to this section. Project and programs related to 
     ASR should further development and deployment of techniques 
     to prevent and mitigate alkali silica reactivity, including 
     lithium based techniques, and assist states in inventorying 
     existing structures for ASR.
       The Conference also provides for research on wood composite 
     materials in multi-modal transportation facilities.


                   sec. 5204. training and education

     House Bill
       Sec. 5205.
       The National Highway Institute--the training office of the 
     Federal Highway Administration--is continued and the general 
     topics for courses that it develops and administers are 
     specified. The Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) is 
     reauthorized. The federal share for State LTAP grant 
     recipients is up to 50 percent and the share for tribal 
     technical assistance centers is 100 percent. Federal law is 
     revised to allow states

[[Page 18820]]

     to spend NHS, IM, STP, CMAQ, and Bridge funds for 
     transportation workforce development, training, and 
     education. The federal share is 100 percent for the workforce 
     development activities. This section also authorizes the 
     Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education 
     program.
       Sec. 5206.
       This section establishes a Freight Planning Capacity 
     Building Program to improve the capabilities of Metropolitan 
     Planning Organizations (MPOs) and other planning agencies in 
     transportation planning for freight.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 504.
       Section 504(a)(3) of title 23 is modified to emphasize 
     asset management and the application of emerging technologies 
     as two areas in which the Institute shall develop courses. 
     The section identifies additional courses to be developed by 
     the Institute, in consultation with state departments of 
     transportation and the American Association of State Highway 
     and Transportation Officials. Also included is the 
     requirement for the Institute to periodically review courses 
     and to make revisions or cease to offer courses as necessary. 
     The cost for course development is now explicitly stated as 
     part of the cost of training and education to be paid by a 
     private entity or person, unless otherwise determined by the 
     Secretary.
       Section 504(a)(7) of title 23 is modified by removing the 
     limitation on the amount of fees that the Institute can 
     collect in any fiscal year. Funds made available to carry out 
     this section may now be combined with or held separately from 
     fees collected under memoranda of understanding, regional 
     compacts, and other similar agreements, in addition to being 
     combined with or held separately from fees collected under 
     this section as previously allowed.
       Changes to the Local Technical Assistance Program add 
     incident response and operations as areas in which the 
     Secretary can assist transportation agencies and governments 
     under grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts. Where 
     urbanized areas are cited, the qualifying definition of 
     population sizes between 50,000 and 100,000 is no longer 
     included. Finally, ``regional cooperation'' is promoted under 
     Section 504(2)(C) as an area for assisting urban 
     transportation agencies.
       The Dwight David Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship 
     Program is continued to allow the Secretary to make grants 
     for research fellowships for the purpose of attracting 
     qualified students to the field of transportation.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with some 
     modifications to include Senate language on LTAP, 
     ``Courses,'' and definitions.


                 sec. 5205. state planning and research

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 505.
       This subsection amends the program of funding to States for 
     research, development, and technology transfer activities. 
     The section now provides for the sliding scale to be 
     applicable to the Federal share of the cost of a project 
     (i.e., 80% unless determined otherwise by the Secretary). 
     This subsection adds that State Planning and Research (SPR) 
     funds may be used for the purposes authorized under the 
     International Highway Transportation Outreach Program of 
     section 506.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


    sec. 5206. international highway transportation outreach program

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 506.
       The International Highway Transportation Outreach Program 
     under section 506, title 23 USC is continued. A new provision 
     requires that for each fiscal year, the Secretary submits a 
     report to Congress that describes the destinations and costs 
     of international travel conducted in carrying out activities 
     under this program.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


sec. 5207. surface transportation environment and planning cooperative 
                            research program

     House Bill
       Sec. 5203.
       This section establishes a new research program to study 
     the interaction between transportation and the environment. 
     The program will be managed and administered by the National 
     Academy of Sciences. An Advisory Committee, appointed by the 
     Secretary, and with a balanced membership representing 
     transportation and environmental perspectives, will recommend 
     the national research agenda for this program.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 507.
       The Surface Transportation-Environment Cooperative Research 
     Program under title 23 is modified to include a provision for 
     the Secretary to administer the program and sharpen the focus 
     of the research through stakeholder input via workshops, 
     symposia, and expert panel.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision. The Conference 
     notes the need to understand the complex relationship between 
     surface transportation and the environment.


 sec. 5208. transportation research and development strategic planning

     House Bill
       Sec. 5213.
       This section directs the Secretary to develop a five-year 
     strategic plan for transportation research and development. 
     The plan will describe the primary purposes of the 
     transportation research and development program and describe 
     the topic areas the Department intends to pursue to 
     accomplish each purpose.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 508.
       The subsection continues the requirement of the Secretary 
     to establish a strategic planning process for research and 
     adds a provision for establishing a Surface Transportation 
     Research Technology Advisory Committee to provide program 
     advice to the Secretary.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


sec. 5209. national cooperative freight transportation research program

     House Bill
       Sec. 5208.
       The National Academy of Sciences will manage and administer 
     a freight transportation research program. The program's 
     purpose is to discover improved ways to provide surface 
     transportation mobility for freight movement. An Advisory 
     Committee will be appointed by the Academy and will include a 
     representative cross-section of freight stakeholders. The 
     Advisory Committee is directed to recommend a national 
     research agenda for this program.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


          sec. 5210. future strategic highway research program

     House Bill
       Sec. 5209.
       This section establishes the Future Strategic Highway 
     Research Program (F-SHRP), which is to be carried out by the 
     National Academy of Sciences. F-SHRP is modeled on the 
     Strategic Highway Research Program that was established by 
     Congress in 1987. TEA 21 directed a study be conducted to 
     determine the research agenda for a new strategic highway 
     research program. F-SHRP will carry out the recommendations 
     made by the study and will focus on four specific research 
     areas--renewal of aging highway infrastructure, human factors 
     related to highway safety, reducing highway congestion, and 
     planning and designing new highway capacity. Projects and 
     researchers will be selected to conduct research for the 
     program on the basis of merit and open solicitation of 
     proposals.
       Sec. 5214.
       This section makes claims against the National Academy of 
     Sciences, for activities conducted under 510 U.S.C. 23, 
     subject to the same limitations and exceptions applicable to 
     claims against the United States.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 509.
       This subsection establishes a new strategic highway program 
     based on the Future Strategic Highway Research Program (F-
     SHRP) recommended in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic 
     Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, 
     Improving Quality of Lives. Under this program, the National 
     Research Council shall establish and carry out the strategic 
     highway program. The program shall consider, at a minimum, 
     the results of studies relating to the implementation of the 
     Strategic Highway Safety Plan prepared by the American 
     Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 
     (AASHTO). In administering the program, the National Research 
     Council shall acquire a qualified, permanent core staff, and 
     ensure that identified stakeholders are involved in the 
     program.
       Before October 1, 2007, the Secretary is required to enter 
     into a contract with the TRB for completing a report on 
     implementing results of the new strategic highway program. 
     The Secretary shall submit the report to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


        SEC. 5211. MULTISTATE CORRIDOR OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.

[[Page 18821]]


     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 511.
       This subsection provides for grants to the Interstate Route 
     I-95 corridor coalition for intelligent transportation system 
     management and operations.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.

         Subtitle C--Intelligent Transportation System Research


                  SEC. 5301. NATIONAL ITS PROGRAM PLAN

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2201. Subsection 525.
       This subsection continues the requirement for the Secretary 
     to develop a National Program Plan for ITS. The National ITS 
     program addresses program goals, objectives, and milestones, 
     and must be maintained and updated as necessary and submitted 
     to Congress as part of the Surface Transportation Research 
     Strategic Plan.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                        SEC. 5302. USE OF FUNDS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2201. Subsection 529.
       This subsection authorizes funding for ITS outreach 
     materials and items.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with a reduction 
     in the authorized amount.


                     SEC. 5303. GOALS AND PURPOSES

     House Bill
       Sec. 5602.
       The goals and purposes of the Intelligent Transportation 
     Systems Program are articulated. While the wording is 
     different from TEA 21, the substance is similar.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2102. Subsection 522.
       This subsection modifies the goals and purposes of the ITS 
     program. New goals are added to reflect the expanded 
     interests for the program. Other modifications reflect 
     changes in emphasis for a number of program activities.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                 SEC. 5304. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 5606.
       This section states that funds made available in this 
     subtitle shall be used for ITS infrastructure and not for 
     conventional highway and transit infrastructure.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


            SEC. 5305. GENERAL AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 5603.
       This section grants the Secretary authority to use an 
     advisory committee to carry out this subtitle.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2201. Subsection 524.
       This subsection makes changes to general authorities and 
     requirements under TEA-21 that provide ITS program scope, 
     policy, and the requirements of the Secretary. The Secretary 
     is required to consult with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security along with other Federal officials. This subsection 
     adds requirements for the program advisory committee 
     authorized by section 5204(h) of TEA-21, and also includes 
     the amount of funding available for the committee. Also, the 
     Secretary is required to issue revised guidelines and 
     requirements for evaluating operational test and other 
     projects.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                  SEC. 5306. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 5605.
       The Secretary is directed to carry out a comprehensive 
     Intelligent Transportation Systems research, development, and 
     operational test program with priority given to enhancing 
     mobility and productivity, enhancing safety, and integrating 
     vehicle and infrastructure technologies.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2102. Subsection 528.
       This subsection continues ITS research and development 
     program authorized under TEA-21. Under this subsection, the 
     types of projects and activities that receive funding 
     priority are greatly broadened. Changes reflect new focus 
     areas, including activities to support goals for a national 
     5-1-1 traveler information system and reducing metropolitan 
     congestion by 5 percent by 2010.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision, with the 
     inclusion of two items from the Senate priority list.


             SEC. 5307. NATIONAL ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS

     House Bill
       Sec. 5604.
       The Secretary is directed to develop, implement and 
     maintain a national architecture for Intelligent 
     Transportation Systems, as well as the supporting standards 
     and protocols, to promote the widespread use of Intelligent 
     Transportation Systems. The Secretary shall designate a panel 
     of experts to advise the Secretary on ways to expedite 
     development of standards. Any Intelligent Transportation 
     Systems projects that use Highway Trust Fund monies shall 
     conform to the national architecture and applicable 
     standards.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2102. Subsection 526.
       This subsection continues the general requirements and 
     activities related to the national architecture and 
     standards. Changes under this subsection reflect the 
     completion of several requirements specified in TEA-21. These 
     include the report to Congress on critical standards and the 
     provision for a communication spectrum for ITS. Deployment is 
     no longer emphasized as a direct activity of the Secretary. 
     Exceptions to conformity with the national ITS architecture 
     no longer include upgrades or expansions of existing systems, 
     as allowed under TEA-21.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


        SEC. 5308. ROAD WEATHER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 5607.
       This section establishes a program to enhance the 
     development and use of road weather information and 
     technologies.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


        SEC. 5309. CENTERS FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXCELLENCE

     House Bill
       Sec. 5610.
       This section directs the Secretary to establish three 
     centers for surface transportation excellence--including 
     centers for environmental excellence, rural safety, and 
     project finance--and outlines the goals, roles, and 
     administration of the centers.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2103.
       This section establishes five centers for surface 
     transportation excellence in areas of Environmental 
     Excellence, Operations Excellence, Excellence in Surface 
     Transportation Safety, Excellence in Project Finance, and 
     Excellence in Asset Management.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications.


                         SEC. 5310. DEFINITIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 5608.
       This section defines key terms, including ITS, Intelligent 
     Transportation Infrastructure, National Architecture, 
     Standard, and Transportation Systems Management and 
     Operations.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2102.
         Subsection 523.
       This subsection deletes the word `corridor' from terms used 
     in the new subtitle to reflect the deletion of the corridor 
     development program under TEA-21. Terms relating to 
     commercial vehicle operations are moved to the subsection on 
     commercial vehicle systems.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with the addition 
     of ``photonics'' to the ITS definitions.

      Subtitle D--University Transportation Research; Scholarship 
                             Opportunities


         SEC. 5401. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTERS

     House Bill
       Sec. 5301.
       This section provides for national university 
     transportation centers and states that the role of such 
     centers shall be to advance significantly transportation 
     research on critical national transportation issues and to 
     expand the workforce of transportation professionals.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with some 
     modifications. The number of National University 
     Transportation Centers is increased from five to ten.

[[Page 18822]]




             SEC. 5402. UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

     House Bill
       Sec. 5302.
       This section provides for grants to be made to University 
     Transportation Centers (UTCs). Funding is available to ten 
     Regional University Transportation Centers, ten Tier I 
     Centers, and ten Tier II Centers. The purpose of UTCs is to 
     significantly advance the state-of-the-art in transportation 
     research and expand the workforce of transportation 
     professionals through research, education and technology 
     transfer. Regional UTCs, Tier I Centers, and Tier II Centers 
     will be subject to competitive selection every four years and 
     all institutions must meet eligibility criteria to qualify 
     for competition. The research and education activities of 
     each Center must support a national strategy for surface 
     transportation research. Each Center must match each dollar 
     of federal grant funds with one dollar of local funds.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 510.
       This subsection modifies the existing university 
     transportation research program. Awards are increased from 
     thirty three (33) to forty (40) eligible institutions. The 
     subsection continues the establishment of one (1) regional 
     center at institutions in each of the ten (10) Federal 
     regions. A new provision allows locating no more than one 
     center (or one lead university in a consortia) in any State. 
     Regional centers are selected based on proposals requested by 
     the Secretary; the section provides for naming the remaining 
     institutions. All grantees must otherwise meet specified 
     requirements that include a 6-year program plan and annual 
     report to the Secretary on projects and activities. A peer 
     review is required for reports on research under this 
     program. The Secretary must coordinate activities of the 
     centers and operate a clearinghouse for the dissemination of 
     results from activities. Restrictions have been placed on the 
     amount of funds available to centers that can be used for 
     faculty positions, laboratory facilities, student 
     internships, and administration.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with some 
     modifications. There will be twenty-two strategically 
     designated Tier II Centers as well as updated competition 
     dates for Regional and Tier I Centers.

                       Subtitle E--Other Programs

     SEC. 5501. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 
                   SYSTEM PROJECT

     House Bill
       Sec. 5210.
       Funding is provided over two years to develop a software 
     system that will link driver licensing, vehicle registration, 
     roadway inventory, and motor carrier databases. The purpose 
     of this system is to more easily identify the cause of 
     accidents, injuries, and fatalities, so that appropriate 
     countermeasures can be developed.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


SEC. 5502. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION RELIEF SOLUTIONS RESEARCH 
                               INITIATIVE

     House Bill
       Sec. 5211.
       Two independent research programs are established to assist 
     State DOTs and MPOs in measuring and addressing surface 
     transportation congestion problems. These research programs 
     will focus on the effectiveness of Congestion Management 
     Systems and identify the best methods for acquiring and 
     reporting congestion information. Funding is included for 
     technical assistance and training.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


               sec. 5503. motor carrier efficiency study

     House Bill
       Sec. 5212.
       This section provides funding to study the use of wireless 
     technology to improve the safety and productivity of motor 
     carrier freight transportation. The study will assess use of 
     wireless technologies in fuel monitoring and management, 
     Radio Frequency Identification technology, electronic 
     manifest systems, and cargo theft prevention.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


     SEC. 5504. CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION ADVANCEMENT AND REGIONAL 
                              DEVELOPMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 5215.
       This section establishes a Center for Transportation 
     Advancement and Regional Development to assist, through 
     training and research, the development of rural and small 
     metropolitan transportation systems.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


      SEC. 5505. TRANSPORTATION SCHOLARSHIP OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 5303.
       This section authorizes the Secretary to establish a 
     scholarship program to attract qualified students for 
     transportation-related critical jobs.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House provision.


 SEC. 5506. COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING PRODUCTS AND SPATIAL INFORMATION 
                              TECHNOLOGIES

     House Bill
       Sec. 5402.
       This section directs the Secretary, in cooperation with 
     NASA and a consortium of university research centers, to 
     carry out a program to validate commercial remote sensing 
     products and spatial information technologies for application 
     to transportation infrastructure.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications.


       SEC. 5507. RURAL INTERSTATE CORRIDOR COMMUNICATIONS STUDY

     House Bill
       Sec. 5609.
       This section provides funding for a study on the 
     feasibility of installing fiber optic cabling and wireless 
     communication infrastructure along Interstate route corridors 
     for improved communications services to rural communities.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable section in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


   SEC. 5508. TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND DEMONSTRATION 
                                PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 5403.
       This section continues the Intelligent Transportation 
     Infrastructure demonstration initiative enacted under section 
     5117 of TEA-21.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2105.
       This section continues the Intelligent Transportation 
     Infrastructure demonstration initiative by authorizing 
     $4,465,409 in funds from the Highway Trust Fund for fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009. The section also exempts ITS project 
     involved under the program that include privately-owned 
     components from State laws that regulate or prohibit 
     commercial activities on highways funded with Federal-aid 
     highways funds.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


                           SEC. 5509. REPEAL

     House Bill
       Sec. 5611.
       The Intelligent Transportation Systems subtitle in TEA 21 
     is repealed and replaced by the sections 5601-5608 described 
     above.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2201. Subsection 529(b).
       The Intelligent Transportation Systems subtitle in TEA 21 
     is repealed and replaced by the sections 5601-5608 described 
     above.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                           SEC. 5510. NOTICE

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2003.
       This section outlines requirements for the Department of 
     Transportation to notify the appropriate committees of 
     Congress should any reprogramming of authorized funds or 
     reorganization take place.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


           SEC. 5511. MOTORCYCLE CRASH CAUSATION STUDY GRANTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 2006.
       The Secretary is required to conduct a study of the causes 
     of motorcycle crashes and to submit a report to Congress on 
     the results of the study not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this legislation.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2104.
       This section provides the Secretary with the authority to 
     issue grants to conduct motorcycle crash causation studies.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.

[[Page 18823]]




       SEC. 5512. ADVANCED TRAVEL FORECASTING PROCEDURES PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 5207.
       TRANSIMS is a state-of-the-art travel forecasting model 
     that will have special utility for large MPOs in areas with 
     air quality problems. Funding grants to states and MPOs will 
     support deployment of this forecasting model.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2101. Subsection 512.
       This subsection continues the deployment of the advanced 
     transportation model known as the ``Transportation Analysis 
     Simulation System.''
       This subsection allocates $893,082 from funds authorized 
     for surface transportation research for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 for the Transportation Analysis Simulation 
     System (TRANSIMS). This subsection ensures that TRANSIMS is 
     further developed for additional applications, that training 
     and technical assistance for the implementation and 
     application of the program is available for States, local 
     governments and transportation planning organizations, that a 
     method is developed to simulate the national transportation 
     infrastructure as a single integrated system, and that 
     funding is provided for the implementation of the TRANSIMS.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications.


                       SEC. 5513. RESEARCH GRANTS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference creates a provision for transportation 
     research grants.


   SEC. 5514. COMPETITION FOR SPECIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF 
                             CULVERT PIPES.

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference creates a provision ensuring States provide 
     for relevant competition.

            Subtitle F--Bureau of Transportation Statistics


             Sec. 5601. Bureau of Transportation Statistics

     House Bill
       Sec. 5501.
       This section provides for the appointment of the Director 
     of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and defines 
     the Director's responsibilities. The National Transportation 
     Library is retained as part of BTS's activities. Several 
     provisions are included on the collection of freight data, 
     including a requirement for mandatory response by 
     corporations to BTS requests for data. Safeguards are 
     provided to prevent disclosure of freight data that can be 
     identified with any corporation or individual. An Advisory 
     Council on Transportation Statistics is established.
       Sec. 5502.
       This section describes uses and limits of reports produced 
     by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 2102.
       This section provides for activities of the Bureau of 
     Transportation Statistics relating to transportation data 
     collection and statistical analysis. The section requires 
     that not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall provide a grant to, or enter 
     into a cooperative agreement or contract with the 
     Transportation Research Board to conduct a study of data 
     collection and statistical analysis efforts. The Board shall 
     submit to the Secretary, the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a final report on the results of the study. 
     The Bureau shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     implement recommendations included in the study. The 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall also conduct a 
     review of the study. Each year, beginning in 2004, the Bureau 
     shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an annual report on 
     progress made in response to the study recommendations.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.

         TITLE VI--TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROJECT DELIVERY


                 SECTION 6001. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

     House Bill
       Sec. 6001.
       This section creates a new chapter 52 in title 49 to 
     address transportation planning and environmental review for 
     transportation projects. Existing planning provisions for the 
     highway (sections 134 and 135 in title 23) and transit 
     programs (sections 5303-5305 in title 49) are combined to 
     form a unified planning title. Minor adjustments are made to 
     eliminate inconsistencies and to reflect updated 
     terminologies and practices.
       The section also extends the update cycle of metropolitan 
     long-range transportation plans from 3 years under current 
     regulation to 4 years. It extends the update cycle of 
     metropolitan transportation improvement programs (TIPs) from 
     2 years under current law to 4 years. It requires MPOs to 
     include in their TIPs projects that are designed to meet the 
     set-aside requirements (for a portion of a state's annual 
     apportionments for NHS, CMAQ, STP, Interstate Maintenance, 
     and Bridge programs) for congestion relief activities as 
     mandated under section 139 of title 23.
       The section similarly extends the update cycle of state 
     transportation improvement programs from 2 years to 4 years. 
     It requires the state transportation improvement program to 
     reflect the priorities for congestion relief activities that 
     are included in the metropolitan TIPs.

                    Subchapter A--General Provisions

     Section 5201. Definitions.
       All transportation planning definitions used throughout 
     chapter 52, title 49 U.S.C. are included in this section.

                 Subchapter B--Transportation Planning

     Section 5211. Policy.
       This section is consistent with section 134 of title 23, 
     United States Code and metropolitan planning provisions in 
     sections 5303 and 5304 of title 49, United States Code.
     Section 5212. Definitions.
       Definitions from section 101(a) of title 23 and section 
     5302 are applicable to this subchapter. In subsection (b) six 
     definitions used in this subchapter are listed. These include 
     metropolitan planning area, metropolitan planning 
     organization, non-metropolitan area, non-metropolitan local 
     official, TIP, and urbanized area.
     Section 5213. Metropolitan Transportation Planning.
       Subsection (a) describes the general requirements for 
     metropolitan transportation planning. More specifically, it 
     directs MPOs, in cooperation with States and public 
     transportation operators, to develop long-range 
     transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. 
     These plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) 
     will encompass all modes of transportation and will be 
     intermodal in nature.
       Subsection (b) specifies the method by which MPOs are 
     designated. Every urbanized area with a population of more 
     than 50,000 people will have an MPO either by agreement 
     between the Governor and local officials representing at 
     least 75 percent of the affected population or in accordance 
     with State and local law. Each MPO will consist of local 
     officials, officials of major local metropolitan 
     transportation agencies and appropriate State officials. Once 
     an MPO is designated, it will remain so designated until it 
     is redesignated under the procedures outlined in Section 
     5213(b)(5) or (6).
       Subsection (c) describes the methods for determining the 
     boundaries of metropolitan planning areas that do not cross 
     State lines. This subsection is consistent with section 
     134(c) of title 23, United States Code.
       Subsection (d) outlines methods for coordinating the 
     planning process between responsible parties in metropolitan 
     areas spanning two or more states.
       Subsection (e) involves coordination and consultation 
     between MPOs in the event of jurisdictional conflicts. This 
     must occur in cases in which more than one MPO has 
     jurisdiction over an area or an area is designated as a 
     nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide under the 
     Clean Air Act. Coordination between MPOs will also occur if a 
     transportation improvement funded by the Highway Trust Fund 
     (HTF) runs through more than one MPO.
       Section 5213(e)(3) provides that when planning 
     transportation projects, the Secretary will encourage each 
     MPO to consult with officials involved in planning activities 
     that are affected by transportation in the area. These 
     affected activities include such things as State and local 
     planned growth, economic development, environmental 
     protection, airport operations, and freight movements. The 
     subsection also requires that transportation plans consider 
     other transportation services within the metropolitan area 
     that are provided by other governmental agencies and 
     nonprofit organizations, so that metropolitan transportation 
     services can be more coordinated.
       Section (f) outlines the goals and objectives MPOs should 
     strive to attain when planning area transportation projects. 
     Projects should support economic vitality, increase the 
     safety and security of the transportation system, increase 
     accessibility and mobility for both people and freight, 
     protect and enhance the environment, promote integration 
     between the various modes of transportation, as well as 
     maintaining efficiency of the current transportation system. 
     This subsection also states that failure to consider any and 
     all of the objectives described in Section 5213(f)(1) may not 
     be reviewed by any court.
       Subsection (g) details the contents of transportation plans 
     and the process MPOs must follow when developing such plans.
       Subsection (h) details the contents of metropolitan 
     transportation improvement programs (TIPs) and the process 
     MPOs must follow when developing TIPs. Included in each

[[Page 18824]]

      TIP should be a funding estimate, a priority project list, a 
     description of each project, and a financial plan. TIPs will 
     be published for public comment. Unlike current law section 
     134(h)(1)(D) of title 23, U.S.C., this subsection 
     specifically details that TIPs must be updated at least every 
     4 years, as opposed to every 2 years under current law. This 
     section requires the project description in the TIP to 
     include sufficient descriptive material, such as the ``type 
     of work, termini, length, and other similar factors'', to 
     identify the project or phase of the project. In addition, 
     the TIP shall include a listing of congestion relief 
     activities in 5213(h)(2)(D).
       Subsection (i) involves transportation management areas, 
     which are defined as urbanized areas with a population over 
     200,000. The transportation plans in these areas are based on 
     a continuing and comprehensive planning process carried out 
     by the MPO. Congestion management is achieved through the use 
     of travel demand reduction and operational management 
     strategies. Congestion relief activities under section 139 of 
     title 23 are also to be used. The Secretary must certify that 
     the planning process for each transportation management area 
     is being carried out in accordance with Federal law no less 
     often than every 4 years. This is a change from current law, 
     which mandates certification every 3 years. The Secretary has 
     the authority to withhold up to 20 percent of the funds 
     attributable to the MPO if the metropolitan planning process 
     of an MPO serving a transportation management area is not 
     certified.
       Subsection (j) gives the Secretary the authority to permit 
     an abbreviated transportation plan and a TIP for a 
     metropolitan planning area if deemed appropriate, except if 
     the metropolitan planning area is in nonattainment for ozone 
     or carbon monoxide under the Clean Air Act.
       Subsection 134(k) of 23 U.S.C. under current law, 
     concerning funds for highways and transit being transferred 
     to the Secretary in accordance with title 23, has been 
     deleted because the transferability provisions contained in 
     section 104(k) of title 23 already apply to all transfers of 
     highway funds to transit, and to the transfer of transit 
     funds to highways.
       Subsection (k) is consistent with subsection 134(l) of 
     current law and states that a metropolitan planning area 
     classified as nonattainment for ozone and carbon monoxide 
     under the Clean Air Act may not receive funds for any highway 
     project that will result in a significant increase in single-
     occupant vehicles. The only exception would be if the project 
     were addressed through a congestion management process.
       Subsection (l) is consistent with subsection 134(m) of 
     current law. This section states that MPOs do not have the 
     authority to impose legal requirements on any transportation 
     facility, provider, or project not eligible under title 23, 
     United States Code or chapter 53 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       Subsection (m) is consistent with section 134(n) of title 
     23, United States Code and specifies that funding for the 
     metropolitan transportation planning shall be provided under 
     section 104(f) of title 23 and under section 5338(c) of title 
     49, United States Code.
       Subsection 134(n) is consistent with existing law 
     subsection 5213(n) and section 134(o) of title 23. It 
     restates current methods of review for projects included in 
     plans and programs under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
     Section 5214. Statewide Transportation Planning.
       Subsection (a) requires states to develop statewide 
     transportation plans, to cover a period of 4 years and to be 
     updated every 4 years. The statewide transportation plan must 
     provide for integrated transportation facilities, including 
     accessible facilities, and be intermodal in nature.
       Subsection (b) is consistent with subsection 135(b) of 
     title 23, USC, but adds new language to recognize the 
     importance of coordinating trade and economic development 
     with transportation planning. This subsection also requires 
     the State to develop the transportation portion of the State 
     implementation plan as required by the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
       Subsection (d) regarding the scope of the planning process 
     (under existing section 135(c)) is amended to reflect the 
     concept that not only projects, but also transportation 
     services, are developed through the planning process. In 
     section 5214(d)(1)(A), the term ``non-metropolitan areas'' is 
     inserted into this factor after ``States,'' to require States 
     to consider economic vitality for rural areas.
       Subsection (e) corresponds to 135(d) in title 23, and lays 
     out additional requirements for states to consider in 
     carrying out planning.
       Subsection (f) is consistent with current law provisions 
     regarding a state's development of 20-year, long-range 
     transportation plans under section 135(e) of title 23, USC.
       Subsection (g), regarding statewide transportation 
     improvement programs, is consistent with subsection 135(f) of 
     title 23, United States Code. This subsection has been 
     reorganized and it deletes some current law provisions that 
     have been superseded. Section 135(f)(1)(B)(ii)(II) required 
     that States submit to the Secretary, within one year of TEA-
     21's passage, the details of their consultation process with 
     non-metropolitan officials. This requirement has been 
     accomplished, so the provision has been eliminated.
       Subsection 5214(g)(4)(H) is a new provision to ensure that 
     the transportation improvement program reflects the 
     priorities for congestion relief required under section 139 
     of title 23, USC, as added in this Act. Subsection 5214(g)(5) 
     combines 135(f)(3)(A) and (B) of current law. This 
     subsection, concerning project selection in areas with 
     populations of less than 50,000 people, adds projects from 
     state-managed public transportation programs authorized under 
     sections 5310, 5311, 5316, and 5317 of title 49, United 
     States Code to the list of projects to be selected from the 
     TIP by the State in consultation with affected local 
     metropolitan transportation officials. Subsection 5214(g)(6) 
     states that the Secretary must approve a transportation 
     improvement program at least every 4 years, as opposed to a 
     biennial review mandated in current law.
       In subsection (h), funding for statewide transportation 
     planning is provided under subsection 104(i) of title 23 and 
     under section 5338(c) of title 49, United States Code.
       Subsections (i) and (j) are identical to existing law 
     subsections 135(h) and 135(i), respectively.
       Sec. 6005.
       This section amends section 5213(d) of title 49, U.S.C., to 
     direct that Congress must consent to interstate compacts 
     between two or more states for cooperative transportation 
     planning efforts. The Secretary will encourage Governors and 
     members of multi-state MPOs to partake in interstate compacts 
     consenting to cooperate in efforts to mutually assist 
     interstate activities as well as establishing joint 
     transportation agencies. The current law provisions regarding 
     the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Compact are included in this 
     section.
       Sec. 6006.
       This section amends section 5213(g) of title 49, U.S.C. to 
     specify that MPOs must prepare and update their 
     transportation plans no less frequently than every 4 years. 
     (The current law update cycle is ``according to a schedule 
     that the Secretary determines to be appropriate,'' which has 
     been determined by regulation to be every 3 years in 
     nonattainment or maintenance areas and every 5 years in 
     attainment areas.)
       Sec. 6007.
       This section amends section 5214(c) of title 49, U.S.C. to 
     authorize States to enter into compacts or agreements for the 
     purpose of formal planning cooperation and coordination, 
     since some projects are multi-state in nature.
       Sec. 6008.
       This section directs the Secretary to issue regulations 
     that are consistent with the unified transportation planning 
     provisions in this title relating to the Clean Air Act.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1501.
       This section amends 23 U.S.C. 134(f) and 135(c) to add 
     factors that may be considered during the transportation 
     planning process. It also gives States and metropolitan 
     planning organizations (MPOs) the flexibility to determine, 
     after soliciting and considering comment from the public, 
     which of the specific factors are most appropriate for the 
     State or metropolitan area to consider. Current language in 
     the statute that bars court review of failure to consider 
     specified planning factors is retained.
       Current law requires the planning process to provide for 
     consideration of projects and strategies that will, among 
     other things, protect and enhance the environment and improve 
     quality of life. The items added by section 1501 provide 
     planners with more direction as to what those concepts mean, 
     but do not constitute a checklist with every item requiring 
     consideration by every State and MPO. Instead, the 
     legislation allows each State and MPO to decide which 
     specific factors are appropriate for consideration. Early 
     identification of potential environmental concerns may help 
     reduce or avoid delays during environmental review. The 
     Secretary is given no authority to review, for purposes of 
     planning certification, the determination of appropriate 
     factors made by a State or MPO.
       Sec. 1502.
       This section amends 23 U.S.C. 134(g) and 135(e) to require 
     MPOs and States to consult with various other agencies when 
     developing the long range transportation plan. Consultation 
     shall include comparison of the transportation plan to 
     conservation plans or maps and inventories of natural or 
     historic resources (if such plans, maps or inventories are 
     available) or consideration of areas where wildlife crossing 
     structures may be needed. The section also requires that the 
     long-range plan include a discussion of potential habitat, 
     hydrological, and environmental mitigation activities that 
     may assist in compensating for loss of habitat, wetlands and 
     other environmental functions, including areas that may have 
     the greatest potential to restore and maintain the habitat 
     types and hydrological and environmental function affected by 
     the plan.
       The requirement for transportation planners to consult with 
     appropriate resource agencies to compare transportation plans 
     with available State conservation plans or maps and available 
     inventories of natural or

[[Page 18825]]

     historic resources, as well as to identify areas where 
     wildlife crossing structures may be needed, will help 
     planners to identify and potentially avoid or minimize 
     impacts of transportation projects on these resources and 
     thereby facilitate more efficient environmental reviews of 
     individual projects. However, for various reasons including 
     financial constraints, State conservation plans or maps or 
     inventories of natural or historic resources do not exist for 
     many areas. This legislation does not require the creation of 
     such plans, maps, or inventories. Consideration of areas 
     where wildlife crossing structures may be needed is required 
     only with respect to transportation programs and strategies 
     for the future. A review of the current infrastructure is not 
     required. The discussion of potential mitigation activities 
     and areas in which to carry out those activities is intended 
     to encourage States to think strategically, particularly for 
     habitat and wetlands mitigation. The level of detail of this 
     discussion should correspond to the level of detail contained 
     in the rest of the plan. For example, a conceptual 
     transportation plan may, but is not required to, include 
     specific size or location details that would generally be 
     determined during the environmental review stage.
       Sec. 1504.
       This section amends 23 U.S.C. 134(g) and 135(e) to provide 
     that States and MPOs improve public involvement in the 
     planning process. To the maximum extent practicable, States 
     and MPOs shall hold any public meetings at convenient and 
     accessible locations and times, employ visualization 
     techniques, and provide for publication of publicly available 
     planning materials in electronically accessible formats, such 
     as the world wide web.
       Use of advancing technology to publish plans and better 
     articulate potential benefits and impacts of transportation 
     plans will improve community awareness during the planning 
     process. Early identification of community concerns may help 
     reduce or avoid delays during the environmental review stage. 
     MPOs, particularly small MPOs, and States have limited 
     resources to apply toward meeting numerous planning 
     requirements. Therefore, each MPO and State should use its 
     own discretion in allocating resources for improved 
     utilization of technology.
       Sec. 1704.
       This section amends title 23 to ensure metropolitan 
     planning in certain areas. Section 1705 supplements funding 
     for the transportation planning process with 1% of all funds 
     apportioned through the Federal Lands Highway Program to the 
     Lake Tahoe Region.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provisions with several 
     modifications. First, it does not create a new chapter 52 of 
     title 49, United States Code, but rather amends title 23 and 
     chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, to contain 
     identical planning provisions (23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 
     5303 Metropolitan planning and 23 U.S.C. 135 and 49 U.S.C. 
     5304 Statewide planning).
       The House provision is modified to require metropolitan 
     plans to be updated every 5 years in areas designated 
     attainment.
       Sections 134(h)(1)(B) and (C), and 135(d)(1)(B) and (C) 
     modify existing law to give added emphasis to security and 
     safety by making each a separate planning factor.
       The Conference adopts the Senate section 1502 modified to 
     require a discussion of types of potential environmental 
     mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out such 
     activities in the plan and to require consultation, 
     including, as appropriate, comparison of transportation plans 
     with State conservation plans or maps, if available, or with 
     inventories of natural or historic resources, if available
       The Conference incorporates a modified participation plan 
     found in Senate section 6005 into the House provision. Senate 
     section 1504 on methods of public participation and 
     publication of the plan is also incorporated into the House 
     provision.
       The modified House provision retains current law section 
     134 of title 23 regarding the listing in the TIP of projects 
     funded under chapter 2 of title 23, United States Code.
       The Conference adopts a modified rulemaking requirement 
     found in Senate section 6005. The Secretary is required to 
     issue, within 180 days of enactment, regulations specifying 
     the types of data to be included in the required annual 
     listing of projects.
       The Conference also removed references to activities and 
     requirements under section 139 of title 23, United States 
     Code, as proposed in the House bill since the Conference did 
     not adopt that provision.
       The Conference adopts the Senate language on transportation 
     planning funding for the Lake Tahoe region.
       The Conference does not adopt the House language requiring 
     the Secretary to issue regulations implementing the changes 
     to transportation planning relating to the Clean Air Act.


       SECTION 6002. EFFICIENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR PROJECT 
                             DECISIONMAKING

     House Bill
       Sec. 6002.
       Subsection (a) recognizes Enlibra principles as a sound 
     basis for interaction among Federal, state, and local 
     governments and Indian tribes. It encourages the adoption of 
     these principles in the development of highway construction 
     and transit projects. This section is intended as a statement 
     of policy. It is not intended to establish enforceable rights 
     or to modify any existing legal standards applicable to the 
     environmental review process for such projects.
       Subsection (b) creates a new Subchapter C of Chapter 52 of 
     Title 49 to address efficient environmental reviews for 
     project decisionmaking.

       Subchapter C--Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project 
                             Decisionmaking

     Section 5251. Definitions and Applicability.
       This section sets forth definitions applicable to this 
     subchapter.
     Section 5252. Project Development Procedures.
       This section establishes comprehensive project development 
     procedures for projects that require the approval of the U.S. 
     Department of Transportation. These procedures must be 
     followed for all projects that require preparation of an 
     environmental impact statement (EIS) under NEPA and may be 
     followed for any project that involves preparation of an 
     environmental assessment (EA) or categorical exclusion (CE). 
     The decision about whether to use these procedures for EA or 
     CE projects is committed to the discretion of the Secretary 
     of Transportation, acting in consultation with the project 
     sponsor.
       Subsection (a) establishes the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation as the lead agency in the environmental review 
     process for any highway, transit, or multimodal project that 
     requires the Department's approval. As the lead agency, the 
     Department is responsible for the overall direction of the 
     environmental review process. The specific responsibilities 
     of the lead agency are defined in this section. This section 
     also requires any project sponsor that is a state or local 
     government entity receiving funds under Title 23 or Title 52 
     to serve as a ``joint lead agency'' in the environmental 
     review process. The Federal lead agency and the State or 
     local agency jointly constitute the ``lead agency'' for 
     purposes of this section; accordingly, any decisions to be 
     made by the lead agency under this section must be made 
     jointly by the Federal lead agency and the State or local 
     government that serves as project sponsor. A project sponsor 
     that is not a State or local government (e.g., a project 
     sponsor that is a private company) cannot serve as a joint 
     lead agency.
       Subsection (b) establishes a new concept of a 
     ``participating agency.'' This concept is intended to be 
     distinct from, and more inclusive than, the concept of a 
     ``cooperating agency'' as established in the Council on 
     Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for the NEPA process. 
     The status of ``cooperating agency'' generally has been 
     assigned only to those agencies that are expected to play an 
     extensive role--in particular, an agency that has a 
     permitting responsibility with respect to a project. The term 
     ``participating agency'' is intended to be more inclusive, so 
     that it encompasses all cooperating agencies as well as any 
     other agencies that submit comments, participate in inter-
     agency review meetings, or otherwise are engaged in the 
     environmental review process. The lead agency must identify 
     agencies that may have an interest in the project and extend 
     an invitation to participate. The legislation specifically 
     states that designation as a participating agency does not 
     signify support for a project; it is simply a means of 
     identifying the universe of agency participants who must be 
     consulted by the lead agency during the process.
       Subsection (c) establishes a new requirement for a project 
     initiation notice. The purpose of this requirement is to 
     provide an opportunity for the project sponsor to identify 
     the specific highway project, transit project, or multimodal 
     project that is being proposed for evaluation in the 
     environmental review process. At the discretion of the 
     project sponsor, the project initiation notice may include a 
     general description of policies, plans, studies, legislation, 
     or other materials that relate to the proposed project. Such 
     information shall be considered by the lead agency in 
     determining the scope of review needed in the environmental 
     review process, including decisions on issues such as the 
     definition of the proposed action, the purpose and need, the 
     range of alternatives, and the approach to evaluating 
     secondary and cumulative impacts.
       Subsection (d) makes the lead agency responsible for 
     defining the purpose and need, following an opportunity for 
     involvement by other agencies and the public, and identifies 
     the types of objectives that may be included in a statement 
     of purpose and need. The level of involvement required under 
     this section shall be determined by the lead agency on a case 
     by case basis, taking into account the overall size and 
     complexity of the project. The opportunity for involvement in 
     developing the purpose and need may be combined with other 
     public involvement and agency coordination activities, 
     including involvement in developing the range of alternatives 
     to be considered. The lead agency's definition of purpose and 
     need is not binding on

[[Page 18826]]

     other agencies that have independent responsibilities to 
     comply with NEPA. However, other agencies shall show 
     substantial deference to the purpose and need as defined by 
     the lead agency as required under applicable Council on 
     Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, dated May 12, 2003; 
     nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or 
     override the guidance provided in that memorandum, or to 
     preempt or limit any obligations to comply with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the regulations issued to 
     implement NEPA including those issued by CEQ. The list of 
     project objectives provided in this section is not intended 
     to be exhaustive; these are examples of the types of 
     objectives that may be included in a purpose and need 
     statement for a highway, transit, or multimodal project.
       Subsection (e) makes the lead agency responsible for 
     defining the range of alternatives to be considered, 
     following an opportunity for involvement by other agencies 
     and the public. The level of involvement required under this 
     section shall be determined by the lead agency on a case by 
     case basis, taking into account the overall size and 
     complexity of the project. The opportunity for involvement in 
     determining the range of alternatives may be combined with 
     other public involvement and agency coordination activities, 
     including involvement in developing the purpose and need. 
     This section also establishes that the lead agency is 
     responsible for determining the methodologies to be used in 
     evaluating alternatives, and requires that determination to 
     be made in collaboration with the participating agencies. In 
     this context, collaboration means a cooperative and 
     interactive process. It is not necessary for the lead agency 
     to reach consensus with the participating agencies on these 
     issues; the lead agency must work cooperatively with the 
     participating agencies and consider their views, but the lead 
     agency remains responsible for decisionmaking. However, the 
     intent is to require meaningful deliberation about 
     alternatives, as evidenced by the subsection specifying that, 
     should the lead agency develop a preferred alternative, this 
     must not hinder impartial decisionmaking on other 
     alternatives.
       Subsection (f) is intended to establish default comment 
     deadlines that apply in the absence of a specific decision by 
     the lead agency to allow a longer period for comments to be 
     submitted. This section establishes 60 days as the norm for 
     comments on a Draft EIS and 30 days for all other comment/
     review periods. Lead agencies should provide public notice 
     about when a comment period starts and concludes. The 
     legislation allows the lead agency the flexibility to 
     establish a shorter or longer time frame if there is good 
     cause to do so. In addition, this section allows the lead 
     agency to extend the comment deadline at any time in the 
     environmental review process; while it is preferable to 
     establish a realistic schedule as early as possible, this 
     section does not establish a specific point in the process by 
     which time extensions must be granted.
       Subsection (g) establishes a process for identifying and 
     resolving issues that have the potential to delay the 
     environmental review process or prevent an agency from 
     granting a permit or other approval that is needed for a 
     project. The participants in the environmental review process 
     are encouraged to use similar procedures, to the extent 
     practicable, to identify and resolve issues prior to 
     initiation of the environmental review process. Nothing in 
     this section is intended to preclude or limit any ongoing or 
     future efforts by individual States to adopt procedures that 
     call for agency coordination and dispute resolution efforts 
     during the pre-NEPA planning stages of a project.
       Subsection (i) is intended to allow federal highway and 
     transit funds to be provided to other State and Federal 
     agencies to support activities that directly and meaningfully 
     contribute to expediting and improving transportation project 
     delivery. These funds may be used to support activities 
     related to the review of a specific project during the 
     environmental review process, such as reviewing and 
     commenting on environmental documents or attending meetings. 
     These funds also may be used to support activities that 
     contribute to more efficient environmental reviews through 
     early coordination activities prior to initiation of the 
     environmental review (NEPA) process, and also may be used to 
     support activities that contribute to improvements at a 
     programmatic level, such as training of agency personnel, 
     information gathering and mapping, and development of 
     programmatic agreements.
       Sec. 6009.
       This section amends section 5252 of title 49, United States 
     Code, by adding new subsections (j) and (k)
       Subsection 5252(j) provides that, except as set forth under 
     subsection 5252(k), nothing in section 5252 shall affect the 
     reviewability of any final Federal agency action in a court 
     of the United States. A savings clause provides that nothing 
     in section 5252 shall be construed as superseding, amending, 
     or modifying NEPA or any other Federal environmental statute.
       Subsection 5252(k) establishes a 90-day period for filing 
     any lawsuit challenging a permit, license, or approval issued 
     by a federal agency for a highway or transit project. This 
     period starts when the lead agency gives public notice that a 
     final decision has been issued and that a 90-day period for 
     requesting judicial review has begun. This limitation is 
     intended to apply to any permit, license, or approval issued 
     by a state agency acting under authority delegated by a 
     federal agency pursuant to federal law. The purpose of this 
     limitation is to ensure that any claims challenging a highway 
     project for failure to comply with federal law are filed 
     within 90 days after the final agency action that is the 
     subject of the legal challenge.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1511.
       Section 1511, subsection (a), creates a new section 326 of 
     title 23, U.S.C., which authorizes the use of and sets forth 
     a process for agencies to prepare environmental review 
     documents, studies, approvals, and permits required by 
     Federal law for approval of a transportation project.
       Section 326(a) defines, for purposes of the section, the 
     terms agency, environmental impact statement, environmental 
     review process, project, project sponsor, and State 
     transportation department. Subsection (b) establishes the 
     Department as the lead agency and allows the process laid out 
     in this section to be used by the lead agency either at the 
     request of the project sponsor or with the concurrence of the 
     project sponsor; (c) lists the responsibilities of the lead 
     agency; and (d) sets out the responsibilities of the 
     cooperating agencies.
       Section 326(e) directs the lead agency to develop a 
     coordination plan, which shall include a workplan and a 
     schedule. Default deadlines are included in the case of the 
     collaborative process failing to establish comment deadlines. 
     Subsections (f) and (g) describe the process for developing 
     the project purpose and need and alternatives, respectively. 
     Current standards are left unchanged, but opportunity for 
     public comment is specifically provided.
       Section 326(h) sets out a process for resolving inter 
     agency disputes that arise during the environmental review 
     process; (i) directs the Secretary to establish a program to 
     measure and report progress toward improving and expediting 
     the planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
     review process; (j) continues authority for the Secretary to 
     provide funds to other agencies to assist them in carrying 
     out the environmental review process for a project; and (k) 
     clarifies that nothing in this section affects judicial 
     review or the applicability of any Federal environmental 
     statutes. Section 1511, subsection (b) repeals section 1309 
     of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 
     Stat. 232). Section 1511(c) clarifies that the repeal of 
     section 1309 of TEA-21 and the enactment of section 1511(a) 
     does not affect any existing State environmental review 
     process, program, agreement or funding arrangement approved 
     by the Secretary under section 1309 of TEA-21.
       Section 1309 of TEA-21 directed the Secretary of 
     Transportation to `develop and implement a coordinated 
     environmental review process for highway construction and 
     mass transit projects.' To date, regulations implementing 
     section 1309 have not been issued. Section 1511 of this 
     legislation replaces section 1309 of TEA-21 and is intended 
     to facilitate faster and more efficient completion of 
     transportation projects without diminishing environmental 
     protections contained in law.
       The process established is for complying with current 
     environmental laws, it does not amend or override any current 
     law. As in TEA-21, agencies are encouraged to conduct their 
     reviews, analyses, and studies concurrently with the review 
     required under the NEPA. Under this process, interested 
     parties will be involved in the earlier stages of the review 
     required under the NEPA.
       The Department, as the lead agency, will be responsible for 
     identifying and inviting cooperating agencies; developing an 
     agency coordination plan, including a workplan and a 
     schedule; and determining the purpose and need of a project 
     and the alternatives to be considered. Whereas current 
     practice involves cooperating agency designations for only 
     those few agencies that will play a major role in reviewing 
     the project, this process expands the meaning of the term to 
     include all agencies that have an interest in or special 
     expertise regarding the project or its potential impacts.
       Public involvement is also enhanced under this process. In 
     addition to leaving unchanged any current opportunities for 
     public comment, this process includes new opportunity for 
     public comment during the determination of project purpose 
     and need and selection of alternatives to be considered.
       Finally, the legislation leaves unchanged the authorization 
     from TEA-21 for States to use their Federal transportation 
     dollars as assistance to resource agencies in order to 
     expedite resource agency activities in the environmental 
     review process.
     Conference Substitute
       The Senate recedes to House section 6002 modified to amend 
     title 23, United States Code, instead of title 49 and with 
     the following further modifications:
       Section 6002(a). The House recedes to the Senate.
       Section 6002(b). The Senate recedes to the House.

[[Page 18827]]

       Section 139(a). The Senate recedes to the House. Section 
     139(b). The Senate recedes to the House. In addition, the 
     Conference substitute preserves current regulations under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) with regard to agencies acting as Joint Lead Agencies 
     under this section (section 139(c)(2)). The Conference 
     substitute defines the roles and responsibilities of the Lead 
     Agency (section 139(c)). The Conference Substitute requires 
     federal agencies to the maximum extent practicable to carry 
     out concurrent reviews (section 139(d)(7)). The Conference 
     Substitute requires that for the purpose of informing the 
     Secretary that the environmental review process should be 
     initiated, the project sponsor shall notify the Secretary of 
     certain details of the proposed project (section 139(e)). The 
     Conference Substitute requires that a Lead Agency establish a 
     plan for agency participation and comment on the 
     environmental review process that may be incorporated into a 
     memorandum of understanding (section 139(g)). The Conference 
     Substitute permits the Lead Agency to establish a schedule 
     for completion of the environmental review process and 
     requires the consideration of certain factors in establishing 
     the schedule (section 139(g)(1)(B)). The Conference 
     Substitute provides for notice to the United States Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works and the United 
     States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of failure of a Federal agency to make decisions in the 
     environmental review process (section 139(g)(3)). No 
     provisions in this section shall reduce time periods provided 
     under existing Federal law for public comment (section 
     139(g)(4)). The Conference Substitute provides procedures for 
     issue resolution at the request of a project sponsor or 
     Governor of the state in which the project is located 
     (section 139(h)). The Conference Substitute provides for a 
     program to measure and report on progress toward improving 
     and expediting the environmental review process (section 
     139(i)). The Conference Substitute adopts a modified version 
     of section 1309(f) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century (112 Stat. 232) to provide that nothing in this 
     section shall affect the reviewability of any final agency 
     action in a court of the United States or the court of any 
     State (section 139(k)). The Conference Substitute establishes 
     a 180-day period for filing any law suit challenging a 
     permit, license or approval issued by a federal agency for a 
     highway or transit project. This period starts when the lead 
     agency gives public notice in the Federal Register that a 
     final decision has been issued (section 139(l)). The 
     Conference Substitute includes the Senate provisions on 
     repeal of section 1309 of TEA-21 and preservation of existing 
     State environmental review processes, programs, agreements or 
     funding arrangements approved by the Secretary under section 
     1309 of TEA-21.


SECTION 6003. STATE ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CERTAIN PROGRAMS 
                              AND PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1207.
       This section provides the Secretary the authority to 
     conduct a pilot program for up to five states to assume the 
     responsibilities of the Secretary for projects funded under 
     Section 104(h), transportation enhancement activities under 
     Section 133, as defined in Section 101(a)(35), and projects 
     defined in Section 101(a)(38) of title 23, and Section 5607 
     of TEA LU.
     Senate Bill
       No Comparable Provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


   SECTION 6004. STATE ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CATEGORICAL 
                               EXCLUSIONS

     House Bill
       No Comparable Provision in Senate bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1512.
       Section 1512 gives the Secretary authority to assign and a 
     State the ability to assume the Secretary's responsibility 
     for processing the environmental review for projects 
     classified as categorical exclusions under current Council on 
     Environmental Quality regulations.
       Categorical exclusions (CEs), according to current Council 
     on Environmental Quality regulations, are projects that `do 
     not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on 
     the human environment'. Approximately 90% of all surface 
     transportation projects are processed as CEs. So, while CEs 
     take significantly less time to prepare than environmental 
     impact statements, a slight improvement in processing time 
     for each CE can result in a large improvement system wide.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


  SECTION 6005. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DELIVERY PILOT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No Comparable Provision in Senate bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1513.
       This section establishes a pilot program for not more than 
     five States to assume the Secretary's responsibility for 
     environmental review for a project. This delegation does not 
     extend to conformity determinations, planning requirements, 
     or rulemaking authority. Delegation of the Secretary's 
     responsibility to a State shall be governed by a written 
     agreement between the Secretary and the State. To ensure 
     compliance by a State, the Secretary shall conduct periodic 
     audits for each State participating in the program. The 
     public shall have opportunity to comment prior to the 
     submission of a State's application to participate in the 
     pilot program and following an audit of compliance with the 
     agreement.
       The legislation includes a 5-State pilot program (including 
     a pilot for the State of Oklahoma) for delegation of certain 
     of the Secretary's environmental review responsibilities for 
     transportation projects within the pilot State. The pilot 
     program is intended to provide information to the committee 
     and to the public as to whether delegation of the Secretary's 
     environmental review responsibilities will result in more 
     efficient environmental reviews that are performed according 
     to the same procedural and substantive requirements as would 
     apply if the Secretary were conducting the reviews.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with the 
     addition of California, Texas, Ohio, and Alaska as states 
     participating in the pilot program.


   SECTION 6006. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT; 
CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEEDS AND AQUATIC NOXIOUS WEEDS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF 
                             NATIVE SPECIES

     House Bill
       No Comparable Provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1601.
       This section amends title 23 to establish eligibility for 
     environmental restoration and pollution abatement, and 
     invasive species. The section makes eligible the use of NHS 
     and STP funds for activities under this section.
       Section 165 establishes the eligibility for environmental 
     restoration and pollution abatement and authorizes the use of 
     funds for projects, including retrofitting and construction 
     of stormwater treatment systems to meet Federal and State 
     requirements under sections 410 and 402 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, which will address water pollution or 
     environmental degradation caused wholly or partially by a 
     transportation facility. The expenditure of funds is limited 
     to 20 percent of the total cost of an ongoing reconstruction, 
     rehabilitation, resurfacing or restoration project.
       Current law allows a State to use STP funds for 
     environmental restoration and pollution abatement projects 
     (including the retrofit or construction of stormwater 
     treatment systems) to address water pollution or 
     environmental degradation caused or contributed to by 
     transportation facilities. As amended, the use of STP funds 
     is now extended and the use of NHS funds is now authorized 
     for these projects, as well as mitigation projects related to 
     Federal highways but not limited to those currently 
     undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing or 
     restoration.
       Section 166 establishes provisions for the control of 
     invasive plant species and the establishment of native plant 
     species. Activities carried out under this section must be 
     related to transportation projects funded under Title 23. 
     Activities to control invasive plant species or to establish 
     native species may be carried out in advance, concurrently 
     with, or following project construction. Activities carried 
     out in advance of projects are allowed if such measures are 
     consistent with Federal law and State transportation planning 
     processes.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with the 
     following modifications: Invasive species has been changed to 
     noxious weeds and aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in the 
     Plant Protection Act; General activities are the 
     establishment of plants selected by state and local 
     transportation authorities to perform abatement of stormwater 
     runoff, stabilization of soil, or aesthetic enhancement, and 
     management of plants which impair or impede the 
     establishment, maintenance, or safe use of a transportation 
     system. These activities include: (1) right of way surveys to 
     determine management requirements to control noxious weeds, 
     brush or trees considered to be a threat to safety or 
     maintenance of transportation systems; (2) control or 
     elimination of plants; (3) establishment of plants, whether 
     native or non-native with a preference for native when 
     possible; (4) elimination of plants to create fuel breaks for 
     the prevention and control of wildfires; and (5) training.


              SECTION 6007. EXEMPTION OF INTERSTATE SYSTEM

     House Bill
       Sec. 6004.
       This section provides that the Interstate System itself 
     shall not be considered a historic site for purposes of 23 
     U.S.C. Sec. 138 or 49 U.S.C. Sec. 303(c)--the laws commonly 
     known as ``Section 4(f).'' This section allows individual

[[Page 18828]]

     elements of the Interstate System to be considered historic 
     sites for purposes of Section 4(f), if those elements possess 
     an independent feature of historic significance.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1604.
       This section establishes an exemption for the Interstate 
     System from consideration under section 303 of title 49 and 
     section 138 of title 23, regardless of whether the Interstate 
     System or portions of the System may be listed on or eligible 
     for the National Register of Historic Places. A portion of 
     the Interstate System that possesses an independent feature 
     of historic significance, such as a bridge or an 
     architectural feature, shall be considered an historic site 
     under section 303 of title 49 and section 138 of title 23, as 
     applicable.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with a technical 
     modification. The language is amended to align the exemption 
     from review under Section 4(f) with the administrative 
     exemption from review under Section 106 of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act, published in the Federal Register 
     on March 10, 2005.


      SECTION 6008. INTEGRATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS INTO 
                    TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PLANNING

     House Bill
       No Comparable Provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1503.
       This section amends 23 U.S.C. 109(c) to direct the 
     Secretary to consider two documents regarding context 
     sensitive design when developing criteria for project design. 
     The current provision for consideration of `A Policy on 
     Geometric Design of Highways and Streets' is retained.
       Context sensitive design involves consideration of the 
     environmental context of a project and encourages design that 
     minimizes impacts on the project's surroundings. Adding 
     context sensitive design principles to the current design 
     criteria will give transportation officials the flexibility 
     to adjust to the characteristics of each specific location 
     while still ensuring sound engineering and safety measures.
       Sec. 1605.
       This section amends section 109(p) of title 23, Standards. 
     The change is made to place greater emphasis on the need to 
     consider preservation of human and natural resources as a 
     part of the decisionmaking process in developing highway 
     projects.
       Consideration of the impacts of highway projects has been 
     part of the design process for many years. However, the 
     transportation community, the traveling public, and 
     communities have demanded improvements in project delivery 
     and in the make-up of the product that is delivered. 
     Compatibility with the surrounding context, or environment, 
     and improved safety for the motorist and the pedestrian are 
     critical. The changes to this section address the need to see 
     that highway projects meet all of these goals by having a 
     project sponsor consider community preservation and community 
     concerns.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate amendment to section 
     109(c) of title 23, United States Code, but not the amendment 
     to section 109(p).


SECTION 6009. PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES, 
                           AND HISTORIC SITES

     House Bill
       Sec. 6003.
       This section amends section 303 of title 49 and section 138 
     of title 23 to provide that requirements under such 
     section(s) are deemed to be satisfied if an agreement under 
     section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
     concludes that a transportation program or project will not 
     have an adverse effect on an historic site, unless the 
     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation determines that 
     using the section 106 consultation procedure to satisfy the 
     requirements of such sections is inconsistent with the 
     objectives of such Act. This section applies only to historic 
     sites. In any case in which an historic site subject to 
     section 106 includes, or is a part of a park, recreation 
     area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge protected under the 
     sections cited above, this provision shall not apply to such 
     parks, recreation areas or refuges.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1514.
       Section 1514, subsection (a) amends section 138 of title 23 
     and section 303 of title 49, United States Code, to allow 
     transportation programs and projects to move forward as long 
     as the impacts are no more than de minimis impacts on 
     protected parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl 
     refuges and historic sites.
       Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to promulgate within 
     one year of enactment regulations to clarify the factors to 
     be considered and the standards to be applied in determining 
     the prudence and feasibility of alternatives under section 
     138 of title 23 and section 303 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       Subsection (c) requires the Secretary and the 
     Transportation Board of the National Academy of Sciences 
     jointly to conduct a study on the implementation of the 
     amended sections.
       The Department of Transportation Act of 1966 prohibited the 
     approval of any transportation program or project that 
     requires the use of public parks, recreation areas, wildlife 
     or waterfowl refuges or public or private historic sites 
     unless there are no prudent and feasible alternatives and the 
     program or project includes all possible planning to minimize 
     harm to these protected resources (this provision is commonly 
     referred to as `section 4(f)').
       Subsection 1514(a) provides that section 4(f) requirements 
     are satisfied if the program or project will have only a de 
     minimis impact on the area. For historic sites, a finding of 
     de minimis impact may only occur if: (1) through the 
     consultative process under section 106 of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f)), the Secretary 
     determines that the program or project will have no adverse 
     impact on the historic site or that there will be no historic 
     properties affected; (2) the applicable State or tribal 
     historic preservation officer provides written concurrence 
     with the Secretary's determination; and (3) the finding is 
     developed in consultation with consulting parties under the 
     section 106 process.
       For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl 
     refuges, a finding of de minimis impact may only occur if: 
     (1) through review required under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Secretary 
     determines that the program or project will not adversely 
     affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park, 
     recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for 
     protection under section 4(f); and (2) the official(s) with 
     jurisdiction over the protected resource concurs with the 
     Secretary's finding. The purpose of the language is to 
     clarify that the portions of the resource important to 
     protect, such as playground equipment at a public park, 
     should be distinguished from areas such as parking 
     facilities. While a minor but adverse effect on the use of 
     playground equipment should not be considered a de minimis 
     impact under section 4(f), encroachment on the parking lot 
     may be deemed de minimis, as long as the public's ability to 
     access and use the site is not reduced.
       This subsection also provides that for all section 4(f)-
     protected resources, the Secretary shall consider any 
     avoidance, minimization, mitigation or enhancement measures 
     required to be implemented as a condition for approval of the 
     program or project when determining if the project will have 
     a de minimis impact. This language builds in an incentive for 
     project sponsors to incorporate environmentally protective 
     measures into a project from the beginning. The traditional 
     section 4(f) requirements will apply to all projects with 
     impacts that exceed the de minimis threshold even when 
     mitigation measures are taken into account.
       In its decision in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. 
     Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that 
     determinations on no feasible and prudent alternatives must 
     find that there are unique problems or unusual factors 
     involved in the use of alternatives or that the cost, 
     environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from 
     such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes.
       In order to address inconsistent guidance and regional 
     interpretations of the Overton Park decision, subsection 
     1514(b) directs the Secretary to issue regulations to clarify 
     the factors to be considered and the standards to be applied 
     in determining whether alternatives are `prudent and 
     feasible' under section 138 of title 23 and section 303 of 
     title 49, United States Code. The fundamental legal standard 
     contained in the Overton Park decision for evaluating the 
     prudence and feasibility of avoidance alternatives will 
     remain as the legal authority for these regulations, however, 
     the Secretary will be able to provide more detailed guidance 
     on applying these standards on a case-by-case basis.
       Subsection 1514(c) requires a study of the implementation 
     of section 4(f) as amended. The study shall include 
     evaluation of items such as any efficiencies resulting from 
     the amendments of this section; the post-construction 
     effectiveness of impact mitigation and avoidance commitments 
     adopted; and the quantity of projects with de minimis impacts 
     and information on the location, size and costs of the 
     projects.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with two 
     modifications. First the language is modified so that a de 
     minimus determination with respect to a park, recreation area 
     or wildlife or waterfowl refuge satisfies the current law 
     requirement that there is no prudent and feasible 
     alternative, but the requirement to do all possible planning 
     to minimize harm to the area is retained. Compliance with 
     that requirement, however, shall not include an analysis of 
     alternatives. The second modification requires an opportunity 
     for public notice and comment prior to a de minimis 
     determination for parks, recreation areas and wildlife and 
     waterfowl refuges.

[[Page 18829]]




     SECTION 6010. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES THAT SUPPORT 
            DEPLOYMENT OF INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

     House Bill
       Sec. 1206.
       This section requires the Secretary to conduct a rulemaking 
     within one year to establish categorical exclusions, to the 
     extent appropriate, for activities that support the 
     deployment of ITS from the requirement that an environmental 
     assessment or an environmental impact statement be prepared 
     under NEPA, in compliance with the standards for categorical 
     exclusions established by NEPA.
       The Secretary shall also develop a nationwide programmatic 
     agreement governing the review of activities that support ITS 
     deployment in accordance with the National Historic 
     Preservation Act. The agreement will be developed in 
     consultation with the National Conference of State Historic 
     Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation.
     Senate Bill
       No Comparable Provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                SECTION 6011. TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY

     House Bill
       Sec. 1824.
       Section 1824 of H.R. 3 contains changes to the conformity 
     provisions in section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. The 
     changes, which are discussed more fully below, address the 
     following subjects: (1) frequency of conformity 
     determinations; (2) changes to time horizons; (3) 
     substitution of transportation control measures; and (4) 
     conformity lapses.
       Frequency: Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1824 change 
     the frequency of conformity determinations for both the 
     Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and the long range 
     Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Under these subsections, 
     a conformity determination would now be required for both the 
     TIP and the RTP only once every four years (Sec. 1824(b)). In 
     the event that a new motor vehicle emissions budget is found 
     to be adequate (as submitted during a State Implementation 
     Plan (SIP) revision process), or is finally approved as part 
     of a revised or new SIP, a conformity determination would be 
     required within two years of such a finding or approval 
     (Section 1824(a)). In addition, subsection (b) allows an area 
     to update its conformity determination more frequently, if it 
     so desires.
       Conformity Horizon: Subsection (c) of section 1824 
     addresses the conformity time horizon for RTPs. The time 
     horizon is the period for which conformity must be 
     demonstrated. Under current law this time horizon period is 
     20 years (or longer if the general RTP planning horizon is 
     longer). Under this proposed subsection, an area may elect to 
     reduce its time horizon for its RTP from 20 years to 10 
     years, but may do so only with the agreement of the MPO and 
     the relevant Air Pollution Control Agency (APCA), as defined 
     in section 302(b) of the Clean Air Act. In the event, 
     however, that the attainment date in the SIP is more than 10 
     years away, or the date of completion of a regionally 
     significant project is more than 10 years away, then the 
     horizon date must be the later of those two dates. In cases 
     where the SIP is revised to include adequate or approved 
     motor vehicle emissions budget, and the SIP has an attainment 
     date earlier than 10 years, the horizon may be revised to 
     reflect that earlier date, but again, only with the agreement 
     of the MPO and APCA.
       In any event, under subsection (b) a regional emissions 
     analysis is required for any years of the transportation plan 
     that extend beyond the conformity time horizon. Thus if the 
     RTP general horizon is 20 years (as is common) and the 
     conformity horizon is reduced to 10 years, a regional 
     emissions analysis is nevertheless required for the 10-to-20 
     year period. Generating this information will be helpful in 
     ensuring that conformity is maintained.
       TCMs: Subsection (d) of section 1824 allows substitution of 
     ``Transportation Control Measures'' (TCMs) in a SIP, without 
     going through a full SIP approval process or a new conformity 
     determination, so long as the substituted TCM achieves an 
     equivalent or greater emissions reduction than the TCM it 
     replaces. EPA would determine whether a TCM meets that test. 
     In addition, appropriate methodology would need to be used to 
     determine emissions impact, reasonable public notice would be 
     required, and adequate funding would be required. Finally, 
     there is no requirement that a state change its SIP for TCM 
     substitution, as indicated in the legislative language of the 
     bill with the use of ``may'' rather than ``shall.''
       Conformity Lapse Grace Period: Subsection (e) of section 
     1824 adds a new one-year grace period of 12 months before a 
     conformity lapse shall be considered to exist and the 
     consequences of a conformity lapse shall apply. A lapse is 
     defined as in current regulations. Under this provision, when 
     a nonattainment or maintenance area fails to make a 
     conformity determination by an applicable deadline, it will 
     have 12 months to make such determination. During the 12-
     month grace period, only transportation projects in the most 
     recent conforming plan and TIP could be funded or approved 
     until the required determinations are made pursuant to 
     Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1615.
       This section changes how often updates must be made to 
     metropolitan transportation plans and metropolitan 
     transportation improvement programs (TIPs) in nonattainment 
     and maintenance areas, and statewide TIPs. Currently, these 
     documents expire every 3 years, 2 years, and 3 years, 
     respectively. With this bill, all three of these planning 
     documents must be updated every 4 years unless a metropolitan 
     planning organization elects to update its transportation 
     improvement plan more frequently. This section also changes 
     the minimum frequency with which transportation conformity 
     must be demonstrated to every 4 years. Other changes to 
     transportation conformity include a change in the horizon of 
     the conformity determination, and a change in the projects to 
     which conformity applies. In addition, this section adds a 
     requirement for EPA's conformity regulations.
       Frequency. Section 1615 amends 23 U.S.C. 134 to require 
     that metropolitan transportation plans and metropolitan 
     transportation improvement programs (TIPs) be updated every 4 
     years in nonattainment and maintenance areas, unless a 
     metropolitan planning organization elects to update its 
     transportation improvement plan more frequently. Currently, 
     plans must be updated every 3 years, but TIPs must be updated 
     every 2 years. Attainment areas will continue to update 
     transportation plans every five years. Section 135 is also 
     amended to require that statewide TIPs be updated at least 
     every 4 years, to be consistent with metropolitan plans and 
     TIPs. The section also amends section 176 of title 42, the 
     conformity section of the Clean Air Act, to require that 
     conformity for transportation plans and TIPs be determined 
     every 4 years, unless an MPO elects to update their plan or 
     TIP more frequently, or conformity is triggered by an EPA 
     action on a SIP submission. In the case where conformity is 
     triggered by an EPA SIP action, this section provides 
     metropolitan areas with 2 years to determine conformity 
     (currently, areas have 18 months).
       The committee recognizes that there may be value to 
     transportation planners in placing the frequency of 
     metropolitan transportation plan and TIP updates and the 
     frequency of conformity determinations on the same timetable, 
     and also recognizes the benefit of giving metropolitan areas 
     more time to devote to planning. The current transportation 
     law requires TIPs to be updated at least every 2 years, and 
     current planning regulations require plans to be updated 
     every 3 years. Because conformity must be determined before 
     new TIPs or new plans are adopted, many metropolitan areas 
     were starting another TIP update as soon as transportation 
     planning and conformity requirements were met for the 
     previous one. Some witnesses testifying before the committee 
     has indicated that transportation planning will improve if 
     metropolitan areas have more time to devote to it, rather 
     than continuously creating TIP updates and determining their 
     conformity. Because conformity must still be determined 
     before an updated plan or TIP is adopted, air quality should 
     not be affected by this change; air quality impacts will 
     still be checked before any major changes to the 
     transportation network are made.
       Horizon. The section also changes the horizon of the 
     conformity determination, that is, how far into the future 
     each conformity determination must examine. Currently, a 
     conformity determination is made analyzing a 20 year period 
     of time, which is the length of time covered by a 
     transportation plan. This section changes the horizon of a 
     conformity determination to be the longest of 10 years, the 
     latest year a State air quality plan (State implementation 
     plan, or SIP) establishes a budget, or the year after a 
     regionally significant project is completed if the project 
     requires approval before the next conformity determination.
       Conformity must marry two separate planning activities: 
     transportation planning, and air quality planning. While 
     transportation plans cover a period of 20 years, SIPs, which 
     are used as the measure of conformity, generally cover a 
     period of 10 years or fewer. The committee is changing the 
     horizon of the conformity determination so that it more 
     closely matches the length of time covered by a SIP. In 
     addition, the language also ensures that the emissions 
     impacts of large projects on travel are considered before 
     Federal approvals are made. The change made to the horizon 
     does not preclude State or local agencies from examining 
     longer time periods for informational or local air quality 
     purposes, if they choose to do so.
       Projects. The section defines transportation project to 
     include only a project that is regionally significant, or a 
     project that makes a significant revision to an existing 
     project. The definition of regionally significant project 
     closely tracks the existing EPA definition in regulation. 
     Likewise, the definition of significant revision tracks the 
     existing EPA criteria for significant change in design 
     concept or scope. With the addition of this definition for 
     transportation project, conformity determinations are 
     required for regionally significant projects or projects

[[Page 18830]]

     that make a significant revision to an existing project, 
     rather than for every Federal project. However, this change 
     does not affect the requirement that the emissions impacts 
     from all projects in the transportation plan and TIP must be 
     considered when determining conformity of a plan or TIP. VMT 
     from projects that are not regionally significant must still 
     be considered in a plan or TIP conformity determination.
       Requirement for Regulation. This section adds a new 
     requirement that EPA's regulations must address the effects 
     of the most recent population, economic, employment, travel, 
     transit ridership, congestion, and induced travel demand 
     information in the development and application of the latest 
     travel models. That is, this section requires that EPA adjust 
     regulations to ensure that travel models can account for the 
     effects of these elements. Currently, travel models can 
     account for the effects of most of the elements on this list, 
     because the Clean Air Act has required that conformity be 
     based on the most recent estimates of emissions since 1990, 
     and EPA's conformity regulations specify how latest 
     information regarding population, employment, travel, 
     congestion, and transit service must be incorporated into a 
     conformity determination.
       The new elements on this list are induced travel demand and 
     transit ridership information. The committee recognizes that 
     induced demand is a concept that is relatively recent and has 
     been the subject of some debate. Before changing regulations 
     in response to this section, EPA should examine the recent 
     literature regarding induced demand, including papers on the 
     topic submitted to the Transportation Research Board within 
     the last 6 years. Recent literature should inform EPA's 
     proposal on where, when, and how induced demand should be 
     included in travel models. If recent literature does not 
     include recommendations for how to incorporate induced demand 
     into travel modeling, then EPA should request input on this 
     topic from the public and the expert community prior to 
     proposing its regulations.
       Sec. 1617.
       Section 1617 reduces barriers to regions implementing 
     transportation control measures (TCMs) to improve their 
     regional air quality. The section allows an area to 
     substitute an existing TCM or add a TCM if they can show that 
     the new TCM will achieve equivalent or greater emissions 
     reductions. Substitution or addition of a TCM will not 
     require express permission in the State air quality plan 
     (SIP), a formal revision of the SIP, nor a new conformity 
     determination.
       Transportation control measures, or TCMs, are 
     transportation-related measures that have the potential to 
     reduce emissions of criteria pollutants. Many TCMs reduce 
     emissions by reducing VMT, for example, high-occupancy 
     vehicle lanes, transit projects, park and ride lots, ride-
     share programs, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. States 
     can include TCMs in their SIPs. However, unless the SIP 
     includes a TCM substitution mechanism, i.e., a set of 
     provisions for substituting TCMs, the SIP must be revised to 
     change a TCM that is delayed or no longer viable. The purpose 
     of this section is to allow all States to substitute TCMs 
     without a full SIP revision, regardless of whether the State 
     has its own substitution mechanism.
       TCMs can be substituted if the substitute measure achieves 
     the same or greater emission reductions as the measure being 
     replaced, based on an analysis that uses the latest planning 
     assumptions and the current models. The substitute TCMs must 
     be implemented on the same schedule as the original measure, 
     if that is possible. However, the committee recognizes that 
     it may not be possible for the substitute measure to be on 
     the original schedule; for example, a possible reason that a 
     State would want to substitute a TCM is that it has proved 
     difficult to implement in a timely way. In those cases, the 
     substitute measure must be implemented as soon as 
     practicable, but not later than the date on which the SIP is 
     supposed to achieve its purpose. For example, if the TCM is 
     included in the SIP as part of the attainment demonstration, 
     and the attainment date is 2005, the substitute TCM must be 
     implemented as soon as practicable to reduce emissions by 
     2005.
       Subparagraph (B) of this provision states that after 
     carrying out subparagraph (A), a State shall adopt the 
     substitute or additional control measure in the applicable 
     SIP. In this instance, the committee has used the word 
     `adopt' to mean that the State must record the measure as 
     being part of the SIP. The sole intent of this subparagraph 
     is to ensure that the State keeps an up-to-date list of the 
     TCMs that must be implemented, so that a member of the public 
     can review the list at any point and have the complete, 
     correct list of TCMs that are in the SIP. This subparagraph 
     is not intended to create any additional process requirements 
     than those in subparagraph (A).
       Sec. 1616.
       Section 1616 provides methods for new nonattainment areas 
     to use in determining transportation conformity to help 
     achieve the national ambient air quality standards. Many 
     areas will soon be designated nonattainment with the revised 
     national ambient air quality standards for ozone (the 8-hour 
     standard) and fine particulate matter (PM-2.5). In the case 
     of areas that have not been in nonattainment before and have 
     not been required to demonstrate transportation conformity or 
     develop an emissions budget to use in that demonstration, or 
     in the event that the agency revokes a prior standard before 
     new nonattainment areas have approved emissions budgets for a 
     revised standards, the committee has provided that those 
     areas would be able to use an emissions budget in a SIP for 
     the prior standard for the same pollutant, if one is 
     available. Areas could also use the other tests that are 
     currently available in cases where an area does not have a 
     SIP.
       This section is added because EPA designated areas for the 
     new 8-hour ozone standard in April 2004, and made 
     designations for the fine particulate matter standard (PM-
     2.5) in December 2004. Newly designated nonattainment areas 
     that have not been previously designated nonattainment for 
     the same pollutant will have a 1-year grace period before 
     conformity applies, but they have 3 years to submit SIPs to 
     EPA. SIPs include motor vehicle emissions budgets, which are 
     the total amount of each pollutant or precursor that is 
     allowable for the transportation sector. These budgets serve 
     as the measure of comparison when determining conformity. 
     Therefore, after areas are designated for an air quality 
     standard, there will be a period of time when other means of 
     determining conformity must be used.
       This section will allow areas that have been designated for 
     the new 8-hour ozone standard to use the motor vehicle 
     emissions budget from their 1-hour ozone SIP, if it exists, 
     even once EPA revokes the 1-hour standard. Rather than 
     referring specifically to the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone 
     standards, this section is written broadly to refer to any 
     standards. The committee recognizes that EPA, from time to 
     time, may revise air quality standards. Areas should be able 
     to use the budgets from the SIP that addresses the most 
     recent prior standard of the same pollutant, if one exists 
     and EPA has found its budgets adequate or has approved the 
     SIP.
       The committee did not mandate the use of the budgets from a 
     SIP for the most recent prior standard, but instead gave 
     areas the choice to do so, or use the existing tests. There 
     may be instances where the budget from a SIP addressing the 
     prior standard would not provide a good test of conformity. 
     For example, such a budget could be established for a year 
     that is many years in the past, be based on a geographic 
     boundary that is different than the boundary for the current 
     standard, or be based on information that is significantly 
     out-of-date. For these reasons, the committee believes it is 
     important to provide a choice to areas. Areas will use the 
     consultation process to determine whether budgets addressing 
     a prior standard for the same pollutant or another test or 
     tests, will be used for conformity.
       Sec. 1619.
       Section 1619 updates the language in section 176 of title 
     42 that directs EPA to write regulations. It removes 
     references to the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act 
     Amendments of 1990. It also removes the requirement for 
     States to duplicate the entire text of Federal conformity 
     regulations in their State implementation plans each time 
     there is a revision in those regulations. Instead, States 
     will be required to further amend their State implementation 
     plans only when revising conformity consultation procedures.
       Current law requires that States submit criteria and 
     procedures for assessing conformity of transportation plans, 
     TIPs, and projects. This requirement results in States having 
     to adopt the entire Federal conformity rule into their State 
     implementation plans (SIPs). States that have done so must 
     update their SIP whenever EPA updates any portion of the 
     conformity regulations, which EPA has done several times 
     since promulgating the initial rule in 1993, most recently in 
     2000, 2002 and 2004. However, only the consultation 
     procedures that exist in the regulations need to be tailored 
     to individual States. This change ensures that States must 
     submit consultation procedures, but no longer have to repeat 
     the entire Federal conformity regulations. This change will 
     reduce the paperwork burden on States with no adverse air 
     quality impact.
     Conference Substitute
       Frequency: The Conference agrees to a modified version of 
     the Senate provision. The Senate provision is modified to 
     clarify that the two-year clock for re-determining conformity 
     after the approval of new emissions budgets only starts if 
     those emissions budgets had not previously been found 
     adequate.
       Horizon: The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications. First, the change in horizon will be at the 
     election of the metropolitan planning organization, after 
     consultation with the appropriate air pollution control 
     agency and with a period for public comment. The decision to 
     address a portion of the transportation plan rather than the 
     entire 20-year plan when demonstrating conformity only needs 
     to be made once, not each time a conformity determination is 
     made. After such election, each conformity determination will 
     address the longest of the three periods at that point in 
     time.

[[Page 18831]]

     For example, the first conformity determination following 
     such election may address 10 years of the transportation 
     plan, but the second may need to address 15 years because the 
     new plan includes a regionally significant project in later 
     years of the plan. The Conference also requires a conformity 
     determination to include an informational regional emissions 
     analysis for the last year of the transportation plan and any 
     year shown to exceed emissions budgets by a prior 
     informational regional emissions analysis if such year 
     extends beyond the conformity date.
       Projects: The Conference does not adopt the Senate 
     provision.
       Conformity Lapse: The Conference adopts the House language.
       TCM Substitution: The Conference agrees to a modified 
     version of the Senate provision. The Conference clarifies the 
     meaning of ``adoption.'' Specifically, adoption occurs when 
     the MPO, state air agency and EPA concur that all four of the 
     general requirements in subparagraph (A) of the provision 
     have been fulfilled. At that point the substitute TCM becomes 
     part of the SIP and federally enforceable. The state air 
     agency is directed to send the substitute measure to EPA 
     within 90 days of adoption so that EPA may proceed with 
     incorporating the substitute measure into the codified SIP. 
     This action does not require any additional state process. 
     The conference also clarifies that evidence of adequate 
     funding for the implementation of the substitute TCM must be 
     provided.
       Requirements for Regulations: The Conference does not adopt 
     the Senate provision, but agrees to replace it with a 
     requirement in the Research title requiring the Federal 
     Highways Administration to address induced travel demand and 
     transit ridership in the development of the TRANSIMS 
     transportation model and to assist state and local 
     governments in using TRANSIMS to estimate the impact of these 
     factors when areas make conformity determinations, where 
     applicable.
       Transition to New Air Quality Standards: The Conference 
     does not adopt the Senate provision.
       Conforming Amendments: The Conference agrees to a modified 
     version of the Senate provision. The Conference clarifies 
     that states are required to incorporate three provisions from 
     the federal conformity rule into their SIPs. The three 
     provisions are related to consultation and enforcement and 
     enforceability of commitments for emission reduction or 
     mitigation measures. These are the only three provisions in 
     the federal conformity rule that states are allowed to tailor 
     when they incorporate conformity requirements into their 
     SIPs.
       Regulations: The Conference includes a provision requiring 
     EPA to revise the conformity rule within two years of the 
     enactment of the bill.


                 SECTION 6012. FEDERAL REFERENCE METHOD

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1610.
       This section directs EPA to conduct a study of the ability 
     of monitors to differentiate particulate matter larger than 
     2.5 micrometers in diameter (coarse particulate matter). EPA 
     is also directed to develop a method to measure directly the 
     amount and composition of coarse particulate matter.
       This section directs EPA to conduct a study of the ability 
     of monitors to differentiate particulate matter larger than 
     2.5 micrometers in diameter (coarse particulate matter). This 
     study will give policymakers and the agency a better 
     understanding of the difficulties involved in distinguishing 
     particles that are smaller than 2.5 micrometers in size from 
     those that are larger. This knowledge will assist 
     policymakers by minimizing the potential of measurements to 
     either inflate or deflate the quantity of smaller particles, 
     or to inflate or deflate the quantity of larger particles.
       EPA is also directed to develop a method to measure 
     directly the amount and composition of coarse particulate 
     matter. This will ensure that EPA has the tools necessary so 
     that it does not need to rely on a methodology for measuring 
     coarse particles (2.5 to 10 microns in size) by measuring all 
     particles (up to 10 microns in size) and subtracting fine 
     particles (2.5 microns or less in size), as this subtraction 
     method may increase the probability of measurement error. EPA 
     is also directed to develop a method to measure different 
     kinds of particles. By developing the ability to measure 
     different types, or so-called ``species'' of particles, the 
     agency will be able to better identify those particles that 
     constitute the particles of greater concern and to identify 
     the point of origin of the emissions for purposes of 
     modeling.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


  SECTION 6013. AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA INFLUENCED BY EXCEPTIONAL 
                                 EVENTS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1618.
       Section 1618 requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
     governing the handling of air quality monitoring data 
     influenced by exceptional events. These regulations would 
     allow governors to petition EPA to exclude air quality data 
     directly due to exceptional events. Events such as forest 
     fires or volcanic eruptions, should not influence whether a 
     region is meeting its Federal air quality goals. The section 
     includes requirements for demonstrating the occurrence of 
     such a natural event by reliable and accurate data, a clear 
     causal relationship between the exceptional event and a 
     national air quality standard exceedance, and a public 
     process for the determination.
       This section includes a definition of exceptional events 
     and excludes certain events from the definition. Natural 
     climatological occurrences such as stagnant air masses, high 
     temperatures, or lack of precipitation influence pollutant 
     behavior but do not themselves create pollutants. Thus, they 
     are not considered exceptional events. Likewise, air 
     pollution related to source noncompliance may not be 
     considered an exceptional event. In contrast, events which 
     are part of natural ecological processes, which generate 
     pollutants themselves that cannot be controlled, qualify as 
     exceptional events.
       The committee is concerned that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's (EPA's) current approach for modeling 
     carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from motor vehicles may not be 
     appropriate for cold weather States, such as Alaska, that 
     must make CO attainment and maintenance demonstrations. The 
     committee therefore requests that EPA evaluate the 
     effectiveness of its MOBLIE6 model to determine if it 
     adequately accounts for the effects of cold weather on CO 
     emissions.
       EPA is directed to follow principles in promulgating 
     regulations under this section. These principles reflect the 
     requirements of the current Clean Air Act and do not 
     establish new requirements for States or EPA to meet. 
     Instead, these are principles that EPA must follow when 
     promulgating regulations under this section.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


         SECTION 6014. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT OF RECYCLED COOLANT

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       This section directs the President to conduct, within 90 
     days of enactment of this Act, a review of Federal 
     procurement policy of off-site recycled coolant, taking into 
     consideration processes that are energy efficient, generate 
     no hazardous waste, produce no emissions of air pollutants, 
     present lower health and safety risks to employees at the 
     plant or facility and recover at least 97 percent of the 
     glycols from used antifreeze feedstock.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with a 
     correction to delete ``off-site''.


                 SECTION 6015. CLEAN SCHOOL BUS PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1622.
       Section 1622 establishes a statutory program to authorize 
     funds to assist localities seeking to reduce emissions from 
     existing school buses. The legislation requires EPA to award 
     grants to replace pre-1977 school buses and retrofit post-
     1990 school buses, and when appropriate, purchase alternative 
     fuels.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with a 
     modification to clarify that the awarding of grants for the 
     purchase of alternative fuel should be consistent with the 
     historic funding levels of the program for such purchase.


                   SECTION 6016. SPECIAL DESIGNATION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1704
       This section directs that the city of Norman, Oklahoma, 
     shall be considered to be part of the Oklahoma City urbanized 
     area for the purpose of any applicable program under title 
     23, United States Code.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


SECTION 6017. INCREASED USE OF RECOVERED MINERAL COMPONENT IN FEDERALLY 
      FUNDED PROJECTS INVOLVING PROCUREMENT OF CEMENT OR CONCRETE

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 4001.
       The section amends Subtitle F of the Solid Waste Disposal 
     Act (42 U.S.C. et seq) to direct the EPA and each agency head 
     to implement procurement requirements and incentives that 
     provide for the use of cement and concrete incorporating 
     recovered mineral component in cement or concrete projects. 
     Priority is to be given to achieving greater use of recovered 
     mineral components in cement or concrete projects for which 
     recovered mineral components historically have not been used 
     or have been used minimally.

[[Page 18832]]


     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with a 
     modification to exclude lead slag and lead slag aggregate 
     from the definition of ``recovered mineral component''.


              SECTION 6018. USE OF GRANULAR MINE TAILINGS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 4002.
       This section amends the Solid Waste Disposal to require the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and each 
     agency head to take necessary actions to implement fully all 
     procurement requirements and incentives that provide for the 
     use of cement and concrete incorporating recovered mineral 
     component in cement or concrete projects. An agency head is 
     required to give priority to achieving greater use of 
     recovered mineral component for which it has not been 
     historically used or used minimally. This section also 
     requires the Administrator, in cooperation with the 
     Secretaries of Transportation and Energy, to conduct a study 
     to determine the extent to which current procurement 
     requirements may realize energy savings and environmental 
     benefits attainable with the substitution of recovered 
     mineral component in cement used in cement or concrete 
     projects. Additionally, this section requires the 
     Administrator, in consultation with other agency heads, to 
     establish criteria for the safe and environmentally 
     protective use of granular mine tailings from the Tar Creek, 
     Oklahoma Mining District, known as `chat', for cement or 
     concrete projects, and transportation projects, including 
     those that use asphalt, that are carried out using Federal 
     funds. In establishing the criteria, the Administrator is 
     required to consider current and previous uses of `chat,' and 
     any environmental and public health risks and benefits 
     derived from removal, transportation and use of `chat.'
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.

             TITLE VII--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION


                         SEC. 7001. SHORT TITLE

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7301.
       This section provides the Short Title.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


          SEC. 7002. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

     House Bill
       Sec. 7001.
       This section establishes that any reference to a section or 
     other provision shall be considered a section or provision of 
     title 49, United States Code, unless otherwise specified.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.

    Subtitle A--General Authorities on Transportation of Hazardous 
                               Materials


                    SEC. 7101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

     House Bill
       Sec. 7002.
       This section establishes the Congressional findings of the 
     hazardous materials title, and updates and clarifies the 
     purpose of chapter 51.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7301.
       This section contains the short title and table of 
     contents.
       Sec. 7321.
       This section provides the purpose of the Hazmat Title.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications.


                         SEC. 7102. DEFINITIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 7003.
       This section modifies the definition of ``commerce'' to 
     include transportation on a U.S.-registered aircraft anywhere 
     in the world. This section also defines the term 
     ``Secretary'' as the Secretary of Transportation, except 
     where otherwise indicated.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7322.
       This section modifies definitions as indicated below.
       The definition of ``commerce'' is amended to provide 
     jurisdiction over hazardous materials activities being 
     conducted on a U.S.-registered aircraft anywhere in the 
     world. The purpose of this proposed provision is to clarify 
     that DOT has the authority, under Federal hazardous materials 
     transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5127), to regulate 
     hazardous materials transportation on all U.S.-registered 
     aircraft.
       The definitions of ``hazmat employee'' and ``hazmat 
     employer'' is amended to clarify that the terms include the 
     self-employed, including owner-operators of motor vehicles, 
     vessels or aircraft, and temporary or part time employees.
       The definition of ``motor carrier'' would be amended by 
     clarifying that it includes a freight forwarder, as defined 
     in 49 U.S.C. 13102, only if the freight forwarder is 
     performing a function related to highway transportation. In 
     addition, the definition of ``imminent hazard'' is further 
     clarified.
       Finally, the definition of ``person'' is amended so that 
     the requirements of chapter 51 apply to additional activities 
     of government agencies and Indian tribes, and includes those 
     that design, manufacture, fabricate, inspect, mark, maintain, 
     recondition, repair, or test a package, container, or 
     packaging component for use in the transportation of 
     hazardous materials in commerce.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                SEC. 7103. GENERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY

     House Bill
       Sec. 7004.
       This section updates the terminology used to describe the 
     materials the Secretary should designate as hazardous, as 
     well as the terminology describing the transportation, and 
     transportation-related, activities regulated by the DOT. This 
     section amends current law to ensure that persons who design 
     and inspect packages (or components of packages) are subject 
     to the hazardous materials regulations. This section also 
     clarifies that the hazardous materials regulations apply to 
     persons who prepare or accept hazardous materials for 
     transportation in commerce.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7323.
       This section amends subsection 5103(a), title 49 U.S.C. to 
     update the terminology used to describe materials the 
     Secretary is required to designate as hazardous under that 
     subsection. It would also amend subsection 5103(b)(1)(A) to 
     conform with the definition changes made to section 5102.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


          SEC. 7104. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF HAZMAT LICENSES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7324.
       This section requires the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to recommend to the Secretary of Transportation any 
     chemical or biological material or agent to be regulated as a 
     hazardous material in transportation.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


  SEC. 7105. BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR DRIVERS HAULING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

     House Bill
       Sec. 4113.
       This section authorizes the Secretary, and thus FMCSA, to 
     engage in international activities. This kind of authority is 
     necessary to aid in implementing the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement and to carry on discussions with U.S. trading 
     partners concerning a variety of safety issues.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7325.
       This section requires motor carriers registered in Mexico 
     and Canada and transporting hazardous material in the U.S. be 
     subject to a background records check similar to that which 
     will apply to U.S.-licensed motor carriers. In addition, this 
     section directs the Transportation Security Administration to 
     develop a process to notify an employer if an applicant fails 
     to meet specified standards. The provision eliminates 
     redundant background checks; requires Federal Regulations 
     apply to State appeals process for certain background checks; 
     and clarifies the term ``transportation security incident''.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House and Senate provisions with 
     modifications.


                SEC. 7106. REPRESENTATION AND TAMPERING

     House Bill
       Sec. 7005.
       This section updates the language in current law without 
     changing the scope of the law.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7326.
       This section would make technical changes to section 5104 
     for purposes of clarity.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                    SEC. 7107. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 7006.
       This section provides technical amendments to update the 
     terminology in current law.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7327.
       This section would amend section 5105 by deleting 
     subsection (d) because the required

[[Page 18833]]

     study has been completed and submitted to Congress.
       Sec. 7329.
       This section makes technical changes to title 49, United 
     States Code.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                SEC. 7108. TRAINING OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

     House Bill
       Sec. 7007.
       This section amends section 5107(f) of current law 
     (redesignated in the bill as section 5107(g)) by deleting the 
     reference to section 5108(a)-(g)(1) and (h), and section 
     5109, but retains the provision in current law that states 
     that an action of the Secretary under subsections (a)-(d) of 
     this section and section 5106 of this title is not an 
     exercise of statutory authority, under section 4(b)(1) of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, to prescribe or 
     enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational 
     safety or health.
       This section also codifies the existing practice of 
     providing hazardous materials training to maintenance-of-way 
     employees and railroad signalmen.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7328.
       This section allows training grants for the ``Train the 
     Trainer'' program to also be made to instructors to train 
     hazmat employees, to the extent determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts both the House and Senate provisions. 
     The Conference retains the provision in current law that 
     states that an action of the Secretary is not an exercise of 
     statutory authority, under section 4(b)(1) of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, to prescribe or 
     enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational 
     safety or health.
       The Conference codifies the existing practice of providing 
     hazardous materials training to maintenance-of-way employees 
     and railroad signalmen.
       The Conference allows training grants for the ``Train the 
     Trainer'' program to also be made to instructors to train 
     hazmat employees, to the extent determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.


                        SEC. 7109. REGISTRATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 7008.
       This section amends the current law to include those 
     persons who design and inspect hazardous materials packages, 
     or package components, as persons required to register with 
     the Secretary. This change is consistent with the updated 
     language in Section 7004 concerning persons who are subject 
     to the hazardous materials regulations.
       Section 5108(g) is amended to require the Secretary to 
     establish and collect a registration fee sufficient to cover 
     the costs of processing the registration and that the 
     Secretary must collect a fee at least large enough to cover 
     processing costs from all entities otherwise exempted from 
     paying the registration fee. This section reduces the maximum 
     fee the Secretary may assess from $5,000 to $3,000.
       This section also requires the Administrator of RSPA to 
     transmit the annual registration information required in 
     section 5108 for motor carriers to FMCSA. The Committee 
     intends to ensure that FMCSA has the most up-to-date 
     information on motor carriers that transport hazardous 
     materials and expects the transmittal of information to be 
     done as expeditiously as possible.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7329.
       The Secretary is allowed to require a registration 
     statement from persons who design and inspect a package or 
     packaging component that is represented as qualified for use 
     in transporting hazardous materials in commerce.
       This section requires the Secretary to impose a 
     registration fee sufficient to cover administrative 
     processing costs. Indian tribes and States would be exempted 
     from the requirements to register and pay registration fees.
       This section also reduces the maximum fee that would be 
     assessed under section 5108(g)(2)(A) from $5,000 to $3,000. 
     The Secretary is directed to reinstate the fees that were 
     suspended due to regulatory action.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


               SEC. 7110. SHIPPING PAPERS AND DISCLOSURE

     House Bill
       Sec. 7009.
       This section requires that each person who prepares a 
     shipping paper must make the disclosures that the Secretary 
     prescribes by regulation.
       This section amends section 5110 to extend the time period 
     shippers and carriers are required to retain shipping papers. 
     Under current law, shippers and carriers are required to 
     retain the shipping papers for one year after the hazardous 
     material is no longer in transportation. This section 
     requires shippers and carriers to retain shipping papers for 
     two years after the shipping papers are prepared.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7330.
       This section requires shippers to keep their shipping 
     papers for three years in order to facilitate investigations 
     of past violations and continues to require carriers to 
     retain their shipping papers for the current one year period.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications. The bill requires shippers to keep their 
     shipping papers for two years in order to facilitate 
     investigations of past violations, and continues to require 
     carriers to retain their shipping papers for the current one 
     year period. For purposes of this section, shippers who are 
     also carriers and carriers who are also shippers must retain 
     their shipping papers for two years.


                       SEC. 7111. RAIL TANK CARS

     House Bill
       Sec. 7010.
       This section repeals section 5111, which permits a rail car 
     built before January 1, 1971, to be used for hazardous 
     materials transportation only if the air brake equipment 
     support attachments of the car comply with the standard for 
     attachments contained in 49 CFR 179.100-16 and 179.200-19.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7331.
       This section repeals section 5111, which permits a rail car 
     built before January 1, 1971, to be used for hazardous 
     materials transportation only if the air brake equipment 
     support attachments of the car comply with the standard for 
     attachments contained in 49 CFR 179.100-16 and 179.200-19.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts a combination of the House and Senate 
     provisions.


                SEC. 7112. UNSATISFACTORY SAFETY RATINGS

     House Bill
       Sec. 7011.
       This section amends section 5113 to provide that a motor 
     carrier owner or operator transporting hazardous materials in 
     commerce who, upon review of an unfavorable fitness 
     determination, is determined by the Secretary to be ``unfit'' 
     is subject to the civil penalties in section 5123 and the 
     criminal penalties set forth in section 5124.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7332.
       This section provides that an unfit owner or operator 
     transporting hazardous material in commerce, as determined by 
     the Secretary, shall be subject to the civil penalties in 
     section 5123 and the criminal penalties in section 5124.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


          SEC. 7113. TRAINING CURRICULUM FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR

     House Bill
       Sec. 7012.
       This section updates the training curriculum to include 
     appropriate emergency response training and planning programs 
     developed with all Federal assistance, not just those under 
     Federal grant programs.
       This section also makes the Secretary responsible for 
     distribution and publication of the training curriculum.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7333.
       Several technical amendments are made to reflect that the 
     public-sector training curriculum has already been developed 
     and to focus the statutory provisions on maintaining, not 
     developing, the curriculum.
       The training curriculum is required to include appropriate 
     emergency response training and planning programs for public-
     sector employees developed with Federal financial assistance, 
     not just those under other Federal grant programs.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications to include the House provision ensuring that 
     the training necessary for public sector employees also 
     complies with other voluntary consensus standard-setting 
     organizations as the Secretary determines appropriate. The 
     House Distribution and Publication language is also adopted.


SEC. 7114. PLANNING AND TRAINING GRANTS; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY 
                           PREPAREDNESS FUND

     House Bill
       Sec. 7013.
       This section amends section 5116(b)(4) to require the 
     Secretary to consider the report established in section 7022 
     of this bill when determining a State or Indian tribe's 
     emergency response funding needs.
       This section also establishes the Secretary of 
     Transportation as the lead for monitoring public sector 
     emergency response planning and training. It also establishes 
     a new account within the Treasury specifically for hazardous 
     materials emergency preparedness.
       This section also allows the Secretary to use funds 
     collected from the annual registration fees to publish and 
     distribute the Emergency Response Guidebook.

[[Page 18834]]


     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7334.
       This section eliminates the current requirement that the 
     State share of planning and training grants must be above and 
     beyond `maintenance of effort' funds. In subsection (g), the 
     phrase `government grant programs' would be broadened to 
     `Federal financial assistance programs' in order to provide 
     for more complete coordination of funding sources.
       This section also amends section 5116 to provide a name for 
     the account established under subsection 5116(i), calling it 
     the `Emergency Preparedness Fund.' Amounts collected by the 
     Secretary under subsection 5108(g)(2)(C) would be deposited 
     into the Emergency Preparedness Fund and could be used for 
     emergency planning and training grants, under subsection 
     5116(a) and (b), monitoring and technical assistance under 
     subsection 5116(f), and administrative costs of carrying out 
     sections 5116, 5108(g)(2), and section 5115. It also 
     clarifies that these amounts may be used to publish and 
     distribute the Emergency Response Guidebook. Information on 
     the allocation and uses of the grants would be made available 
     to the public on an annual basis.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate and House provisions with 
     modifications. A compromise on the Government Share of Costs 
     is also adopted.


               SEC. 7115. SPECIAL PERMITS AND EXCLUSIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 7014.
       This section clarifies that the Secretary may issue a 
     special permit to any person who performs a function 
     regulated under section 5103(b)(1).
       This section increases the maximum renewal period of 
     special permits from two years to four years, except that 
     special permits issued related to highway routing of 
     hazardous materials are only renewable for a two-year period.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7335.
       This section clarifies that the Secretary may issue a 
     special permit to any person who performs a function 
     identified under section 5103(b)(1).
       In addition, this section changes the maximum initial 
     effective period of a special permit to two years, and 
     provides for the renewal of special permits for four-year 
     successive periods. This change eliminates a great deal of 
     unnecessary industry application time and government 
     processing time involved in the present two-year renewal 
     process.
       This section also repeals a requirement that the Secretary 
     maintain 30 hazardous materials safety inspectors more than 
     the number of inspectors authorized at the end of FY 1990. 
     The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
     maintains inspectors in excess of this requirement and, 
     pursuant to recommendations resulting from a department-wide 
     DOT review of the hazmat program, is requesting more 
     flexibility about how inspectors should be utilized.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications. The Conference also adopts the Senate's repeal 
     of section 5118.


                SEC. 7116. UNIFORM FORMS AND PROCEDURES

     House Bill
       Sec. 7015.
       This section requires the Secretary to establish a working 
     group to develop uniform forms and procedures for States to 
     register and issue permits to persons who transport, or cause 
     to be transported hazardous materials in the State. The 
     working group is required to develop a report of its 
     recommendations for the Secretary to consider when issuing 
     regulations to carry out a uniform State registration system. 
     The working group is prohibited from proposing to limit any 
     fee that a State may impose or collect.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7336.
       This section reflects the fact that the working group 
     established to formulate uniform registration and permitting 
     forms and procedures has completed its task and submitted a 
     report to Congress. The section authorizes the Secretary to 
     prescribe regulations to establish uniform forms and 
     regulations for States to: (1) register and issue permits for 
     the transportation of hazmat by motor vehicle; and (2) permit 
     the transportation of hazmat in a State. In addition, States 
     would be authorized to participate in the uniform forms and 
     procedures program recommended by the Alliance for Uniform 
     Hazmat Transportation Procedures.
     Compromise
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications.


   SEC. 7117. INTERNATIONAL UNIFORMITY OF STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 7016.
       This section amends current law to reflect that the 
     Secretary may have additional international requirements, in 
     addition to current international standards, that need to be 
     met.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                  SEC. 7118. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY

     House Bill
       Sec. 7017.
       This section amends section 5121 to provide for enhanced 
     authority to discover hidden shipments of hazardous materials 
     and to clarify and enhance the inspection and enforcement 
     authority of DOT officials and inspection personnel, thereby 
     enabling them to more effectively identify hazardous 
     materials shipments and to determine whether those shipments 
     are made in accordance with the hazardous materials 
     regulations. This proposal would expand DOT inspection 
     authority to authorize a designated DOT officer or employee 
     to: access, open, and examine a package (except for the 
     packaging immediately adjacent to the hazardous materials 
     contents) offered for or in transportation when the officer 
     or employee has an objectively reasonable and articulable 
     belief that the package may contain a hazardous material; 
     remove from transportation a package or related packages in a 
     shipment when the officer or employee has an objectively 
     reasonable and articulable belief that the package or 
     packages may pose an imminent hazard and contemporaneously 
     documents that belief; gather information from the shipper, 
     packaging manufacturer or retester, or others responsible for 
     the package to determine the nature and hazards of the 
     contents of the package; as necessary, order the shipper, 
     packaging manufacturer or retester, or others responsible for 
     the package to have the package transported to, opened, and 
     the contents analyzed at an appropriate facility; and 
     authorize properly qualified personnel to assist in the 
     package opening and examination when safety might otherwise 
     be compromised.
       This section also amends current law to require the 
     Secretary to develop procedures to assist in the safe 
     resumption of transportation of the package and transport 
     unit when an inspection or investigation does not result in 
     discovery of an imminent hazard. This section directs the 
     Secretary to develop expedited procedures for hazardous 
     materials that are perishable.
       The Committee believes strongly that DOT officials, law 
     enforcement and inspection personnel must have the tools 
     necessary to accurately determine whether hazardous materials 
     are being transported safely and in accordance with the 
     relevant law and regulations. To that end, the Committee 
     supports the use of new technologies, such as the Hazmat 
     Trucking Enforcer, that enable inspectors to conduct 
     hazardous materials inspections in a more effective manner 
     and to respond swiftly to any incident involving hazardous 
     materials. The Committee notes that States must be in 
     substantial compliance with a number of requirements under 49 
     U.S.C. 31102 as a condition of receiving MCSAP funding, 
     including requirements to deploy technology to enhance the 
     efficiency and effectiveness of commercial motor vehicle 
     safety programs under 49 U.S.C 31102(b)(1)(A), as amended.
       This section would also repeal a requirement that the 
     Secretary maintain 30 hazardous materials safety inspectors 
     more than the number authorized at the end of fiscal year 
     1990. PHMSA currently maintains inspectors in excess of this 
     requirement.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7337.
       This section improves safety by clarifying and enhancing 
     the inspection and enforcement authority of DOT officials and 
     inspection personnel. Section 5121(a) is amended to expressly 
     state that the Secretary's enforcement authority includes the 
     authority to conduct tests. This section also clarifies that 
     persons subject to chapter 51 must make property, as well as 
     records, reports, and information, available to the Secretary 
     for inspection upon the Secretary's request.
       This section provides for enhanced authority for DOT 
     officials to discover hidden shipments of hazardous 
     materials. Section 5121(c) is amended to clarify and enhance 
     the inspection and enforcement authority of DOT officials and 
     inspection personnel, thereby enabling them to more 
     effectively identify hazardous materials shipments and to 
     determine whether those shipments are made in accordance with 
     the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
       The Secretary is required to develop procedures for the 
     safe resumption of transportation of a package or transport 
     unit when an inspection or investigation does not result in 
     the discovery of an imminent hazard. The Committee expects 
     that the Secretary will take in to consideration the impact 
     of these procedures on the resumption of transit for time 
     sensitive medical material such as radiopharmaceuticals and 
     radionucleides.
       In addition, this section authorizes the Secretary to issue 
     an emergency order when it is determined, by inspection, 
     investigation, testing, or research, that a violation of 
     hazardous material transportation laws, or an unsafe 
     condition or practice, is causing an imminent hazard. In 
     those situations, the Secretary is authorized to issue or 
     impose emergency restrictions, prohibitions, recalls,

[[Page 18835]]

     or out-of-service orders, without notice or the opportunity 
     for a hearing, but only to the extent necessary to abate the 
     imminent hazard.
       The Secretary is required to issue regulations implementing 
     the new provisions governing package inspection and emergency 
     orders.
       A new subsection (g) authorizes the Secretary to enter into 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions to 
     address security risk assessment and emergency preparedness. 
     The objectives would include research, development, 
     demonstration, risk assessment, emergency response planning, 
     program support, and training activities.
       This section requires the Secretary, through the Bureau of 
     Transportation Statistics, to submit a report at least every 
     three years on the transportation of hazardous materials 
     during the preceding three years, including a summary of 
     hazmat shipments, deliveries, and movements during the 
     period. In addition, the section would require a report every 
     two years with, among other items, an analysis of hazmat 
     accidents and incidents over the preceding two years, a list 
     and summary of special permits, regulations and orders, and 
     an evaluation of the effectiveness of enforcement activities 
     relating to the transportation of hazmat during the period.
       The Secretary would be authorized to determine whether 
     release of certain sensitive information contained in 
     government records would be contrary to national security.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications. The Conference believes strongly that DOT 
     officials, law enforcement and inspection personnel must have 
     the tools necessary to accurately determine whether hazardous 
     materials are being transported safely and in accordance with 
     the relevant law and regulations.


                         SEC. 7119. ENFORCEMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 7018.
       This section amends section 5122 to clarify the types of 
     judicial relief, including a temporary or permanent 
     injunction, punitive damages, and assessment of civil 
     penalties, available to be granted in an action brought by 
     the Attorney General. Subsection (b) is amended for clarity 
     by changing the word ``ameliorate'' to ``mitigate.''
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7338.
       This section clarifies the types of judicial relief, 
     including civil penalties, that may be granted in an action 
     brought by the Attorney General.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


                        SEC. 7120. CIVIL PENALTY

     House Bill
       Sec. 7019.
       This section amends section 5123 to increase the maximum 
     civil penalty from $27,500 to $50,000 for each violation of a 
     law or regulation under Chapter 51. In those cases resulting 
     in death, serious illness, severe injury to any person, or 
     substantial destruction of property, the Secretary would be 
     able to increase the maximum penalty to $100,000.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7339.
       This section amends the civil penalty provisions in section 
     5123 to cover violations of special permits or approvals 
     issued by DOT to ensure that appropriate enforcement action 
     can be taken against persons violating those special 
     authorities. Civil penalties for death, serious illness, or 
     severe injury would be increased to up to $100,000 to serve 
     as a deterrent against violations that could lead to such 
     outcomes. Maximum civil penalty amounts for other violations 
     are set at the current level of $32,500 and violations 
     related to employee training will be subject to a minimum 
     penalty of $450. A violator would be liable for interest that 
     accrues on a civil penalty.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provisions with a 
     modification.


                      SEC. 7121. CRIMINAL PENALTY

     House Bill
       Sec. 7020.
       Section 5124 would be revised to include a new ``reckless'' 
     standard and to define the ``knowing,'' ``reckless,'' and 
     ``willful'' mental-state standards necessary to establish a 
     criminal violation. Section 5124(a) would be amended to 
     provide that a person who knowingly, willfully, or recklessly 
     violates chapter 51 or a regulation, order, special permit, 
     or approval issued under that chapter, is subject to a fine 
     imposed under title 18 and/or imprisonment of not more than 5 
     years. In cases where a violation involves the release of a 
     hazardous material that results in death or bodily injury to 
     any person, the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.
       Section 5124(c) defines a ``willful'' violation as when the 
     person has knowledge of the facts giving rise to the 
     violation and the person has knowledge that the conduct was 
     unlawful.
       Section 5124(d) defines a ``reckless'' violation as when a 
     person displays a deliberate indifference or conscious 
     disregard for the consequences of his or her conduct.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7340.
       An increased criminal penalty of not more than twenty years 
     is applied to existing law for a person who knowingly 
     violated 49 U.S.C. 5104(b) or willfully violates chapter 51 
     or a regulation issued under that chapter, and thereby causes 
     a release of hazardous material. The section also provides 
     that a separate violation occurs for each day a violation 
     continues.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


                         SEC. 7122. PREEMPTION

     House Bill
       Sec. 7021.
       This section adds language to ensure that when the 
     preemption test required by this section is conducted, each 
     requirement is independent in their application to the State 
     or Indian tribe.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7341.
       This section would include a new subsection outlining the 
     purposes of the Secretary's current preemption authority and 
     clarifies that a person may apply to the Secretary for a 
     decision as to whether a fee imposed by a State, political 
     subdivision of a State, or an Indian tribe is preempted. 
     Further, this section deletes the requirement that the 
     Secretary publish the reason for a delay in issuing a 
     preemption determination in the Federal Register.
       Subsection 5125(j) is added to indicate that the preemption 
     standard is to be applied independently to each non-Federal 
     requirement in order to determine whether it is preempted.
       Finally, new subsection 5125(i) clarifies that the 
     Secretary's preemption authority does not apply to a 
     procedure, penalty, required mental state, or other standard 
     used by a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian 
     tribe to enforce hazardous material transportation 
     requirements.
     Compromise
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


                       SEC. 7123. JUDICIAL REVIEW

     House Bill
       Sec. 7023.
       This section adds a new section 5127 providing for judicial 
     review of final actions taken by the Secretary under chapter 
     51. This provision establishes the appropriate judicial forum 
     for review of final agency actions in the areas of 
     compliance, enforcement, civil penalties, rulemaking, and 
     preemption.
       Under this proposal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     U.S. circuit in which a person seeking review resides or has 
     his or her principal place of business would review the final 
     action. The petition for review must be filed within 60 days 
     after issuance of the order. The section describes judicial 
     procedures, the authority of the court, and a requirement for 
     prior objection.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7343.
       This section adds a new section 5127 providing for judicial 
     review of final actions taken by the Secretary under chapter 
     51. This provision establishes the appropriate judicial forum 
     for review of final agency actions in the areas of 
     compliance, enforcement, civil penalties, rulemaking, and 
     preemption.
       Under the proposal, the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia or for the circuit in which a person 
     seeking review resides or has his or her principal place of 
     business would review the final action. The petition for 
     review must be filed within 60 days after issuance of the 
     order.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision with 
     modifications.


                 SEC. 7124. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS

     House Bill
       Sec. 7022.
       This section updates the language in the current law 
     without changing the scope.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7342.
       This section requires that a person under contract to the 
     United States government to design or inspect a packaging or 
     packaging component used for transporting hazardous materials 
     must comply with chapter 51 and the hazardous materials 
     regulations.
       Further, this section enables hazardous materials law to 
     supersede postal laws and regulations under titles 18 or 39 
     only `in case of an imminent hazard.'
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.

[[Page 18836]]




               SEC. 7125. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 7024.
       This section provides funding for the DOT to implement the 
     programs and grants established and required in chapter 51 
     for fiscal years 2005 through 2007.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7344.
       This section authorizes appropriations of $24,940,000 for 
     FY 2005, $29,000,000 for FY 2006, and $30,000,000 for each of 
     FYs 2007 through 2009.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the following structure:
        This section would authorize appropriations of 
     $24,940,000 for FY 2005, $29,000,000 for FY 2006, and 
     $30,000,000 for each of FYs 2007 and 2008.
        A new subsection (b) would authorize 
     appropriations from the Hazardous Materials Emergency 
     Preparedness Fund account to carry out certain activities:
     $4,000,000 for each of FYs 2005 through 2008 to carry out 
     section 5107(e) (training grants);
     $200,000 for each of FYs 2005 through 2008 to carry out 
     section 5115 (training curriculum for the public sector);
     $21,800,000 for each FYs 2005 through 2008 for sections 
     5116(a) and (b) to be split as follows: $5,000,000 for 
     section 5116(a); $7,800,000 for 5116(b); and 35 percent of 
     the remainder for 5116(a) and 65 percent of the remainder for 
     5116(b). The Secretary may increase the amount for 5116(b) if 
     the Secretary determines it appropriate based upon the 
     relative training and planning needs of individual 
     applicants.
     $150,000 for each of FYs 2005 through 2008 to carry out 
     section 5116(f) (monitoring and technical assistance to the 
     public sector); $1,000,000 for each of FYs 2005 through 2008 
     to carry out section 5116(j) (supplemental training grants);
     $625,000 for each of FYs 2005 through 2008 to carry out 
     section 5116(i)(3) (for publication and distribution of the 
     Emergency Response Guidebook).
     Funding for issuance of hazmat licenses is authorized to be 
     appropriated for such amounts as may be necessary to carry 
     out section 5103a.
     Administrative costs for carrying out certain programs are 
     capped at 2 percent.


        SEC. 7126. REFERENCES TO THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

     House Bill
       Sec. 7026.
       This section designates that any reference to the 
     ``Secretary of Transportation'' in chapter 51 be simplified 
     to ``Secretary''.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7346.
       This section clarifies that references to the ``Secretary 
     of Transportation'' in certain sections of chapter 51 are 
     simplified to ``Secretary''.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


                      SEC. 7127. CRIMINAL MATTERS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7363.
       This section provides for a correction to title 18 of the 
     United States Code for the transportation of explosives. It 
     makes explosives that are regulated by the DOT and the 
     Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subject to their 
     authority.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopted the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


           SEC. 7128. ADDITIONAL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7345.
       This section amends criminal penalties for violations in 
     transporting hazardous materials by air (49 U.S.C. 46312) to 
     clarify that the regulations referred to in that section 
     include the Hazardous Materials Regulations issued by the 
     Secretary under chapter 51. Consequently, violations in 
     transporting hazardous materials by air would clearly 
     constitute violations of both Federal hazardous material 
     transportation laws and the Federal Aviation Act.
       This section also would allow the Department of Justice to 
     seek restitution against persons convicted of a criminal 
     offense under 49 U.S.C. 5124.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopted the Senate provision.


     SEC. 7129. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN REQUIREMENT

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7368.
       This section would exempt farmers as defined in the section 
     from certain hazardous materials transportation plans for 
     local farm-related shipments within 150 miles of their farm.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


  SEC. 7130. DETERMINING AMOUNT OF UNDECLARED SHIPMENTS OF HAZARDOUS 
                  MATERIALS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES

     House Bill
       Sec. 7025.
       This section requires the GAO to conduct a study to propose 
     methods to determine the amount of undeclared shipments of 
     hazardous materials entering the United States.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7364.
       This section authorizes the Secretary to initiate a program 
     to randomly inspect cargo shipments at U.S. Customs ports of 
     entry to determine the extent to which undeclared hazardous 
     material is being offered for transportation in commerce. DOT 
     inspection personnel, in coordination with DHS officials, are 
     authorized to open and inspect containers at any U.S. Customs 
     port of entry. The inspections are then carried out by DOT 
     inspection personnel at U.S. Customs ports of entry where 
     they are similar to border inspections, and they would be 
     based upon random selections made by supervisory personnel 
     not present at the site of the inspections.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


            SEC. 7131. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESEARCH PROJECTS

     House Bill
       Sec. 5216.
       This section authorizes PHMSA to enter into a contract with 
     the National Academy of Science to carry out the 9 research 
     projects called for in the 2005 Special Report 283 of the 
     Transportation Research Board entitled ``Cooperative Research 
     for Hazardous Materials Transportation: Defining the Need, 
     Converging on Solutions''.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7370.
       This section creates a HAZMAT research cooperative through 
     the National Academy of Sciences' Transportation Research 
     Board.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


 SEC. 7132. NATIONAL FIRST RESPONDER TRANSPORTATION INCIDENT RESPONSE 
                                 SYSTEM

     House Bill
       Sec. 7027.
       This section authorizes $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2007 for Operation Respond.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7367.
       This section would authorize $5,000,000 annually for FYs 
     2005 through 2009 for Operation Respond to update the OREIS 
     and permits the Secretary to require the Operation Respond 
     system function across multiple transportation modes.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the House provision.


               SEC. 7133. COMMON CARRIER PIPELINE SYSTEM

     House Bill
       This section requires a study to examine the economic, 
     environmental, and homeland security advantages and 
     disadvantages of operating a common carrier pipeline system 
     in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama for the 
     transportation of aromatic chemicals.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.

                Subtitle B--Sanitary Food Transportation


                         SEC. 7201. SHORT TITLE

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7381.
       This section sets forth the short title for the Sanitary 
     Food Transportation Act of 2003. This title would reallocate 
     responsibilities for food transportation safety among the 
     U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. 
     Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


 SEC. 7202. RESPONSIBILITIES OF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7382.
       This section amends section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (the Act; 21 U.S.C. 391) to provide that 
     food is adulterated if transported in violation of safe 
     transportation practices prescribed in the new section 416 of 
     the Act.
       Subsection (b) adds to the Act a new section 416 requiring 
     the Secretary of HHS to

[[Page 18837]]

     establish by regulation sanitary transportation practices to 
     be followed by shippers, carriers, and others engaged in food 
     transport. The Secretary of HHS may prescribe practices 
     relating to matters such as sanitation, packaging and 
     protective measures; limitations on the use of vehicles; 
     information sharing between shippers and carriers; and record 
     keeping, reporting, and compliance with inspections.
       It also authorizes the Secretary of HHS to publish in the 
     Federal Register (and amend as needed) lists of non-food 
     products that could render food products adulterated if 
     shipped simultaneously or subsequently in the same vehicle.
       The section authorizes the Secretary of HHS to waive all or 
     part of the requirements of section 416, in appropriate 
     circumstances, with respect to particular classes of persons, 
     vehicles, food, or non-food products.
       This provision also preempts State or local laws concerning 
     transportation of food. Finally, it requires the heads of 
     other Federal agencies, including the Secretaries of 
     Transportation and the Department of Agriculture, and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to 
     assist the Secretary of HHS, upon request, in carrying out 
     this section.
       Paragraph (c) of this section would add to the Act a new 
     section requiring persons subject to these provisions to 
     cooperate with HHS inspections of records.
       Subsection (d) amends section 301 of the Act to make 
     violations of requirements added by this section prohibited 
     acts subject to the sanctions provided in chapter III of the 
     Act.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version with 
     modifications.


          SEC. 7203. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7383.
       This section requires the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Secretaries of HHS and the Department of Agriculture, to 
     establish inspection procedures for identifying suspected 
     incidents of contamination or adulteration of food that might 
     violate regulations issued under section 416 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and of meat and poultry 
     products subject to detention under section 402 of the 
     Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 672) and section 19 of 
     the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 467a). In 
     addition, it requires the Secretary to train DOT personnel 
     who perform motor vehicle and railroad related safety 
     inspections to identify practices and conditions that could 
     pose a threat to food safety and to notify the secretaries of 
     HHS and the Department of Agriculture of any instances of 
     potential food contamination identified during those 
     inspections.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications.


                       SEC. 7204. EFFECTIVE DATE

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7384.
       This section makes the changes in law under the subtitle 
     align with the Federal fiscal year, which is particularly 
     important for the transfer of duties among different 
     agencies.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version with 
     modifications.

     Subtitle C--Research and Innovative Technology Administration


                  SEC. 7301. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7361.
       This section provides RITA necessary administrative 
     authority to conduct effective research on transportation 
     service and infrastructure assurance and to prevent security-
     sensitive information developed in the course of that 
     research from aiding persons who might want to disrupt the 
     transportation system.
     Conference Substitute
       The conference adopts the Senate version with 
     modifications.

      TITLE VIII--TRANSPORTATION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING GUARANTEE


   SEC. 8001. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS FOR THE HIGHWAY AND MASS 
                           TRANSIT CATEGORIES

     House Bill
       Sec. 8001.
       This section amends section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to continue 
     separate spending limits for the highway and mass transit 
     categories in Highway Trust Fund budget authority, new budget 
     authority, and outlays for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. 
     The section also amends section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reference 
     this Act instead of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century, and to allow for successor accounts to be 
     established in the budget accounts used to track highway and 
     transit spending.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 3102(a) and (c).
       This section amends section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to continue 
     separate spending limits for the highway and mass transit 
     categories in Highway Trust Fund budget authority for fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009. This section amends section 
     250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 to reference this Act instead of the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and defines 
     the budget accounts to be used to track highway and transit 
     spending pursuant to this Act.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version without fiscal year 
     2004.


     SEC. 8002. ADJUSTMENTS TO ALIGN HIGHWAY SPENDING WITH REVENUES

     House Bill
       Sec. 8002.
       This section amends section 251(b)(1) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to adjust 
     obligations from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust 
     Fund to actual levels of highway receipts for fiscal years 
     2004 through 2009.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 3102(b).
       This section amends section 251(b)(1) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to adjust 
     obligations from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust 
     Fund to actual levels of highway receipts for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version without fiscal year 
     2004.


               SEC. 8003. LEVEL OF OBLIGATION LIMITATIONS

     House Bill
       Sec. 8003.
       This section sets the obligation limitation levels for the 
     purposes of section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for the highway 
     category and mass transit category, including both Highway 
     Trust Funds and new budget authority, for fiscal years 2004 
     through 2009.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 3103.
       This section sets the obligation limitation levels for the 
     purposes of section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for the highway 
     category and mass transit category, for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version without fiscal year 
     2004.


                  SEC. 8004. ENFORCEMENT OF GUARANTEE

     House Bill
       Sec. 8004.
       This section amends clause 3 of Rule XXI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives to update the cite to this Act 
     and add language providing that obligation limitation 
     relating to surface transportation projects under section 
     1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
     and section 7102 of the House bill shall be assumed to be 
     administered on the basis of sound program management 
     practices allowing States to decide high priority project 
     funding priorities within State allocations.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version without fiscal year 
     2004. Also, this section conforms the cites to the new act.


     SEC. 8005. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

     House Bill
       Sec. 8005.
       This section states that it shall be in order for purposes 
     of clauses 2 and 3 of Rule XXI of the House of 
     Representatives to transfer funds in appropriations bills 
     from Federal Transit Administration administrative expenses 
     to other mass transit budget accounts under section 
     250(c)(4)(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version without fiscal year 
     2004.

                       TITLE IX--RAIL PROVISIONS


            SEC. 9001. HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT

     House Bill
       Sec. 9001.
       Section 9001 reauthorizes the Swift Rail Development Act 
     (``Swift Act'') and makes some technical amendments.
       Subsection (a) amends the Swift Act to address ``corridor 
     development'' rather than

[[Page 18838]]

     ``corridor planning.'' It also authorizes the acquisition of 
     track, signals, rail rolling stock and locomotives under the 
     program.
       Subsection (b) reauthorizes the Swift Act at $100 million 
     per year from Fiscal Year 2006 through Fiscal Year 2013. Of 
     this $100 million, $70 million is for corridor development 
     activities and $30 million is for technology development 
     activities.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House provision.


      SEC. 9002. CAPITAL GRANTS FOR RAIL LINE RELOCATION PROJECTS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7602.
       This section establishes a grant program to provide 
     financial assistance for local rail line relocation and 
     improvement projects. In order for a State to be eligible for 
     a grant for an improvement construction project, the project 
     must: mitigate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety, 
     motor vehicle flow, community quality of life, including 
     noise mitigation, or economic development; or involve a 
     lateral or vertical relocation of any portion of the rail 
     line.
       There is $350 million for each fiscal year 2006 through 
     2009 authorized for these grants. At least half of the funds 
     awarded under this section shall not be more than $20 million 
     each and not more than twenty-five percent of the total 
     amount may be used for one project. A State, or other 
     eligible entity, will be required to pay at least ten percent 
     of the shared costs of the project, whether it be through 
     real property, a contribution of services, or previous costs 
     spent on the project before the application was filed. The 
     State may also seek financial contributions from private 
     entities benefiting from the rail line relocation or 
     improvement project. This program will be implemented no 
     later than October 1, 2006.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provisions with 
     modifications. New language added during conference ensures 
     the Secretary considers the effects of a new rail line, or 
     improvement to an existing rail line, on motor vehicle and 
     pedestrian traffic, safety, community quality of life, and 
     area commerce, as well as freight and passenger rail 
     operations.


          SEC. 9003. REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7603.
       Section 7603 changes the current Railroad Rehabilitation 
     and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program administered by the 
     Federal Railroad Administration through the Secretary of 
     Transportation. Historically, RRIF loans have taken too long 
     to process and obstacles to participation have been too high. 
     These statutory changes were made to correct past problems 
     and encourage greater utilization of the RRIF program.
       Subsection (c) adds to the list of priorities those 
     projects that would enhance service and capacity in the 
     national transportation system. The Secretary should give 
     priority consideration to applications showing an ability to 
     help achieve these goals.
       This section also increases the authorization to $6 billion 
     to ensure adequate resources are available. The Secretary may 
     not require an applicant for a direct loan or loan guarantee 
     to provide collateral. Congress seeks to encourage, not 
     discourage, major rail investment in the U.S.
       This section also provides a time limit of 90 days for the 
     Secretary's approval or disapproval of direct loan or loan 
     guarantee applications. No fees are to be charged by the 
     Secretary in connection with a direct loan or loan guarantee, 
     unless otherwise stated under section 502 of title 45. 
     Criteria outlining the Secretary's approval standards will be 
     published within thirty days of enactment.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provisions with 
     modifications. Among the Senate features retained is the 
     legislative overruling of the a priori limits on loan size 
     and cohort composition, as well as excessive 
     collateralization requirements, contained in the existing 
     Department of Transportation-Office of Management and Budget 
     memorandum of understanding on the RRIF program. The bill 
     also retains the Senate language overruling both the 
     memorandum and DOT regulations requiring rejection by a 
     private lender before an applicant may obtain a RRIF loan 
     through DOT. To ensure that adequate resources are available, 
     the authorization level increases from the proposed $6 
     billion in the Senate language to $35 billion. Also, the 
     maximum portion that may be used for non-Class I railroad 
     loans is increased from the proposed $3 billion in the Senate 
     language to $7 billion.
       Another modification allows the Secretary to provide direct 
     loans and loan guarantees to interstate compacts formed 
     pursuant to the 1997 Amtrak reform law, and solely for the 
     purpose of constructing a rail connection between a plant or 
     facility and a second rail carrier, limited option rail 
     freight shippers that own or operate a plant or other 
     facility that is served by no more than a single railroad. 
     Also, the Secretary is required to give priority to projects 
     that materially alleviate rail capacity problems that degrade 
     the provision of service to shippers and fulfill a need in 
     the national transportation system. RRIF should be used to 
     help improve service and capacity in the national rail system 
     wherever feasible.
       A change was made to allow the Secretary to charge a 
     reasonable evaluation fee for the cost of appraisal, and for 
     making necessary determinations and findings. The amounts 
     collected under this section will be credited directly to the 
     Safety and Operations account of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration.


SEC. 9004. REPORT REGARDING IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY OF TRAIN TRAVEL IN 
                  COMMUNITIES WITHOUT GRADE SEPARATION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7604.
       The bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to 
     conduct a study of the impact of blocked highway-railroad 
     grade crossings on the ability of emergency responders to 
     perform public safety and security duties not later than one 
     year after the date of enactment of this act.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


         SEC. 9005. WELDED RAIL AND TANK CAR SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7326.
       The bill would require the Federal Railroad Administration 
     (FRA) to validate a predictive model for certain rail tank 
     car standards; initiate a rulemaking on standards and 
     complete an analysis of the impact resistance of steel used 
     in pressurized tank cars built before 1989; and, require 
     railroads to improve inspection procedures for continuous 
     welded rail track and the identification of cracks in rail 
     joint bars.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision with 
     modifications to what the Administration is required to do 
     with the results of the analysis.


                       SEC. 9006. ALASKA RAILROAD

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference authorizes the Secretary of Transportation 
     to make grants to the Alaska railroad for capital 
     rehabilitation and improvements benefiting its passenger 
     operation. Such sums as may be necessary are authorized to 
     carry out this section.


         SEC. 9007. STUDY OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION AND REGULATION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference requires the Secretary of Transportation, 
     within 180 days of enactment of this Act, to enter into a 
     contract with the Transportation Research Board of the 
     National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study 
     of the Nation's railroad transportation system since the 
     enactment of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. The study shall 
     address and make recommendations on (1) the performance of 
     the Nation's major railroads regarding service levels, 
     service quality, and rates; (2) the projected demand for 
     freight transportation over the next two decades and the 
     constraints limiting the railroad's ability to meet that 
     demand; (3) the effectiveness of public policy in balancing 
     the need for railroads to earn adequate returns with those of 
     shippers for reasonable rates and adequate service; and (4) 
     the future role of the Surface Transportation Board in 
     regulating railroad rates, service levels, and the railroads' 
     common carrier obligations, particularly as railroads may 
     become revenue adequate.


        SEC. 9008. HAWAII PORT INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in the House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in the Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       This provision designates MARAD as the lead federal agency 
     to transfer and administer federal funds for intermodal and 
     port improvements in the State of Hawaii.

[[Page 18839]]



                   TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

        Subtitle A--Sportfishing and Recreational Boating Safety


                        SEC. 10101. SHORT TITLE

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7501.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.

    CHAPTER 1--DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT AMENDMENTS


  SEC. 10111. AMENDMENT OF DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7511.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


              SEC. 10112. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7512.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


             SEC. 10113. DIVISION OF ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7513.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


                  SEC. 10114. MAINTENANCE OF PROJECTS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7514.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


                   SEC. 10115. BOATING INFRASTRUCTURE

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7515.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


SEC. 10116. REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS CONCERNING USE OF AMOUNTS FOR 
                      EXPENSES FOR ADMINISTRATION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7516.
       Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


SEC. 10117. PAYMENTS OF FUNDS TO AND COOPERATION WITH PUERTO RICO, THE 
  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, GUAM, AMERICAN SOMOA, THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 
            NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7517.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


           SEC. 10118. MULTISTATE CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7518.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


  SEC. 10119. EXPENDITURE OF REMAINING BALANCE IN BOAT SAFETY ACCOUNT

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7519.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.

             CHAPTER 2--CLEAN VESSEL ACT OF 1992 AMENDMENTS


                       SEC. 10131. GRANT PROGRAM

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7531.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.

       CHAPTER 3--RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS


                    SEC. 10141. TECHNICAL CORRECTION

     House Bill
       Sec. 1812.
       This section extinguishes all federal claims relating to 
     the donation and use of the Ex Competent (AFDM6), Unit 
     Identification Code number 13862. Further, the provision 
     gives Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX) title to the drydock free 
     and clear.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts modified language that requires TDX 
     to transfer all rights, title and interest in and to the 
     vessel to GSA, consistent with the ruling by the 9th Circuit 
     Court of Appeals filed on April 21, 2005. GSA must then sell 
     the vessel at fair market value for use outside the United 
     States, and as a condition of that conveyance the vessel is 
     prohibited from ever operating in the United States. The 
     proposal also includes an authorization of appropriations for 
     $4,000,000. It is the intent of the Conference that nothing 
     in this section shall effect any lawsuits relating to the 
     transfer or use of the vessel, and that this section shall 
     not be applied retroactively.


                SEC. 10142. AVAILABILITY OF ALLOCATIONS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7552.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


  SEC. 10143. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR STATE RECREATIONAL 
                        BOATING SAFETY PROGRAMS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7553.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.

               Subtitle B--Other Miscellaneous Provisions


 SEC. 10201. NOTICE REGARDING PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1830
       This provision requires the Secretary to give notice to 
     each State or political subdivisions of States to which he 
     awards a grant or other Federal funds of the criteria for 
     participation by a small business concern in any program or 
     project that is fund in any way by the Federal Government 
     under section 155 of the Small Business Reauthorization and 
     Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate provision.


                 SEC. 10202. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7218.
       This section would create a new section 407(a) of title 23 
     U.S.C. directing the Secretary of Transportation and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to establish jointly a Federal 
     Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services 
     (Interagency Committee). The purposes of the Interagency 
     Committee would be to, among other things, ensure 
     coordination among the Federal agencies involved with State, 
     local, tribal, or regional emergency medical services and 9-
     1-1 systems. This section also would provide funding to aid 
     the States in conducting coordinated emergency medical 
     services and 9-1-1 programs as described in this section.
       Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version with these 
     modifications: it does not create a new 407(a) section of 
     title 23, U.S.C. and does not provide funding for State 
     emergency medical services and 9-1-1 programs. It also adds 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services as one of the 
     coordinators of the Interagency Committee, along with the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security.


                      SEC. 10203. HUBZONE PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1821.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version.


          SEC. 10204. CATASTROPHIC HURRICANE EVACUATION PLANS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 1834.
       This section requires the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive plan for the 
     evacuation of the coastal areas for disasters that may occur.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


        SEC. 10205. INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY EXPANSION

     House Bill
       Sec. 1827.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version.


  SEC. 10206. ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN WESTERN ALASKA COMMUNITY 
                       DEVELOPMENT QUOTA PROGRAM

     House Bill
       Sec. 1825.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.

[[Page 18840]]


     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version.


           SEC. 10207. RAIL REHABILITATION AND BRIDGE REPAIR

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       No comparable provision in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference authorizes such sums as may be necessary for 
     work on six shortline rail rehabilitation and bridge repair 
     projects in the State of Alabama for the period encompassing 
     fiscal year 2006 through 2010.


              SEC. 10208. RENTED OR LEASED MOTOR VEHICLES

     House Bill
       Sec. 1409
     Senate Bill
       No comparable language in Senate bill.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the House version.

          Subtitle C--Specific Vehicle Safety-Related Rulings


      SEC. 10301. VEHICLE ROLLOVER PREVENTION AND CRASH MITIGATION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7251.
       This section requires the Secretary to issue a set of 
     standards to reduce death and injuries caused by passenger 
     vehicle rollovers. To reduce rollovers, the rules will 
     establish performance criteria consistent with stability-
     enhancing technologies. To reduce complete or partial 
     ejection of occupants, the Secretary will establish 
     performance criteria that takes into account various ejection 
     mitigation systems, including consideration of advanced side 
     glazing, side air curtains, and side impact air bags. The 
     Secretary shall complete a rulemaking to upgrade door locks 
     and door retention. Finally, to better protect occupants 
     during a rollover, the Secretary shall upgrade existing roof 
     strength standards for the driver and passenger sides. The 
     bill includes deadlines for issuing these rules. If, however, 
     the statutory deadlines cannot be met, upon a notification to 
     Congress, the Secretary may establish a new deadline.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


          SEC. 10302. SIDE-IMPACT CRASH PROTECTION RULEMAKING

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7252.
       This section requires NHTSA to issue a rulemaking by July 
     2008 that would require automobiles to better protect 
     passengers in a side-impact crash, and to conduct a study of 
     front-impact crashes within one year. The bill includes a 
     deadline for issuing this rule.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version with the 
     modification that if the statutory deadlines cannot be met, 
     upon a notification to Congress, the Secretary may establish 
     a new deadline.


                       SEC. 10303. TIRE RESEARCH

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7253.
       This section requires the Secretary to submit a report to 
     Congress regarding research on tire aging.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


        SEC. 10304. VEHICLE BACKOVER AVOIDANCE TECHNOLOGY STUDY

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7254.
       This section requires NHTSA to study technologies that 
     would reduce injuries and deaths caused by cars and trucks 
     backing up.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


            SEC. 10305. NON-TRAFFIC INCIDENT DATA COLLECTION

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7255.
       This section requires NHTSA to conduct a study of non-
     traffic crashes, with the focus on persons injured or killed 
     due to a car backing up. NHTSA currently does not collect 
     this data on a regular basis because these injuries and 
     deaths occur in private driveways and parking lots, not on 
     public streets where data is currently collected.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


           SEC. 10306. STUDY OF SAFETY BELT USE TECHNOLOGIES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7256.
       This section would repeal existing law that limits audible 
     seat belt reminders to no more than eight seconds and 
     requires the Secretary to conduct a study of advanced safety 
     belt reminder systems to help achieve further gains in safety 
     belt use.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate study, but does not adopt 
     the repeal of existing seat belt law.


     SEC. 10307. AMENDMENT OF AUTOMOBILE INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7257.
       This section requires automobile safety ``star'' ratings 
     compiled by NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) for 
     front, side, and rollover resistance tests to be placed on 
     the window sticker of new automobiles.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version with a 
     modification to make the provision effective on September 1, 
     2007.


                   SEC. 10308. POWER WINDOW SWITCHES

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7258.
       This section requires NHTSA to issue a rulemaking by April 
     2007 mandating power window switches in passenger automobiles 
     that raise the window only when the switch is pulled up or 
     out.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


                  SEC. 10309. 15-PASSENGER VAN SAFETY

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7259.
       This section requires the Secretary to test 15-passenger 
     vans as part of the rollover resistance program of the NCAP 
     program and prohibits school systems from purchasing or 
     leasing new 15-passenger vans to transport children, unless 
     the van complies with motor vehicle standards prescribed for 
     school buses.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.


              SEC. 10310. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     House Bill
       No comparable provision in House bill.
     Senate Bill
       Sec. 7262.
       This section authorizes funds for NHTSA to carry out this 
     subtitle, chapter 301 of title 49, and part C of title 49, 
     U.S.C.
     Conference Substitute
       The Conference adopts the Senate version.

    TITLE XI--HIGHWAY REAUTHORIZATION AND EXCISE TAX SIMPLIFICATION

                     I. Trust Fund Reauthorization

  A. Extension of Highway Trust Fund and Aquatic Resources Trust Fund 
Expenditure Authority and Related Taxes (sec. 10002 of the House bill, 
  secs. 5101 and 5102 of the Senate amendment, and secs. 4041, 4051, 
 4071, 4081, 4221, 4481, 4482, 4483, 6412, 9503, and 9504 of the Code)


              Present-Law Highway Trust Fund Excise Taxes

     In general
       Six separate excise taxes are imposed to finance the 
     Federal Highway Trust Fund program. Three of these taxes are 
     imposed on highway motor fuels. Historically, fuel taxes have 
     accounted for 90 percent of Highway Trust Fund receipts. The 
     remaining three are a retail sales tax on heavy highway 
     vehicles, a manufacturers' excise tax on heavy vehicle tires, 
     and an annual use tax on heavy vehicles. The six taxes are 
     summarized below. Except for 4.3 cents per gallon of the 
     Highway Trust Fund fuels tax rates, and a portion of the tax 
     on certain special motor fuels, all of these taxes, with the 
     exception of the heavy vehicle use tax, are scheduled to 
     expire after September 30, 2005.\1\ The 4.3-cents-per- gallon 
     portion of the fuels tax rates is permanent.\2\ The six taxes 
     are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\The heavy vehicle use tax expires after September 30, 
     2006. Sec. 4481(f).
     \2\This portion of the tax rates was enacted as a deficit 
     reduction measure in 1993. Receipts from it were retained in 
     the General Fund until 1997 legislation provided for their 
     transfer to the Highway Trust Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Highway motor fuels taxes
       The Highway Trust Fund motor fuels tax rates are as 
     follows:\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \3\These fuels also are subject to an additional 0.1-cent-
     per-gallon excise tax to fund the Leaking Underground Storage 
     Tank (``LUST'') Trust Fund (secs. 4041(d) and 4081(a)(2)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Gasoline, 18.3 cents per gallon;
       Diesel fuel (including transmix) and kerosene, 24.3 cents 
     per gallon;

[[Page 18841]]

       Special motor fuels, 18.3 cents per gallon, generally.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \4\The statutory rate for certain special motor fuels is 
     determined on an energy equivalent basis, as follows:
     Liquefied petroleum gas (propane), 13.6 cents per gallon (3.2 
     cents after September 30, 2005).
     Liquefied natural gas, 11.9 cents per gallon (2.8 cents after 
     September 30, 2005).
     Methanol derived from natural gas, 9.15 cents per gallon 
     (2.15 cents after September 30, 2005).
     Compressed natural gas, 48.54 cents per MCF.
     See secs. 4041(a)(2), 4041(a)(3) and 4041(m).
     The compressed natural gas tax rate is equivalent only to 4.3 
     cents per gallon of the rate imposed on gasoline and other 
     special motor fuels rather than the full 18.3-cents-per-
     gallon rate. The tax rate for the other special motor fuels 
     is equivalent to the full 18.3-cents-per-gallon gasoline and 
     special motor fuels tax rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Exemptions

       Present law includes numerous exemptions (including partial 
     exemptions) for specified uses of taxable fuels or for 
     specified fuels. Because the gasoline and diesel fuel taxes 
     generally are imposed before the end use of the fuel is 
     known, many exemptions are realized through refunds to end 
     users of tax paid by a taxpayer earlier in the distribution 
     chain. Exempt uses and fuels include:
        use in State and local government and nonprofit 
     educational organization highway vehicles;
        use in buses engaged in transporting students and 
     employees of schools;
        use in local mass transit buses having a seating 
     capacity of at least 20 adults (not including the driver) 
     when the buses operate under contract with (or are subsidized 
     by) a State or local governmental unit to furnish the 
     transportation; and
        use in intercity buses serving the general public 
     along scheduled routes. (Such use is totally exempt from the 
     gasoline excise tax and is exempt from 17 cents per gallon of 
     the diesel fuel tax.)
       In addition, fuels used in off-highway business use or on a 
     farm for farming purposes generally are exempt from these 
     motor fuels taxes.\5\ The Highway Trust Fund does not receive 
     excise taxes imposed on fuel used in off-highway activities. 
     Rather, when tax is imposed on off-highway use fuel 
     consumption, it is used to finance other Trust Funds (e.g., 
     motorboat gasoline and special motor fuel taxes from non-
     business off-highway use dedicated to the Aquatic Resources 
     Trust Fund) or is retained in the General Fund (e.g., tax on 
     diesel fuel used in trains).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \5\Diesel fuel is the same fuel (#2 fuel oil) as that 
     commonly used as home heating oil. Fuel oil used as heating 
     oil is not subject to the Federal excise tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Non-fuel Highway Trust Fund excise taxes
       In addition to the highway motor fuels excise tax revenues, 
     the Highway Trust Fund receives revenues produced by three 
     excise taxes imposed exclusively on heavy highway vehicles or 
     tires. These taxes are:
        a 12-percent excise tax imposed on the first 
     retail sale of heavy highway vehicles, tractors, and trailers 
     (generally, trucks having a gross vehicle weight in excess of 
     33,000 pounds and trailers having such a weight in excess of 
     26,000 pounds) (sec. 4051);
        an excise tax imposed on highway tires with a 
     rated load capacity exceeding 3,500 pounds, generally at a 
     rate of 9.45 cents per 10 pounds of excess (sec. 4071(a)); 
     and
        an annual use tax imposed on highway vehicles 
     having a taxable gross weight of 55,000 pounds or more (sec. 
     4481). (The maximum rate for this tax is $550 per year, 
     imposed on vehicles having a taxable gross weight over 75,000 
     pounds.)


         Present-Law Highway Trust Fund Expenditure Provisions

     In general
       Dedication of excise tax revenues to the Highway Trust Fund 
     and expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund are governed by 
     provisions of the Code.\6\ The Code authorizes expenditures 
     (subject to appropriations) from the Fund through July 30, 
     2005, for the purposes provided in authorizing legislation, 
     as in effect on the date of enactment of the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \6\Sec. 9503. The Highway Trust Fund statutory provisions 
     were placed in the Internal Revenue Code in 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Under present law, revenues from the highway excise taxes 
     generally are dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. However, 
     under section 9503(c)(2), certain transfers are made from the 
     Highway Trust Fund into the General Fund, relating to amounts 
     paid in respect of gasoline used on farms, amounts paid in 
     respect of gasoline used for certain nonhighway purposes or 
     by local transit systems, amounts relating to fuels not used 
     for taxable purposes, and income tax credits for certain uses 
     of fuels.
     Highway Trust Fund expenditure purposes
       The Highway Trust Fund has a subaccount for Mass Transit. 
     Both the Trust Fund and its sub-account are funding sources 
     for specific programs. Neither the Highway Trust Fund nor its 
     Mass Transit sub-account receive interest on unexpended 
     balances. The Highway Fund's Mass Transit sub-account 
     receives 2.86 cents per gallon of highway motor fuels excise 
     taxes.
       Highway Trust Fund expenditure purposes have been revised 
     with each authorization Act enacted since establishment of 
     the Highway Trust Fund in 1956. In general, expenditures 
     authorized under those Acts (as the Acts were in effect on 
     the date of enactment of the most recent such authorizing 
     Act) are approved by the Code as Highway Trust Fund 
     expenditure purposes.\7\ Thus, no Highway Trust Fund monies 
     may be spent for a purpose not approved by the tax-writing 
     committees of Congress. The Code provides that authority to 
     make expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund expires after 
     July 30, 2005. Thus, no Highway Trust Fund expenditures may 
     occur after July 30, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \7\The authorizing Acts which currently are referenced in the 
     Highway Trust Fund provisions of the Code are: the Highway 
     Revenue Act of 1956; Titles I and II of the Surface 
     Transportation Assistance Act of 1982; the Surface 
     Transportation and Uniform Relocation Act of 1987; the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; and 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; the 
     Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004 Part II; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part III; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part II; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part III; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part IV; and the 
     Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Anti-deficit provisions (the ``Harry Byrd rule'')
       Highway projects can take multiple years to complete. As a 
     result, the Highway Trust Fund carries positive unexpended 
     balances, a large portion of which are reserved to cover 
     existing obligations.\8\ Highway Trust Fund spending is 
     limited by anti-deficit provisions internal to the Highway 
     Trust Fund, the so-called ``Harry Byrd rule.'' Generally, the 
     Harry Byrd rule prevents the further obligation of Federal 
     highway funds if the current and expected balances of the 
     Highway Trust Fund fall below a certain level. The rule 
     requires the Treasury Department to determine, on a quarterly 
     basis, the amount (if any) by which unfunded highway 
     authorizations exceed projected net Highway Trust Fund tax 
     receipts for the 24-month period beginning at the close of 
     each fiscal year.\9\ Similar rules apply to unfunded Mass 
     Transit Account authorizations. If unfunded authorizations 
     exceed projected 24-month receipts, apportionments to the 
     States for specified programs funded by the relevant Trust 
     Fund Account are to be reduced proportionately. Because of 
     the Harry Byrd rule, taxes dedicated to the Highway Trust 
     Fund typically are scheduled to expire at least 24 months 
     after current authorizing Acts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \8\Congressional Research Service, RL 32226, Highway and 
     Transit Program Reauthorization Legislation in the 2nd 
     Session, 108th Congress (December 15, 2004) at CRS-12.
     \9\Sec. 9503(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003, created a 
     temporary rule (through February 29, 2004) for purposes of 
     the anti-deficit provisions of the Highway Trust Fund. For 
     purposes of determining 24 months of projected revenues for 
     the anti-deficit provisions, the Secretary of the Treasury is 
     instructed to treat each expiring provision relating to 
     appropriations and transfers to the Highway Trust Fund to 
     have been extended through the end of the 24-month period and 
     to assume that the rate of tax during such 24-month period 
     remains at the same rate in effect on the date of enactment 
     of the provision. The temporary rule has been continuously 
     extended since February 29, 2004. The last extension, enacted 
     as part of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005, 
     Part V, extended the rule through July 30, 2005.
     Limitations on transfers to the Highway Trust Fund
       The Code also contains a special enforcement provision to 
     prevent expenditure of Highway Trust Fund monies for purposes 
     not authorized in section 9503.\10\ Should such unapproved 
     expenditures occur, no further excise tax receipts will be 
     transferred to the Highway Trust Fund. Rather, the taxes will 
     continue to be imposed with receipts being retained in the 
     General Fund. This enforcement provision provides 
     specifically that it applies not only to unauthorized 
     expenditures under the current Code provisions, but also to 
     expenditures pursuant to future legislation that does not 
     amend section 9503's expenditure authorization provisions or 
     otherwise authorize the expenditure as part of a revenue Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \10\Sec. 9503(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Interrelationship of the Highway Trust Fund and the Aquatic 
         Resources Trust Fund
       The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund is funded by a portion of 
     the receipts from the excise taxes imposed on motorboat 
     gasoline and special motor fuels and on gasoline used as a 
     fuel in the nonbusiness use of small-engine outdoor power 
     equipment. A portion of these taxes are transferred into the 
     Highway Trust Fund and then retransferred into the Aquatic 
     Resources Trust Fund. As a result, transfers to the Aquatic 
     Resources Trust Fund are governed in part by Highway Trust 
     Fund provisions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \11\Secs. 9503(c)(4) and 9503(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A total tax rate of 18.4 cents per gallon is imposed on 
     gasoline and special motor fuels used in motorboats and on 
     gasoline used as a

[[Page 18842]]

     fuel in the nonbusiness use of small-engine outdoor power 
     equipment. Of this rate, 0.1 cent per gallon is dedicated to 
     the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. Of the 
     remaining 18.3 cents per gallon, 4.8 cents per gallon are 
     retained in the General Fund. The balance of 13.5 cents per 
     gallon is transferred to the Highway Trust Fund and then 
     retransferred to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund, as follows.
       The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund is comprised of two 
     accounts, the Boat Safety Account and the Sport Fish 
     Restoration Account. Motorboat fuel taxes, not exceeding $70 
     million per year, are transferred to the Boat Safety Account. 
     In addition, these transfers are subject to an overall annual 
     limit equal to an amount that will not cause the Boat Safety 
     Account to have an unobligated balance in excess of $70 
     million. To the extent there are excess motorboat fuel taxes, 
     the next $1 million per year of motorboat fuel taxes is 
     transferred from the Highway Trust Fund to the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund provided for in Title I of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. The balance of the 
     motorboat fuel taxes in the Highway Trust Fund is transferred 
     to the Sport Fish Restoration Account.
       The Sport Fish Restoration Account also receives 13.5 cents 
     per gallon of the small-engine fuel taxes from the Highway 
     Trust Fund. This Account is also funded with receipts from an 
     ad valorem manufacturers' excise tax on sport fishing 
     equipment.
       The retention in the General Fund of 4.8 cents per gallon 
     of taxes on fuel used in motorboats and in the nonbusiness 
     use of small-engine outdoor power equipment expires with 
     respect to taxes imposed after September 30, 2005.
       The expenditure authority for the Aquatic Resources Trust 
     Fund expires after July 30, 2005.


                               House Bill

       The expenditure authority for the Highway Trust Fund and 
     Aquatic Resources Trust Fund is extended through September 
     30, 2009. The Code provisions governing the purposes for 
     which monies in the Highway Trust Fund may be spent are 
     modified to include the reauthorization bill.
       The provision also extends the motor fuel taxes and all 
     three non-fuel excise taxes at their current rates through 
     September 30, 2011.
       The provision does not extend the retention in the General 
     Fund of 4.8 cents per gallon of taxes on fuel used in 
     motorboats and in the nonbusiness use of small-engine outdoor 
     power equipment.
       Effective date.--The House bill is effective on the date of 
     enactment.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment generally follows the House bill, but 
     extends the retention in the General Fund of 4.8 cents per 
     gallon of taxes on fuel used in motorboats and in the 
     nonbusiness use of small-engine outdoor power equipment 
     through September 30, 2011.
       The Senate amendment also authorizes expenditures from the 
     Highway Trust Fund for highway use tax evasion projects. 
     Specifically, for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, the 
     Internal Revenue Service is to receive $120 million for the 
     enforcement of fuel tax compliance, including the 
     precertification of tax-exempt users, and $80 million for the 
     excise fuel information reporting system, of which $40 
     million is to be allocated to the excise summary terminal 
     activity reporting system. In addition, for each of the 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2009, $50 million is authorized for 
     the Federal Highway Administration to allocate $1 million to 
     each State to combat fuel tax evasion on the State level.
       The Senate amendment also changes the Harry Byrd rule from 
     a 24-month to a 48-month receipt rule. Under the Senate 
     amendment, the Harry Byrd rule is not triggered unless 
     unfunded highway authorizations exceed projected net Highway 
     Trust Fund tax receipts for the 48-month period beginning at 
     the close of each fiscal year. For purposes of the 48-month 
     rule, taxes are assumed extended beyond their expiration 
     date.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on the 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the House bill with the 
     following modifications. The expenditure authority for the 
     Highway Trust Fund expires after September 29, 2009 (after 
     September 30, 2009, in the case of expenditures for 
     administrative purposes, and expenditures from the Mass 
     Transit Account).
       The conference agreement changes the Harry Byrd rule from a 
     24-month to a 48-month receipt rule. Under the conference 
     agreement, the Harry Byrd rule is not triggered unless 
     unfunded highway authorizations exceed projected net Highway 
     Trust Fund tax receipts for the 48-month period beginning at 
     the close of each fiscal year. For purposes of the 48-month 
     rule, taxes are assumed extended beyond their expiration 
     date.
       The conference agreement does not extend the General Fund 
     retention of taxes on fuel used in motorboats and in the 
     nonbusiness use of small-engine outdoor power equipment. The 
     conference agreement addresses authorization of expenditures 
     for fuel tax compliance elsewhere in the conference agreement 
     and does not amend the Code for this purpose.

                II. Excise Tax Reform and Simplification

                        A. Highway Excise Taxes

 1. Modify gas guzzler tax (sec. 5201 of the Senate amendment and sec. 
                           4064 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Under present law, the Code imposes a tax (``the gas 
     guzzler tax'') on automobiles that are manufactured primarily 
     for use on public streets, roads, and highways and that are 
     rated at 6,000 pounds unloaded gross vehicle weight or 
     less.\12\ The tax applies to limousines without regard to the 
     weight requirement. The tax is imposed on the sale by the 
     manufacturer of each automobile of a model type with a fuel 
     economy of 22.5 miles per gallon or less. The tax range 
     begins at $1,000 and increases to $7,700 for models with a 
     fuel economy less than 12.5 miles per gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \12\Sec. 4064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Emergency vehicles and non-passenger automobiles are exempt 
     from the tax. The tax also does not apply to non-passenger 
     automobiles. The Secretary of Transportation determines which 
     vehicles are ``non-passenger'' automobiles, thereby exempting 
     these vehicles from the gas guzzler tax based on regulations 
     in effect on the date of enactment of the gas guzzler 
     tax.\13\ Hence, vehicles defined in Title 49 C.F.R. sec. 
     523.5 (relating to light trucks) are exempt. These vehicles 
     include those designed to transport property on an open bed 
     (e.g., pick-up trucks) or provide greater cargo-carrying than 
     passenger carrying volume including the expanded cargo-
     carrying space created through the removal of readily 
     detachable seats (e.g., pick-up trucks, vans, and most 
     minivans, sports utility vehicles and station wagons). 
     Additional vehicles that meet the ``non-passenger'' 
     requirements are those with at least four of the following 
     characteristics: (1) an angle of approach of not less than 28 
     degrees; (2) a breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees; 
     (3) a departure angle of not less than 20 degrees; (4) a 
     running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters; and (5) 
     front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 
     centimeters each. These vehicles would include many sports 
     utility vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \13\Sec. 4064(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment repeals the tax as it applies to 
     limousines rated at greater than 6,000 pounds unloaded gross 
     vehicle weight.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on 
     October 1, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment 
     provision.
     2. Exclusion for tractors weighing 19,500 pounds or less from 
         excise tax on heavy trucks and trailers (sec. 5202 of the 
         Senate amendment and sec. 4051 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       A 12-percent excise tax is imposed on the first retail sale 
     of automobile truck chassis and bodies, truck trailer and 
     semitrailer chassis and bodies, and tractors of the kind 
     chiefly used for highway transportation in combination with a 
     trailer or semitrailer.\14\ The tax does not apply to 
     automobile truck chassis and bodies suitable for use with a 
     vehicle which has a gross vehicle weight of 33,000 pounds or 
     less.\15\ The tax also does not apply to truck trailer and 
     semitrailer chassis and bodies suitable for use with a 
     trailer or semitrailer which has a gross vehicle weight of 
     26,000 pounds or less.\16\ In general, tractors are subject 
     to tax regardless of their gross vehicle weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \14\Sec. 4051(a)(1).
     \15\Sec. 4051(a)(2).
     \16\Sec. 4051(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Temporary Treasury regulations provide that ``tractor'' 
     means a highway vehicle which is primarily designed to tow a 
     vehicle, such as a trailer or semitrailer, but which does not 
     carry cargo on the same chassis as the engine. The 
     regulations presume that a vehicle equipped with air brakes 
     and/or towing package is primarily designed as a tractor.\17\ 
     The regulations further require an incomplete chassis cab to 
     be treated as a tractor if it is equipped with any of the 
     safety devices listed in the regulations, and require that it 
     be treated as a truck if it is not equipped with any of the 
     listed safety devices and the purchaser certifies in writing 
     that the vehicle will not be equipped for use as a 
     tractor.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \17\Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 145.4051-1(e)(1)(i).
     \18\Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 145.4051-1(e)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In Freightliner of Grand Rapids, Inc. v. U.S., the district 
     court held that certain vehicles primarily designed to tow 
     large RV trailers but which had some cargo carrying capacity 
     on their chassis are properly characterized as tractors.\19\ 
     The court also held that incomplete chassis cabs that do not 
     include any of the listed safety devices are to be treated as 
     tractors unless the purchaser certifies in writing that it 
     will not equip the vehicles for use as tractors. Under the 
     holding of this case, these types of vehicles are

[[Page 18843]]

     subject to tax regardless of their gross vehicle weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \19\351 F.Supp.2d 718 (W.D. Mich. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment excludes from tax tractors with a 
     gross vehicle weight of 19,500 pounds or less.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     sales after September 30, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment 
     except that it also requires that in order to be exempt the 
     gross combined weight (as determined by the Secretary) of the 
     tractor if combined with a towed vehicle (such as trailer or 
     semi-trailer) would not exceed 33,000 pounds. No inference is 
     intended from this provision regarding the proper 
     classification of vehicles as tractors or trucks.
     3. Exemption for bulk beds from excise tax on retail sale of 
         heavy trucks and trailers (sec. 5203 of the Senate 
         amendment)


                              Present Law

       The Code imposes a 12-percent excise tax on the first 
     retail sale of heavy trucks and trailers (chassis and 
     bodies).\20\ Under present law, the tax on the first retail 
     sale of automobile truck bodies does not apply to any body 
     primarily designed: (1) to process or prepare seed, feed, or 
     fertilizer for use on farms; (2) to haul feed, seed, or 
     fertilizer to and on farms; (3) to spread feed, seed, or 
     fertilizer on farms; (4) to load or unload feed, seed, or 
     fertilizer on farms; or (5) for any combination of the 
     foregoing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \20\Sec. 4051(a).
     \21\Sec. 4053(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The IRS has issued various rulings in this area. In Revenue 
     Ruling 69-579, the IRS found that a truck body used primarily 
     for hauling animal and poultry feed to and unloading it on 
     farms qualified for exemption because the built-in equipment 
     was elaborate and expensive. Thus, the IRS concluded that the 
     nature of the unloading systems made it impractical to 
     purchase the bodies for use other than in hauling feed, seed, 
     or fertilizer to and unloading it on farms.
       In 1975, the IRS ruled as not exempt a dump truck designed 
     for and used primarily in hauling grain and sugar beets from 
     the field to points on or off the farm but which may also be 
     used to haul feed or fertilizer from a distribution point 
     over the highway to the farm. The ruling concluded that 
     bodies that are used for the general hauling of feed, seed, 
     or fertilizer over the highway are subject to the tax unless 
     they have specific features that indicate they are primarily 
     designed to haul feed, seed, or fertilizer to and on farms. 
     In this case, although feed and fertilizer were among the 
     commodities that the dump truck could be used for, it did not 
     have specific features to indicate that it was primarily 
     designed to haul feed, seed, or fertilizer to and on 
     farms.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \22\Rev. Rul. 75-462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In 1990, the IRS issued a technical advice memorandum 
     (``the 1990 TAM'') that concluded that a type of truck bought 
     by farmers to haul seed potatoes, sugar beets, grain, and 
     other farm products qualified for exemption.\23\ Each model 
     had a full-length, powered conveyor belt that was designed to 
     support and unload the cargo; a powered rear discharge door 
     to control the discharge rate of the cargo; and a standard 
     universal motor mount to which an electric drive could be 
     mounted. In that ruling, the IRS noted the special unloading 
     equipment was elaborate and expensive, added substantially to 
     the cost and weight of each body, and limited its load-
     carrying capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \23\Tech. Adv. Mem. 9126001, 1991 WL 778984 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In 1999, the IRS revoked the 1990 TAM prospectively, noting 
     that the exemption was not intended to cover truck bodies 
     designed for general use, even if capable of hauling feed, 
     seed, or fertilizer to and on farms.\24\ The IRS noted that 
     the sales literature indicated that the body was designed to 
     be versatile for hauling potatoes, beets, and small grains. 
     The IRS also observed that unlike the bodies described in 
     Rev. Rul. 69-579, which would not be purchased for use other 
     than in hauling feed, seed, or fertilizer, the bodies at 
     issue are designed for general hauling of farm cargo. 
     Further, the IRS found that the presence of a conveyor belt 
     was equally useful for unloading a crop at market as it is 
     for unloading feed, etc. on a farm. Thus, the IRS concluded 
     that the truck body was not primarily designed for an exempt 
     purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \24\Tech. Adv. Mem. 199904038, 1999 WL 36828 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment exempts bulk beds used for 
     transporting farm crops to and on farms from the excise tax 
     on the retail sale of heavy trucks and trailers if sold to a 
     person who certifies to the seller that such person is 
     actively engaged in the trade or business of farming and the 
     primary use of the bulk bed is to haul to and on farms farm 
     crops grown in connection with such trade or business. The 
     Senate amendment provides for the recapture of the tax from 
     the purchaser upon resale of within two years of the first 
     retail sale, or if such purchaser makes substantial nonexempt 
     use of the article.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     sales after September 30, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     4. Volumetric excise tax credit for alternative fuels (sec. 
         5204 of the Senate amendment and secs. 4041, 4101, 6426, 
         and 6427 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Under section 4081 of the Code, an excise tax is imposed 
     upon (1) the removal of any taxable fuel from a refinery or 
     terminal, (2) the entry of any taxable fuel into the United 
     States, or (3) the sale of any taxable fuel to any person who 
     is not registered with the IRS to receive untaxed fuel, 
     unless there was a prior taxable removal or entry.\25\ The 
     tax does not apply to any removal or entry of taxable fuel 
     transferred in bulk by pipeline or vessel to a terminal or 
     refinery if the person removing or entering the taxable fuel, 
     the operator of such pipeline or vessel, and the operator of 
     such terminal or refinery are registered with the 
     Secretary.\26\ Section 4081 also imposes an excise tax on 
     taxable fuel removed or sold by the blender of the fuels.\27\ 
     However, the blender is entitled to a credit on any tax 
     previous paid if that person establishes the amount of such 
     tax.\28\ A ``taxable fuel'' is gasoline, diesel fuel 
     (including any liquid, other than gasoline, which is suitable 
     for use as a fuel in a diesel-powered highway vehicle or 
     train), and kerosene.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \25\Sec. 4081(a)(1).
     \26\Sec. 4081(a)(1)(B).
     \27\Sec. 4081(b)(1). Blended taxable fuel is a taxable fuel 
     that is produced outside the bulk transfer/terminal system by 
     mixing taxpayer fuel with respect to which tax has been 
     imposed under section 4041(a)(1) or 4081(a) (other than 
     taxable fuel for which a credit or payment has been allowed); 
     and any other liquid on which tax has not been imposed under 
     section 4081. Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4081-1(c)(i).
     \28\Sec. 4081(b)(2).
     \29\Sec. 4083(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Diesel fuel and kerosene generally are taxed at 24.3 cents 
     per gallon excise (aviation-grade kerosene at 21.8 cents per 
     gallon). Gasoline is taxed at 18.3 cents per gallon and 
     aviation gasoline is taxed at 19.3 cents per gallon.
       The Code imposes a backup retail tax for diesel fuel and 
     kerosene not taxed under section 4081, and for special motor 
     fuels.\30\ Under section 4041, tax is imposed on special 
     motor fuels (any liquid other than gas oil, fuel oil or any 
     product taxable under section 4081) when there is a taxable 
     sale by any person to an owner, lessee or other operator of a 
     motor vehicle or motorboat, for use as fuel in the motor 
     vehicle or motorboat or used by any person as a fuel in a 
     motor vehicle or motorboat unless there was a prior taxable 
     sale.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \30\Sec. 4041.
     \31\Sec. 4041(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Most special motor fuels are subject to tax at 18.3 cents 
     per gallon, however, certain special motor fuels and 
     compressed natural gas are determined on an energy equivalent 
     basis, as follows:
       Liquefied petroleum gas (propane), 13.6 cents per gallon.
       Liquefied natural gas, 11.9 cents per gallon.
       Methanol derived from petroleum or natural gas, 9.15 cents 
     per gallon.
       Compressed natural gas, 48.54 cents per MCF.
       Liquid hydrogen is a special motor fuel for purposes of the 
     tax on special motor fuels and is subject to a tax of 18.3 
     cents per gallon.\32\ Compressed hydrogen gas used or sold as 
     a fuel is not subject to tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \32\An additional 0.1 cent per gallon is imposed by section 
     4041(d) for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Prior to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, gasohol 
     and gasoline to be blended into gasohol was taxed at a 
     reduced rate based on the amount of ethanol contained in the 
     mixture (e.g., 10 percent, 7.7 percent or 5.5 percent alcohol 
     in the mixture). The Act eliminated reduced rates of excise 
     tax for most alcohol-blended fuels. In place of the reduced 
     rates, the Act amended the Code to create two new excise tax 
     credits: the alcohol fuel mixture credit and the biodiesel 
     mixture credit.\33\ The sum of these credits may be taken 
     against the tax imposed on taxable fuels (by section 4081). A 
     person may also file a claim for payment equal to the amount 
     of these credits for biodiesel or alcohol used to produce an 
     eligible mixture.\34\ The credits and payments are paid out 
     of the General Fund. If the alcohol is ethanol with a proof 
     of 190 or greater, the credit or payment amount is 51 cents 
     per gallon. For agri-biodiesel, the credit or payment amount 
     is $1.00 per gallon; for biodiesel other than agri-biodiesel, 
     the credit or payment amount is 50 cents per gallon. Under 
     the Code's coordination rules, a claim may be taken only once 
     with respect to any particular gallon of alcohol or 
     biodiesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \33\Sec. 6426. The Act also created an income tax credit for 
     biodiesel and biodiesel mixtures. Sec. 40A.
     \34\Sec. 6427(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       No excise tax credit is available for the blending or sale 
     of special motor fuels.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, P Series fuels (as defined by 
     the Secretary of Energy

[[Page 18844]]

     under 42 U.S.C. sec. 13211(2)) are taxed at 18.3 cents per 
     gallon under section 4081. Compressed natural gas and 
     hydrogen are taxed at 18.3 cents per energy equivalent of a 
     gallon of gasoline, and liquefied natural gas, any liquid 
     fuel (other than methanol or ethanol) derived from coal and 
     liquid hydrocarbons derived from biomass are taxed at 24.3 
     cents per gallon under section 4081. Collectively, these 
     fuels are referred to as ``alternative fuels.''
       In addition, the Senate amendment creates two new excise 
     tax credits, the alternative fuel credit, and the alternative 
     fuel mixture credit. The credits are allowed against section 
     4081 liability. The alternative fuel credit is 50 cents per 
     gallon of alternative fuel or gasoline gallon equivalents of 
     nonliquid alternative fuel sold by the taxpayer for use as a 
     motor fuel in a highway vehicle. The alternative fuel mixture 
     credit is 50 cents per gallon of alternative fuel used in 
     producing an alternative fuel mixture for sale or use in a 
     trade or business of the taxpayer. The mixture must be sold 
     by the taxpayer for use as a fuel in a highway vehicle or 
     used by the taxpayer as a fuel in a highway vehicle. Liquid 
     fuel derived from coal would only qualify for the credits if 
     derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process. The credits 
     generally expire after September 30, 2009. The proposal also 
     allows persons to file a claim for payment equal to the 
     amount of the alternative fuel credit and alternative fuel 
     mixture credits. These payment provisions generally also 
     expire after September 30, 2009. Both credits and payments 
     are made out of the General Fund. Under coordination rules, a 
     claim for payment or credit may only be taken once with 
     respect to any particular gallon or gasoline-gallon 
     equivalent of alternative fuel.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for any 
     sale, use or removal for any period after September 30, 2006.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment with 
     the following modifications.
       Under the conference agreement, liquefied petroleum gas and 
     P Series fuels (as defined by the Secretary of Energy under 
     42 U.S.C. sec. 13211(2)) are taxed at 18.3 cents per gallon 
     under section 4041. Compressed natural gas is taxed at 18.3 
     cents per energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. 
     Liquefied natural gas, any liquid fuel derived from coal 
     (other than ethanol or methanol) and liquid hydrocarbons 
     derived from biomass are taxed at 24.3 cents per gallon under 
     section 4041. The conference agreement does not change the 
     tax treatment of hydrogen, liquefied hydrogen remains subject 
     to the tax imposed by section 4041.
       In addition, the conference agreement creates two new 
     excise tax credits, the alternative fuel credit, and the 
     alternative fuel mixture credit. For this purpose, the term 
     ``alternative fuel'' means liquefied petroleum gas, P Series 
     fuels (as defined by the Secretary of Energy under 42 U.S.C. 
     sec. 13211(2)), compressed or liquefied natural gas, 
     liquefied hydrogen, liquid fuel derived from coal through the 
     Fisher-Tropsch process, and liquid hydrocarbons derived from 
     biomass. Such term does not include ethanol, methanol, or 
     biodiesel.
       The alternative fuel credit is allowed against section 4041 
     liability and the alternative fuel mixture credit is allowed 
     against section 4081 liability. Neither credit is allowed 
     unless the taxpayer is registered with the Secretary. The 
     alternative fuel credit is 50 cents per gallon of alternative 
     fuel or gasoline gallon equivalents\35\ of nonliquid 
     alternative fuel sold by the taxpayer for use as a motor fuel 
     in a motor vehicle or motorboat, or so used by the taxpayer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \35\``Gasoline gallon equivalent'' means, with respect to any 
     nonliquid alternative fuel, the amount of such fuel having a 
     Btu content of 124,800 (higher heating value).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The alternative fuel mixture credit is 50 cents per gallon 
     of alternative fuel used in producing an alternative fuel 
     mixture for sale or use in a trade or business of the 
     taxpayer. The mixture must be sold by the taxpayer producing 
     such mixture to any person for use as a fuel or used by the 
     taxpayer for use as a fuel.\36\ The credits generally expire 
     after September 30, 2009. The provision also allows persons 
     to file a claim for payment equal to the amount of the 
     alternative fuel credit and alternative fuel mixture credits. 
     These payment provisions generally also expire after 
     September 30, 2009. With respect to liquefied hydrogen, the 
     credit and payment provisions expire after September 30, 
     2014. Both credits and payments are made out of the General 
     Fund. Under coordination rules, a claim for payment or credit 
     may only be taken once with respect to any particular gallon 
     or gasoline-gallon equivalent of alternative fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \36\For example, the taxpayer produces fish oil in its trade 
     or business. The taxpayer uses this fish oil to make a blend 
     of 50 percent fish oil and 50 percent diesel fuel to run in a 
     generator that is part of the taxpayer's trade or business. 
     This use of the fish oil-diesel blend made by the taxpayer 
     qualifies as use of an alternative fuel mixture for purposes 
     of the requirement that the fuel be used in the blender's 
     trade or business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Effective date.--The provision is effective for any sale or 
     use for any period after September 30, 2006.

                        B. Aquatic Excise Taxes

     1. Eliminate Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and transform Sport 
         Fish Restoration Account (sec. 5211 of the Senate 
         amendment and secs. 9503 and 9504 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       A total tax rate of 18.4 cents per gallon is imposed on 
     gasoline and special motor fuels used in motorboats, and on 
     gasoline used as a fuel in the nonbusiness use of small-
     engine outdoor power equipment.\37\ Of this rate, 0.1 cent 
     per gallon is dedicated to the Leaking Underground Storage 
     Tank Trust Fund. Of the remaining 18.3 cents per gallon, tax 
     collected in excess of 13.5 cents per gallon (i.e., 4.8 cents 
     per gallon) is retained in the General Fund of the 
     Treasury.\38\ The balance is transferred to the Highway Trust 
     Fund, and retransferred (except with respect to amounts 
     transferred to the fund for land and water conservation, as 
     described below) to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund.\39\ The 
     taxes on gasoline and special motor fuels used in motorboats 
     and the taxes on gasoline used as a fuel in the nonbusiness 
     use of small-engine outdoor power equipment are collected 
     under the same rules as apply to the Highway Trust Fund 
     collections generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \37\Sec. 4081(a)(2).
     \38\The retention in the General Fund of the 4.8 cents a 
     gallon of motorboat fuel taxes and taxes on gasoline used as 
     a fuel in the nonbusiness use of small-engine outdoor power 
     equipment expires after September 30, 2005.
     \39\Sec. 9503(c)(4). Between October 1, 2001 and September 
     30, 2003, the amount transferred to the Highway Trust Fund 
     was 13 cents per gallon. Prior to October 1, 2001, the amount 
     transferred was 11.5 cents per gallon. Sec. 9503(b)(4)(D). 
     The transfers from the Highway Trust Fund to the Aquatic 
     Resources Trust Fund of amounts of taxes received on gasoline 
     used as a fuel in the nonbusiness use of small-engine outdoor 
     power equipment expires after September 30, 2005. Sec. 
     9503(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund is comprised of two 
     accounts.\40\ First, the Boat Safety Account is funded by a 
     portion of the receipts from the excise tax imposed on 
     motorboat gasoline and special motor fuels. Transfers to the 
     Boat Safety Account are limited to amounts not exceeding $70 
     million per year. In addition, these transfers are subject to 
     an overall annual limit equal to an amount that will not 
     cause the Boat Safety Account to have an unobligated balance 
     in excess of $70 million.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \40\Sec. 9504(a).
     \41\Sec. 9503(c)(4)(A). Funding of the Boat Safety Account is 
     scheduled to expire after September 30, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Second, the Sport Fish Restoration Account receives the 
     balance of the motorboat gasoline and special motor fuels 
     receipts that are transferred to the Aquatic Resources Trust 
     Fund.\42\ The Sport Fish Restoration Account is also funded 
     with receipts from an excise tax on sport fishing equipment 
     sold by the manufacturer, producer or importer. The excise 
     tax rate on sport fishing equipment is 10 percent of the 
     sales price; the rate is reduced to 3 percent for electric 
     outboard motors and fishing tackle boxes.\43\ Examples of the 
     items of sport fishing equipment subject to the 10-percent 
     rate include fishing rods and poles, fishing reels, fly 
     fishing lines and certain other fishing lines, fishing 
     spears, spear guns, spear tips, items of terminal tackle, 
     containers designed to hold fish, fishing vests, landing 
     nets, and portable bait containers.\44\ In addition, import 
     duties on certain fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure craft 
     are transferred into the Sport Fish Restoration Account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \42\After funding of the Boat Safety Account, remaining 
     motorboat fuel taxes, not exceeding $1,000,000 during any 
     fiscal year, are transferred from the Highway Trust Fund into 
     the land and water conservation fund provided in Title I of 
     the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Sec. 
     9503(c)(4)(B). After the transfer to the land and water 
     conservation fund, motorboat fuel taxes remaining in the 
     Highway Trust Fund are transferred to the Sport Fish 
     Restoration Account. Sec. 9503(c)(4)(C).
     \43\Sec. 4161(a)(2) and 4161(a)(c)(3).
     \44\Items of ``sport fishing equipment'' are enumerated in 
     section 4162(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The amounts of taxes on gasoline used as a fuel in the 
     nonbusiness use of small-engine outdoor power equipment that 
     are transferred to the Highway Trust Fund and retransferred 
     to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund are directed to a 
     separate sub-account of the Sport Fish Restoration Account, 
     the Coastal Wetlands Sub-Account.
       Expenditures from the Boat Safety Account are subject to 
     annual appropriations. Amounts transferred, paid, or credited 
     to the Sport Fish Restoration Account (including the Coastal 
     Wetlands Sub-Account) are authorized to be appropriated for 
     the uses authorized in the expenditure provisions.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \45\Act of August 9, 1950, 64 Stat. 430 (codified at 16 
     U.S.C. sec. 777 et seq.) (''An Act to provide that the United 
     States shall aid the States in fish restoration and 
     management projects, and for other purposes,'' commonly 
     referred to as the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restortation 
     Act.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment eliminates the Aquatic Resources Trust 
     Fund and future transfers to the Boat Safety Account and 
     transforms the Sport Fish Restoration Account into the Sport 
     Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. After funding of the 
     land and water conservation fund as under

[[Page 18845]]

     present law, the balance of the taxes on motorboat fuels is 
     transferred from the Highway Trust Fund into the Sport Fish 
     Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. In addition, the 
     transfers from the Highway Trust Fund to the Sport Fish 
     Restoration and Boating Trust Fund of amounts of taxes on 
     gasoline used as a fuel in the nonbusiness use of small-
     engine outdoor power equipment are extended through September 
     30, 2011.
       Existing amounts in the Boat Safety Account, plus interest 
     accrued on interest-bearing obligations of such account, are 
     made available as provided under expenditure provisions.\46\ 
     The expenditure provisions also authorize the appropriation 
     of amounts in the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust 
     Fund, including for boating safety, for the uses authorized 
     in the expenditure provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \46\The expenditure provisions are codified at 16 U.S.C. sec. 
     777 et seq., as may be amended by the Sportfishing and 
     Recreational Boating Safety Act of 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective October 
     1, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
     2. Repeal of harbor maintenance tax on exports (sec. 5212 of 
         the Senate amendment and sec. 4461 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       The Code contains provisions imposing a 0.125-percent 
     excise tax on the value of most commercial cargo loaded or 
     unloaded at U.S. ports (other than ports included in the 
     Inland Waterway Trust Fund system). The tax also applies to 
     amounts paid for passenger transportation using these U.S. 
     ports. Exemptions are provided for (1) cargo donated for 
     overseas use, (2) cargo shipped between the U.S. mainland and 
     Alaska (except for crude oil), Hawaii, and/or U.S. 
     possessions and (3) cargo shipped between Alaska, Hawaii, 
     and/or U.S. possessions. Receipts from this tax are deposited 
     in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
       The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the harbor maintenance 
     excise tax is unconstitutional as applied to exported cargo 
     because it violates the ``Export Clause'' of the U.S. 
     Constitution.\47\ The tax remains in effect for imported 
     cargo. Imposition of the tax on passenger transportation with 
     respect to passengers on cruises that originate, stop, or 
     terminate, at U.S. ports has been upheld.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \47\United States Shoe Corp. v. United States, 523 U.S. 360, 
     118 S. Ct. 1290, 140 L. Ed. 2d 453 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment conforms the Code to the Supreme Court 
     decision and exempts exported commercial cargo from the 
     harbor maintenance tax.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective before, 
     on, and after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
     3. Cap on excise tax on certain fishing equipment (sec. 5213 
         of the Senate amendment and sec. 4161 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       In general, the Code imposes a 10-percent tax on the sale 
     by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of specified sport 
     fishing equipment.\48\ A three-percent rate, however, applies 
     to the sale of electric outboard motors and fishing tackle 
     boxes.\49\ Sport fishing equipment subject to the 10-percent 
     tax includes fishing rods and poles, fishing reels, fly 
     fishing lines, and other fishing lines not over 130 pounds 
     test, fishing spears, spear guns, and spear tips, and tackle 
     items including leaders, artificial lures, artificial baits, 
     artificial flies, fishing hooks, bobbers, sinkers, snaps, 
     drayles, and swivels. In addition the following fishing 
     supplies and accessories are subject to the 10-percent tax: 
     fish stringers; creels; bags, baskets, and other containers 
     designed to hold fish; portable bait containers; fishing 
     vests; landing nets; gaff hooks; fishing hook disgorgers; 
     dressing for fishing lines and artificial flies; fishing tip-
     ups and tilts; fishing rod belts, fishing rodholders; fishing 
     harnesses; fish fighting chairs; and fishing outriggers and 
     downriggers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \48\Sec. 4161(a)(1).
     \49\Sec. 4161(a)(2) and 4161(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Revenues from the excise tax on sport fishing equipment are 
     deposited in the Sport Fish Restoration Account of the 
     Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. Monies in the fund are spent, 
     subject to an existing permanent appropriation, to support 
     Federal-State sport fish enhancement and safety programs.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment provides that the tax applicable to a 
     fishing rod or fishing pole is the lesser of 10 percent or 
     $10.00.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer 
     after September 30, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.

                         C. Aerial Excise Taxes

     1. Clarification of excise tax exemptions for agricultural 
         aerial applicators and exemption for fixed-wing aircraft 
         engaged in forestry operations (sec. 5221 of the Senate 
         amendment and secs. 4261 and 6420 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Excise taxes are imposed on aviation gasoline (19.4 cents 
     per gallon) and jet fuel (21.9 cents per gallon).\50\ All but 
     0.1 cent per gallon of the revenues from these taxes are 
     dedicated to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The remaining 
     0.1 cent per gallon rate is imposed for the Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \50\Sec. 4081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Fuel used on a farm for farming purposes is a nontaxable 
     use. Aerial applicators (crop dusters) are allowed to claim a 
     refund instead of farm owners and operators in the case of 
     aviation gasoline if the owners or operators give written 
     consent to the aerial applicators.\51\ This provision applies 
     only to fuel consumed in the airplane while operating over 
     the farm, i.e., fuel consumed traveling to and from the farm 
     is not exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \51\Sec. 6420(c)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Air passenger transportation is subject to an excise tax 
     equal to 7.5 percent of the amount paid plus $3.20 per 
     domestic flight segment.\52\ The tax on transportation by air 
     does not apply to air transportation by helicopter if the 
     helicopter is used for (1) the exploration, or the 
     development or removal of oil, gas, or hard minerals 
     exploration, or (2) certain timber operations (planting, 
     cultivating, cutting, transporting, or caring for trees, 
     including logging operations).\53\ The exemption applies only 
     when the helicopters are not using the Federally funded 
     airport and airway services. Helicopters and fixed-wing 
     aircraft providing emergency medical services also are exempt 
     from the air passenger tax regardless of the type of airport 
     and airway services used.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \52\Sec. 4261(a) and 4261(b).
     \53\Sec. 4261(f).
     \54\Sec. 4261(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       With regard to the exemption for aerial applicators, 
     written consent from the farm owner or operator is no longer 
     needed for the aerial applicator to claim exemption for 
     aviation gasoline. The exemption also is expanded to include 
     fuels consumed when flying between the farms where chemicals 
     are applied and the airport where the airplane takes off and 
     lands. The present exemption for helicopters engaged in 
     timber operations is expanded to include fixed-wing aircraft 
     if such aircraft are not using the Federally funded airport 
     and airway services.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for fuel 
     use or air transportation after September 30, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
     2. Modify the definition of rural airport (sec. 5222 of the 
         Senate amendment and sec. 4261 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Air passenger transportation is subject to an excise tax 
     equal to 7.5 percent of the amount paid plus $3.20 per 
     domestic flight segment.\55\ The $3.20 tax on flight segments 
     does not apply to a domestic segment beginning or ending at a 
     rural airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \55\Sec. 4261(a) and 4261(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       With respect to any calendar year, a rural airport is an 
     airport that had fewer than 100,000 passengers departing by 
     air during the second preceding calendar year for such 
     airport and such airport either (1) is not located within 75 
     miles of a larger airport (one that had at least 100,000 
     passengers departing in the second preceding calendar year), 
     or (2) was receiving essential air service subsidy payments 
     as of August 5, 1997.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment expands the definition of qualified 
     rural airport to include an airport that (1) is not connected 
     by paved roads to another airport and (2) had fewer than 
     100,000 commercial passengers departing by air on flight 
     segments of at least 100 miles during the second preceding 
     calendar year.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on 
     October 1, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
     3. Exempt from ticket taxes transportation provided by 
         seaplanes (sec. 5223 of the Senate amendment and secs. 
         4261 and 4083 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Air passenger transportation is subject to an excise tax 
     equal to 7.5 percent of the amount paid plus $3.20 per 
     domestic flight segment (``air passenger tax'').\56\ A 6.25-
     percent tax is imposed on amounts paid for

[[Page 18846]]

     transportation of property by air (``air cargo tax'').\57\ 
     The air cargo tax applies only to amounts paid to persons 
     engaged in the business of transporting property by air for 
     hire. The air passenger tax and air cargo tax do not apply to 
     amounts paid for the transportation if furnished on an 
     aircraft having a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 
     6,000 pounds or less unless the aircraft is operated on an 
     established line.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \56\Sec. 4261(a) and 4261(b).
     \57\Sec. 4271.
     \58\Sec. 4281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment provides that the air passenger tax 
     and the air cargo tax do not apply to transportation by a 
     seaplane with respect to any segment consisting of a takeoff 
     from, and a landing on, water, but only if the places at 
     which such takeoff and landing occur have not received and 
     are not receiving financial assistance from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     transportation beginning after September 30, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment but 
     clarifies that for purposes of the fuel taxes, transportation 
     by seaplane is treated as noncommercial aviation.
     4. Exempt certain sightseeing flights from taxes on air 
         transportation (sec. 5224 of the Senate amendment and 
         sec. 4281 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Under present law, taxable aviation transportation is 
     subject to a 7.5-percent excise tax on the price of an 
     airline ticket and a $3.20 segment tax. An exception to these 
     taxes is provided for transportation by an aircraft having a 
     maximum certificated takeoff weight of 6,000 pounds or less 
     except when the aircraft is operated on an established line. 
     Under the Treasury regulations to be ``operated on an 
     established line'' means to be operated with ``some degree of 
     regularity between definite points. The term implies that the 
     air carrier maintains control over the direction, routes, 
     time, number of passengers carried, etc.''\59\ Treasury 
     regulations provide that transportation need not be between 
     two definite points to be taxable: a payment for continuous 
     transportation beginning and ending at the same point is 
     subject to the tax.\60\ The IRS position is that the words 
     ``between definite points'' do not require two separate 
     points for purposes of determining whether an aircraft is 
     operated on an established line. At least one court has 
     agreed.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \59\Treas. Reg. sec. 49.4263-5(c).
     \60\Treas. Reg. sec. 49.4261-1(c).
     \61\Lake Mead Air Inc. v. United States, 991 F. Supp. 1209 
     (D. Nev. 1997) (the court determined that aircraft flights 
     providing scenic tours of the Grand Canyon were operated on 
     an established line).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       For purposes of the exemption for small aircraft operated 
     on nonestablished lines, an aircraft operated on a flight, 
     the sole purpose of which is sightseeing, will not be 
     considered as operated on an established line.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective with 
     respect to transportation beginning after September 30, 2005, 
     but does not apply to any amount paid before such date for 
     such transportation.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.

                      D. Taxes Relating to Alcohol

     1. Repeal special occupational taxes on producers and 
         marketers of alcoholic beverages (sec. 5231 of the Senate 
         amendment and secs. 5081, 5091, 5111, 5112, 5113, 5117, 
         5121, 5122, 5123, 5125, 5131, 5132, 5141, 5147, 5148, and 
         5276 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Under the law in effect prior to July 1, 2005, special 
     occupational taxes are imposed on producers and others 
     engaged in the marketing of distilled spirits, wine, and 
     beer. These excise taxes are imposed as part of a broader 
     Federal tax and regulatory structure governing the production 
     and marketing of alcoholic beverages. The special 
     occupational taxes are payable annually, on July 1 of each 
     year. The tax rates in effect prior to July 1, 2005 are as 
     follows:
       Producers:\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \62\A reduced rate of tax in the amount of $500.00 is imposed 
     on small proprietors (as defined in the Code) (secs. 5081(b) 
     and 5091(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Distilled spirits and wines (sec. 5081),\63\ $1,000 per 
     year, per premise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \63\Proprietors of plants producing distilled spirits 
     exclusively for fuel use, with annual production not 
     exceeding 10,000 proof gallons, are exempt. Secs. 5081(c) and 
     5181(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Brewers (sec. 5091) $1,000 per year, per premise.
       Wholesale dealers (sec. 5111): Liquors, wines, or beer $500 
     per year.
       Retail dealers (sec. 5121): Liquors, wines, or beer $250 
     per year.
       Nonbeverage use of distilled spirits (sec. 5131): $500 per 
     year.
       Industrial use of distilled spirits (sec. 5276): $250 per 
     year.
       Section 246(a) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 
     suspends the special occupational tax for the period 
     beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2008.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \64\See sec. 5148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Every person engaged in a trade or business on which a 
     special occupational tax is imposed is required to register 
     with the Secretary.\65\ In addition, every dealer in liquors, 
     wine or beer is required to keep records of their 
     transactions.\66\ A dealer is any person who sells, or offers 
     for sale, distilled spirits, wine, or beer.\67\ A delegate of 
     the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to inspect the 
     records of any dealer during business hours.\68\ There are 
     penalties for failing to comply with the recordkeeping 
     requirements.\69\ There are also registration and regulation 
     requirements for the nonbeverage use of distilled spirits, 
     and permit and recordkeeping requirements for the industrial 
     use of distilled spirits.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \65\Secs. 5141 and 7011. The registration is of such person's 
     name or style, place of residence, trade or business, and the 
     place where such trade or business is to be carried on.
     \66\Secs. 5114 and 5124.
     \67\Sec. 5112(a). Such definition includes producers and, in 
     general, proprietors of warehouses.
     \68\Sec. 5146.
     \69\Sec. 5603.
     \70\Secs. 5132 and 5275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Code limits the persons from whom dealers may purchase 
     their liquor stock intended for resale. A dealer may only 
     purchase from:
       1. A wholesale dealer in liquors who has paid the special 
     occupational tax as such dealer to cover the place where such 
     purchase is made; or
       2. A wholesale dealer in liquors who is exempt, at the 
     place where such purchase is made, from payment of such tax 
     under any provision of chapter 51 of the Code; or
       3. A person who is not required to pay special occupational 
     tax as a wholesale dealer in liquors.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \71\Sec. 5117. For example, purchases from a proprietor of a 
     distilled spirits plant at his principal business office 
     would be covered under item (2) since such a proprietor is 
     not subject to the special occupational tax on account of 
     sales at his principal business office (sec. 5113(a)). 
     Purchases from a State-operated liquor store would be covered 
     under item (3) (sec. 5113(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Violation of this restriction in punishable by $1,000 fine, 
     imprisonment of one year, or both.\72\ A violation also 
     subjects the alcohol to seizure and forfeiture.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \72\Sec. 5687.
     \73\Sec. 7302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment repeals the special occupational taxes 
     on producers and marketers of alcoholic beverages and on the 
     nonbeverage or industrial use of distilled spirits. The 
     registration, recordkeeping and inspection rules applicable 
     to wholesale and retail dealers are retained.\74\ For 
     purposes of the recordkeeping requirements for wholesale and 
     retail liquor dealers, the Senate amendment provides a 
     rebuttable presumption that a person who sells, or offers for 
     sale, distilled spirits, wine, or beer, in quantities of 20 
     wine gallons or more to the same person at the same time is 
     engaged in the business of a wholesale dealer in liquors or a 
     wholesale dealer in beer. In addition, the Senate amendment 
     retains the present-law rules that make it unlawful for any 
     liquor dealer to purchase distilled spirits for resale from 
     any person other than a wholesale liquor dealer subject to 
     the recordkeeping requirements, or a proprietor of a 
     distilled spirits plant subject to recordkeeping 
     requirements.\75\ Existing general criminal penalties 
     relating to records and reports apply to wholesalers and 
     retailers who fail to comply with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \74\The provision also retains the present-law registration 
     and regulation requirements for the nonbeverage use of 
     distilled spirits, and the permit and recordkeeping 
     requirements for the industrial use of distilled spirits.
     \75\Proprietors of distilled spirits plants remain subject to 
     present law recordkeeping requirements under section 5207. 
     Under present law, a limited retail dealer in liquors (such 
     as a charitable organization selling liquor at a picnic) may 
     lawfully purchase distilled spirits for resale from a retail 
     dealer in distilled spirits. The provision retains this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on July 
     1, 2008. The provision does not affect liability for taxes 
     imposed with respect to periods before July 1, 2008.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
     2. Modify limitation on rate of rum excise tax cover over to 
         Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands (sec. 5232 of the Senate 
         amendment)


                              Present Law

       A $13.50 per proof gallon\76\ excise tax is imposed on 
     distilled spirits produced in or imported (or brought) into 
     the United States.\77\ The excise tax does not apply to 
     distilled spirits that are exported from the United States, 
     including exports to U.S. possessions (e.g., Puerto Rico and 
     the Virgin Islands).\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \76\A proof gallon is a liquid gallon consisting of 50 
     percent alcohol. See sec. 5002(a)(10) and 5002(a)(11).
     \77\Sec. 5001(a)(1).
     \78\Secs. 5062(b), 7653(b), and 7653(c).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18847]]

       The Code provides for cover over (payment) to Puerto Rico 
     and the Virgin Islands of the excise tax imposed on rum 
     imported (or brought) into the United States, without regard 
     to the country of origin.\79\ The amount of the cover over is 
     limited under Code section 7652(f) to $10.50 per proof gallon 
     ($13.25 per proof gallon during the period July 1, 1999 
     through December 31, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \79\Secs. 7652(a)(3), 7652(b)(3), and 7652(e)(1). One percent 
     of the amount of excise tax collected from imports into the 
     United States of articles produced in the Virgin Islands is 
     retained by the United States under section 7652(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Tax amounts attributable to shipments to the United States 
     of rum produced in Puerto Rico are covered over to Puerto 
     Rico. Tax amounts attributable to shipments to the United 
     States of rum produced in the Virgin Islands are covered over 
     to the Virgin Islands. Tax amounts attributable to shipments 
     to the United States of rum produced in neither Puerto Rico 
     nor the Virgin Islands are divided and covered over to the 
     two possessions under a formula.\80\ Amounts covered over to 
     Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are deposited into the 
     treasuries of the two possessions for use as those 
     possessions determine.\81\ All of the amounts covered over 
     are subject to the limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \80\Sec. 7652(e)(2).
     \81\Secs. 7652(a)(3), (b)(3), and 7652(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, the cover over amount of $13.25 
     per proof gallon is modified to $13.50 for rum brought into 
     the United States after December 31, 2005 and before January 
     1, 2007. After December 31, 2006, the cover over amount 
     reverts to $10.50 per proof gallon.
       The Senate amendment additionally requires that Puerto Rico 
     transfers a portion of the amount covered over to Puerto Rico 
     to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund (the 
     ``Fund'').\82\ The treasury of Puerto Rico is required to 
     transfer to the Fund amounts equal to 50 cents per proof 
     gallon of the taxes covered over to Puerto Rico, and 
     attributable to rum imported into the United States that was 
     produced neither in Puerto Rico nor the Virgin Islands. The 
     transfers are required to be made within 30 days of each such 
     cover over payment to Puerto Rico. Each transfer payment is 
     to be treated as principal for an endowment, the income from 
     which is to be used by the Fund for the purposes for which 
     the Fund was established. If Puerto Rico fails to make a 
     timely payment to the Trust Fund, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall deduct and withhold such unpaid amount from 
     the next cover over payment, plus interest, and shall 
     transfer such amounts directly to the Fund. Such deduction, 
     withholding, and direct payment will not be made if the 
     Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the 
     Governor of Puerto Rico, finds that the failure of the 
     treasury of Puerto Rico to make the transfer payment was for 
     good cause. The transfer requirement expires after December 
     31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \82\The Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund was established 
     pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding, dated December 24, 
     1968, between the United States Department of the Interior 
     and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Effective date.--The change in the cover over rate is 
     effective for articles brought into the United States after 
     December 31, 2005. The Senate amendment regarding the Puerto 
     Rico Conservation Trust Fund is effective January 1, 2006.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     3. Provide an income tax credit for cost of carrying tax-paid 
         distilled spirits in wholesale inventories and in control 
         State bailment warehouses (sec. 5233 of the Senate 
         amendment and new sec. 5011 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       As is true of most major Federal excise taxes, the excise 
     tax on distilled spirits is imposed at a point in the chain 
     of distribution before the product reaches the retail 
     (consumer) level. The excise tax on distilled spirits 
     produced in the United States is imposed when the distilled 
     spirits are removed from the distilled spirits plant where 
     they are produced. Distilled spirits that are bottled before 
     importation into the United States are taxed on removal from 
     the first U.S. customs bonded warehouse to which they are 
     landed (including a warehouse located in a foreign trade 
     zone). Distilled spirits imported in bulk containers for 
     bottling in the United States may be transferred to a 
     domestic distilled spirits plant without payment of tax; 
     subsequently, these distilled spirits are taxed in the same 
     way as domestically produced distilled spirits.
       No tax credits are allowed under present law for business 
     costs associated with having tax-paid products in inventory. 
     Rather, excise tax that is included in the purchase price of 
     a product is treated the same as the other components of the 
     product cost, i.e., deductible as a cost of goods sold.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment creates a new income tax credit for 
     eligible wholesalers, distillers, and importers, of distilled 
     spirits. The credit is in addition to present-law rules 
     allowing tax included in inventory costs to be deducted as a 
     cost of goods sold, and is treated as part of the general 
     business credits.
       The credit is calculated by multiplying the number of cases 
     of bottled distilled spirits by the average tax-financing 
     cost per case for the most recent calendar year ending before 
     the beginning of such taxable year. A case is 12 80-proof 
     750-milliliter bottles. The average tax-financing cost per 
     case is the amount of interest that would accrue at corporate 
     overpayment rates during an assumed 60-day holding period on 
     an assumed tax rate of $25.68 per case of 12 80-proof 750-
     milliliter bottles.
       The wholesaler credit only applies to domestically bottled 
     distilled spirits\83\ purchased directly from the bottler of 
     such spirits. An eligible wholesaler is any person that holds 
     a permit under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act as a 
     wholesaler of distilled spirits that is not a State, or 
     agency or political subdivision thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \83\Distilled spirits that are imported in bulk and then 
     bottled domestically qualify as domestically bottled 
     distilled spirits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For distillers and importers that are not eligible 
     wholesalers, the credit is limited to bottled inventory in a 
     warehouse owned and operated by, or on behalf of, a State or 
     political subdivision thereof, when title to such inventory 
     has not passed unconditionally. The credit for distillers and 
     importers applies to distilled spirits bottled both 
     domestically and abroad.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     taxable years beginning after September 30, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
     4. Quarterly excise tax filing for small alcohol excise 
         taxpayers (sec. 5234 of the Senate amendment and sec. 
         5061 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       In general, excise taxes on distilled spirits, wines, and 
     beers are collected on the basis of returns filed in 
     accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.\84\ In the case of distilled spirits, beer, and 
     wine withdrawn under bond for deferred payment of tax 
     (``deferred payment bond''), domestic producers are generally 
     required to pay alcohol excise taxes within 14 days after the 
     last day of the semi-monthly period during which the article 
     is withdrawn.\85\ In the case of distilled spirits, wines, 
     and beer which are imported into the United States (other 
     than in bulk containers), the importer is generally required 
     to pay alcohol excise taxes within 14 days after the last day 
     of the semi-monthly period during which the article is 
     entered into the customs territory of the United States.\86\ 
     In the case of imported articles entered for warehousing, the 
     taxes are generally due within 14 days after the last day of 
     the semi-monthly period during which the article is removed 
     from the first such warehouse.\87\ Treasury regulations also 
     permit certain very small wine producers to file and pay on 
     an annual basis.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \84\Sec. 5061(a).
     \85\Sec. 5061(d)(1).
     \86\Sec. 5061(d)(2)(A).
     \87\Sec. 5061(d)(2)(B).
     \88\Annual filing and payment is permitted to a wine producer 
     who has not given a deferred payment bond, and who either 
     paid wine excise taxes in an amount less than $1,000 during 
     the previous calendar year or is a proprietor of a new bonded 
     wine premise and expects to pay less than $1,000 in wine 
     excise taxes before the end of the calendar year. 27 CFR sec. 
     24.273(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Special rules apply to accelerate payments made with 
     respect to taxes allocable to the second half of the month of 
     September.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \89\Sec. 5061(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, domestic producers and 
     importers of distilled spirits, wine, and beer with excise 
     tax liability of $50,000 or less attributable to such 
     articles in the preceding calendar year may file returns and 
     pay taxes within 14 days after the end of the calendar 
     quarter instead of semi-monthly. In order to qualify, the 
     taxpayer's liability for such taxes during the immediately 
     preceding year must have been $50,000 or less, and, as of the 
     beginning of the current calendar year, the taxpayer must 
     reasonably expect to pay less than $50,000 in such taxes for 
     that year. The Senate amendment does not apply to a taxpayer 
     for any portion of the calendar year following the first date 
     on which the aggregate amount of tax due for that year 
     exceeds the $50,000 threshold.
       The special rules accelerating payments for taxes allocable 
     to the second half of September do not apply to quarterly 
     filers under the Senate amendment.
       Very small wine producers who have not given deferred 
     payment bonds may still file and pay on an annual basis as 
     under present law.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     quarterly periods beginning on and after January 1, 2006.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment with 
     the clarification that

[[Page 18848]]

     quarterly filing and payment applies only to withdrawals, 
     removals, and entries (and articles brought into the United 
     States from Puerto Rico) under deferred payment bonds. 
     Transactions that are not made under deferred payment bonds 
     do not qualify for quarterly filing and payment, but do count 
     toward determining whether the $50,000 threshold has been 
     reached.

                         E. Sport Excise Taxes

     1. Custom gunsmiths (sec. 5241 of the Senate amendment and 
         sec. 4182 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       The Code imposes an excise tax upon the sale by the 
     manufacturer, producer or importer of certain firearms and 
     ammunition.\90\ Pistols and revolvers are taxable at 10 
     percent. Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers), shells, 
     and cartridges are taxable at 11 percent. The excise tax for 
     firearms imposed on manufacturers, producers, and importers 
     does not apply to machine guns and short barreled firearms. 
     Sales to the Defense Department of firearms, pistols, 
     revolvers, shells and cartridges also are exempt from the 
     tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \90\Sec. 4181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment exempts from the firearms excise tax 
     firearms, pistols, and revolvers manufactured, produced, or 
     imported by a person who manufactures, produces, and imports 
     less than 50 of such articles during the calendar year. 
     Controlled groups are treated as a single person for 
     determining the 50-article limit.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer 
     after September 30, 2005. No inference is intended from the 
     prospective effective date of this provision as to the proper 
     treatment of pre-effective date sales.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.

                     III. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     A. Motor Fuel Tax Enforcement Advisory Commission (sec. 5301 
         of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Present law does not require that there be an advisory 
     commission on motor tax fuel enforcement.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment establishes a ``Motor Fuel Tax 
     Enforcement Advisory Commission'' (the ``Commission''). The 
     purpose of the Commission is to: (1) review motor fuel 
     revenue collections, historical and current; (2) review the 
     progress of investigations; (3) develop and review 
     legislative proposals with respect to motor fuel taxes; (4) 
     monitor the progress of administrative regulation projects 
     relating to fuel taxes; (5) review the results Federal and 
     State agency cooperative efforts regarding motor fuel taxes; 
     and (6) review the results of Federal interagency cooperative 
     efforts regarding motor fuel taxes. The Commission also is to 
     evaluate and make recommendations regarding: (1) the 
     effectiveness of existing Federal enforcement programs 
     regarding motor fuel taxes; (2) enforcement personnel 
     allocation; and (3) proposals for regulatory projects, 
     legislation, and funding.
       The Commission is to be composed of the following:
       1. At least one representative from each of the following 
     Federal entities: the Department of Homeland Security, the 
     Department of Transportation--Office of Inspector General, 
     the Federal Highway Administration, the Department of 
     Defense, and the Department of Justice;
       2. At least one representative from the Federation of State 
     Tax Administrators;
       3. At least one representative from any State Department of 
     Transportation;
       4. Two representatives from the highway construction 
     industry;
       5. Six representatives from industries relating to fuel 
     distribution: refiners (two representatives), distributors 
     (one representative), pipelines (one representative), 
     terminal operators (two representatives);
       6. One representative from the retail fuel industry; and
       7. Two representatives each from the staff of the Senate 
     Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
       Members of the Commission are to be appointed by the 
     Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Senate Committee on 
     Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means. 
     Representatives from the Department of Treasury and the IRS 
     shall be available to consult with the Commission upon 
     request. The Commission is to terminate after September 30, 
     2009.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on the 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.

B. National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission 
                  (sec. 5302 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Present law does not provide for any advisory commissions 
     related Federal highway or mass transit funding.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The provision establishes a ``National Surface 
     Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission'' (the 
     ``Financing Commission''). The Financing Commission is to be 
     composed of 15 members drawn from among individuals 
     knowledgeable in the fields of public transportation finance 
     or highway and transit programs, policy, and needs. Financing 
     Commission members may include representatives of State and 
     local governments or other public transportation agencies, 
     representatives of the transportation construction industry, 
     providers of transportation, persons knowledgeable in 
     finance, and users of highway and transit systems.
       The Financing Commission will make an investigation and 
     study of revenues flowing into the Highway Trust Fund under 
     present law. The Financing Commission will consider whether 
     the amount of such revenues is likely to increase, decline or 
     remain unchanged absent changes in the law. The Financing 
     Commission will consider alternative approaches to generating 
     revenues for the Highway Trust Fund, and the level of 
     revenues that such alternatives would yield. The Financing 
     Commission will consider highway and transit needs and 
     whether additional revenues into the Highway Trust Fund, or 
     other Federal revenues dedicated to highway and transit 
     infrastructure, would be required in order to meet such 
     needs.
       The Financing Commission will develop a final report, with 
     recommendations and the bases for those recommendations. The 
     Financing Commission's recommendations will address: (1) what 
     levels of revenue are required by the Highway Trust Fund in 
     order for it to meet needs to maintain and improve the 
     condition and performance of the nation's highway and transit 
     systems; (2) what levels of revenue are required by the 
     Highway Trust Fund in order to ensure that Federal levels of 
     investment in highways and transit do not decline in real 
     terms; and (3) the extent, if any, to which the Highway Trust 
     Fund should be augmented by other mechanisms or funds as a 
     Federal means of financing highway and transit infrastructure 
     investments.
       The Financing Commission will submit its report and 
     recommendations within two years of the date of its first 
     meeting to the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, the House Committee on Ways and Means, Senate 
     Committee on Finance, the House Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure, the Senate Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works, and Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on the 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment with 
     the following modification. The Commission also must consider 
     a program that would exempt all or a portion of gasoline or 
     other motor fuels used in a State from the Federal excise tax 
     on such gasoline or other motor fuels if such State elects 
     not to receive all or a portion of Federal transportation 
     funding, including: (1) whether such State should be required 
     to increase State gasoline or other motor fuels taxes by the 
     amount of the decrease in the Federal excise tax on such 
     gasoline or other motor fuels; (2) whether any Federal 
     transportation funding should not be reduced or eliminated 
     for States participating in such program; (3) whether there 
     are any compliance problems related to enforcement of Federal 
     transportation-related excise taxes; and (4) study such other 
     matters closely related to the subjects described in the 
     preceding subparagraphs as it may deem appropriate.

 C. Expand Highway Trust Fund Expenditure Purposes to Include Funding 
 for Studies of Supplemental or Alternative Financing for the Highway 
             Trust Fund (sec. 5303 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

     In general
       Dedication of excise tax revenues to the Highway Trust Fund 
     and expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund are governed by 
     provisions of the Code (sec. 9503).\91\ The Code authorizes 
     expenditures (subject to appropriations) from the Fund 
     through July 30, 2005, for the purposes provided in 
     authorizing legislation, as in effect on the date of 
     enactment of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 
     2005, Part IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \91\The Highway Trust Fund statutory provisions were placed 
     in the Internal Revenue Code in 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Highway Trust Fund has a subaccount for Mass Transit. 
     Both the Trust Fund and its subaccount are funding sources 
     for specific programs.
       Highway Trust Fund expenditure purposes have been revised 
     with each authorization Act enacted since establishment of 
     the Highway Trust Fund in 1956. In general, expenditures 
     authorized under those Acts (as the Acts were in effect on 
     the date of enactment

[[Page 18849]]

     of the most recent such authorizing Act) are approved by the 
     Code as Highway Trust Fund expenditure purposes.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \92\The authorizing Acts which currently are referenced in 
     the Highway Trust Fund provisions of the Code are: the 
     Highway Revenue Act of 1956; Titles I and II of the Surface 
     Transportation Assistance Act of 1982; the Surface 
     Transportation and Uniform Relocation Act of 1987; the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2003; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004 Part II; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part III; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part II; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part III; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part IV and the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Highway Trust Fund expenditure purposes
       Highway Trust Fund expenditure purposes
       The Highway Trust Fund receives revenues from all non-fuel 
     highway transportation excise taxes and revenues from all but 
     2.86 cents per gallon of the highway motor fuels excise taxes 
     transferred to the Highway Trust Fund. Programs financed from 
     the Highway Trust Fund (excluding the Mass Transit account) 
     include:
       1. Interstate maintenance program;
       2. National Highway System;
       3. The bridge program (bridge replacement and repair);
       4. Surface transportation programs;
       5. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
     program;
       6. Highway safety programs and research and development, 
     including a share of the cost of National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration (``NHTSA'') programs and university 
     research centers;
       7. Appalachian development highway system program;
       8. Recreational trails program;
       9. Federal lands highways program;
       10. National corridor planning and development and 
     coordinated border infrastructure programs;
       11. Construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal 
     facilities;
       12. National scenic byways program;
       13. Value pricing pilot program;
       14. High priority projects program;
       15. Highway use tax evasion projects; and
       16. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico highway program.
       Certain administrative costs of the Federal Highway 
     Administration and NHTSA are also funded from the Highway 
     Trust Fund.
       Mass Transit Account expenditure purposes
       The Highway Fund's Mass Transit Account receives revenues 
     equivalent to 2.86 cents per gallon of the highway motor 
     fuels excise taxes. Mass Transit Account monies are available 
     through July 27, 2005, for capital and capital-related 
     expenditures under section 5338(a)(1) and 5338(b)(1) of Title 
     49, United States Code; the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991; the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century; the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 
     2003; the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004; the 
     Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part II; the 
     Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part III; the 
     Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part IV; the 
     Surface Transportation Act of 2004, Part V; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part II; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part III; the Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part IV; and the 
     Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part V, as 
     those provisions were in effect on the date of enactment of 
     the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part V.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment expands the expenditure authority and 
     authorizes the expenditure of monies from the Highway Trust 
     Fund to fund two comprehensive studies of supplemental or 
     alternative funding sources for the Highway Trust Fund. One 
     study, to receive $1 million in funding, will review funding 
     mechanisms of other industrialized nations and examine the 
     viability of proposals such as congestion pricing, greater 
     reliance on tolls, privatization of facilities, and other 
     funding proposals. This study would be due no later than 
     December 31, 2006. The other study, to receive $16.5 million 
     in funding, would report on a long-term field test of a new 
     approach to assessing highway use taxes by use of an on-board 
     computer that links to satellites to calculate road mileage 
     traversed and compute the appropriate highway use tax for 
     each of the Federal, State, and local government as the 
     vehicle makes use of the roads. The results of this study 
     would be due no later than December 31, 2011. Each study 
     would be delivered to the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Secretary of Transportation.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective upon 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement addresses authorization of 
     expenditures for the study of alternative financing for the 
     Highway Trust Fund elsewhere in the conference agreement and 
     does not amend the Code for this purpose.

D. Delta Regional Transportation Plan (sec. 1806 of the House bill and 
                   sec. 5304 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The Delta Regional Authority is a Federal-State 
     partnership, serving a 240-county/parish area in an eight-
     State region.\93\ No State is required to participate with 
     the authority. The duties of the authority are to: (1) 
     produce a regional development plan; (2) set priorities for 
     approval of grants in the region; (3) assess the region's 
     needs and assets; (4) inform participating States about 
     interstate cooperation; (5) work with States and local 
     agencies to develop model legislation; (6) enhance the 
     capacity of and support Local Development Districts, as well 
     as the creation of Local Development Districts where none 
     currently exist; (7) encourage private investment in economic 
     development projects in the region; and (8) assist State 
     governments with the States' economic development program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \93\The covered States and counties are: Alabama--20 
     counties; Arkansas--42 counties; Illinois, 16 counties; 
     Kentucky--21 counties; Louisiana--46 parishes; Mississippi--
     45 counties; Missouri--29 counties; and Tennessee--21 
     counties. Delta Regional Authority, Legislative Matters and 
     Overview (February 1, 2004), <www.dra.gov/legislation.php>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       The provision directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
     enter into an agreement with the Delta Regional Authority to 
     conduct a comprehensive study of transportation assets and 
     needs in the eight states comprising the Delta region 
     (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
     Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee). The agreement must be 
     entered into within six months from the date of enactment. 
     The study and recommendations must be submitted, no later 
     than 24 months after the date of entry into the agreement, to 
     the Secretary of Transportation, to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate.
       The study is to include all modes of transportation 
     (including passenger and freight transportation). The Delta 
     Regional Authority is to work with local planning and 
     development districts, local and regional governments, 
     metropolitan planning organizations, State transportation 
     entities, and Department of Transportation to develop a 
     regional strategic transportation plan. Upon completion of 
     the study, the Delta Regional Authority is to create a 
     regional strategic plan to achieve efficient transportation 
     systems in the Delta region.
       The provision authorizes the Delta Regional Authority to 
     receive $500,000 in fiscal year 2005, and $500,000 in fiscal 
     year 2006 to conduct a comprehensive study and plan. These 
     funds are to remain available until spent.
       Effective date.--The House bill is effective on the date of 
     enactment.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment generally follows the House bill but 
     does not require an agreement with the Secretary of 
     Transportation, nor does it set a deadline for the submission 
     of the report.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on the 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement addresses the Delta Region 
     Transportation Plan elsewhere in the conference agreement and 
     does not amend the Code for this purpose.

    E. Establish Build America Corporation (sec. 5305 of the Senate 
                               amendment)


                              Present Law

       There is no provision in Federal law establishing a 
     nonprofit corporation dedicated to providing financing or 
     other financial support for transportation infrastructure 
     projects.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment establishes a nonprofit corporation, 
     to be known as the ``Build America Corporation.'' The Build 
     America Corporation is not an agency or establishment of the 
     United States Government. The Build America Corporation 
     generally shall be subject to the laws of the State of 
     Delaware applicable to non-profit corporations.
       The purpose of the corporation is to provide financial 
     support for qualified projects. Under the provision, a 
     ``qualified project'' generally is defined as any 
     transportation infrastructure project of any governmental 
     unit or other person that is proposed by a State, including a 
     highway project, a transit system project, a railroad 
     project, an airport project, a port project, and an inland 
     waterways project. The provision imposes additional 
     requirements if a qualified project is financed by debt 
     issued by the Build America Corporation.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on the 
     date of enactment.

[[Page 18850]]




                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.

   F. Increase in Dollar Limits for Qualified Transportation Fringe 
              Benefits (sec. 5306 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Under present law, qualified transportation benefits are 
     excludable from gross income and wages for employment tax 
     purposes. Qualified transportation benefits are: (1) 
     transportation in a commuter highway vehicle if such 
     transportation is in connection with travel between the 
     employee's residence and place of employment (``van 
     pooling''); (2) transit passes; and (3) qualified parking. 
     For purposes of the exclusion for van pooling benefits, a 
     commuter highway vehicle is any highway vehicle: (1) the 
     seating capacity of which is at least six adults (excluding 
     the driver); and (2) at least 80 percent of the mileage use 
     of which can reasonably be expected to be (a) for purposes of 
     transporting employees in connection with travel between 
     their residences and their place of employment and (b) on 
     trips during which the number of employees transported for 
     such purposes is at least one-half of the adult seating 
     capacity of such vehicle (not including the driver).
       The maximum amount of qualified parking that is excludable 
     from income and wages is $200 per month (for 2005). The 
     maximum amount of transit passes and van pooling benefits 
     that are excludable from income and wages per month is $105 
     (for 2005). These dollar amounts are indexed for inflation.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, the maximum dollar amount of 
     excludable van pooling and transit pass benefits is increased 
     to $155 per month. The maximum amount of excludable qualified 
     parking is $200 per month. The dollar amounts are indexed for 
     inflation after 2008 (with 2007 as a base year). Beginning in 
     2010, the maximum dollar amount of excludable van pooling and 
     transit pass benefits is increased so that it is equal to the 
     maximum amount of excludable qualified parking.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.

       G. Treasury Study of Highway Fuels Used by Trucks for Non-
      Transportation Purposes (sec. 5307 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Present law does not provide for a study of the fuel use by 
     trucks.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment directs the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to study the use by trucks of highway motor fuel that is not 
     used for the propulsion of the vehicle, both in the case of 
     vehicles carrying equipment that is unrelated to the 
     transportation function of the vehicle and in the case where 
     non-transportation equipment is run by a separate motor. In 
     addition, the Secretary is to estimate the amount of fuel 
     consumed and pollutants emitted by trucks due to the long-
     term idling of diesel engines, and report on the cost of 
     reducing long-term idling through various technologies. The 
     Secretary is to propose options for implementing exemptions 
     for classes of vehicles whose nonpropulsive fuel use exceeds 
     50 percent.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on the 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment with 
     modification that the Secretary is to propose options for 
     implementing exemptions from tax for fuel used in non-
     transportation uses, but only if the Secretary determines 
     such exemptions are administratively feasible, for the 
     following: (1) mobile machinery whose nonpropulsive fuel use 
     exceeds 50 percent and (2) any highway vehicle that consumes 
     fuel for both transportation- and nontransportation-related 
     equipment, using a single motor. With respect to item (2), it 
     is intended that the Secretary take into consideration such 
     factors as whether the fuel use for non-transportation 
     equipment by the vehicle operator is significant both 
     relative to transportation-related fuel consumption of the 
     vehicle and relative to the vehicle operator's business. 
     There may be significant non- transportation use of taxed 
     fuel even if such use is small relative to the vehicle's 
     transportation use, if the vehicle is used extensively. Also 
     with respect to item (2), it is intended that the Secretary 
     take into account variations in fuel use among the different 
     types of vehicles, such as concrete mixers, refuse collection 
     vehicles, tow trucks, mobile drills, and other vehicles that 
     the Secretary identifies.

  H. Tax-Exempt Financing of Highway Projects and Rail-Truck Transfer 
Facilities (sec. 5308 of the Senate amendment and sec. 142 of the Code)


                              Present law

     Tax-exempt bonds
       In general
       Interest on bonds issued by State and local governments 
     generally is excluded from gross income for Federal income 
     tax purposes if the proceeds of the bonds are used to finance 
     direct activities of these governmental units or if the bonds 
     are repaid with revenues of the governmental units. Interest 
     on State or local bonds to finance activities of private 
     persons (``private activity bonds'') is taxable unless a 
     specific exception is contained in the Code (or in a non-Code 
     provision of a revenue Act). The term ``private person'' 
     generally includes the Federal government and all other 
     individuals and entities other than States or local 
     governments.
       Qualified private activity bonds
       Private activity bonds are eligible for tax-exemption if 
     issued for certain purposes permitted by the Code 
     (``qualified private activity bonds''). The definition of a 
     qualified private activity bond includes an exempt facility 
     bond, or qualified mortgage, veterans' mortgage, small issue, 
     redevelopment, 501(c)(3), or student loan bond.\94\ The 
     definition of exempt facility bond includes bonds issued to 
     finance certain transportation facilities (airports, ports, 
     mass commuting, and high-speed intercity rail facilities); 
     low-income residential rental property; privately owned and/
     or operated utility facilities (sewage, water, solid waste 
     disposal, and local district heating and cooling facilities, 
     certain private electric and gas facilities, and 
     hydroelectric dam enhancements); public/private educational 
     facilities; and, qualified green building/sustainable design 
     projects.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \94\Sec. 141(e).
     \95\Sec. 142(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Issuance of most qualified private activity bonds is 
     subject (in whole or in part) to annual State volume 
     limitations.\96\ Exceptions are provided for bonds for 
     certain governmentally owned facilities (airports, ports, 
     high-speed intercity rail, and solid waste disposal) and 
     bonds which are subject to separate local, State, or national 
     volume limits (public/private educational facilities, 
     enterprise zone facility bonds, and qualified green building/
     sustainable design projects).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \96\Sec. 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment establishes new categories of exempt 
     facility bonds: bonds issued to finance ``qualified highway 
     facilities'' and bonds issued to finance ``qualified surface 
     freight transfer facilities'' (collectively ``qualified 
     highway or surface freight transfer facilities''). Under the 
     provision, a qualified highway facility is any surface 
     transportation or international bridge or tunnel project (for 
     which an international entity authorized under Federal or 
     State law is responsible) which receives Federal assistance 
     under title 23 of the United States Code (relating to 
     Highways). A qualified surface freight transfer facility is a 
     facility for the transfer of freight from truck to rail or 
     rail to truck which receives Federal assistance under title 
     23 or title 49 of the United States Code (relating to 
     Transportation).
       Under the provision, bonds issued to finance qualified 
     highway or surface freight transfer facilities are not 
     subject to the State volume limitations. Rather, there is an 
     annual limitation on the aggregate amount of bonds that may 
     be issued to finance such facilities for each of the calendar 
     years 2005 through 2015, as follows: $130 million for 2005; 
     $750 million for each of the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 
     2009; $1.87 billion for 2010; $2 billion for each of the 
     years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The Secretary of 
     Transportation may allocate the annual bond authority among 
     qualified highway or surface freight transfer facilities in 
     such manner as the Secretary of Transportation determines 
     appropriate. The authority to issue qualified highway or 
     surface freight transfer facility bonds terminates after 
     December 31, 2015.
       The Senate amendment requires the proceeds of qualified 
     highway or surface freight transfer facility bonds to be 
     spent on qualified projects within five years from the date 
     of issuance of such bonds. Proceeds that remain unspent after 
     five years must be used to redeem outstanding bonds. However, 
     the provision authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (or 
     his delegate) to extend the five-year period if the issuer 
     establishes that the need for the extension is appropriate 
     and due to circumstances not within the control of the 
     issuer.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to bonds 
     issued after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment 
     provision with modifications. The conference agreement 
     eliminates the limitation on the aggregate amount of 
     qualified highway or surface freight transfer facility bonds 
     that may be issued in each of the calendar years 2005 through 
     2015. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     allocate a total of $15 billion of issuance authority to 
     qualified highway or surface freight transfer facilities in 
     such manner as

[[Page 18851]]

     the Secretary determines appropriate. The conference 
     agreement also clarifies that bonds are not treated as 
     qualified highway or surface freight transfer facility bonds 
     unless the aggregate amount of bonds issued with respect to 
     qualified facilities does not exceed the amount of authority 
     allocated to such facilities by the Secretary of 
     Transportation. However, the aggregate limitation on bonds 
     that may be issued does not apply to the ``current 
     refunding'' of qualified highway or surface freight transfer 
     facility bonds. Bonds are treated as a current refunding for 
     this purpose if: (1) the average maturity date of the 
     refunding bond is not later than the average maturity date of 
     the refunded bonds; (2) the amount of the refunding bond does 
     not exceed the outstanding amount of the refunded bond, and 
     (3) the refunded bond is redeemed not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the issuance of the refunding bond.
       The conference agreement on this provision is not intended 
     to expand the scope of any Federal requirement beyond its 
     application under present law and does not broaden the 
     application of any Federal requirement under present law in 
     Title 49.
     I. Tax Treatment of State Ownership of Railroad Real Estate 
         Investment Trust (sec. 5309 of the Senate amendment and 
         secs. 103, 115, 336, and 337 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       A real estate investment trust (``REIT'') is an electing 
     entity that is engaged primarily in passive real estate 
     activities (as specifically defined) and that, among other 
     requirements, must have at least 100 shareholders. If a 
     qualified entity elects REIT status, it can pay little or no 
     corporate level tax, since a REIT is allowed a deduction for 
     amounts distributed to its shareholders and is required to 
     distribute at least 90 percent of its income to shareholders 
     annually.
       If an entity does not qualify to be treated as a REIT, it 
     would generally be treated as a regular corporation subject 
     to corporate level tax on its income under subchapter C and 
     section 11 of the Code. Such a corporation can elect to be 
     taxed as a partnership or disregarded entity under Treasury 
     regulations. However, if it made such an election, the 
     corporation would be treated as if it had liquidated and 
     distributed its assets to shareholders, generally resulting 
     in corporate-level tax on the excess of the fair market value 
     over the basis of corporate assets.\97\ A corporation that 
     itself becomes a tax-exempt entity also must pay corporate 
     tax on the excess of the fair market value over the basis of 
     its assets.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \97\Sec. 336. An exception to this gain recognition applies 
     to certain liquidations into a corporation that owns 80 
     percent of the liquidating entity and that is not itself tax-
     exempt. Sec. 337.
     \98\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.337(d)-4(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A State or local government is not subject to Federal 
     income tax on income that accrues to the State or any 
     political subdivision thereof and that is derived from any 
     public utility or the exercise of any activity that is an 
     essential governmental function.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \99\Sec. 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Interest on a State and local bond is excluded from gross 
     income, with certain exceptions.\100\ Special rules are also 
     provided as requirements for tax exemption for State and 
     local bonds.\101\ State and local bonds can be classified by 
     the type of entity using the proceeds as either governmental 
     or private activity bonds. In general, bonds are governmental 
     bonds if the proceeds of the bonds are used to finance direct 
     activities of governmental entities or if the bonds are 
     repaid with revenues of governmental entities. Private 
     activity bonds are bonds with respect to which a State or 
     local government serves as a conduit providing financing to 
     private businesses or individuals. The exclusion from income 
     for State and local bonds does not apply to private activity 
     bonds unless the bonds are issued for certain purposes 
     permitted by the Code. In addition, both governmental and 
     private activity bonds must satisfy applicable rules provided 
     for in the Code as a condition of tax exemption.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \100\Sec. 103.
     \101\Secs. 141-150.
     \102\Secs. 141-150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, the income of a qualified 
     corporation that is derived from its railroad transportation 
     and economic development activities, that constitute 
     substantially all of its activities (as described below), is 
     treated as accruing to the State for purposes of section 115, 
     to the extent such activities are of a type which are an 
     essential governmental function under section 115 of present 
     law. For purposes of the provision, a qualified corporation 
     is a corporation which is a REIT on the date of enactment and 
     which is a non-operating Class III railroad that becomes 100 
     percent owned by a State after December 31, 2003 and before 
     December 31, 2006. Moreover, substantially all activities of 
     the corporation must consist of the ownership, leasing, and 
     operation by such corporation of facilities, equipment, and 
     other property used by the corporation or other persons for 
     railroad transportation and for economic development for the 
     benefit of the State and its citizens.
       Under the Senate amendment, no gain or loss shall be 
     recognized from the deemed conversion of such a REIT to such 
     a qualified corporation and no change in the basis of the 
     property of the entity shall occur.
       Also, any obligation issued by a qualified corporation 
     described above is treated as an obligation of a State for 
     purposes of applying the tax exempt bond provisions if 95 
     percent of the net proceeds of such obligation are to be used 
     to provide for the acquisition, construction, or improvement 
     of railroad transportation infrastructure (including railroad 
     terminal facilities). In addition, such an obligation shall 
     not be treated as a private activity bond solely by reason of 
     the ownership or use of such railroad transportation 
     infrastructure by the corporation. All other present-law 
     provisions relating to tax exempt bonds continue to apply to 
     and govern bonds issued by the corporation. For example, the 
     use by a private business of railroad property financed with 
     the proceeds of bonds issued by a qualified corporation may 
     cause such bonds to be taxable private activity bonds.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies on and after 
     the date a State becomes the owner of all the outstanding 
     stock of a qualified corporation through action of such 
     corporation's board of directors, provided that the State 
     becomes the owner of all the voting stock of the corporation 
     on or before December 31, 2003 and becomes the owner of all 
     the outstanding stock of the corporation on or before 
     December 31, 2006.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.

 J. Incentives for Installation of Alternative Fuel Refueling Property 
               (secs. 5310 and 2010 of Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Certain costs of qualified clean-fuel vehicle refueling 
     property may be expensed and deducted when such property is 
     placed in service (sec. 179A). Up to $100,000 of such 
     property at each location owned by the taxpayer may be 
     expensed with respect to that location. Natural gas, 
     liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, 
     electricity and any other fuel at least 85 percent of which 
     is methanol, ethanol, or any other alcohol or ether comprise 
     clean-burning fuels.
       The deduction is unavailable for property placed in service 
     after December 31, 2006.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment provision permits taxpayers to claim a 
     50-percent credit for the cost of installing clean-fuel 
     vehicle refueling property to be used in a trade or business 
     of the taxpayer or installed at the principal residence of 
     the taxpayer. In the case of retail clean-fuel vehicle 
     refueling property installed as part of the taxpayer's 
     business the allowable credit may not exceed $30,000. In the 
     case of residential clean-fuel vehicle refueling property the 
     allowable credit may not exceed $1,000.
       Under the provision clean fuels are any fuel at least 85 
     percent of the volume of which consists of ethanol, natural 
     gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and 
     hydrogen.
       The taxpayer's basis in the property is reduced by the 
     amount of the credit and the taxpayer may not claim 
     deductions under section 179A with respect to property for 
     which the credit is claimed. In the case of refueling 
     property installed on property owned or used by a tax-exempt 
     person, the taxpayer that installs the property may claim the 
     credit. To be eligible for the credit, the property must be 
     placed in service before January 1, 2010. The credit 
     allowable in the taxable year cannot exceed the difference 
     between the taxpayer's regular tax (reduced by certain other 
     credits) and the taxpayer's tentative minimum tax. The 
     taxpayer may carry forward unused credits for 20 years.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     property placed in service after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.

   K. Modify Recapture of Section 197 Amortization (sec. 5311 of the 
                           Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Taxpayers are entitled to recover the cost of amortizable 
     section 197 intangibles using the straight-line method of 
     amortization over a uniform life of fifteen years.\103\ With 
     certain exceptions, amortizable section 197 intangibles 
     generally are purchased intangibles held by a taxpayer in the 
     conduct of a business.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \103\Sec. 197(a).
     \104\Sec. 197(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Gain on the sale of depreciable property must be recaptured 
     as ordinary income to the extent of depreciation deductions 
     previously claimed,\105\ and the recapture amount is computed 
     separately for each item of property. Section 197 
     intangibles, because they are treated as property of a 
     character

[[Page 18852]]

     subject to the allowance for depreciation,\106\ are subject 
     to these recapture rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \105\Sec. 1245.
     \106\Sec. 197(f)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, if multiple section 197 
     intangibles are sold (or otherwise disposed of) in a single 
     transaction or series of transactions, the seller must 
     calculate recapture as if all of the section 197 intangibles 
     were a single asset. Thus, any gain on the sale (or other 
     disposition) of the intangibles is recaptured as ordinary 
     income to the extent of ordinary depreciation deductions 
     previously claimed on any of the section 197 intangibles.
       The following example illustrates present law and the 
     Senate amendment:
       Example.--In year 1, a taxpayer acquires two section 197 
     intangible assets for a total of $45. Asset A is assigned a 
     cost basis of $15 and asset B is assigned a cost basis of 
     $30. The allocation is irrelevant for amortization purposes, 
     as the taxpayer will be entitled to a total of $3 per year 
     ($45 divided by 15 years).
       In year 6, the basis of A is $10 and the basis of B is $20. 
     Taxpayer sells the assets for an aggregate sale price of $45, 
     resulting in gain of $15. The character of this gain depends 
     on the recapture amount, which depends in turn on the 
     relative sales prices of the individual assets. Taxpayer has 
     claimed $5 of amortization, and therefore has $5 of recapture 
     potential, with respect to A. Taxpayer has claimed $10 of 
     amortization, and therefore has $10 of recapture potential, 
     with respect to B.
       Under present law, if the sale proceeds are allocated $15 
     to A and $30 to B, the gain on assets A and B will be $5 and 
     $10, respectively. These amounts match the recapture 
     potential for each asset, so the full amount of the gain will 
     be recaptured as ordinary income. However, if the sale 
     proceeds instead are allocated $25 to A and $20 to B, the 
     full $15 gain will be recognized with respect to A, and only 
     $5 (full recapture potential with respect to A) will be 
     recaptured as ordinary income. The remaining $10 of gain 
     attributable to A will be treated as capital gain. No gain 
     (and thus no recapture) will be recognized with respect to 
     Asset B, and only $5 of the $15 recapture potential is 
     recognized.
       Under the Senate amendment, the taxpayer calculates 
     recapture as if assets A and B were a single asset. For 
     purposes of the calculation, the proceeds are $45 and the 
     gain is $15. Because a total of $15 of amortization has been 
     claimed with respect to assets A and B, the full $15 gain is 
     recaptured as ordinary income.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     dispositions of property after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.

 L. Diesel Fuel Tax Evasion Report (sec. 5312 of the Senate amendment)


                              present law

       An excise tax is imposed upon (1) the removal of any 
     taxable fuel from a refinery or terminal, (2) the entry of 
     any taxable fuel into the United States, or (3) the sale of 
     any taxable fuel to any person who is not registered with the 
     IRS to receive untaxed fuel, unless there was a prior taxable 
     removal or entry.\107\ The tax does not apply to any removal 
     or entry of taxable fuel transferred in bulk by pipeline or 
     vessel to a terminal or refinery if the person removing or 
     entering the taxable fuel, the operator of such pipeline or 
     vessel, and the operator of such terminal or refinery are 
     registered with the Secretary.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \107\Sec. 4081(a)(1).
     \108\Sec. 4081(a)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Diesel fuel and kerosene that is to be used for a 
     nontaxable purpose will not be taxed upon removal from the 
     terminal if it is dyed to indicate its nontaxable 
     purpose.\109\ In addition to requirement that fuel be dyed, 
     the Secretary has the authority to prescribe marking 
     requirements for diesel fuel and kerosene destined for a 
     nontaxable use.\110\ The Secretary has not prescribed any 
     marking requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \109\Sec. 4082(a)(1) and (2).
     \110\Sec. 4082(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               house bill

       No provision.


                            senate amendment

       The Senate amendment requires the Commissioner of the IRS 
     to report on the availability of new technologies that can be 
     employed to enhance the collections of the excise tax on 
     diesel fuel and the plans of the IRS to employ such 
     technologies. The report is to be submitted within 360 days 
     from the date of enactment to the Senate Committees on 
     Finance and Environment and Public Works, and the House 
     Committees on Ways and Means and Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on the 
     date of enactment.


                          conference agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment 
     except the conference agreement requires the report to 
     contain certain additional information regarding the use of 
     forensic or chemical molecular markers. Specifically, the 
     conference agreement requires the report to cover the 
     availability of forensic or chemical molecular markers, in 
     addition to other technologies, to enhance collections of the 
     excise tax on diesel fuel and the plans of the Internal 
     Revenue Service to employ such technologies. The report must 
     also cover the design of three tests: (1) the design of a 
     test to place forensic or chemical molecular markers in any 
     excluded liquid as that term is defined in Treasury 
     regulations; (2) the design of a test, in consultation with 
     the Department of Defense, to place forensic or chemical 
     molecular markers in all nonstrategic bulk fuel deliveries of 
     diesel fuel to the military, and (3) the design of a test to 
     place forensic or chemical molecular markers in all diesel 
     fuel bound for export utilizing the Gulf of Mexico.
       Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of 
     enactment.

 M. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund (sec. 9508 of the Code)


                              Present Law

     Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
       The Code imposes an excise tax, generally at a rate of 0.1 
     cents per gallon, on gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and special 
     motor fuels (other than liquefied petroleum gas and liquefied 
     natural gas).\111\ The taxes are deposited in the Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank (``LUST'') Trust Fund. The tax 
     expires on October 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \111\For qualified methanol and ethanol fuel the rate is 0.05 
     cents per gallon (sec. 4041(b)(2)(A)(ii)). Qualified methanol 
     or ethanol fuel is any liquid at least 85 percent of which 
     consists of methanol, ethanol or other alcohol produced from 
     coal (including peat) (sec. 4041(b)(2)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Amounts in the LUST Trust Fund are available, subject to 
     appropriation, only for purposes of making expenditures to 
     carry out section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 
     in effect on the date of enactment of the Superfund 
     Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
     Highway Trust Fund
       The Highway Trust Fund provisions of the Code contain a 
     special enforcement provision to prevent expenditure of 
     Highway Trust Fund monies for purposes not authorized in 
     section 9503 or a revenue Act.\112\ If such unapproved 
     expenditures occur, no further excise tax receipts will be 
     transferred to the Highway Trust Fund. Rather, the taxes will 
     continue to be imposed with receipts being retained in the 
     General Fund. This enforcement provision provides 
     specifically that it applies not only to unauthorized 
     expenditures under the current Code provisions, but also to 
     expenditures pursuant to future legislation that does not 
     amend section 9503's expenditure authorization provisions or 
     otherwise authorize the expenditure as part of a revenue Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \112\Sec. 9503(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               house bill

       No provision.


                            senate amendment

       No provision.


                          conference agreement

       The conference agreement adds to the Code's LUST Trust Fund 
     provisions a special enforcement provision similar to that 
     applicable to the Highway Trust Fund to prevent expenditure 
     of LUST Trust Fund monies for purposes not authorized by the 
     Code or in a revenue Act.
       Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of 
     enactment.

                         N. Revenue Provisions

     1. Treatment of contingent payment convertible debt 
         instruments (sec. 5501 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Under present law, a taxpayer generally deducts the amount 
     of interest paid or accrued within the taxable year on 
     indebtedness issued by the taxpayer. In the case of original 
     issue discount (``OID''), the issuer of a debt instrument 
     generally accrues and deducts, as interest, the OID over the 
     life of the obligation, even though the amount of the OID may 
     not be paid until the maturity of the instrument.
       The amount of OID with respect to a debt instrument is 
     equal to the excess of the stated redemption price at 
     maturity over the issue price of the debt instrument. The 
     stated redemption price at maturity includes all amounts that 
     are payable on the debt instrument by maturity. The amount of 
     OID with respect to a debt instrument is allocated over the 
     life of the instrument through a series of adjustments to the 
     issue price for each accrual period. The adjustment to the 
     issue price is determined by multiplying the adjusted issue 
     price (i.e., the issue price increased or decreased by 
     adjustments before the accrual period) by the instrument's 
     yield to maturity, and then subtracting any payments on the 
     debt instrument (other than non-OID stated interest) during 
     the accrual period. Thus, in order to compute the amount of 
     OID and the portion of OID allocable to a particular period, 
     the stated redemption price at maturity and the time of 
     maturity must be known. Issuers of debt instruments with OID 
     accrue and deduct the amount of OID as interest expense in 
     the same manner as the holders of those instruments accrue 
     and include in gross income the amount of OID as interest 
     income.

[[Page 18853]]

       Treasury regulations provide special rules for determining 
     the amount of OID allocated to a period for certain debt 
     instruments that provide for one or more contingent payments 
     of principal or interest.\113\ The regulations provide that a 
     debt instrument does not provide for contingent payments 
     merely because it provides for an option to convert the debt 
     instrument into the stock of the issuer, into the stock or 
     debt of a related party, or into cash or other property in an 
     amount equal to the approximate value of that stock or 
     debt.\114\ The regulations also provide that a payment is not 
     a contingent payment merely because of a contingency that, as 
     of the issue date of the debt instrument, is either remote or 
     incidental.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \113\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1275-4.
     \114\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1275-4(a)(4).
     \115\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1275-4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In the case of contingent payment debt instruments that are 
     issued for money or publicly traded property,\116\ the 
     regulations provide that interest on a debt instrument must 
     be taken into account (as OID) whether or not the amount of 
     any payment if fixed or determinable in the taxable year. The 
     amount of OID that is taken into account for each accrual 
     period is determined by constructing a comparable yield and a 
     projected payment schedule for the debt instrument, and then 
     accruing the OID on the basis of the comparable yield and 
     projected payment schedule by applying rules similar to those 
     for accruing OID on a noncontingent debt instrument (the 
     ``noncontingent bond method''). If the actual amount of a 
     contingent payment is not equal to the projected amount, 
     appropriate adjustments are made to reflect the difference. 
     The comparable yield for a debt instrument is the yield at 
     which the issuer would be able to issue a fixed-rate 
     noncontingent debt instrument with terms and conditions 
     similar to those of the contingent payment debt instrument 
     (i.e., the comparable fixed-rate debt instrument), including 
     the level of subordination, term, timing of payments, and 
     general market conditions.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \116\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1275-4(b).
     \117\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1275-4(b)(4)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Certain debt instruments, often referred to as ``contingent 
     convertible'' debt instruments, are convertible into the 
     common stock of the issuer and also provide for contingent 
     payments (other than the conversion feature). The IRS has 
     stated that the noncontingent bond method applies in 
     computing the accrual of OID on these contingent convertible 
     debt instruments.\118\ In applying the noncontingent bond 
     method, the IRS has stated that the comparable yield for a 
     contingent convertible debt instrument is determined by 
     reference to a comparable fixed-rate nonconvertible debt 
     instrument, and the projected payment schedule is determined 
     by treating the issuer stock received upon a conversion of 
     the debt instrument as a contingent payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \118\Rev. Rul. 2002-31, 2002-1 C.B. 1023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The provision provides that, in the case of a contingent 
     convertible debt instrument,\119\ any Treasury regulations 
     which require OID to be determined by reference to the 
     comparable yield of a noncontingent fixed-rate debt 
     instrument shall be applied as requiring that such comparable 
     yield be determined by reference to a noncontingent fixed-
     rate debt instrument which is convertible into stock. For 
     purposes of applying the provision, the comparable yield 
     shall be determined without taking into account the yield 
     resulting from the conversion of a debt instrument into 
     stock. Thus, the noncontingent bond method in the Treasury 
     regulations shall be applied in a manner such that the 
     comparable yield for contingent convertible debt instruments 
     shall be determined by reference to comparable noncontingent 
     fixed-rate convertible (rather than nonconvertible) debt 
     instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \119\Under the provision, a contingent convertible debt 
     instrument is defined as a debt instrument that: (1) is 
     convertible into stock of the issuing corporation, or a 
     corporation in control of, or controlled by, the issuing 
     corporation; and (2) provides for contingent payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for debt 
     instruments issued on or after date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     2. Frivolous tax submissions (sec. 5502 of the Senate 
         amendment)


                              Present Law

       The Code provides that an individual who files a frivolous 
     income tax return is subject to a penalty of $500 imposed by 
     the IRS.\120\ The Code also permits the Tax Court\121\ to 
     impose a penalty of up to $25,000 if a taxpayer has 
     instituted or maintained proceedings primarily for delay or 
     if the taxpayer's position in the proceeding is frivolous or 
     groundless.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \120\Sec. 6702.
     \121\Because the Tax Court generally is the only pre-payment 
     forum available to taxpayers, it hears most of the frivolous, 
     groundless, or dilatory arguments raised in tax cases.
     \122\Sec. 6673(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment modifies the IRS-imposed penalty by 
     increasing the amount of the penalty to up to $5,000 and by 
     applying it to all taxpayers and to all types of Federal 
     taxes.
       The Senate amendment also modifies present law with respect 
     to certain submissions that raise frivolous arguments or that 
     are intended to delay or impede tax administration. The 
     submissions to which this provision applies are requests for 
     a collection due process hearing, installment agreements, 
     offers-in-compromise, and taxpayer assistance orders. First, 
     the Senate amendment permits the IRS to dismiss such 
     requests. Second, the Senate amendment permits the IRS to 
     impose a penalty of up to $5,000 for such requests, unless 
     the taxpayer withdraws the request after being given an 
     opportunity to do so.
       The Senate amendment requires the IRS to publish a list of 
     positions, arguments, requests, and submissions determined to 
     be frivolous for this purpose.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective with 
     respect to submissions made and issues raised after the date 
     on which the Secretary first prescribes the required list of 
     frivolous positions.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     3. Increase in certain criminal penalties (sec. 5503 of the 
         Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

     Attempt to evade or defeat tax
       In general, section 7201 imposes a criminal penalty on 
     persons who willfully attempt to evade or defeat any tax 
     imposed by the Code. Upon conviction, the Code provides that 
     the penalty is up to $100,000 or imprisonment of not more 
     than five years (or both). In the case of a corporation, the 
     Code increases the monetary penalty to a maximum of $500,000.
     Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay 
         tax
       In general, section 7203 imposes a criminal penalty on 
     persons required to make estimated tax payments, pay taxes, 
     keep records, or supply information under the Code who 
     willfully fails to do so. Upon conviction, the Code provides 
     that the penalty is up to $25,000 or imprisonment of not more 
     than one year (or both). In the case of a corporation, the 
     Code increases the monetary penalty to a maximum of $100,000.
     Fraud and false statements
       In general, section 7206 imposes a criminal penalty on 
     persons who make fraudulent or false statements under the 
     Code. Upon conviction, the Code provides that the penalty is 
     up to $100,000 or imprisonment of not more than three years 
     (or both). In the case of a corporation, the Code increases 
     the monetary penalty to a maximum of $500,000.
     Uniform sentencing guidelines
       Under the uniform sentencing guidelines established by 18 
     U.S.C. sec. 3571, a defendant found guilty of a criminal 
     offense is subject to a maximum fine that is the greatest of: 
     (a) the amount specified in the underlying provision, (b) for 
     a felony\123\ $250,000 for an individual or $500,000 for an 
     organization, or (c) twice the gross gain if a person derives 
     pecuniary gain from the offense. This Title 18 provision 
     applies to all criminal provisions in the United States Code, 
     including those in the Internal Revenue Code. For example, 
     for an individual, the maximum fine under present law upon 
     conviction of violating section 7206 is $250,000 or, if 
     greater, twice the amount of gross gain from the offense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \123\Section 7206 provides that the making of fraudulent or 
     false statements is a felony. In addition, this offense is a 
     felony pursuant to the classification guidelines of 18 U.S.C. 
     sec. 3559(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

     Attempt to evade or defeat tax
       The Senate amendment increases the criminal penalty under 
     section 7201 of the Code for individuals to $500,000 and for 
     corporations to $1,000,000. The provision increases the 
     maximum prison sentence to ten years.
     Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay 
         tax
       The Senate amendment increases the criminal penalty under 
     section 7203 of the Code from a misdemeanor to a felony for 
     aggravated failures to file. Under the provision, an 
     aggravated failure to file is any case in which the taxpayer 
     fails to file returns for three or more consecutive years and 
     the aggregated tax liability during such years is $100,000 or 
     greater. The provision imposes a penalty for an aggravated 
     failure to file up to $500,000 for individuals and up to 
     $1,000,000 for corporations. The provision also imposes a 
     maximum prison sentence of ten years.
       In misdemeanor cases, the provision increases the criminal 
     penalty under section 7203 of the Code for individuals to 
     $50,000.
     Fraud and false statements
       The Senate amendment increases the criminal penalty under 
     section 7206 of the

[[Page 18854]]

     Code for individuals to $500,000 and for corporations to 
     $1,000,000. The provision increases the maximum prison 
     sentence to five years. The provision also provides that in 
     no event shall the amount of the monetary penalty under this 
     provision be less than the amount of the underpayment or 
     overpayment attributable to fraud.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     actions and failures to act occurring after the date of 
     enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.

4. Doubling of certain penalties, fines, and interest on underpayments 
 related to certain offshore financial arrangements (sec. 5504 of the 
                           Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

     In general
       The Code contains numerous civil penalties, such as the 
     delinquency, accuracy-related, fraud, and assessable 
     penalties. These civil penalties are in addition to any 
     interest that may be due as a result of an underpayment of 
     tax. If all or any part of a tax is not paid when due, the 
     Code imposes interest on the underpayment, which is assessed 
     and collected in the same manner as the underlying tax and is 
     subject to the respective statutes of limitations for 
     assessment and collection.
     Delinquency penalties
       Failure to file.--Under present law, a taxpayer who fails 
     to file a tax return on a timely basis is generally subject 
     to a penalty equal to five percent of the net amount of tax 
     due for each month that the return is not filed, up to a 
     maximum of five months or 25 percent. An exception from the 
     penalty applies if the failure is due to reasonable cause. 
     The net amount of tax due is the excess of the amount of the 
     tax required to be shown on the return over the amount of any 
     tax paid on or before the due date prescribed for the payment 
     of tax.
       Failure to pay.--Taxpayers who fail to pay their taxes are 
     subject to a penalty of 0.5 percent per month on the unpaid 
     amount, up to a maximum of 25 percent. If a penalty for 
     failure to file and a penalty for failure to pay tax shown on 
     a return both apply for the same month, the amount of the 
     penalty for failure to file for such month is reduced by the 
     amount of the penalty for failure to pay tax shown on a 
     return. If a return is filed more than 60 days after its due 
     date, then the penalty for failure to pay tax shown on a 
     return may not reduce the penalty for failure to file below 
     the lesser of $100 or 100 percent of the amount required to 
     be shown on the return. For any month in which an installment 
     payment agreement with the IRS is in effect, the rate of the 
     penalty is half the usual rate (0.25 percent instead of 0.5 
     percent), provided that the taxpayer filed the tax return in 
     a timely manner (including extensions).
       Failure to make timely deposits of tax.--The penalty for 
     the failure to make timely deposits of tax consists of a 
     four-tiered structure in which the amount of the penalty 
     varies with the length of time within which the taxpayer 
     corrects the failure. A depositor is subject to a penalty 
     equal to two percent of the amount of the underpayment if the 
     failure is corrected on or before the date that is five days 
     after the prescribed due date. A depositor is subject to a 
     penalty equal to five percent of the amount of the 
     underpayment if the failure is corrected after the date that 
     is five days after the prescribed due date but on or before 
     the date that is 15 days after the prescribed due date. A 
     depositor is subject to a penalty equal to 10 percent of the 
     amount of the underpayment if the failure is corrected after 
     the date that is 15 days after the due date but on or before 
     the date that is 10 days after the date of the first 
     delinquency notice to the taxpayer (under sec. 6303). 
     Finally, a depositor is subject to a penalty equal to 15 
     percent of the amount of the underpayment if the failure is 
     not corrected on or before the date that is 10 days after the 
     date of the day on which notice and demand for immediate 
     payment of tax is given in cases of jeopardy.
       An exception from the penalty applies if the failure is due 
     to reasonable cause. In addition, the Secretary may waive the 
     penalty for an inadvertent failure to deposit any tax by 
     specified first-time depositors.
     Accuracy-related penalties
       In general.--The accuracy-related penalties are imposed at 
     a rate of 20 percent of the portion of any underpayment that 
     is attributable, in relevant part, to (1) negligence, (2) any 
     substantial understatement of income tax, (3) any substantial 
     valuation misstatement, and (4) any reportable transaction 
     understatement. The penalty for a substantial valuation 
     misstatement is doubled for certain gross valuation 
     misstatements. In the case of a reportable transaction 
     understatement for which the transaction is not disclosed, 
     the penalty rate is 30 percent. These penalties are 
     coordinated with the fraud penalty. This statutory structure 
     operates to eliminate any stacking of the penalties.
       No penalty is to be imposed if it is shown that there was 
     reasonable cause for an underpayment and the taxpayer acted 
     in good faith, and in the case of a reportable transaction 
     understatement the relevant facts of the transaction have 
     been disclosed, there is or was substantial authority for the 
     taxpayer's treatment of such transaction, and the taxpayer 
     reasonably believed that such treatment was more likely than 
     not the proper treatment.
       Negligence or disregard for the rules or regulations.--If 
     an underpayment of tax is attributable to negligence, the 
     negligence penalty applies only to the portion of the 
     underpayment that is attributable to negligence. Negligence 
     means any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with 
     the provisions of the Code. Disregard includes any careless, 
     reckless or intentional disregard of the rules or 
     regulations.
       Substantial understatement of income tax.--Generally, an 
     understatement is substantial if the understatement exceeds 
     the greater of (1) 10 percent of the tax required to be shown 
     on the return for the tax year or (2) $5,000. In determining 
     whether a substantial understatement exists, the amount of 
     the understatement is reduced by any portion attributable to 
     an item if (1) the treatment of the item on the return is or 
     was supported by substantial authority, or (2) facts relevant 
     to the tax treatment of the item were adequately disclosed on 
     the return or on a statement attached to the return.
       Substantial valuation misstatement.--A penalty applies to 
     the portion of an underpayment that is attributable to a 
     substantial valuation misstatement. Generally, a substantial 
     valuation misstatement exists if the value or adjusted basis 
     of any property claimed on a return is 200 percent or more of 
     the correct value or adjusted basis. The amount of the 
     penalty for a substantial valuation misstatement is 20 
     percent of the amount of the underpayment if the value or 
     adjusted basis claimed is 200 percent or more but less than 
     400 percent of the correct value or adjusted basis. If the 
     value or adjusted basis claimed is 400 percent or more of the 
     correct value or adjusted basis, then the overvaluation is a 
     gross valuation misstatement.
       Reportable transaction understatement.--A penalty applies 
     to any item that is attributable to any listed transaction, 
     or to any reportable transaction (other than a listed 
     transaction) if a significant purpose of such reportable 
     transaction is tax avoidance or evasion.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \124\A reportable transaction is any transaction with respect 
     to which information is required to be included with a return 
     or statement because, as determined under regulations 
     prescribed under section 6011, such transaction is of a type 
     which the Secretary determines as having a potential for tax 
     avoidance or evasion. A listed transaction is a reportable 
     transaction which is the same as, or substantially similar 
     to, a transaction specifically identified by the Secretary as 
     a tax avoidance transaction for purposes of section 6011. 
     Sec. 6707A(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Fraud penalty
       The fraud penalty is imposed at a rate of 75 percent of the 
     portion of any underpayment that is attributable to fraud. 
     The accuracy-related penalty does not to apply to any portion 
     of an underpayment on which the fraud penalty is imposed.
     Assessable penalties
       In addition to the penalties described above, the Code 
     imposes a number of additional penalties, including, for 
     example, penalties for failure to file (or untimely filing 
     of) information returns with respect to foreign trusts, and 
     penalties for failure to disclose any required information 
     with respect to a reportable transaction.
     Interest provisions
       Taxpayers are required to pay interest to the IRS whenever 
     there is an underpayment of tax. An underpayment of tax 
     exists whenever the correct amount of tax is not paid by the 
     last date prescribed for the payment of the tax. The last 
     date prescribed for the payment of the income tax is the 
     original due date of the return.
       Different interest rates are provided for the payment of 
     interest depending upon the type of taxpayer, whether the 
     interest relates to an underpayment or overpayment, and the 
     size of the underpayment or overpayment. Interest on 
     underpayments is compounded daily.
     Offshore Voluntary Compliance Initiative
       In January 2003, Treasury announced the Offshore Voluntary 
     Compliance Initiative (``OVCI'') to encourage the voluntary 
     disclosure of previously unreported income placed by 
     taxpayers in offshore accounts and accessed through credit 
     card or other financial arrangements. A taxpayer had to 
     comply with various requirements in order to participate in 
     the OVCI, including sending a written request to participate 
     in the program by April 15, 2003. This request was required 
     to include information about the taxpayer, the taxpayer's 
     introduction to the credit card or other financial 
     arrangements, and the names of parties that promoted the 
     transaction. Taxpayers entering into a closing agreement 
     under the OVCI are not liable for civil fraud, the fraudulent 
     failure to file penalty, or the civil information return 
     penalties. The taxpayer will pay back taxes, interest, and 
     certain accuracy-related and delinquency penalties.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \125\Rev. Proc. 2003-11, 2003-4 C.B. 311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Voluntary disclosure policy
       A taxpayer's timely, voluntary disclosure of a substantial 
     unreported tax liability has

[[Page 18855]]

     long been an important factor in deciding whether the 
     taxpayer's case should ultimately be referred for criminal 
     prosecution. The voluntary disclosure must be truthful, 
     timely, and complete. The taxpayer must show a willingness to 
     cooperate (as well as actual cooperation) with the IRS in 
     determining the correct tax liability. The taxpayer must make 
     good-faith arrangements with the IRS to pay in full the tax, 
     interest, and any penalties determined by the IRS to be 
     applicable. A voluntary disclosure does not guarantee 
     immunity from prosecution. It creates no substantive or 
     procedural rights for taxpayers.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \126\Internal Revenue News Release 2002-135, IR-2002-135 
     (December 11, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment doubles the total amount of civil 
     penalties, interest, and fines applicable to a taxpayer who 
     underreported its Federal tax liability with respect to any 
     item involving a transaction of a type that was, or would 
     have been, within the scope of the OVCI, if the taxpayer did 
     not enter into a closing agreement pursuant to the OVCI or 
     otherwise voluntarily disclose to the IRS its participation 
     in such a transaction. For example, current arrangements 
     which are the same as, or substantially similar to, the 
     employee leasing arrangements described in Notice 2003-22 
     would have been within the scope of the OVCI.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \127\2003-18 C.B. 851. Notice 2003-22 classified such 
     arrangements as listed transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Under the Senate amendment, the determination of whether 
     any civil penalty is to be imposed with respect to such a 
     transaction (or underpayment attributable to such 
     transaction) is made without regard to whether a return has 
     been filed, whether there was reasonable cause for such 
     underpayment, and whether the taxpayer acted in good faith. 
     However, the Secretary is granted the authority to waive the 
     application of the provision if the use of such offshore 
     payment mechanisms is incidental to the transaction and, in 
     the case of a trade or business, such use is conducted in the 
     ordinary course of the trade or business engaged in by the 
     taxpayer.
       The Secretary may retain an amount not to exceed 25 percent 
     of all amounts collected under this provision, to be used for 
     IRS enforcement and collection activities. In addition, the 
     Secretary must annually conduct a study and report to 
     Congress on the implementation of this provision, including 
     statistics on the number of taxpayers affected and the 
     amounts of interest and penalties asserted, waived, and 
     assessed.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment generally is 
     effective with respect to a taxpayer's open tax years on or 
     after date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     5. Modification of coordination rules for controlled foreign 
         corporation and passive foreign investment company 
         regimes (sec. 5505 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The United States employs a ``worldwide'' tax system, under 
     which domestic corporations generally are taxed on all 
     income, whether derived in the United States or abroad. 
     Income earned by a domestic parent corporation from foreign 
     operations conducted by foreign corporate subsidiaries 
     generally is subject to U.S. tax when the income is 
     distributed as a dividend to the domestic corporation. Until 
     such repatriation, the U.S. tax on such income generally is 
     deferred. However, certain anti-deferral regimes may cause 
     the domestic parent corporation to be taxed on a current 
     basis in the United States with respect to certain categories 
     of passive or highly mobile income earned by its foreign 
     subsidiaries, regardless of whether the income has been 
     distributed as a dividend to the domestic parent corporation. 
     The main anti-deferral regimes in this context are the 
     controlled foreign corporation rules of subpart F\128\ and 
     the passive foreign investment company rules.\129\ Deferral 
     of U.S. tax is considered appropriate, on the other hand, 
     with respect to most types of active business income earned 
     abroad. A foreign tax credit generally is available to 
     offset, in whole or in part, the U.S. tax owed on foreign-
     source income, whether earned directly by the domestic 
     corporation, repatriated as an actual dividend, or included 
     under one of the anti-deferral regimes.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \128\Secs. 951-964.
     \129\Secs. 1291-1298.
     \130\Secs. 901, 902, 960, and 1291(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Subpart F,\131\ applicable to controlled foreign 
     corporations and their shareholders, is the main anti-
     deferral regime of relevance to a U.S.-based multinational 
     corporate group. A controlled foreign corporation generally 
     is defined as any foreign corporation if U.S. persons own 
     (directly, indirectly, or constructively) more than 50 
     percent of the corporation's stock (measured by vote or 
     value), taking into account only those U.S. persons that own 
     at least 10 percent of the stock (measured by vote 
     only).\132\ Under the subpart F rules, the United States 
     generally taxes the U.S. 10-percent shareholders of a 
     controlled foreign corporation on their pro rata shares of 
     certain income of the controlled foreign corporation 
     (referred to as ``subpart F income''), without regard to 
     whether the income is distributed to the shareholders.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \131\Secs. 951-964.
     \132\Secs. 951(b), 957, and 958.
     \133\Sec. 951(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Subpart F income generally includes passive income and 
     other income that is readily movable from one taxing 
     jurisdiction to another. Subpart F income consists of foreign 
     base company income,\134\ insurance income,\135\ and certain 
     income relating to international boycotts and other 
     violations of public policy.\136\ Foreign base company income 
     consists of foreign personal holding company income, which 
     includes passive income (e.g., dividends, interest, rents, 
     and royalties), as well as a number of categories of non-
     passive income, including foreign base company sales income 
     and foreign base company services income.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \134\Sec. 954.
     \135\Sec. 953.
     \136\Sec. 952(a)(3) through (5).
     \137\134Sec. 954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In effect, the United States treats the U.S. 10-percent 
     shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation as having 
     received a current distribution out of the corporation's 
     subpart F income. In addition, the U.S. 10-percent 
     shareholders of a controlled foreign corporation are required 
     to include currently in income for U.S. tax purposes their 
     pro rata shares of the corporation's earnings invested in 
     U.S. property.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \138\Secs. 951(a)(1)(B) and 956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Tax Reform Act of 1986 established an additional anti-
     deferral regime, for passive foreign investment companies. A 
     passive foreign investment company generally is defined as 
     any foreign corporation if 75 percent or more of its gross 
     income for the taxable year consists of passive income, or 50 
     percent or more of its assets consists of assets that 
     produce, or are held for the production of, passive 
     income.\139\ Alternative sets of income inclusion rules apply 
     to U.S. persons that are shareholders in a passive foreign 
     investment company, regardless of their percentage ownership 
     in the company. One set of rules applies to passive foreign 
     investment companies that are ``qualified electing funds,'' 
     under which electing U.S. shareholders currently include in 
     gross income their respective shares of the company's 
     earnings, with a separate election to defer payment of tax, 
     subject to an interest charge, on income not currently 
     received.\140\ A second set of rules applies to passive 
     foreign investment companies that are not qualified electing 
     funds, under which U.S. shareholders pay tax on certain 
     income or gain realized through the company, plus an interest 
     charge that is attributable to the value of deferral.\141\ A 
     third set of rules applies to passive foreign investment 
     company stock that is marketable, under which electing U.S. 
     shareholders currently take into account as income (or loss) 
     the difference between the fair market value of the stock as 
     of the close of the taxable year and their adjusted basis in 
     such stock (subject to certain limitations), often referred 
     to as ``mark to market.''\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \139\Sec. 1297.
     \140\Secs. 1293 through 1295.
     \141\Sec. 1291.
     \142\Sec. 1296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Under section 1297(e), which was enacted in 1997 to address 
     the overlap of the passive foreign investment company rules 
     and subpart F, a controlled foreign corporation generally is 
     not also treated as a passive foreign investment company with 
     respect to a U.S. shareholder of the corporation. This 
     exception applies regardless of the likelihood that the U.S. 
     shareholder would actually be taxed under subpart F in the 
     event that the controlled foreign corporation earns subpart F 
     income. Thus, even in a case in which a controlled foreign 
     corporation's subpart F income would be allocated to a 
     different shareholder under the subpart F allocation rules, a 
     U.S. shareholder would still qualify for the exception from 
     the passive foreign investment company rules under section 
     1297(e).


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment adds an exception to section 1297(e) 
     for U.S. shareholders that face only a remote likelihood of 
     incurring a subpart F inclusion in the event that a 
     controlled foreign corporation earns subpart F income, thus 
     preserving the potential application of the passive foreign 
     investment company rules in such cases.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     taxable years of controlled foreign corporations beginning 
     after March 2, 2005, and for taxable years of U.S. 
     shareholders in which or with which such taxable years of 
     controlled foreign corporations end.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.

[[Page 18856]]


     6. Declaration by chief executive officer relating to Federal 
         annual corporate income tax return (sec. 5506 of the 
         Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The Code requires that the income tax return of a 
     corporation must be signed by either the president, the vice-
     president, the treasurer, the assistant treasurer, the chief 
     accounting officer, or any other officer of the corporation 
     authorized by the corporation to sign the return.
       The Code also imposes a criminal penalty on any person who 
     willfully signs any tax return under penalties of perjury 
     that that person does not believe to be true and correct with 
     respect to every material matter at the time of filing. If 
     convicted, the person is guilty of a felony; the Code imposes 
     a fine of not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a 
     corporation) or imprisonment of not more than three years, or 
     both, together with the costs of prosecution.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment requires that a corporation's Federal 
     annual income tax return include a declaration signed under 
     penalties of perjury by the chief executive officer of the 
     corporation that the corporation has in place processes and 
     procedures to ensure that the return complies with the 
     Internal Revenue Code and that the CEO was provided 
     reasonable assurance of the accuracy of all material aspects 
     of the return. This declaration is part of the income tax 
     return. The provision is in addition to the requirement of 
     present law as to the signing of the income tax return 
     itself. Because a CEO's duties generally do not require a 
     detailed or technical understanding of the corporation's tax 
     return, it is anticipated that this declaration of the CEO 
     will be more limited in scope than the declaration of the 
     officer required to sign the return itself.
       The provision provides that the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall prescribe the matters to which the declaration of the 
     CEO applies. It is intended that the declaration help insure 
     that the preparation and completion of the corporation's tax 
     return be given an appropriate level of care. For example, it 
     is anticipated that the CEO would declare that processes and 
     procedures have been implemented to ensure that the return 
     complies with the Code and all regulations and rules 
     promulgated thereunder. Although appropriate processes and 
     procedures can vary for each taxpayer depending on the size 
     and nature of the taxpayer's business, in every case the CEO 
     should be briefed on all material aspects of the 
     corporation's tax return by the corporation's chief financial 
     officer (or another person authorized to sign the return 
     under present law).
       Under the Senate amendment, if the corporation does not 
     have a chief executive officer, the IRS may designate another 
     officer of the corporation; otherwise, no other person is 
     permitted to sign the declaration. It is intended that the 
     IRS issue general guidance, such as a revenue procedure, to: 
     (1) address situations when a corporation does not have a 
     chief executive officer; and (2) define who the chief 
     executive officer is, in situations (for example) when the 
     primary official bears a different title, when a corporation 
     has multiple chief executive officers, or when the 
     corporation is a foreign corporation and the CEO is not a 
     U.S. resident.\143\ It is intended that, in every instance, 
     the highest ranking corporate officer (regardless of title) 
     sign this declaration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \143\With respect to foreign corporations, it is intended 
     that the rules for signing this declaration generally 
     parallel the present-law rules for signing the return. See 
     Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6062-1(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The provision does not apply to the income tax returns of 
     mutual funds;\144\ they are required to be signed as under 
     present law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \144\The provision does, however, apply to the income tax 
     returns of mutual fund management companies and advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to Federal 
     annual tax returns for taxable years ending after the date of 
     enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     7. Grant Treasury regulatory authority to address foreign tax 
         credit transactions involving inappropriate separation of 
         foreign taxes from related foreign income (sec. 5507 of 
         the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The United States employs a ``worldwide'' tax system, under 
     which residents generally are taxed on all income, whether 
     derived in the United States or abroad. In order to mitigate 
     the possibility of double taxation arising from overlapping 
     claims of the United States and a source country to tax the 
     same item of income, the United States provides a credit for 
     foreign income taxes paid or accrued, subject to several 
     conditions and limitations.
       For purposes of the foreign tax credit, regulations provide 
     that a foreign tax is treated as being paid by ``the person 
     on whom foreign law imposes legal liability for such 
     tax.''\145\ Thus, for example, if a U.S. corporation owns an 
     interest in a foreign partnership, the U.S. corporation can 
     claim foreign tax credits for the tax that is imposed on it 
     as a partner in the foreign entity. This would be true under 
     the regulations even if the U.S. corporation elected to treat 
     the foreign entity as a corporation for U.S. tax purposes. In 
     such a case, if the foreign entity does not meet the 
     definition of a controlled foreign corporation or does not 
     generate income that is subject to current inclusion under 
     the rules of subpart F, the income generated by the foreign 
     entity might never be reported on a U.S. return, and yet the 
     U.S. corporation might take the position that it can claim 
     credits for taxes imposed on that income. This is one example 
     of how a taxpayer might attempt to separate foreign taxes 
     from the related foreign income, and thereby attempt to claim 
     a foreign tax credit under circumstances in which there is no 
     threat of double taxation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \145\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.901-2(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment provides regulatory authority for the 
     Treasury Department to address transactions that involve the 
     inappropriate separation of foreign taxes from the related 
     foreign income in cases in which taxes are imposed on any 
     person in respect of income of an entity. Regulations issued 
     pursuant to this authority could provide for the disallowance 
     of a credit for all or a portion of the foreign taxes, or for 
     the allocation of the foreign taxes among the participants in 
     the transaction in a manner more consistent with the 
     economics of the transaction.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment generally is 
     effective for transactions entered into after the date of 
     enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     8. Whistleblower reforms (sec. 5508 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The Code authorizes the IRS to pay such sums as deemed 
     necessary for: ``(1) detecting underpayments of tax; and (2) 
     detecting and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty 
     of violating the internal revenue laws or conniving at the 
     same.''\146\ Amounts are paid based on a percentage of tax, 
     fines, and penalties (but not interest) actually collected 
     based on the information provided. For specific information 
     that caused the investigation and resulted in recovery, the 
     IRS administratively has set the reward in an amount not to 
     exceed 15 percent of the amounts recovered. For information, 
     although not specific, that nonetheless caused the 
     investigation and was of value in the determination of tax 
     liabilities, the reward is not to exceed 10 percent of the 
     amount recovered. For information that caused the 
     investigation, but had no direct relationship to the 
     determination of tax liabilities, the reward is not to exceed 
     one percent of the amount recovered. The reward ceiling is 
     $10 million (for payments made after November 7, 2002), and 
     the reward floor is $100. No reward will be paid if the 
     recovery was so small as to call for payment of less than 
     $100 under the above formulas. Both the ceiling and 
     percentages can be increased with a special agreement. The 
     Code permits the IRS to disclose return information pursuant 
     to a contract for tax administration services.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \146\Sec. 7623.
     \147\Sec. 6103(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment reforms the reward program for 
     individuals who provide information regarding violations of 
     the tax laws to the Secretary. Generally, the provision 
     establishes a reward floor of 15 percent of the collected 
     proceeds (including penalties, interest, additions to tax and 
     additional amounts) if the IRS moves forward with an 
     administrative or judicial action based on information 
     brought to the IRS's attention by an individual. The 
     provision caps the available reward at 30 percent of the 
     collected proceeds. The provision permits awards of lesser 
     amounts (but no less than 10 percent) if the action was based 
     principally on allegations (other than information provided 
     by the individual) resulting from a judicial or 
     administrative hearing, government report, hearing, audit, 
     investigation, or from the news media.
       The Senate amendment creates a Whistleblower Office within 
     the IRS to administer the reward program. The Whistleblower 
     Office may seek assistance from the individual providing 
     information or from his or her legal representative, and may 
     reimburse the costs incurred by any legal representative out 
     of the amount of the reward. To the extent the disclosure of 
     returns or return information is required to render such 
     assistance, the disclosure must be pursuant to an IRS tax 
     administration contract.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     information provided on or after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.

[[Page 18857]]


     9. Denial of deduction for certain fines, penalties, and 
         other amounts (sec. 5509 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Under present law, no deduction is allowed as a trade or 
     business expense under section 162(a) for the payment of a 
     fine or similar penalty to a government for the violation of 
     any law (sec. 162(f)). The enactment of section 162(f) in 
     1969 codified existing case law that denied the deductibility 
     of fines as ordinary and necessary business expenses on the 
     grounds that ``allowance of the deduction would frustrate 
     sharply defined national or State policies proscribing the 
     particular types of conduct evidenced by some governmental 
     declaration thereof.''\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \148\S. Rep. 91-552, 91st Cong, 1st Sess., 273-74 (1969), 
     referring to Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Commissioner, 356 
     U.S. 30 (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Treasury regulation section 1.162-21(b)(1) provides that a 
     fine or similar penalty includes an amount: (1) paid pursuant 
     to conviction or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for a 
     crime (felony or misdemeanor) in a criminal proceeding; (2) 
     paid as a civil penalty imposed by Federal, State, or local 
     law, including additions to tax and additional amounts and 
     assessable penalties imposed by chapter 68 of the Code; (3) 
     paid in settlement of the taxpayer's actual or potential 
     liability for a fine or penalty (civil or criminal); or (4) 
     forfeited as collateral posted in connection with a 
     proceeding which could result in imposition of such a fine or 
     penalty. Treasury regulation section 1.162-21(b)(2) provides, 
     among other things, that compensatory damages (including 
     damages under section 4A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15a), 
     as amended) paid to a government do not constitute a fine or 
     penalty.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment modifies the rules regarding the 
     determination whether payments are nondeductible payments of 
     fines or penalties under section 162(f). In particular, the 
     Senate amendment generally provides that amounts paid or 
     incurred (whether by suit, agreement, or otherwise) to, or at 
     the direction of, a government in relation to the violation 
     of any law or the investigation or inquiry into the potential 
     violation of any law\149\ are nondeductible under any 
     provision of the income tax provisions.\150\ The Senate 
     amendment applies to deny a deduction for any such payments, 
     including those where there is no admission of guilt or 
     liability and those made for the purpose of avoiding further 
     investigation or litigation. An exception applies to payments 
     that the taxpayer establishes are restitution (including 
     remediation of property) and that are identified as 
     restitution in the court order or settlement.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \149\The Senate amendment does not affect amounts paid or 
     incurred in performing routine audits or reviews such as 
     annual audits that are required of all organizations or 
     individuals in a similar business sector, or profession, as a 
     requirement for being allowed to conduct business. However, 
     if the government or regulator raised an issue of compliance 
     and a payment is required in settlement of such issue, the 
     Senate amendment would affect that payment.
     \150\The Senate amendment provides that such amounts are 
     nondeductible under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
     \151\The Senate amendment does not affect the treatment of 
     antitrust payments made under section 4 of the Clayton Act, 
     which will continue to be governed by the provisions of 
     section 162(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       An exception also applies to any amount paid or incurred as 
     taxes due.
       The Senate amendment is intended to apply only where a 
     government (or other entity treated in a manner similar to a 
     government under the amendment) is a complainant or 
     investigator with respect to the violation or potential 
     violation of any law.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \152\Thus, for example, the Senate amendment would not apply 
     to payments made by one private party to another in a lawsuit 
     between private parties, merely because a judge or jury 
     acting in the capacity as a court directs the payment to be 
     made. The mere fact that a court enters a judgment or directs 
     a result in a private dispute does not cause a payment to be 
     made ``at the direction of a government'' for purposes of the 
     provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       It is intended that a payment will be treated as 
     restitution only if substantially all of the payment is 
     required to be paid to the specific persons, or in relation 
     to the specific property, actually harmed by the conduct of 
     the taxpayer that resulted in the payment. Thus, a payment to 
     or with respect to a class substantially broader than the 
     specific persons or property that were actually harmed (e.g., 
     to a class including similarly situated persons or property) 
     does not qualify as restitution.\153\ Restitution is limited 
     to the amount that bears a substantial quantitative 
     relationship to the harm caused by the past conduct or 
     actions of the taxpayer that resulted in the payment in 
     question. If the party harmed is a government or other 
     entity, then restitution includes payment to such harmed 
     government or entity, provided the payment bears a 
     substantial quantitative relationship to the harm. However, 
     restitution does not include reimbursement of government 
     investigative or litigation costs, or payments to 
     whistleblowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \153\Similarly, a payment to a charitable organization 
     benefiting a broader class than the persons or property 
     actually harmed, or to be paid out without a substantial 
     quantitative relationship to the harm caused, would not 
     qualify as restitution. Under the Senate amendment, such a 
     payment not deductible under section 162 would also not be 
     deductible under section 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Amounts paid or incurred (whether by suit, agreement, or 
     otherwise) to, or at the direction of, any self-regulatory 
     entity that regulates a financial market or other market that 
     is a qualified board or exchange under section 1256(g)(7), 
     and that is authorized to impose sanctions (e.g., the 
     National Association of Securities Dealers) are likewise 
     subject to the provision if paid in relation to a violation, 
     or investigation or inquiry into a potential violation, of 
     any law (or any rule or other requirement of such entity). To 
     the extent provided in regulations, amounts paid or incurred 
     to, or at the direction of, any other nongovernmental entity 
     that exercises self-regulatory powers as part of performing 
     an essential governmental function are similarly subject to 
     the provision. The exception for payments that the taxpayer 
     establishes are restitution likewise applies in these cases.
       No inference is intended as to the treatment of payments as 
     nondeductible fines or penalties under present law. In 
     particular, the Senate amendment is not intended to limit the 
     scope of present-law section 162(f) or the regulations 
     thereunder.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     amounts paid or incurred on or after the date of enactment; 
     however the Senate amendment does not apply to amounts paid 
     or incurred under any binding order or agreement entered into 
     before such date. Any order or agreement requiring court 
     approval is not a binding order or agreement for this purpose 
     unless such approval was obtained before the date of 
     enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     10. Freeze of interest suspension rules with respect to 
         listed transactions (sec. 5510 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       In general, interest and penalties accrue during periods 
     for which taxes were unpaid without regard to whether the 
     taxpayer was aware that there was tax due. The Code suspends 
     the accrual of certain penalties and interest starting 18 
     months after the filing of the tax return\154\ if the IRS has 
     not sent the taxpayer a notice specifically stating the 
     taxpayer's liability and the basis for the liability within 
     the specified period. Interest and penalties resume 21 days 
     after the IRS sends the required notice to the taxpayer. The 
     provision is applied separately with respect to each item or 
     adjustment. The provision does not apply where a taxpayer has 
     self-assessed the tax. The suspension only applies to 
     taxpayers who file a timely tax return. The provision applies 
     only to individuals and does not apply to the failure to pay 
     penalty, in the case of fraud, or with respect to criminal 
     penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \154\If the return is filed before the due date, for this 
     purpose it is considered to have been filed on the due date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The suspension of interest does not apply to interest 
     accruing after October 3, 2004 with respect to underpayments 
     resulting from listed transactions or undisclosed reportable 
     transactions.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, the exception for listed 
     transactions (but not the exception for undisclosed 
     reportable transactions) also applies to interest accruing on 
     or before October 3, 2004. However, taxpayers remain eligible 
     for the present-law suspension of interest if, as of May 9, 
     2005, (1) the taxpayer is participating in (and eventually 
     reaches resolution via) a published IRS settlement initiative 
     with respect to the listed transaction, or (2) the year in 
     which the underpayment occurred is barred by the statute of 
     limitations as of May 9, 2005.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective as if 
     included in the provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act 
     of 2004 to which it relates.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     11. Repeal loss deferral exception for qualified 
         transportation property (sec. 5511 of the Senate 
         amendment)


                              Present Law

       Present law provides for the deferral of losses 
     attributable to certain tax exempt use property, generally 
     effective for leases entered into after March 12, 2004. 
     However, the deferral provision does not apply to property 
     located in the United States that is subject to a lease with 
     respect to which a formal application: (1) was submitted for 
     approval to the Federal Transit Administration (an agency of 
     the Department of Transportation) after June 30, 2003, and 
     before March 13, 2004; (2) is approved by the Federal Transit 
     Administration before January 1, 2006; and (3) includes a 
     description and the fair market value of such property.


                               House Bill

       No provision.

[[Page 18858]]




                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment repeals the exception for Federal 
     Transit Administration approved leases so that the general 
     effective date of the present law loss deferral provisions 
     applies to such leases.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective as if 
     included in the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act 
     of 2004.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     12. Impose mark to market tax on individuals who expatriate 
         (sec. 5512 of Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

     In general
       U.S. citizens and residents generally are subject to U.S 
     income taxation on their worldwide income. The U.S. tax may 
     be reduced or offset by a credit allowed for foreign income 
     taxes paid with respect to foreign source income. Nonresident 
     aliens are taxed at a flat rate of 30 percent (or a lower 
     treaty rate) on certain types of passive income derived from 
     U.S. sources, and at regular graduated rates on net profits 
     derived from a U.S. trade or business. The estates of 
     nonresident aliens generally are subject to estate tax on 
     U.S.-situated property (e.g., real estate and tangible 
     property located within the United States and stock in a U.S. 
     corporation). Nonresident aliens generally are subject to 
     gift tax on transfers by gift of U.S.-situated property 
     (e.g., real estate and tangible property located within the 
     United States, but excluding intangibles, such as stock, 
     regardless of where they are located).
     Income tax rules with respect to expatriates
       For the 10 taxable years after an individual relinquishes 
     his or her U.S. citizenship or terminates his or her U.S. 
     residency\155\ with a principal purpose of avoiding U.S. 
     taxes, the individual is subject to an alternative method of 
     income taxation that is generally applicable to nonresident 
     aliens (the ``alternative tax regime''). Generally, the 
     individual is subject to income tax only on U.S.-source 
     income\156\ at the rates applicable to U.S. citizens for the 
     10-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \155\An individual continues to be treated as a U.S. citizen 
     or long-term resident for U.S. Federal tax purposes, 
     including for purposes of section 7701(b)(10), until the 
     individual: (1) gives notice of an expatriating act or 
     termination of residency (with the requisite intent to 
     relinquish citizenship or terminate residency) to the 
     Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     respectively; and (2) provides a statement in accordance with 
     section 6039G.
     \156\For this purpose, however, U.S.-source income has a 
     broader scope than it does typically in the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A former citizen or former long-term resident is subject to 
     the alternative tax regime for a 10-year period following 
     citizenship relinquishment or residency termination, unless 
     the former citizen or former long-term resident: (1) 
     establishes that his or her average annual net income tax 
     liability for the five preceding years does not exceed 
     $127,000 for 2005 (adjusted annually for inflation)\157\ and 
     his or her net worth does not exceed $2 million, or 
     alternatively satisfies limited, objective exceptions for 
     dual citizens and minors who have had no substantial contact 
     with the United States; and (2) certifies under penalties of 
     perjury that he or she has complied with all U.S. Federal tax 
     obligations for the preceding five years and provides such 
     evidence of compliance as the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \157\Rev. Proc. 2004-71, 2004-50 I.R.B. 970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The alternative tax regime does not apply to any individual 
     for any taxable year during the 10-year period following 
     citizenship relinquishment or residency termination if such 
     individual is present in the United States for more than 30 
     days in the calendar year ending in such taxable year. 
     Instead, such individual is treated as a U.S. citizen or 
     resident for such taxable year and therefore is taxed on his 
     or her worldwide income.
       Gifts of stock of certain closely-held foreign corporations 
     by a former citizen or former long-term resident who is 
     subject to the alternative tax regime are subject to gift tax 
     if the gift is made within the 10-year period after 
     citizenship relinquishment or residency termination. The gift 
     tax rule applies if: (1) the former citizen or former long-
     term resident, before making the gift, directly or indirectly 
     owns 10 percent or more of the total combined voting power of 
     all classes of stock entitled to vote of the foreign 
     corporation; and (2) directly or indirectly, is considered to 
     own more than 50 percent of (a) the total combined voting 
     power of all classes of stock entitled to vote in the foreign 
     corporation, or (b) the total value of the stock of such 
     corporation. If this stock ownership test is met, then 
     taxable gifts of the former citizen or former long-term 
     resident include that proportion of the fair market value of 
     the foreign stock transferred by the individual, at the time 
     of the gift, which the fair market value of any assets owned 
     by such foreign corporation and situated in the United States 
     (at the time of the gift) bears to the total fair market 
     value of all assets owned by such foreign corporation (at the 
     time of the gift).
       This gift tax rule applies to a former citizen or former 
     long-term resident who is subject to the alternative tax 
     regime and who owns stock in a foreign corporation at the 
     time of the gift, regardless of how such stock was acquired 
     (e.g., whether issued originally to the donor, purchased, or 
     received as a gift or bequest).
       Former citizens and former long-term residents are required 
     to file an annual return for each year following citizenship 
     relinquishment or residency termination in which they are 
     subject to the alternative tax regime. The annual return is 
     required even if no U.S. Federal income tax is due. The 
     annual return requires certain information, including 
     information on the permanent home of the individual, the 
     individual's country of residence, the number of days the 
     individual was present in the United States for the year, and 
     detailed information about the individual's income and assets 
     that are subject to the alternative tax regime. This 
     requirement includes information relating to foreign stock 
     potentially subject to the special estate tax rule of section 
     2107(b) and the gift tax rules.
       If the individual fails to file the statement in a timely 
     manner or fails correctly to include all the required 
     information, the individual is required to pay a penalty of 
     $5,000. The $5,000 penalty does not apply if it is shown that 
     the failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful 
     neglect.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

     In general
       The Senate amendment generally subjects certain U.S. 
     citizens who relinquish their U.S. citizenship and certain 
     long-term U.S. residents who terminate their U.S. residence 
     to tax on the net unrealized gain in their property as if 
     such property were sold for fair market value on the day 
     before the expatriation or residency termination. Gain from 
     the deemed sale is taken into account at that time without 
     regard to other Code provisions; any loss from the deemed 
     sale generally would be taken into account to the extent 
     otherwise provided in the Code. Any net gain on the deemed 
     sale is recognized to the extent it exceeds $600,000 ($1.2 
     million in the case of married individuals filing a joint 
     return, both of whom relinquish citizenship or terminate 
     residency). The $600,000 amount would be increased by a cost 
     of living adjustment factor for calendar years after 2005.
     Individuals covered
       Under the provision, the mark-to-market tax applies to U.S. 
     citizens who relinquish citizenship and long-term residents 
     who terminate U.S. residency. An individual is a long-term 
     resident if he or she was a lawful permanent resident for at 
     least eight out of the 15 taxable years ending with the year 
     in which the termination of residency occurs. An individual 
     is considered to terminate long-term residency when either 
     the individual ceases to be a lawful permanent resident 
     (i.e., loses his or her green card status), or the individual 
     is treated as a resident of another country under a tax 
     treaty and the individual does not waive the benefits of the 
     treaty.
       Exceptions from the mark-to-market tax are provided in two 
     situations. The first exception applies to an individual who 
     was born with citizenship both in the United States and in 
     another country; provided that (1) as of the expatriation 
     date the individual continues to be a citizen of, and is 
     taxed as a resident of, such other country, and (2) the 
     individual was not a resident of the United States for the 
     five taxable years ending with the year of expatriation. The 
     second exception applies to a U.S. citizen who relinquishes 
     U.S. citizenship before reaching age 18 and a half, provided 
     that the individual was a resident of the United States for 
     no more than five taxable years before such relinquishment.
     Election to be treated as a U.S. citizen
       Under the provision, an individual is permitted to make an 
     irrevocable election to continue to be taxed as a U.S. 
     citizen with respect to all property that otherwise is 
     covered by the expatriation tax. This election is an ``all or 
     nothing'' election; an individual is not permitted to elect 
     this treatment for some property but not for other property. 
     The election, if made, would apply to all property that would 
     be subject to the expatriation tax and to any property the 
     basis of which is determined by reference to such property. 
     Under this election, the individual would continue to pay 
     U.S. income taxes at the rates applicable to U.S. citizens 
     following expatriation on any income generated by the 
     property and on any gain realized on the disposition of the 
     property. In addition, the property would continue to be 
     subject to U.S. gift, estate, and generation-skipping 
     transfer taxes. In order to make this election, the taxpayer 
     would be required to waive any treaty rights that would 
     preclude the collection of the tax.
       The individual also would be required to provide security 
     to ensure payment of the tax under this election in such 
     form, manner, and amount as the Secretary of the Treasury 
     requires. The amount of mark-to-market tax that would have 
     been owed but for this election (including any interest, 
     penalties, and certain other items) shall be a

[[Page 18859]]

     lien in favor of the United States on all U.S.-situs property 
     owned by the individual. This lien shall arise on the 
     expatriation date and shall continue until the tax liability 
     is satisfied, the tax liability has become unenforceable by 
     reason of lapse of time, or the Secretary is satisfied that 
     no further tax liability may arise by reason of this 
     provision. The rules of section 6324A(d)(1), (3), and (4) 
     (relating to liens arising in connection with the deferral of 
     estate tax under section 6166) apply to liens arising under 
     this provision.
     Date of relinquishment of citizenship
       Under the provision, an individual is treated as having 
     relinquished U.S. citizenship on the earliest of four 
     possible dates: (1) the date that the individual renounces 
     U.S. nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of 
     the United States (provided that the voluntary relinquishment 
     is later confirmed by the issuance of a certificate of loss 
     of nationality); (2) the date that the individual furnishes 
     to the State Department a signed statement of voluntary 
     relinquishment of U.S. nationality confirming the performance 
     of an expatriating act (again, provided that the voluntary 
     relinquishment is later confirmed by the issuance of a 
     certificate of loss of nationality); (3) the date that the 
     State Department issues a certificate of loss of nationality; 
     or (4) the date that a U.S. court cancels a naturalized 
     citizen's certificate of naturalization.
     Deemed sale of property upon expatriation or residency 
         termination
       The deemed sale rule of the provision generally applies to 
     all property interests held by the individual on the date of 
     relinquishment of citizenship or termination of residency. 
     Special rules apply in the case of trust interests, as 
     described below. U.S. real property interests, which remain 
     subject to U.S. tax in the hands of nonresident noncitizens, 
     generally are excepted from the provision. Regulatory 
     authority is granted to the Treasury to except other types of 
     property from the provision.
       Under the provision, an individual who is subject to the 
     mark-to-market tax is required to pay a tentative tax equal 
     to the amount of tax that would be due for a hypothetical 
     short tax year ending on the date the individual relinquished 
     citizenship or terminated residency. Thus, the tentative tax 
     is based on all income, gain, deductions, loss, and credits 
     of the individual for the year through such date, including 
     amounts realized from the deemed sale of property. The 
     tentative tax is due on the 90th day after the date of 
     relinquishment of citizenship or termination of residency.
     Retirement plans and similar arrangements
       Subject to certain exceptions, the provision applies to all 
     property interests held by the individual at the time of 
     relinquishment of citizenship or termination of residency. 
     Accordingly, such property includes an interest in an 
     employer-sponsored retirement plan or deferred compensation 
     arrangement as well as an interest in an individual 
     retirement account or annuity (i.e., an IRA).\158\ However, 
     the provision contains a special rule for an interest in a 
     ``qualified retirement plan.'' For purposes of the provision, 
     a ``qualified retirement plan'' includes an employer-
     sponsored qualified plan (sec. 401(a)), a qualified annuity 
     (sec. 403(a)), a tax-sheltered annuity (sec. 403(b)), an 
     eligible deferred compensation plan of a governmental 
     employer (sec. 457(b)), or an IRA (sec. 408). The special 
     retirement plan rule applies also, to the extent provided in 
     regulations, to any foreign plan or similar retirement 
     arrangement or program. An interest in a trust that is part 
     of a qualified retirement plan or other arrangement that is 
     subject to the special retirement plan rule is not subject to 
     the rules for interests in trusts (discussed below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \158\Application of the provision is not limited to an 
     interest that meets the definition of property under section 
     83 (relating to property transferred in connection with the 
     performance of services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Under the special rule, an amount equal to the present 
     value of the individual's vested, accrued benefit under a 
     qualified retirement plan is treated as having been received 
     by the individual as a distribution under the plan on the day 
     before the individual's relinquishment of citizenship or 
     termination of residency. It is not intended that the plan 
     would be deemed to have made a distribution for purposes of 
     the tax-favored status of the plan, such as whether a plan 
     may permit distributions before a participant has severed 
     employment. In the case of any later distribution to the 
     individual from the plan, the amount otherwise includible in 
     the individual's income as a result of the distribution is 
     reduced to reflect the amount previously included in income 
     under the special retirement plan rule. The amount of the 
     reduction applied to a distribution is the excess of: (1) the 
     amount included in income under the special retirement plan 
     rule over (2) the total reductions applied to any prior 
     distributions. However, under the provision, the retirement 
     plan, and any person acting on the plan's behalf, will treat 
     any later distribution in the same manner as the distribution 
     would be treated without regard to the special retirement 
     plan rule.
       It is expected that the Treasury Department will provide 
     guidance for determining the present value of an individual's 
     vested, accrued benefit under a qualified retirement plan, 
     such as the individual's account balance in the case of a 
     defined contribution plan or an IRA, or present value 
     determined under the qualified joint and survivor annuity 
     rules applicable to a defined benefit plan (sec. 417(e)).
     Deferral of payment of tax
       Under the provision, an individual is permitted to elect to 
     defer payment of the mark-to-market tax imposed on the deemed 
     sale of the property. Interest is charged for the period the 
     tax is deferred at a rate two percentage points higher than 
     the rate normally applicable to individual underpayments. 
     Under this election, the mark-to-market tax attributable to a 
     particular property is due when the property is disposed of 
     (or, if the property is disposed of in whole or in part in a 
     nonrecognition transaction, at such other time as the 
     Secretary may prescribe). The mark-to-market tax attributable 
     to a particular property is an amount that bears the same 
     ratio to the total mark-to-market tax for the year as the 
     gain taken into account with respect to such property bears 
     to the total gain taken into account under these rules for 
     the year. The deferral of the mark-to-market tax may not be 
     extended beyond the individual's death.
       In order to elect deferral of the mark-to-market tax, the 
     individual is required to provide adequate security to the 
     Treasury to ensure that the deferred tax and interest will be 
     paid. Other security mechanisms are permitted provided that 
     the individual establishes to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that the security is adequate. In the event that 
     the security provided with respect to a particular property 
     subsequently becomes inadequate and the individual fails to 
     correct the situation, the deferred tax and the interest with 
     respect to such property will become due. As a further 
     condition to making the election, the individual is required 
     to consent to the waiver of any treaty rights that would 
     preclude the collection of the tax.
       The deferred amount (including any interest, penalties, and 
     certain other items) shall be a lien in favor of the United 
     States on all U.S.-situs property owned by the individual. 
     This lien shall arise on the expatriation date and shall 
     continue until the tax liability is satisfied, the tax 
     liability has become unenforceable by reason of lapse of 
     time, or the Secretary is satisfied that no further tax 
     liability may arise by reason of this provision. The rules of 
     section 6324A(d)(1), (3), and (4) (relating to liens arising 
     in connection with the deferral of estate tax under section 
     6166) apply to liens arising under this provision.
     Interests in trusts
       Under the provision, detailed rules apply to trust 
     interests held by an individual at the time of relinquishment 
     of citizenship or termination of residency. The treatment of 
     trust interests depends on whether the trust is a qualified 
     trust. A trust is a qualified trust if a court within the 
     United States is able to exercise primary supervision over 
     the administration of the trust and one or more U.S. persons 
     have the authority to control all substantial decisions of 
     the trust.
       Constructive ownership rules apply to a trust beneficiary 
     that is a corporation, partnership, trust, or estate. In such 
     cases, the shareholders, partners, or beneficiaries of the 
     entity are deemed to be the direct beneficiaries of the trust 
     for purposes of applying these provisions. In addition, an 
     individual who holds (or who is treated as holding) a trust 
     instrument at the time of relinquishment of citizenship or 
     termination of residency is required to disclose on his or 
     her tax return the methodology used to determine his or her 
     interest in the trust, and whether such individual knows (or 
     has reason to know) that any other beneficiary of the trust 
     uses a different method.
       Nonqualified trusts.--If an individual holds an interest in 
     a trust that is not a qualified trust, a special rule applies 
     for purposes of determining the amount of the mark-to-market 
     tax due with respect to such trust interest. The individual's 
     interest in the trust is treated as a separate trust 
     consisting of the trust assets allocable to such interest. 
     Such separate trust is treated as having sold its net assets 
     as of the date of relinquishment of citizenship or 
     termination of residency and having distributed the assets to 
     the individual, who then is treated as having recontributed 
     the assets to the trust. The individual is subject to the 
     mark-to-market tax with respect to any net income or gain 
     arising from the deemed distribution from the trust.
       The election to defer payment is available for the mark-to-
     market tax attributable to a nonqualified trust interest. 
     Interest is charged for the period the tax is deferred at a 
     rate two percentage points higher than the rate normally 
     applicable to individual underpayments. A beneficiary's 
     interest in a nonqualified trust is determined under all the 
     facts and circumstances, including the trust instrument, 
     letters of wishes, and historical patterns of trust 
     distributions.
       Qualified trusts.--If an individual has an interest in a 
     qualified trust, the amount of unrealized gain allocable to 
     the individual's trust interest is calculated at the time of 
     expatriation or residency termination. In determining this 
     amount, all contingencies and discretionary interests are 
     assumed to be resolved in the individual's favor (i.e., the 
     individual is allocated the maximum amount

[[Page 18860]]

     that he or she could receive). The mark-to-market tax imposed 
     on such gains is collected when the individual receives 
     distributions from the trust, or if earlier, upon the 
     individual's death. Interest is charged for the period the 
     tax is deferred at a rate two percentage points higher than 
     the rate normally applicable to individual underpayments.
       If an individual has an interest in a qualified trust, the 
     individual is subject to the mark-to market tax upon the 
     receipt of distributions from the trust. These distributions 
     also may be subject to other U.S. income taxes. If a 
     distribution from a qualified trust is made after the 
     individual relinquishes citizenship or terminates residency, 
     the mark-to-market tax is imposed in an amount equal to the 
     amount of the distribution multiplied by the highest tax rate 
     generally applicable to trusts and estates, but in no event 
     will the tax imposed exceed the deferred tax amount with 
     respect to the trust interest. For this purpose, the deferred 
     tax amount is equal to: (1) the tax calculated with respect 
     to the unrealized gain allocable to the trust interest at the 
     time of expatriation or residency termination; (2) increased 
     by interest thereon; and (3) reduced by any mark-to-market 
     tax imposed on prior trust distributions to the individual.
       If any individual's interest in a trust is vested as of the 
     expatriation date (e.g., if the individual's interest in the 
     trust is non-contingent and non-discretionary), the gain 
     allocable to the individual's trust interest is determined 
     based on the trust assets allocable to his or her trust 
     interest. If the individual's interest in the trust is not 
     vested as of the expatriation date (e.g., if the individual's 
     trust interest is a contingent or discretionary interest), 
     the gain allocable to his or her trust interest is determined 
     based on all of the trust assets that could be allocable to 
     his or her trust interest, determined by resolving all 
     contingencies and discretionary powers in the individual's 
     favor. In the case where more than one trust beneficiary is 
     subject to the expatriation tax with respect to trust 
     interests that are not vested, the rules are intended to 
     apply so that the same unrealized gain with respect to assets 
     in the trust is not taxed to both individuals.
       Mark-to-market taxes become due if the trust ceases to be a 
     qualified trust, the individual disposes of his or her 
     qualified trust interest, or the individual dies. In such 
     cases, the amount of mark-to-market tax equals the lesser of 
     (1) the tax calculated under the rules for nonqualified trust 
     interests as of the date of the triggering event, or (2) the 
     deferred tax amount with respect to the trust interest as of 
     that date.
       The tax that is imposed on distributions from a qualified 
     trust generally is deducted and withheld by the trustees. If 
     the individual does not agree to waive treaty rights that 
     would preclude collection of the tax, the tax with respect to 
     such distributions is imposed on the trust, the trustee is 
     personally liable for the tax, and any other beneficiary has 
     a right of contribution against such individual with respect 
     to the tax. Similar rules apply when the qualified trust 
     interest is disposed of, the trust ceases to be a qualified 
     trust, or the individual dies.
     Coordination with present-law alternative tax regime
       The provision provides a coordination rule with the 
     present-law alternative tax regime. Under the provision, the 
     expatriation income tax rules under section 877, and the 
     expatriation estate and gift tax rules under sections 2107 
     and 2501(a)(3) (described above), do not apply to a former 
     citizen or former long- term resident whose expatriation or 
     residency termination occurs on or after date of enactment. 
     In addition, section 7701(n) does not apply with respect to 
     any individual that expatriated on or after date of 
     enactment.
     Treatment of gifts and inheritances from a former citizen or 
         former long-term resident
       Under the provision, the exclusion from income provided in 
     section 102 (relating to exclusions from income for the value 
     of property acquired by gift or inheritance) does not apply 
     to the value of any property received by gift or inheritance 
     from a former citizen or former long-term resident (i.e., an 
     individual who relinquished U.S. citizenship or terminated 
     U.S. residency), subject to the exceptions described above 
     relating to certain dual citizens and minors. Accordingly, a 
     U.S. taxpayer who receives a gift or inheritance from such an 
     individual is required to include the value of such gift or 
     inheritance in gross income and is subject to U.S. tax on 
     such amount. Having included the value of the property in 
     income, the recipient would then take a basis in the property 
     equal to that value. The tax does not apply to property that 
     is shown on a timely filed gift tax return and that is a 
     taxable gift by the former citizen or former long-term 
     resident, or property that is shown on a timely filed estate 
     tax return and included in the gross U.S. estate of the 
     former citizen or former long-term resident (regardless of 
     whether the tax liability shown on such a return is reduced 
     by credits, deductions, or exclusions available under the 
     estate and gift tax rules). In addition, the tax does not 
     apply to property in cases in which no estate or gift tax 
     return is required to be filed, where no such return would 
     have been required to be filed if the former citizen or 
     former long-term resident had not relinquished citizenship or 
     terminated residency, as the case may be. Applicable gifts or 
     bequests that are made in trust are treated as made to the 
     beneficiaries of the trust in proportion to their respective 
     interests in the trust.
     Immigration rules
       The provision amends the immigration rules that deny tax-
     motivated expatriates reentry into the United States by 
     removing the requirement that the expatriation be tax-
     motivated, and instead denies former citizens reentry into 
     the United States if the individual is determined not to be 
     in compliance with his or her tax obligations under the 
     provision's expatriation tax provisions (regardless of the 
     subjective motive for expatriating). For this purpose, the 
     provision permits the IRS to disclose certain items of return 
     information of an individual, upon written request of the 
     Attorney General or his delegate, as is necessary for making 
     a determination under section 212(a)(10)(E) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act. Specifically, the provision 
     would permit the IRS to disclose to the agency administering 
     section 212(a)(10)(E) whether such taxpayer is in compliance 
     with section 877A and identify the items of noncompliance. 
     Recordkeeping requirements, safeguards, and civil and 
     criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure or inspection 
     would apply to return information disclosed under this 
     provision.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment generally is 
     effective for U.S. citizens who relinquish citizenship or 
     long-term residents who terminate their residency on or after 
     date of enactment. The provisions relating to gifts and 
     inheritances are effective for gifts and inheritances 
     received from former citizens and former long-term residents 
     on or after date of enactment, whose expatriation or 
     residency termination occurs on or after such date. The 
     provisions relating to former citizens under U.S. immigration 
     laws are effective on or after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     13. Disallowance of deduction for punitive damages (sec. 5513 
         of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       In general, a deduction is allowed for all ordinary and 
     necessary expenses that are paid or incurred by the taxpayer 
     during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or 
     business.\159\ However, no deduction is allowed for any 
     payment that is made to an official of any governmental 
     agency if the payment constitutes an illegal bribe or 
     kickback or if the payment is to an official or employee of a 
     foreign government and is illegal under Federal law.\160\ In 
     addition, no deduction is allowed under present law for any 
     fine or similar payment made to a government for violation of 
     any law.\161\ Furthermore, no deduction is permitted for two-
     thirds of any damage payments made by a taxpayer who is 
     convicted of a violation of the Clayton antitrust law or any 
     related antitrust law.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \159\Sec. 162(a).
     \160\Sec. 162(c).
     \161\Sec. 162(f).
     \162\Sec. 162(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In general, gross income does not include amounts received 
     on account of personal physical injuries and physical 
     sickness.\163\ However, this exclusion does not apply to 
     punitive damages.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \163\Sec. 104(a).
     \164\Sec. 104(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment denies any deduction for punitive 
     damages that are paid or incurred by the taxpayer as a result 
     of a judgment or in settlement of a claim. If the liability 
     for punitive damages is covered by insurance, any such 
     punitive damages paid by the insurer are included in gross 
     income of the insured person and the insurer is required to 
     report such amounts to both the insured person and the IRS.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     punitive damages that are paid or incurred on or after the 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     14. Application of earnings stripping rules to partners which 
         are corporations (sec. 5514 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Present law provides rules to limit the ability of U.S. 
     corporations to reduce the U.S. tax on their U.S.-source 
     income through earnings stripping transactions. Section 
     163(j) specifically addresses earnings stripping involving 
     interest payments, by limiting the deductibility of interest 
     paid to certain related parties (``disqualified 
     interest''),\165\ if the payor's debt-equity ratio exceeds 
     1.5 to 1 and the payor's net interest expense exceeds 50 
     percent of its ``adjusted taxable income'' (generally taxable 
     income computed without regard to deductions for net interest 
     expense, net operating losses, and

[[Page 18861]]

     depreciation, amortization, and depletion). Disallowed 
     interest amounts can be carried forward indefinitely. In 
     addition, excess limitation (i.e., any excess of the 50-
     percent limit over a company's net interest expense for a 
     given year) can be carried forward three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \165\This interest also may include interest paid to 
     unrelated parties in certain cases in which a related party 
     guarantees the debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Proposed Treasury regulations provide that a corporate 
     partner's proportionate share of the liabilities of a 
     partnership is treated as liabilities incurred directly by 
     the corporate partner for purposes of applying the earnings 
     stripping limitation to its own interest payments.\166\ The 
     proposed Treasury regulations provide that interest paid or 
     accrued to a partnership is treated as paid or accrued to the 
     partners of the partnership in proportion to each partner's 
     distributive share of the partnership's interest income for 
     the taxable year.\167\ In addition, the proposed Treasury 
     regulations provide that interest expense paid or accrued by 
     a partnership is treated as paid or accrued by the partners 
     of the partnership in proportion to each partner's 
     distributive share, for purposes of the earnings stripping 
     rules.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \166\Prop. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.163(j)-3(b)(3).
     \167\Prop. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.163(j)-2(e)(4).
     \168\Prop. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.163(j)-2(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment codifies the approach of the proposed 
     Treasury regulations by providing that a corporate partner's 
     share of partnership debt is attributed to the corporate 
     partner for purposes of applying the earnings stripping rules 
     to the corporate partner.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     taxable years beginning after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     15. Prohibition on deferral of certain stock option and 
         restricted stock gains (sec. 5515 of the Senate 
         amendment)


                              Present Law

       Section 83 applies to transfers of property in connection 
     with the performance of services. Under section 83, if, in 
     connection with the performance of services, property is 
     transferred to any person other than the person for whom such 
     services are performed, the excess of the fair market value 
     of such property over the amount (if any) paid for the 
     property is includible in income at the first time that the 
     property is transferable or not subject to substantial risk 
     of forfeiture.
       Stock granted to an employee (or other service provider) is 
     subject to the rules that apply under section 83. When stock 
     is vested and transferred to an employee, the excess of the 
     fair market value of the stock over the amount, if any, the 
     employee pays for the stock is includible in the employee's 
     income for the year in which the transfer occurs.
       The income taxation of a nonqualified stock option is 
     determined under section 83 and depends on whether the option 
     has a readily ascertainable fair market value. If the 
     nonqualified option does not have a readily ascertainable 
     fair market value at the time of grant, no amount is 
     includible in the gross income of the recipient with respect 
     to the option until the recipient exercises the option. The 
     transfer of stock on exercise of the option is subject to the 
     general rules of section 83. That is, if vested stock is 
     received on exercise of the option, the excess of the fair 
     market value of the stock over the option price is includible 
     in the recipient's gross income as ordinary income in the 
     taxable year in which the option is exercised. If the stock 
     received on exercise of the option is not vested, the excess 
     of the fair market value of the stock at the time of vesting 
     over the option price is includible in the recipient's income 
     for the year in which vesting occurs unless the recipient 
     elects to apply section 83 at the time of exercise.
       Other forms of stock-based compensation are also subject to 
     the rules of section 83.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, gains attributable to stock 
     options (including exercises of stock options), vesting of 
     restricted stock, and other compensation based on employer 
     securities (including employer securities) cannot be deferred 
     by exchanging such amounts for a right to receive a future 
     payment. Except as provided by the Secretary, if a taxpayer 
     exchanges (1) an option to purchase employer securities, (2) 
     employer securities, or (3) any other property based on 
     employer securities for a right to receive future payments, 
     an amount equal to the present value of such right (or such 
     other amount as the Secretary specifies) is required to be 
     included in gross income for the taxable year of the 
     exchange. The provision applies even if the future right to 
     payment is treated as an unfunded and unsecured promise to 
     pay. The provision applies when there is in substance an 
     exchange, even if the transaction is not formally structured 
     as an exchange.
       The provision is not intended to imply that such practices 
     result in permissive deferral of income under present law.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     exchanges after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     16. Limitation on employer deduction for certain 
         entertainment expenses (sec. 5516 of the Senate 
         amendment)


                              Present Law

     In general
       Under present law, no deduction is allowed with respect to 
     (1) an activity generally considered to be entertainment, 
     amusement or recreation, unless the taxpayer establishes that 
     the item was directly related to (or, in certain cases, 
     associated with) the active conduct of the taxpayer's trade 
     or business, or (2) a facility (e.g., an airplane) used in 
     connection with such activity.\169\ The Code includes a 
     number of exceptions to the general rule disallowing 
     deductions of entertainment expenses. Under one exception, 
     the deduction disallowance rule does not apply to expenses 
     for goods, services, and facilities to the extent that the 
     expenses are reported by the taxpayer as compensation and 
     wages to an employee.\170\ The deduction disallowance rule 
     also does not apply to expenses paid or incurred by the 
     taxpayer for goods, services, and facilities to the extent 
     that the expenses are includible in the gross income of a 
     recipient who is not an employee (e.g., a nonemployee 
     director) as compensation for services rendered or as a prize 
     or award.\171\ The exceptions apply only to the extent that 
     amounts are properly reported by the company as compensation 
     and wages or otherwise includible in income. In no event can 
     the amount of the deduction exceed the amount of the actual 
     cost, even if a greater amount is includible in income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \169\Sec. 274(a).
     \170\Sec. 274(e)(2). As discussed below, a special rule 
     applies in the case of specified individuals.
     \171\Sec. 274(e)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Except as otherwise provided, gross income includes 
     compensation for services, including fees, commissions, 
     fringe benefits, and similar items. In general, an employee 
     or other service provider must include in gross income the 
     amount by which the fair value of a fringe benefit exceeds 
     the amount paid by the individual. Treasury regulations 
     provide rules regarding the valuation of fringe benefits, 
     including flights on an employer-provided aircraft.\172\ In 
     general, the value of a non-commercial flight is determined 
     under the base aircraft valuation formula, also known as the 
     Standard Industry Fare Level formula or ``SIFL''.\173\ If the 
     SIFL valuation rules do not apply, the value of a flight on a 
     company-provided aircraft is generally equal to the amount 
     that an individual would have to pay in an arm's-length 
     transaction to charter the same or a comparable aircraft for 
     that period for the same or a comparable flight.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \172\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.61-21.
     \173\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.61-21(g).
     \174\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.61-21(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In the context of an employer providing an aircraft to 
     employees for nonbusiness (e.g., vacation) flights, the 
     exception for expenses treated as compensation was 
     interpreted in Sutherland Lumber-Southwest, Inc. v. 
     Commissioner (``Sutherland Lumber'') as not limiting the 
     company's deduction for operation of the aircraft to the 
     amount of compensation reportable to its employees,\175\ 
     which can result in a deduction many times larger than the 
     amount required to be included in income. In many cases, the 
     individual including amounts attributable to personal travel 
     in income directly benefits from the enhanced deduction, 
     resulting in a net deduction for the personal use of the 
     company aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \175\Sutherland Lumber-Southwest, Inc. v. Comm., 114 T.C. 197 
     (2000), aff'd, 255 F.3d 495 (8th Cir. 2001), acq., AOD 2002-
     02 (Feb. 11, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Specified individuals
       In the case of specified individuals, the exceptions to the 
     general entertainment expense disallowance rule for expenses 
     treated as compensation or includible in income apply only to 
     the extent of the amount of expenses treated as compensation 
     or includible in income of the specified individual. For 
     example, a company's deduction attributable to aircraft 
     operating costs and other expenses for a specified 
     individual's vacation use of a company aircraft is limited to 
     the amount reported as compensation to the specified 
     individual. Sutherland Lumber was overturned with respect to 
     specified individuals.
       Specified individuals are individuals who, with respect to 
     an employer or other service recipient, are subject to the 
     requirements of section 16(a) of the Securities and Exchange 
     Act of 1934, or would be subject to such requirements if the 
     employer or service recipient were an issuer of equity 
     securities referred to in section 16(a). Such individuals 
     generally include officers (as defined by section 
     16(a)),\176\ directors, and 10-percent-or-

[[Page 18862]]

     greater owners of private and publicly-held companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \176\An officer is defined as the president, principal 
     financial officer, principal accounting officer (or, if there 
     is no such accounting officer, the controller), any vice-
     president in charge of a principal business unit, division or 
     function (such as sales, administration or finance), any 
     other officer who performs a policy-making function, or any 
     other person who performs similar policy-making functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, in the case of all individuals, 
     the exceptions to the general entertainment expense 
     disallowance rule for expenses treated as compensation or 
     includible in income apply only to the extent of the amount 
     of expenses treated as compensation or includible in income. 
     Thus, under those exceptions, no deduction is allowed with 
     respect to expenses for (1) a nonbusiness activity generally 
     considered to be entertainment, amusement or recreation, or 
     (2) a facility (e.g., an airplane) used in connection with 
     such activity to the extent that such expenses exceed the 
     amount treated as compensation or includible in income. The 
     provision is intended to overturn Sutherland Lumber for all 
     individuals. As under present law, the exceptions apply only 
     if amounts are properly reported by the company as 
     compensation and wages or otherwise includible in income.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     expenses incurred after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     17. Increase in penalty for bad checks and money orders (sec. 
         5517 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The Code imposes a penalty for bad checks and money orders 
     on the person who tendered such check or money order.\177\ 
     The penalty is two percent of the amount of the bad check or 
     money order. The minimum penalty is $15 (or, if less, the 
     amount of the check), applicable to checks that are less than 
     $750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \177\Sec. 6657.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment increases the minimum penalty for bad 
     checks and money orders to $25 (or, if less, the amount of 
     the check), applicable to checks that are less than $1,250.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to checks or 
     money orders received after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     18. Elimination of double deduction of mining exploration and 
         development costs under the minimum tax (sec. 5518 of the 
         Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Under present law, mining development costs are expensed in 
     computing taxable income, unless either the deferred expense 
     method is elected under section under section 616(b) or 10-
     year amortization is elected under section 59(e). In 
     addition, a taxpayer may elect to expense mining exploration 
     costs under section 617 or amortize the costs over a 10-year 
     period under section 59(e). Also, a deduction for depletion 
     is allowed with respect to mines. One method of computing the 
     allowance for depletion is the percentage depletion method 
     under section 613 that is based on the income of the mining 
     property and is not limited by the adjusted basis of the 
     property.
       In determining alternative minimum taxable income 
     (``AMTI'') mining exploration and development costs with 
     respect to a mine are required to be capitalized and 
     amortized over a 10-year period, unless the deferred expense 
     method is elected under section 616(b).\178\ In addition, the 
     deduction for percentage depletion is limited to the adjusted 
     basis of the property at the end of the taxable year (without 
     regard to the depletion deduction for the year).\179\ 
     Treasury regulations provide that the adjusted basis for this 
     purpose is the same as the adjusted basis for purposes of 
     determining gain or loss from the sale or other disposition 
     of the property.\180\ Treasury regulations\181\ further 
     provide that the expenditures for development and exploration 
     of mines treated as deferred expenses are chargeable to 
     capital account and shall be an adjustment to the basis of 
     the property to which they relate. The adjusted basis of the 
     property is reduced by depletion deductions and the 
     deductions for mining and exploration expenses in the taxable 
     year the deductions are allowable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \178\Sec. 56(a)(2).
     \179\Sec. 57(a)(1).
     \180\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.57-1(h)(3).
     \181\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.1016-5(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Under the rules, notwithstanding the adjusted basis 
     limitation on percentage depletion, a taxpayer may deduct 
     more than 100 percent of its exploration and development 
     costs in computing AMTI. For example, assume a taxpayer 
     incurs $1 million in development costs in 2005 with respect 
     to a mine that has a zero basis and that the deferred expense 
     method is not elected. Also, assume that the deduction for 
     percentage depletion (without regard to the basis limitation) 
     for 2005 is $900,000. Under present law, in computing AMTI, 
     the taxpayer is allowed to deduct $100,000 per year in 
     development costs for each of the 10 taxable years beginning 
     in 2005, and, in addition, is allowed to deduct percentage 
     depletion of $900,000 in 2005, for a total of $1.9 million in 
     deductions.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, the deduction for depletion 
     under the alternative minimum tax is amended by excluding 
     from the adjusted basis of any mining property, the amount of 
     mining exploration and development costs that may be allowed 
     as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing AMTI in a future 
     taxable year.
       In the example described under present law, the $1 million 
     development costs will be amortized over a 10-year period and 
     no amount will be allowed as a deduction for depletion in 
     computing AMTI.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \182\If the taxpayer elects the deferred expense method under 
     section 616(b) or 10-year amortization under section 59(e), 
     the deduction for depletion will also be zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to taxable 
     years beginning after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     19. Clarification of the economic substance doctrine (sec. 
         5521 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

     In general
       The Code provides specific rules regarding the computation 
     of taxable income, including the amount, timing, source, and 
     character of items of income, gain, loss and deduction. These 
     rules are designed to provide for the computation of taxable 
     income in a manner that provides for a degree of specificity 
     to both taxpayers and the government. Taxpayers generally may 
     plan their transactions in reliance on these rules to 
     determine the federal income tax consequences arising from 
     the transactions.
       In addition to the statutory provisions, courts have 
     developed several doctrines that can be applied to deny the 
     tax benefits of tax motivated transactions, notwithstanding 
     that the transaction may satisfy the literal requirements of 
     a specific tax provision. The common-law doctrines are not 
     entirely distinguishable, and their application to a given 
     set of facts is often blurred by the courts and the IRS. 
     Although these doctrines serve an important role in the 
     administration of the tax system, invocation of these 
     doctrines can be seen as at odds with an objective, ``rule-
     based'' system of taxation. Nonetheless, courts have applied 
     the doctrines to deny tax benefits arising from certain 
     transactions.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \183\See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d 231 
     (3d Cir. 1998), aff'g 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 2189 (1997), cert. 
     denied 526 U.S. 1017 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A common-law doctrine applied with increasing frequency is 
     the ``economic substance'' doctrine. In general, this 
     doctrine denies tax benefits arising from transactions that 
     do not result in a meaningful change to the taxpayer's 
     economic position other than a purported reduction in federal 
     income tax.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \184\Closely related doctrines also applied by the courts 
     (sometimes interchangeable with the economic substance 
     doctrine) include the ``sham transaction doctrine'' and the 
     ``business purpose doctrine''. See, e.g., Knetsch v. United 
     States, 364 U.S. 361 (1960) (denying interest deductions on a 
     ``sham transaction'' whose only purpose was to create the 
     deductions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Economic substance doctrine

       Courts generally deny claimed tax benefits if the 
     transaction that gives rise to those benefits lacks economic 
     substance independent of tax considerations--notwithstanding 
     that the purported activity actually occurred. The tax court 
     has described the doctrine as follows:
       The tax law . . . requires that the intended transactions 
     have economic substance separate and distinct from economic 
     benefit achieved solely by tax reduction. The doctrine of 
     economic substance becomes applicable, and a judicial remedy 
     is warranted, where a taxpayer seeks to claim tax benefits, 
     unintended by Congress, by means of transactions that serve 
     no economic purpose other than tax savings.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \185\ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.M. at 2215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Business purpose doctrine
       Another common law doctrine that overlays and is often 
     considered together with (if not part and parcel of) the 
     economic substance doctrine is the business purpose doctrine. 
     The business purpose test is a subjective inquiry into the 
     motives of the taxpayer--that is, whether the taxpayer 
     intended the transaction to serve some useful non-tax 
     purpose. In making this determination, some courts have 
     bifurcated a transaction in which independent activities with 
     non-tax objectives have been combined with an unrelated item 
     having only tax-avoidance objectives in order to disallow the 
     tax benefits of the overall transaction.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \186\ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 256 n.48.

[[Page 18863]]


     Application by the courts
       Elements of the doctrine
       There is a lack of uniformity regarding the proper 
     application of the economic substance doctrine.\187\ Some 
     courts apply a conjunctive test that requires a taxpayer to 
     establish the presence of both economic substance (i.e., the 
     objective component) and business purpose (i.e., the 
     subjective component) in order for the transaction to survive 
     judicial scrutiny.\188\ A narrower approach used by some 
     courts is to conclude that either a business purpose or 
     economic substance is sufficient to respect the 
     transaction).\189\ A third approach regards economic 
     substance and business purpose as ``simply more precise 
     factors to consider'' in determining whether a transaction 
     has any practical economic effects other than the creation of 
     tax benefits.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \187\``The casebooks are glutted with [economic substance] 
     tests. Many such tests proliferate because they give the 
     comforting illusion of consistency and precision. They often 
     obscure rather than clarify.'' Collins v. Commissioner, 857 
     F.2d 1383, 1386 (9th Cir. 1988).
     \188\See, e.g., Pasternak v. Commissioner, 990 F.2d 893, 898 
     (6th Cir. 1993) (``The threshold question is whether the 
     transaction has economic substance. If the answer is yes, the 
     question becomes whether the taxpayer was motivated by profit 
     to participate in the transaction.'').
     \189\See, e.g., Rice's Toyota World v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 
     89, 91-92 (4th Cir. 1985) (``To treat a transaction as a 
     sham, the court must find that the taxpayer was motivated by 
     no business purposes other than obtaining tax benefits in 
     entering the transaction, and, second, that the transaction 
     has no economic substance because no reasonable possibility 
     of a profit exists.''); IES Industries v. United States, 253 
     F.3d 350, 358 (8th Cir. 2001) (``In determining whether a 
     transaction is a sham for tax purposes [under the Eighth 
     Circuit test], a transaction will be characterized as a sham 
     if it is not motivated by any economic purpose out of tax 
     considerations (the business purpose test), and if it is 
     without economic substance because no real potential for 
     profit exists (the economic substance test).''). As noted 
     earlier, the economic substance doctrine and the sham 
     transaction doctrine are similar and sometimes are applied 
     interchangeably. For a more detailed discussion of the sham 
     transaction doctrine, see, e.g., Joint Committee on Taxation, 
     Study of Present-Law Penalty and Interest Provisions as 
     Required by Section 3801 of the Internal Revenue Service 
     Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (including Provisions 
     Relating to Corporate Tax Shelters) (JCS-3-99) at 182.
     \190\See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 
     247; James v. Commissioner, 899 F.2d 905, 908 (10th Cir. 
     1995); Sacks v. Commissioner, 69 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 
     1995) (``Instead, the consideration of business purpose and 
     economic substance are simply more precise factors to 
     consider . . . We have repeatedly and carefully noted that 
     this formulation cannot be used as a `rigid two-step 
     analysis'.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Profit potential
       There also is a lack of uniformity regarding the necessity 
     and level of profit potential necessary to establish economic 
     substance. Since the time of Gregory v. Helvering,\191\ 
     several courts have denied tax benefits on the grounds that 
     the subject transactions lacked profit potential.\192\ In 
     addition, some courts have applied the economic substance 
     doctrine to disallow tax benefits in transactions in which a 
     taxpayer was exposed to risk and the transaction had a profit 
     potential, but the court concluded that the economic risks 
     and profit potential were insignificant when compared to the 
     tax benefits.\193\ Under this analysis, the taxpayer's profit 
     potential must be more than nominal. Conversely, other courts 
     view the application of the economic substance doctrine as 
     requiring an objective determination of whether a 
     ``reasonable possibility of profit'' from the transaction 
     existed apart from the tax benefits.\194\ In these cases, in 
     assessing whether a reasonable possibility of profit exists, 
     it is sufficient if there is a nominal amount of pre-tax 
     profit as measured against expected net tax benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \191\293 U.S. 465 (1935).
     \192\See, e.g., Knetsch, 364 U.S. at 361; Goldstein v. 
     Commissioner, 364 F.2d 734 (2d Cir. 1966) (holding that an 
     unprofitable, leveraged acquisition of Treasury bills, and 
     accompanying prepaid interest deduction, lacked economic 
     substance); Ginsburg v. Commissioner, 35 T.C.M. (CCH) 860 
     (1976) (holding that a leveraged cattle-breeding program 
     lacked economic substance).
     \193\See, e.g., Goldstein v. Commissioner, 364 F.2d at 739-40 
     (disallowing deduction even though taxpayer had a possibility 
     of small gain or loss by owning Treasury bills); Sheldon v. 
     Commissioner, 94 T.C. 738, 768 (1990) (stating, ``potential 
     for gain . . . is infinitesimally nominal and vastly 
     insignificant when considered in comparison with the claimed 
     deductions'').
     \194\See, e.g., Rice's Toyota World v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 
     at 94 (the economic substance inquiry requires an objective 
     determination of whether a reasonable possibility of profit 
     from the transaction existed apart from tax benefits); Compaq 
     Computer Corp. v. Commissioner, 277 F.3d at 781 (applied the 
     same test, citing Rice's Toyota World); IES Industries v. 
     United States, 253 F.3d at 354 (the application of the 
     objective economic substance test involves determining 
     whether there was a ``reasonable possibility of profit . . . 
     apart from tax benefits.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment clarifies and enhances the application 
     of the economic substance doctrine. The Senate amendment 
     provides that, in a case in which a court determines that the 
     economic substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction (or 
     a series of transactions), such transaction (or series of 
     transactions) has economic substance (and thus satisfies the 
     economic substance doctrine) only if the taxpayer establishes 
     that (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart 
     from Federal income tax consequences) the taxpayer's economic 
     position, and (2) the taxpayer has a substantial non- tax 
     purpose for entering into such transaction and the 
     transaction is a reasonable means of accomplishing such 
     purpose.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \195\If the tax benefits are clearly contemplated and 
     expected by the language and purpose of the relevant 
     authority, it is not intended that such tax benefits be 
     disallowed if the only reason for such disallowance is that 
     the transaction fails the economic substance doctrine as 
     defined in this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Senate amendment does not change current law standards 
     used by courts in determining when to utilize an economic 
     substance analysis.\196\ Also, the Senate amendment does not 
     alter the court's ability to aggregate, disaggregate or 
     otherwise recharacterize a transaction when applying the 
     doctrine.\197\ The Senate amendment provides a uniform 
     definition of economic substance, but does not alter the 
     flexibility of the courts in other respects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \196\See, e.g., Treas. Reg. sec. 1.269-2, stating that 
     characteristic of circumstances in which a deduction 
     otherwise allowed will be disallowed are those in which the 
     effect of the deduction, credit, or other allowance would be 
     to distort the liability of the particular taxpayer when the 
     essential nature of the transaction or situation is examined 
     in the light of the basic purpose or plan which the 
     deduction, credit, or other allowance was designed by the 
     Congress to effectuate.
     \197\See, e.g., Minnesota Tea Co. v. Helvering, 302 U.S. 609, 
     613 (1938) (``A given result at the end of a straight path is 
     not made a different result because reached by following a 
     devious path.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Conjunctive analysis
       The Senate amendment clarifies that the economic substance 
     doctrine involves a conjunctive analysis--there must be an 
     objective inquiry regarding the effects of the transaction on 
     the taxpayer's economic position, as well as a subjective 
     inquiry regarding the taxpayer's motives for engaging in the 
     transaction. Under the Senate amendment, a transaction must 
     satisfy both tests--i.e., it must change in a meaningful way 
     (apart from Federal income tax consequences) the taxpayer's 
     economic position, and the taxpayer must have a substantial 
     non-tax purpose for entering into such transaction (and the 
     transaction is a reasonable means of accomplishing such 
     purpose)--in order to satisfy the economic substance 
     doctrine. This clarification eliminates the disparity that 
     exists among the circuits regarding the application of the 
     doctrine, and modifies its application in those circuits in 
     which either a change in economic position or a non-tax 
     business purpose (without having both) is sufficient to 
     satisfy the economic substance doctrine.
     Non-tax business purpose
       The Senate amendment provides that a taxpayer's non-tax 
     purpose for entering into a transaction (the second prong in 
     the analysis) must be ``substantial,'' and that the 
     transaction must be ``a reasonable means'' of accomplishing 
     such purpose. Under this formulation, the non-tax purpose for 
     the transaction must bear a reasonable relationship to the 
     taxpayer's normal business operations or investment 
     activities.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \198\See, e.g., Treas. Reg. sec. 1.269-2(b) (stating that a 
     distortion of tax liability indicating the principal purpose 
     of tax evasion or avoidance might be evidenced by the fact 
     that ``the transaction was not undertaken for reasons germane 
     to the conduct of the business of the taxpayer''). Similarly, 
     in ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 2189 
     (1997), the court stated: ``Key to [the determination of 
     whether a transaction has economic substance] is that the 
     transaction must be rationally related to a useful nontax 
     purpose that is plausible in light of the taxpayer's conduct 
     and useful in light of the taxpayer's economic situation and 
     intentions. Both the utility of the stated purpose and the 
     rationality of the means chosen to effectuate it must be 
     evaluated in accordance with commercial practices in the 
     relevant industry. A rational relationship between purpose 
     and means ordinarily will not be found unless there was a 
     reasonable expectation that the nontax benefits would be at 
     least commensurate with the transaction costs.'' [citations 
     omitted]
     See also Martin McMahon Jr., Economic Substance, Purposive 
     Activity, and Corporate Tax Shelters, 94 Tax Notes 1017, 1023 
     (Feb. 25, 2002) (advocates ``confining the most rigorous 
     application of business purpose, economic substance, and 
     purposive activity tests to transactions outside the ordinary 
     course of the taxpayer's business--those transactions that do 
     not appear to contribute to any business activity or 
     objective that the taxpayer may have had apart from tax 
     planning but are merely loss generators.''); Mark P. Gergen, 
     The Common Knowledge of Tax Abuse, 54 SMU L. Rev. 131, 140 
     (Winter 2001) (``The message is that you can pick up tax gold 
     if you find it in the street while going about your business, 
     but you cannot go hunting for it.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In determining whether a taxpayer has a substantial non-tax 
     business purpose, an objective of achieving a favorable 
     accounting treatment for financial reporting purposes will 
     not be treated as having a substantial non-tax purpose.\199\ 
     Furthermore, a transaction that is expected to increase 
     financial accounting income as a result of generating tax 
     deductions or losses without a corresponding financial 
     accounting charge (i.e., a permanent book-tax 
     difference)\200\ should

[[Page 18864]]

     not be considered to have a substantial non-tax purpose 
     unless a substantial non-tax purpose exists apart from the 
     financial accounting benefits.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \199\However, if the tax benefits are clearly contemplated 
     and expected by the language and purpose of the relevant 
     authority, such tax benefits should not be disallowed solely 
     because the transaction results in a favorable accounting 
     treatment. An example is the repealed foreign sales 
     corporation rules.
     \200\This includes tax deductions or losses that are 
     anticipated to be recognized in a period subsequent to the 
     period the financial accounting benefit is recognized. For 
     example, FAS 109 in some cases permits the recognition of 
     financial accounting benefits prior to the period in which 
     the tax benefits are recognized for income tax purposes.
     \201\Claiming that a financial accounting benefit constitutes 
     a substantial non-tax purpose fails to consider the origin of 
     the accounting benefit (i.e., reduction of taxes) and 
     significantly diminishes the purpose for having a substantial 
     non-tax purpose requirement. See, e.g., American Electric 
     Power, Inc. v. U.S., 136 F. Supp. 2d 762, 791-92 (S.D. Ohio, 
     2001) (``AEP's intended use of the cash flows generated by 
     the [corporate-owned life insurance] plan is irrelevant to 
     the subjective prong of the economic substance analysis. If a 
     legitimate business purpose for the use of the tax savings 
     `were sufficient to breathe substance into a transaction 
     whose only purpose was to reduce taxes, [then] every sham 
     tax-shelter device might succeed,''') (citing Winn-Dixie v. 
     Commissioner, 113 T.C. 254, 287 (1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       By requiring that a transaction be a ``reasonable means'' 
     of accomplishing its non-tax purpose, the Senate amendment 
     reiterates the present-law ability of the courts to bifurcate 
     a transaction in which independent activities with non-tax 
     objectives are combined with an unrelated item having only 
     tax-avoidance objectives in order to disallow the tax 
     benefits of the overall transaction.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \202\See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 
     256 n.48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Profit potential
       Under the Senate amendment, a taxpayer may rely on factors 
     other than profit potential to demonstrate that a transaction 
     results in a meaningful change in the taxpayer's economic 
     position; the proposal merely sets forth a minimum threshold 
     of profit potential if that test is relied on to demonstrate 
     a meaningful change in economic position. If a taxpayer 
     relies on a profit potential, however, the present value of 
     the reasonably expected pre-tax profit must be substantial in 
     relation to the present value of the expected net tax 
     benefits that would be allowed if the transaction were 
     respected.\203\ Moreover, the profit potential must exceed a 
     risk-free rate of return. In addition, in determining pre-tax 
     profit, fees and other transaction expenses and foreign taxes 
     are treated as expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \203\Thus, a ``reasonable possibility of profit'' will not be 
     sufficient to establish that a transaction has economic 
     substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In applying the profit potential test to a lessor of 
     tangible property, depreciation, applicable tax credits (such 
     as the rehabilitation tax credit and the low income housing 
     tax credit), and any other deduction as provided in guidance 
     by the Secretary are not taken into account in measuring tax 
     benefits.
     Transactions with tax-indifferent parties
       The Senate amendment also provides special rules for 
     transactions with tax-indifferent parties. For this purpose, 
     a tax-indifferent party means any person or entity not 
     subject to Federal income tax, or any person to whom an item 
     would have no substantial impact on its income tax liability. 
     Under these rules, the form of a financing transaction will 
     not be respected if the present value of the tax deductions 
     to be claimed is substantially in excess of the present value 
     of the anticipated economic returns to the lender. Also, the 
     form of a transaction with a tax-indifferent party will not 
     be respected if it results in an allocation of income or gain 
     to the tax-indifferent party in excess of the tax-indifferent 
     party's economic gain or income or if the transaction results 
     in the shifting of basis on account of overstating the income 
     or gain of the tax-indifferent party.
     Other rules
       The Secretary may prescribe regulations which provide (1) 
     exemptions from the application of the proposal, and (2) 
     other rules as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of the proposal.
       No inference is intended as to the proper application of 
     the economic substance doctrine under present law. In 
     addition, except with respect to the economic substance 
     doctrine, the bill shall not be construed as altering or 
     supplanting any other common law doctrine (including the sham 
     transaction doctrine), and the Senate amendment shall be 
     construed as being additive to any such other doctrine.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to 
     transactions entered into after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     20. Penalty for understatements attributable to transactions 
         lacking economic substance, etc. (sec. 5522 of the Senate 
         amendment)


                              Present Law

     General accuracy-related penalty
       An accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 applies to 
     the portion of any underpayment that is attributable to (1) 
     negligence, (2) any substantial understatement of income tax, 
     (3) any substantial valuation misstatement, (4) any 
     substantial overstatement of pension liabilities, or (5) any 
     substantial estate or gift tax valuation understatement. If 
     the correct income tax liability exceeds that reported by the 
     taxpayer by the greater of 10 percent of the correct tax or 
     $5,000 (or, in the case of corporations, by the lesser of (a) 
     10 percent of the correct tax (or $10,000 if greater) or (b) 
     $10 million), then a substantial understatement exists and a 
     penalty may be imposed equal to 20 percent of the 
     underpayment of tax attributable to the understatement.\204\ 
     Except in the case of tax shelters,\205\ the amount of any 
     understatement is reduced by any portion attributable to an 
     item if (1) the treatment of the item is supported by 
     substantial authority, or (2) facts relevant to the tax 
     treatment of the item were adequately disclosed and there was 
     a reasonable basis for its tax treatment. The Treasury 
     Secretary may prescribe a list of positions which the 
     Secretary believes do not meet the requirements for 
     substantial authority under this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \204\Sec. 6662.
     \205\A tax shelter is defined for this purpose as a 
     partnership or other entity, an investment plan or 
     arrangement, or any other plan or arrangement if a 
     significant purpose of such partnership, other entity, plan, 
     or arrangement is the avoidance or evasion of Federal income 
     tax. Sec. 6662(d)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The section 6662 penalty generally is abated (even with 
     respect to tax shelters) in cases in which the taxpayer can 
     demonstrate that there was ``reasonable cause'' for the 
     underpayment and that the taxpayer acted in good faith.\206\ 
     The relevant regulations provide that reasonable cause exists 
     where the taxpayer ``reasonably relies in good faith on an 
     opinion based on a professional tax advisor's analysis of the 
     pertinent facts and authorities [that] . . . unambiguously 
     concludes that there is a greater than 50-percent likelihood 
     that the tax treatment of the item will be upheld if 
     challenged'' by the IRS.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \206\Sec. 6664(c).
     \207\Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6662-4(g)(4)(i)(B); Treas. Reg. sec. 
     1.6664-4(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Listed transactions and reportable avoidance transactions
       In general
       A separate accuracy-related penalty under section 6662A 
     applies to ``listed transactions'' and to other ``reportable 
     transactions'' with a significant tax avoidance purpose 
     (hereinafter referred to as a ``reportable avoidance 
     transaction''). The penalty rate and defenses available to 
     avoid the penalty vary depending on whether the transaction 
     was adequately disclosed.
       Both listed transactions and reportable transactions are 
     allowed to be described by the Treasury department under 
     section 6707A(c), which imposes a penalty for failure 
     adequately to report such transactions under section 6011. A 
     reportable transaction is defined as one that the Treasury 
     Secretary determines is required to be disclosed because it 
     is determined to have a potential for tax avoidance or 
     evasion.\208\ A listed transaction is defined as a reportable 
     transaction which is the same as, or substantially similar 
     to, a transaction specifically identified by the Secretary as 
     a tax avoidance transaction for purposes of the reporting 
     disclosure requirements.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \208\Sec. 6707A(c)(1).
     \209\Sec. 6707A(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Disclosed transactions
       In general, a 20-percent accuracy-related penalty is 
     imposed on any understatement attributable to an adequately 
     disclosed listed transaction or reportable avoidance 
     transaction.\210\ The only exception to the penalty is if the 
     taxpayer satisfies a more stringent reasonable cause and good 
     faith exception (hereinafter referred to as the 
     ``strengthened reasonable cause exception''), which is 
     described below. The strengthened reasonable cause exception 
     is available only if the relevant facts affecting the tax 
     treatment are adequately disclosed, there is or was 
     substantial authority for the claimed tax treatment, and the 
     taxpayer reasonably believed that the claimed tax treatment 
     was more likely than not the proper treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \210\Sec. 6662A(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Undisclosed transactions
       If the taxpayer does not adequately disclose the 
     transaction, the strengthened reasonable cause exception is 
     not available (i.e., a strict-liability penalty generally 
     applies), and the taxpayer is subject to an increased penalty 
     equal to 30 percent of the understatement.\211\ However, a 
     taxpayer will be treated as having adequately disclosed a 
     transaction for this purpose if the IRS Commissioner has 
     separately rescinded the separate penalty under section 6707A 
     for failure to disclose a reportable transaction.\212\ The 
     IRS Commissioner is authorized to do this only if the failure 
     does not relate to a listed transaction and only if 
     rescinding the penalty would promote compliance and effective 
     tax administration.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \211\Sec. 6662A(c).
     \212\Sec. 6664(d).
     \213\Sec. 6707A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A public entity that is required to pay a penalty for an 
     undisclosed listed or reportable transaction must disclose 
     the imposition of the penalty in reports to the SEC for such 
     periods as the Secretary shall specify. The disclosure to the 
     SEC applies without regard to whether the taxpayer determines 
     the amount of the penalty to be material to

[[Page 18865]]

     the reports in which the penalty must appear; and any failure 
     to disclose such penalty in the reports is treated as a 
     failure to disclose a listed transaction. A taxpayer must 
     disclose a penalty in reports to the SEC once the taxpayer 
     has exhausted its administrative and judicial remedies with 
     respect to the penalty (or if earlier, when paid).\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \214\Sec. 6707A(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Determination of the understatement amount
       The penalty is applied to the amount of any understatement 
     attributable to the listed or reportable avoidance 
     transaction without regard to other items on the tax return. 
     For purposes of this provision, the amount of the 
     understatement is determined as the sum of: (1) the product 
     of the highest corporate or individual tax rate (as 
     appropriate) and the increase in taxable income resulting 
     from the difference between the taxpayer's treatment of the 
     item and the proper treatment of the item (without regard to 
     other items on the tax return);\215\ and (2) the amount of 
     any decrease in the aggregate amount of credits which results 
     from a difference between the taxpayer's treatment of an item 
     and the proper tax treatment of such item.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \215\For this purpose, any reduction in the excess of 
     deductions allowed for the taxable year over gross income for 
     such year, and any reduction in the amount of capital losses 
     which would (without regard to section 1211) be allowed for 
     such year, shall be treated as an increase in taxable income. 
     Sec. 6662A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Except as provided in regulations, a taxpayer's treatment 
     of an item shall not take into account any amendment or 
     supplement to a return if the amendment or supplement is 
     filed after the earlier of when the taxpayer is first 
     contacted regarding an examination of the return or such 
     other date as specified by the Secretary.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \216\Sec. 6662A(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Strengthened reasonable cause exception
       A penalty is not imposed under the provision with respect 
     to any portion of an understatement if it is shown that there 
     was reasonable cause for such portion and the taxpayer acted 
     in good faith. Such a showing requires: (1) adequate 
     disclosure of the facts affecting the transaction in 
     accordance with the regulations under section 6011;\217\ (2) 
     that there is or was substantial authority for such 
     treatment; and (3) that the taxpayer reasonably believed that 
     such treatment was more likely than not the proper treatment. 
     For this purpose, a taxpayer will be treated as having a 
     reasonable belief with respect to the tax treatment of an 
     item only if such belief: (1) is based on the facts and law 
     that exist at the time the tax return (that includes the 
     item) is filed; and (2) relates solely to the taxpayer's 
     chances of success on the merits and does not take into 
     account the possibility that (a) a return will not be 
     audited, (b) the treatment will not be raised on audit, or 
     (c) the treatment will be resolved through settlement if 
     raised.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \217\See the previous discussion regarding the penalty for 
     failing to disclose a reportable transaction.
     \218\Sec. 6664(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A taxpayer may (but is not required to) rely on an opinion 
     of a tax advisor in establishing its reasonable belief with 
     respect to the tax treatment of the item. However, a taxpayer 
     may not rely on an opinion of a tax advisor for this purpose 
     if the opinion (1) is provided by a ``disqualified tax 
     advisor'' or (2) is a ``disqualified opinion.''
       Disqualified tax advisor
       A disqualified tax advisor is any advisor who: (1) is a 
     material advisor\219\ and who participates in the 
     organization, management, promotion or sale of the 
     transaction or is related (within the meaning of section 
     267(b) or 707(b)(1)) to any person who so participates; (2) 
     is compensated directly or indirectly\220\ by a material 
     advisor with respect to the transaction; (3) has a fee 
     arrangement with respect to the transaction that is 
     contingent on all or part of the intended tax benefits from 
     the transaction being sustained; or (4) as determined under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, has a disqualifying 
     financial interest with respect to the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \219\The term ``material advisor'' means any person who 
     provides any material aid, assistance, or advice with respect 
     to organizing, managing, promoting, selling, implementing, or 
     carrying out any reportable transaction, and who derives 
     gross income in excess of $50,000 in the case of a reportable 
     transaction substantially all of the tax benefits from which 
     are provided to natural persons ($250,000 in any other case). 
     Sec. 6111(b)(1).
     \220\This situation could arise, for example, when an advisor 
     has an arrangement or understanding (oral or written) with an 
     organizer, manager, or promoter of a reportable transaction 
     that such party will recommend or refer potential 
     participants to the advisor for an opinion regarding the tax 
     treatment of the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A material advisor is considered as participating in the 
     ``organization'' of a transaction if the advisor performs 
     acts relating to the development of the transaction. This may 
     include, for example, preparing documents: (1) establishing a 
     structure used in connection with the transaction (such as a 
     partnership agreement); (2) describing the transaction (such 
     as an offering memorandum or other statement describing the 
     transaction); or (3) relating to the registration of the 
     transaction with any federal, state or local government 
     body.\221\ Participation in the ``management'' of a 
     transaction means involvement in the decision-making process 
     regarding any business activity with respect to the 
     transaction. Participation in the ``promotion or sale'' of a 
     transaction means involvement in the marketing or 
     solicitation of the transaction to others. Thus, an advisor 
     who provides information about the transaction to a potential 
     participant is involved in the promotion or sale of a 
     transaction, as is any advisor who recommends the transaction 
     to a potential participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \221\An advisor should not be treated as participating in the 
     organization of a transaction if the advisor's only 
     involvement with respect to the organization of the 
     transaction is the rendering of an opinion regarding the tax 
     consequences of such transaction. However, such an advisor 
     may be a ``disqualified tax advisor'' with respect to the 
     transaction if the advisor participates in the management, 
     promotion or sale of the transaction (or if the advisor is 
     compensated by a material advisor, has a fee arrangement that 
     is contingent on the tax benefits of the transaction, or as 
     determined by the Secretary, has a continuing financial 
     interest with respect to the transaction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Disqualified opinion
       An opinion may not be relied upon if the opinion: (1) is 
     based on unreasonable factual or legal assumptions (including 
     assumptions as to future events); (2) unreasonably relies 
     upon representations, statements, finding or agreements of 
     the taxpayer or any other person; (3) does not identify and 
     consider all relevant facts; or (4) fails to meet any other 
     requirement prescribed by the Secretary.
       Coordination with other penalties
       To the extent a penalty on an understatement is imposed 
     under section 6662A, that same amount of understatement is 
     not also subject to the accuracy-related penalty under 
     section 6662(a) or to the valuation misstatement penalties 
     under section 6662(e) or 6662(h). However, such amount of 
     understatement is included for purposes of determining 
     whether any understatement (as defined in sec. 6662(d)(2)) is 
     a substantial understatement as defined under section 
     6662(d)(1) and for purposes of identifying an underpayment 
     under the section 6663 fraud penalty.
       The penalty imposed under section 6662A does not apply to 
     any portion of an understatement to which a fraud penalty is 
     applied under section 6663.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment imposes a penalty for an 
     understatement attributable to any transaction that lacks 
     economic substance (referred to in the statute as a ``non-
     economic substance transaction understatement'').\222\ The 
     penalty rate is 40 percent (reduced to 20 percent if the 
     taxpayer adequately discloses the relevant facts in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed under section 6011). 
     No exceptions (including the reasonable cause or rescission 
     rules) to the penalty are available (i.e., the penalty is a 
     strict-liability penalty).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \222\Thus, unlike the present-law accuracy-related penalty 
     under section 6662A (which applies only to listed and 
     reportable avoidance transactions), the new penalty under 
     this provision applies to any transaction that lacks economic 
     substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A ``non-economic substance transaction'' means any 
     transaction if (1) the transaction lacks economic substance 
     (as defined in the earlier proposal regarding the economic 
     substance doctrine),\223\ (2) the transaction was not 
     respected under the rules relating to transactions with tax-
     indifferent parties (as described in the immediately 
     preceding proposal regarding the economic substance 
     doctrine),\224\ or (3) any similar rule of law. For this 
     purpose, a similar rule of law would include, for example, an 
     understatement attributable to a transaction that is 
     determined to be a sham transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \223\The Senate amendment generally provides that in any case 
     in which a court determines that the economic substance 
     doctrine is relevant, a transaction has economic substance 
     only if: (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way 
     (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's 
     economic position, and (2) the taxpayer has a substantial 
     non-tax purpose for entering into such transaction and the 
     transaction is a reasonable means of accomplishing such 
     purpose. Specific other rules also apply. See ``Senate 
     Amendment'' for the immediately preceding provision, 
     ``Clarification of the economic substance doctrine.''
     \224\The Senate amendment provides that the form of a 
     transaction that involves a tax-indifferent party will not be 
     respected in certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       For purposes of the Senate amendment, the calculation of an 
     ``understatement'' is made in the same manner as in the 
     present law provision relating to accuracy-related penalties 
     for listed and reportable avoidance transactions (sec. 
     6662A). Thus, the amount of the understatement under the 
     proposal would be determined as the sum of (1) the product of 
     the highest corporate or individual tax rate (as appropriate) 
     and the increase in taxable income resulting from the 
     difference between the taxpayer's treatment of the item and 
     the proper treatment of the item (without regard to other 
     items on the tax return),\225\ and (2) the amount of any 
     decrease in the aggregate amount of credits which results 
     from a difference between the taxpayer's treatment of an item 
     and the proper tax treatment of such item. In essence, the 
     penalty will apply to the amount

[[Page 18866]]

     of any understatement attributable solely to a non-economic 
     substance transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \225\For this purpose, any reduction in the excess of 
     deductions allowed for the taxable year over gross income for 
     such year, and any reduction in the amount of capital losses 
     that would (without regard to section 1211) be allowed for 
     such year, would be treated as an increase in taxable income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       As in the case of the understatement penalty for reportable 
     and listed transactions under present law section 
     6662A(e)(3), except as provided in regulations, the 
     taxpayer's treatment of an item will not take into account 
     any amendment or supplement to a return if the amendment or 
     supplement is filed after the earlier of the date the 
     taxpayer is first contacted regarding an examination of such 
     return or such other date as specified by the Secretary.
       As in the case of the understatement penalty for 
     undisclosed reportable transactions under present law section 
     6707A, a public entity that is required to pay a penalty 
     under the provision (but in this case, regardless of whether 
     the transaction was disclosed) must disclose the imposition 
     of the penalty in reports to the SEC for such periods as the 
     Secretary shall specify. The disclosure to the SEC applies 
     without regard to whether the taxpayer determines the amount 
     of the penalty to be material to the reports in which the 
     penalty must appear, and any failure to disclose such penalty 
     in the reports is treated as a failure to disclose a listed 
     transaction. A taxpayer must disclose a penalty in reports to 
     the SEC once the taxpayer has exhausted its administrative 
     and judicial remedies with respect to the penalty (or if 
     earlier, when paid).
       Regardless of whether the transaction was disclosed, once a 
     penalty under the Senate amendment has been included in the 
     first letter of proposed deficiency which allows the taxpayer 
     an opportunity for administrative review in the IRS Office of 
     Appeals, the penalty cannot be compromised for purposes of a 
     settlement without approval of the Commissioner personally. 
     Furthermore, the IRS is required to keep records summarizing 
     the application of this penalty and providing a description 
     of each penalty compromised under the proposal and the 
     reasons for the compromise.
       Any understatement on which a penalty is imposed under the 
     provision will not be subject to the accuracy-related penalty 
     under section 6662 or under 6662A (accuracy-related penalties 
     for listed and reportable avoidance transactions). However, 
     an understatement under the Senate amendment is taken into 
     account for purposes of determining whether any 
     understatement (as defined in sec. 6662(d)(2)) is a 
     substantial understatement as defined under section 
     6662(d)(1). The penalty imposed under the Senate amendment 
     will not apply to any portion of an understatement to which a 
     fraud penalty is applied under section 6663.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to 
     transactions entered into after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     21. Denial of deduction for interest on underpayments 
         attributable to noneconomic substance transactions (sec. 
         5523 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       No deduction for interest is allowed for interest paid or 
     accrued on any underpayment of tax which is attributable to 
     the portion of any reportable transaction understatement with 
     respect to which the relevant facts were not adequately 
     disclosed.\226\ The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized 
     to define reportable transactions for this purpose.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \226\Sec. 162(m). Under section 6664(d)(2)(A), in such a case 
     of nondisclosure, the taxpayer also is not entitled to the 
     ``reasonable cause and good faith'' exception to the section 
     6662A penalty for a reportable transaction understatement.
     \227\See the description of present law under the immediately 
     preceding proposal, ``Penalty for understatements 
     attributable to transactions lacking economic substance, 
     etc.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment extends the disallowance of interest 
     deductions to interest paid or accrued on any underpayment of 
     tax which is attributable to any noneconomic substance 
     underpayment (whether or not disclosed).
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to 
     transactions after the date of enactment in taxable years 
     ending after such date.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     22. Waiver of user fee for installment agreements using 
         automated withdrawals (sec. 5531 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The Code authorizes the IRS to enter into written 
     agreements with any taxpayer under which the taxpayer is 
     allowed to pay taxes owed, as well as interest and penalties, 
     in installment payments if the IRS determines that doing so 
     will facilitate collection of the amounts owed.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \228\Sec. 6159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       An installment agreement does not reduce the amount of 
     taxes, interest, or penalties owed. Generally, during the 
     period installment payments are being made, other IRS 
     enforcement actions (such as levies or seizures) with respect 
     to the taxes included in that agreement are held in abeyance.
       The IRS charges a $43 user fee if a request for an 
     installment agreement is approved.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment waives the user fee for installment 
     agreements in which the parties agree to the use of automated 
     installment payments (such as automated debits from a bank 
     account).
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to agreements 
     entered into on or after the date which is 180 days after the 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     23. Termination of installment agreements (sec. 5532 of the 
         Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The Code authorizes the IRS to enter into written 
     agreements with any taxpayer under which the taxpayer is 
     allowed to pay taxes owed, as well as interest and penalties, 
     in installment payments, if the IRS determines that doing so 
     will facilitate collection of the amounts owed.\229\ An 
     installment agreement does not reduce the amount of taxes, 
     interest, or penalties owed. Generally, during the period 
     installment payments are being made, other IRS enforcement 
     actions (such as levies or seizures) with respect to the 
     taxes included in that agreement are held in abeyance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \229\Sec. 6159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Under present law, the IRS is permitted to terminate an 
     installment agreement only if: (1) the taxpayer fails to pay 
     an installment at the time the payment is due; (2) the 
     taxpayer fails to pay any other tax liability at the time 
     when such liability is due; (3) the taxpayer fails to provide 
     a financial condition update as required by the IRS; (4) the 
     taxpayer provides inadequate or incomplete information when 
     applying for an installment agreement; (5) there has been a 
     significant change in the financial condition of the 
     taxpayer; or (6) the collection of the tax is in 
     jeopardy.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \230\Sec. 6159(b)(2), (3), and (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment grants the IRS authority to terminate 
     installment agreement when a taxpayer fails to timely make a 
     required Federal tax deposit or fails to timely file a tax 
     return (including extensions). Under the Senate amendment, 
     the IRS may terminate an installment agreement even if the 
     taxpayer remained current with payments under the installment 
     agreement.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     failures occurring on or after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     24. Office of Chief Counsel review of offers-in-compromise 
         (sec. 5533 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The IRS has the authority to settle a tax debt pursuant to 
     an offer-in-compromise. IRS regulations provide that such 
     offers can be accepted if the taxpayer is unable to pay the 
     full amount of the tax liability and it is doubtful that the 
     tax, interest, and penalties can be collected or there is 
     doubt as to the validity of the actual tax liability. Offers 
     to compromise tax liabilities of $50,000 or more can only be 
     accepted if the reasons for the acceptance are documented in 
     detail and supported by a written opinion from the IRS Chief 
     Counsel.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \231\Sec. 7122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment repeals the requirement that offers to 
     compromise liabilities of $50,000 or more must be supported 
     by a written opinion from the IRS Chief Counsel. Under the 
     Senate amendment, written opinions must only be provided if 
     the Secretary determines that an opinion is required with 
     respect to a compromise.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to offers-in-
     compromise submitted or pending on or after the date of 
     enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     25. Partial payments required with submissions of offers-in-
         compromise (sec. 5534 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The IRS has the authority to compromise any civil or 
     criminal case arising under the internal revenue laws.\232\ 
     In general, taxpayers initiate this process by making an 
     offer-in-compromise, which is an offer by the taxpayer to 
     settle an outstanding tax liability for less than the total 
     amount due. The IRS currently imposes a user fee of $150 on 
     most offers, payable upon submission of the

[[Page 18867]]

     offer to the IRS. Taxpayers may justify their offers on the 
     basis of doubt as to collectibility or liability or on the 
     basis of effective tax administration. In general, 
     enforcement action is suspended during the period that the 
     IRS evaluates an offer. In some instances, it may take the 
     IRS 12 to 18 months to evaluate an offer.\233\ Taxpayers are 
     permitted (but not required) to make a deposit with their 
     offer; if the offer is rejected, the deposit is generally 
     returned to the taxpayer. There are two general 
     categories\234\ of offers-in-compromise, lump-sum offers and 
     periodic payment offers. Taxpayers making lump-sum offers 
     propose to make one lump-sum payment of a specified dollar 
     amount in settlement of their outstanding liability. 
     Taxpayers making periodic payment offers propose to make a 
     series of payments over time (either short-term or long-term) 
     in settlement of their outstanding liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \232\Sec. 7122.
     \233\Olsen v. United States, 326 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D. Mass. 
     2004).
     \234\The IRS categorizes payment plans with more specificity, 
     which is generally not significant for purposes of the 
     proposal. See Form 656, Offer in Compromise, page 6 of 
     instruction booklet (revised July 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment requires a taxpayer to make partial 
     payments to the IRS while the taxpayer's offer is being 
     considered by the IRS. For lump-sum offers, taxpayers must 
     make a down payment of 20 percent of the amount of the offer 
     with any application. For purposes of this provision, a lump-
     sum offer includes single payments as well as payments made 
     in five or fewer installments. For periodic payment offers, 
     the provision requires the taxpayer to comply with the 
     taxpayer's own proposed payment schedule while the offer is 
     being considered. Offers submitted to the IRS that do not 
     comport with these payment requirements are returned to the 
     taxpayer as unprocessable and immediate enforcement action is 
     permitted. The provision eliminates the user fee requirement 
     for offers submitted with the appropriate partial payment.
       The Senate amendment also provides that an offer is deemed 
     accepted if the IRS does not make a decision with respect to 
     the offer within two years from the date the offer was 
     submitted. With respect to offers submitted more than five 
     years after the date of enactment, an offer is deemed 
     accepted if the IRS does not make a decision with respect to 
     the offer within 12 months of its submission.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to offers-in-
     compromise submitted or pending on and after the date which 
     is 60 days after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     26. Joint task force on offers-in-compromise (sec. 5535 of 
         the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       The IRS has the authority to compromise any civil or 
     criminal case arising under the internal revenue laws.\235\ 
     In general, taxpayers initiate this process by making an 
     offer-in-compromise, which is an offer by the taxpayer to 
     settle an outstanding tax liability for less than the total 
     amount due. The IRS currently imposes a user fee of $150 on 
     most offers, payable upon submission of the offer to the IRS. 
     Taxpayers may justify their offers on the basis of doubt as 
     to collectibility or liability or on the basis of effective 
     tax administration. In general, enforcement action is 
     suspended during the period that the IRS evaluates an offer. 
     Taxpayers are permitted (but not required) to make a deposit 
     with their offer; if the offer is rejected, the deposit is 
     generally returned to the taxpayer. There are two general 
     categories\236\ of offers-in-compromise, lump-sum offers and 
     periodic payment offers. Taxpayers making lump-sum offers 
     propose to make one lump-sum payment of a specified dollar 
     amount in settlement of their outstanding liability. 
     Taxpayers making periodic payment offers propose to make a 
     series of payments over time (either short-term or long-term) 
     in settlement of their outstanding liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \235\Sec. 7122.
     \236\The IRS categorizes payment plans with more specificity, 
     which is generally not significant for purposes of the 
     proposal. See Form 656, Offer in Compromise, page 6 of 
     instruction booklet (revised July 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment requires the Secretary to establish a 
     joint task force to review the IRS's determinations with 
     respect to offers-in-compromise, including offers which raise 
     equitable, public policy, or economic hardship as grounds for 
     compromising a tax liability. The task force shall consist of 
     one representative each from the Department of Treasury, the 
     IRS Oversight Board, the Office of Chief Counsel, the Office 
     of the Taxpayer Advocate, the Office of Appeals, and the IRS 
     office charged with operating the offer-in-compromise 
     program. The task force is required to report annually to 
     Congress regarding its findings and recommendations with 
     respect to the offer-in-compromise program. The provision 
     requires the filing of annual reports beginning in 2006.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on the 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.

  O. Additional Revenue Provisions Relating to the Highway Trust Fund

     1. Suspension of transfers from Highway Trust Fund for 
         certain repayments and credits (sec. 5601 of the Senate 
         amendment)


                              Present Law

       Under sec. 9503(c)(2), certain transfers are made from the 
     Highway Trust Fund to reimburse the General Fund, for amounts 
     paid in respect of gasoline used on farms,\237\ amounts paid 
     in respect of gasoline used for certain nonhighway purposes 
     or by local transit systems,\238\ amounts relating to fuels 
     not used for taxable purposes,\239\ and income tax credits 
     allowed with respect to the nontaxable uses of fuels.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \237\Sec. 6420.
     \238\Sec. 6421.
     \239\Sec. 6427.
     \240\Sec. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Section 9503(c)(2), relating to certain transfers from the 
     Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund, is suspended between 
     April 1, 2005 and October 1, 2005.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to amounts 
     paid for which no transfer has been made before April 1, 
     2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     2. Dedicate gas guzzler tax to the Highway Trust Fund (sec. 
         5602 of the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       Under present law, the Code imposes a tax (``the gas 
     guzzler tax'') on automobiles that are manufactured primarily 
     for use on public streets, roads, and highways and that are 
     rated at 6,000 pounds unloaded gross vehicle weight or less. 
     The tax applies to limousines without regard to the weight 
     requirement. The tax is imposed on the sale by the 
     manufacturer of each automobile of a model type with a fuel 
     economy of 22.5 miles per gallon or less. The tax range 
     begins at $1,000 and increases to $7,700 for models with a 
     fuel economy less than 12.5 miles per gallon. Taxes imposed 
     under this provision are deposited into the General Fund.


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment temporarily dedicates the gas guzzler 
     tax (as modified by the Senate amendment\241\) to the Highway 
     Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund will be credited with gas 
     guzzler taxes imposed on or after July 1, 2005 and before 
     October 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \241\The Senate amendment repeals the tax as it applies to 
     limousines rated at greater than 6,000 pounds unloaded gross 
     vehicle weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to taxes 
     imposed on or after July 1, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     3. Treatment of kerosene for use in aviation (sec. 5611 of 
         the Senate amendment and secs. 4041, 4081, 4082, 6427, 
         9502, and 9503 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       In general, aviation-grade kerosene is taxed at a rate of 
     21.8 cents per gallon upon removal of such fuel from a 
     refinery or terminal (or entry into the United States) and on 
     the sale of such fuel to any unregistered person unless there 
     was a prior taxable removal or entry of such fuel.\242\ 
     Aviation-grade kerosene may be removed at a reduced rate, 
     either 4.3 or zero cents per gallon, if the aviation fuel is 
     removed directly into the fuel tank of an aircraft for use in 
     commercial aviation\243\ or for a use that is exempt from the 
     tax imposed by section 4041(c) (other than by reason of a 
     prior imposition of tax),\244\ or is removed or entered as 
     part of an exempt bulk transfer.\245\ These taxes are 
     credited to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.\246\ If taxed 
     aviation-grade kerosene is used for a nontaxable use, a claim 
     for credit or refund may be made.\247\ Such claims are

[[Page 18868]]

     paid from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to the general 
     fund of the Treasury.\248\ All other removals and entries of 
     kerosene used for surface transportation are taxed at the 
     diesel tax rate of 24.3 cents per gallon,\249\ and these 
     taxes are credited to the Highway Trust Fund.\250\ If 
     aviation-grade kerosene is taxed upon removal or entry but 
     fraudulently diverted for surface transportation, the taxes 
     remain in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and the Highway 
     Trust Fund is not credited for the taxes on such fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \242\Sec. 4081(a)(2)(A)(iv). (An additional 0.1 cent is 
     imposed on aviation-grade kerosene and credited to the 
     Leaking Underground Storage Tank (``LUST'' Trust Fund.) Sec. 
     4081(a)(2)(B). The LUST Trust Fund tax is set to expire after 
     September 30, 2005. Sec. 4081(d)(3).
     \243\Sec. 4081(a)(2)(C).
     \244\Sec. 4082(e). Exempt uses include use in commercial 
     aviation as supplies for vessels or aircraft, which includes 
     use by certain foreign air carriers and for the international 
     flights of domestic carriers, secs. 4082(e), 6427(l)(2), and 
     4221(d)(3).
     \245\Sec. 4081(a)(1)(B).
     \246\Sec. 4081(a)(3).
     \247\Sec. 6427(l)(1) and 6427(l)(4). Nontaxable uses include: 
     (1) use other than as fuel in an aircraft (such as use in 
     heating oil); (2) use on a farm for farming purposes; (3) use 
     in a military aircraft owned by the United States or a 
     foreign country; (4) use in a domestic air carrier engaged in 
     foreign trade or trade between the United States and any of 
     its possessions; (5) use in a foreign air carrier engaged in 
     foreign trade or trade between the United States and any of 
     its possessions (but only if the foreign carrier's country of 
     registration provides similar privileges to United States 
     carriers); (6) exclusive use of a State or local government; 
     (7) sales for export, or shipment to a United States 
     possession; (8) exclusive use by a nonprofit educational 
     organization; (9) use by an aircraft museum exclusively for 
     the procurement, care, or exhibition of aircraft of the type 
     used for combat or transport in World War II, and (10) use as 
     a fuel in a helicopter or a fixed-wing aircraft for purposes 
     of providing transportation with respect to which certain 
     requirements are met. Secs. 4041(f)(2), 4041(g), 4041(h), 
     4041(l), and 6427(l)(2)(B)(i).
     \248\Sec. 9502(d)(2).
     \249\Sec. 4081(a)(2)(iii).
     \250\Sec. 9503(b)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A special rule of present law addresses whether a removal 
     from a refueler truck, tanker, or tank wagon may be treated 
     as a removal from a terminal for purposes of determining 
     whether aviation-grade kerosene is removed directly into the 
     wing of an aircraft for use in commercial aviation, and so 
     eligible for the 4.3 cents per gallon rate.\251\ For the 
     special rule to apply, a qualifying truck, tanker, or tank 
     wagon must be loaded with aviation-grade kerosene from a 
     terminal: (1) that is located within a secured area of an 
     airport, and (2) from which no vehicle licensed for highway 
     use is loaded with aviation fuel, except in exigent 
     circumstances identified by the Secretary in regulations. In 
     order to qualify for the special rule, a refueler truck, 
     tanker, or tank wagon must: (1) be loaded with fuel for 
     delivery only into aircraft at the airport where the terminal 
     is located; (2) have storage tanks, hose, and coupling 
     equipment designed and used for the purposes of fueling 
     aircraft; (3) not be registered for highway use; and (4) be 
     operated by the terminal operator (who operates the terminal 
     rack from which the fuel is unloaded) or by a person that 
     makes a daily accounting to such terminal operator of each 
     delivery of fuel from such truck, tanker, or tank wagon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \251\Sec. 4081(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment imposes the kerosene tax rate of 24.3 
     cents per gallon upon the entry or removal of aviation-grade 
     kerosene and on the sale of such fuel to any unregistered 
     person unless there was a prior taxable removal or entry of 
     the fuel. The present law reduced rates for removals of 
     aviation-grade kerosene directly into the fuel tank of an 
     aircraft apply,\252\ except that in addition, under the 
     proposal, if kerosene is removed directly into the fuel tank 
     of an aircraft for use in aviation other than commercial 
     aviation, the rate of tax is 21.8 cents per gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \252\For example, for kerosene removed directly into the fuel 
     tank of an aircraft for use in commercial aviation by a 
     person registered for such use, the rate of tax is 4.3 cents 
     per gallon. Kerosene removed directly into the fuel tank of 
     an aircraft for an exempt use is not taxed. For purposes of 
     these reduced rates, it is intended that the following 
     airports be included on the Secretary's list of airports that 
     include a secured area in which a terminal is located. The 
     airports are listed by airport name, and the terminal with 
     respect to the airport is identified by terminal control 
     number: Los Angeles International Airport (T-95-CA-4812) and 
     Federal Express Corporation Memphis Airport (T-62-TN-2220).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Senate amendment provides that amounts may be claimed 
     as credits or refunds for kerosene that is taxed at the 24.3 
     cents per gallon rate and used for aviation purposes. If 
     kerosene is used for noncommercial aviation, the amount is 
     2.5 cents; if kerosene is used for commercial aviation, the 
     amount is 20 cents; if kerosene is used for a use that is 
     exempt from tax (as determined under present law), the amount 
     is 24.3 cents. Present law rules with respect to claims 
     apply, except for claims with respect to kerosene used in 
     noncommercial aviation, which may be claimed by the ultimate 
     vendor. To be eligible to receive a payment, a vendor must be 
     registered and must show either that the price of the fuel 
     did not include the tax and the tax was not collected from 
     the purchaser, the amount of tax was repaid to the ultimate 
     purchaser, or the written consent of the purchaser to the 
     making of the claim was filed with the Secretary.
       Under the Senate amendment, all taxes collected at the 24.3 
     cents per gallon rate (under section 4081) initially are 
     credited to the Highway Trust Fund. The Senate amendment 
     requires the Secretary to transfer from time to time from the 
     Highway Trust Fund into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
     amounts equivalent to the taxes received under sections 4041 
     and 4081 with respect to fuels used in a nontaxable use to 
     the extent such amounts exceed the amounts paid with respect 
     to such use. Transfers are required to be made with respect 
     to taxes received on or after October 1, 2005, and before 
     October 1, 2011.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     fuels or liquids removed, entered, or sold after September 
     30, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment with 
     the following modifications.
       The conference agreement provides that the rate of tax on 
     kerosene is 21.8 cents per gallon if the kerosene is removed 
     from refueler trucks, tankers, and tank wagons that are 
     loaded with fuel from a terminal that is located in an 
     airport, without regard to whether the terminal is located in 
     a secured area of the airport, as long as all the other 
     requirements of the present law special rule related to such 
     trucks, tankers, and wagons are met. The conference agreement 
     clarifies that the rate of tax upon removal of kerosene is 
     zero if the removal is from a refueler truck, tanker, or tank 
     wagon that meets all of the requirements of present law, 
     including the security requirement, the kerosene is delivered 
     directly into the fuel tank of an aircraft, and the kerosene 
     is exempt from the tax imposed by section 4041(c) (other than 
     by prior imposition of tax).
       The Senate amendment is clarified to provide that claims 
     for payment for kerosene that is used for noncommercial 
     aviation may be claimed by the ultimate vendor only.
       The conference agreement clarifies the transfer mechanism 
     for payments from the Highway Trust Fund to the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund to provide that such transfers shall be 
     made monthly in amounts equivalent to 21.8 cents per gallon 
     for claims made with respect to kerosene used for 
     noncommercial aviation purposes, 4.3 cents per gallon for 
     claims made with respect to kerosene used for commercial 
     aviation purposes, and the amounts attributable to taxes 
     received with respect to amounts allowed as a credit under 
     section 34 for kerosene used for aviation purposes. The 
     conference agreement requires that transfers be made on the 
     basis of estimates by the Secretary, with proper adjustments 
     to be made subsequently to the extent prior estimates were in 
     excess of or less than the amounts required to be 
     transferred. The conference agreement clarifies that the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund does not reimburse the General 
     Fund for claims with respect to kerosene that is taxed at the 
     24.3 cents per gallon rate and used for aviation purposes, or 
     with respect to credits allowed under section 34 to the 
     extent the Highway Trust Fund is credited initially with the 
     amount of tax with respect to which the credit is claimed.
     4. Repeal of ultimate vendor refund claims with respect to 
         farming (sec. 5612 of the Senate amendment and sec. 
         6427(l) of the Code)


                              Present Law

     In general--ultimate purchaser refunds for nontaxable uses
       In general, the Code provides that if diesel fuel or 
     kerosene on which tax has been imposed is used by any person 
     in a nontaxable use, the Secretary is to refund (without 
     interest) to the ultimate purchaser the amount of tax 
     imposed.\253\ The refund is made to the ultimate purchaser of 
     the taxed fuel by either income tax credit or refund 
     payment.\254\ Not more than one claim may be filed by any 
     person with respect to fuel used during its taxable year. 
     However, there are exceptions to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \253\Sec. 6427(l)(1).
     \254\Generally, refund payments are only made to governmental 
     units and tax-exempt organizations. Sec. 6427(k). The 
     quarterly payment claim rules for ultimate purchasers are an 
     exception to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       An ultimate purchaser may make a claim for a refund payment 
     for any quarter of a taxable year for which the purchaser can 
     claim at least $750.\255\ If the purchaser cannot claim at 
     least $750 at the end of quarter, the amount can be carried 
     over to the next quarter to determine if the purchaser can 
     claim at least $750. If the purchaser cannot claim at least 
     $750 at the end of the taxable year, the purchaser must claim 
     a credit on the person's income tax return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \255\Sec. 6427(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       As discussed below, these ultimate purchaser refund rules 
     do not apply to diesel fuel or kerosene used on a farm. The 
     Code precludes the ultimate purchaser from claiming a refund 
     for such use. Instead, the refund claims are made by 
     registered vendors as described below.
     Special vendor rule for use on a farm for farming purposes
       In the case of diesel fuel or kerosene used on a farm for 
     farming purposes refund payments are paid to the ultimate, 
     registered vendors (``registered ultimate vendor'') of such 
     fuels. Thus a registered ultimate vendor that sells undyed 
     diesel fuel or undyed kerosene to any of the following may 
     make a claim for refund: (1) the owner, tenant, operator of a 
     farm for use by that person on a farm for farming purposes; 
     and (2) a person other than the owner, tenant, or operator of 
     a farm for use by that person on a farm in connection with 
     cultivating, raising or harvesting. The registered ultimate 
     vendor is the only person who may make the claim with respect 
     to diesel fuel or kerosene used

[[Page 18869]]

     on a farm for farming purposes. The purchaser of the fuel 
     cannot make the claim for refund.
       Registered ultimate vendors may make weekly claims if the 
     claim is at least $200 ($100 or more in the case of 
     kerosene).\256\ If not paid within 45 days (20 days for an 
     electronic claim), the Secretary is to pay interest on the 
     claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \256\Sec. 6427(i)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment repeals ultimate vendor refund claims 
     in the case of diesel fuel or kerosene used on a farm for 
     farming purposes. Thus, refunds for taxed diesel fuel or 
     kerosene used on a farm for farming purposes would be paid to 
     the ultimate purchaser under the rules applicable to 
     nontaxable uses of diesel fuel or kerosene.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     sales after September 30, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
     5. Refunds of excise taxes on exempt sales of taxable fuel by 
         credit card (sec. 5613 of the Senate amendment and secs. 
         6206, 6416, 6427, and 6675 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Under the rules in effect prior to 2005, in the case of 
     gasoline on which tax had been paid and sold to a State or 
     local government, to a nonprofit educational organization, 
     for supplies for vessels or aircraft, for export, or for the 
     production of special fuels, the wholesale distributor that 
     sold such gasoline was treated as the only person who paid 
     the tax and thereby was the proper claimant for a credit or 
     refund of the tax paid. A ``wholesale distributor'' included 
     any person, other than an importer or producer, who sold 
     gasoline to producers, retailers, or to users who purchased 
     in bulk quantities and accepted delivery into bulk storage 
     tanks. A wholesale distributor also included any person who 
     made retail sales of gasoline at 10 or more retail motor fuel 
     outlets.
       Under a special administrative exception to these rules, a 
     sale of gasoline charged on an oil company credit card issued 
     to an exempt person described above is not considered a 
     direct sale by the person actually selling the gasoline to 
     the ultimate purchaser if the seller receives a reimbursement 
     of the tax from the oil company (or indirectly through an 
     intermediate vendor). Thus, the person that actually paid the 
     tax, in most cases the oil company, is treated as the only 
     person eligible to make the refund claim.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \257\Notice 89-29, 1989-1 C.B. 669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (``AJCA'')\258\ 
     modified the pre-existing statutory rules with respect to 
     certain sales. Under AJCA, if a registered ultimate vendor 
     purchases any gasoline on which tax has been paid and sells 
     such gasoline to a State or local government or to a 
     nonprofit educational organization, for its exclusive use, 
     such ultimate vendor is treated as the only person who paid 
     the tax and thereby is the proper claimant for a credit or 
     refund of the tax paid.\259\ However, AJCA did not change the 
     special administrative oil company credit card rule described 
     above.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \258\Pub. L. No. 108-357.
     \259\AJCA, sec. 865(a), effective January 1, 2005. See Code 
     sec. 6416(a)(4)(A).
     \260\In Notice 2005-4, 2005-2 I.R.B. 289, the Treasury 
     Department confirmed that it would continue to apply the oil 
     company credit card rule until March 1, 2005. On February 28, 
     2005, the Treasury Department issued Notice 2005-24, 2005-12 
     I.R.B. 1, modifying Notice 2005-4. Notice 2005-24 stated that 
     the oil company credit card rule will remain in effect until 
     it is modified by a statutory change or by future guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In addition, under AJCA, refund claims made by such an 
     ultimate vendor may be filed for any period of at least one 
     week for which $200 or more is payable. Any such claim must 
     be filed on or before the last day of the first quarter 
     following the earliest quarter included in the claim. The 
     Secretary must pay interest on refunds unpaid after 45 days. 
     If the refund claim was filed by electronic means, and the 
     ultimate vendor has certified to the Secretary for the most 
     recent quarter of the taxable year that all ultimate 
     purchasers of the vendor are certified for highway exempt use 
     as a State or local government or a nonprofit educational 
     organization, refunds unpaid after 20 days must be paid with 
     interest.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \261\Sec. 6146(a)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In the case of diesel fuel or kerosene used in a nontaxable 
     use, the ultimate purchaser is generally the only person 
     entitled to claim a refund of excise tax.\262\ However, in 
     the case of diesel fuel or kerosene used on a farm for 
     farming purposes or by a State or local government, aviation-
     grade kerosene, and certain nonaviation-grade kerosene, an 
     ultimate vendor may claim the refund if the ultimate vendor 
     is registered and bears the tax (or receives the written 
     consent of the ultimate purchaser to claim the refund).\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \262\Sec. 6427(l)(1).
     \263\See sec. 6427(l)(4)(B), (l)(5)(B), and (l)(5)(C), and 
     sec. 6416(a)(1)(A), (B), and (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment replaces the oil company credit card 
     rule with a new set of rules applicable to certain credit 
     card sales. The new rules apply to all taxable fuels. Under 
     the Senate amendment, if a purchase of taxable fuel is made 
     by means of a credit card issued to an ultimate purchaser 
     that is either a State or local government or, in the case of 
     gasoline, a nonprofit educational organization, for its 
     exclusive use, a credit card issuer who is registered and who 
     extends such credit to the ultimate purchaser with respect to 
     such purchase shall be the only person entitled to apply for 
     a credit or refund if the following two conditions are met: 
     (1) such registered person has not collected the amount of 
     the tax from the purchaser, or has obtained the written 
     consent of the ultimate purchaser to the allowance of the 
     credit or refund; and (2) such registered person has either 
     repaid or agreed to repay the amount of the tax to the 
     ultimate vendor, has obtained the written consent of the 
     ultimate vendor to the allowance of the credit or refund, or 
     has otherwise made arrangements that directly or indirectly 
     provide the ultimate vendor with reimbursement of such tax. 
     It is anticipated that such indirect arrangements may consist 
     of the contractual undertaking of the relevant oil company to 
     the credit card issuer that it will pay the amount of the tax 
     to the ultimate vendor, and the corresponding contractual 
     undertaking of the oil company to the ultimate vendor.
       A credit card issuer entitled to claim a refund under the 
     provision is responsible for collecting and supplying all the 
     appropriate documentation currently required from ultimate 
     vendors. The present-law refund amount and timing rules 
     applicable to ultimate vendors, including the special rules 
     for electronic claims, apply to refunds to credit card 
     issuers under the provision.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \264\See sec. 6416(a)(4)(B). Present law would continue to 
     apply to the timing of ultimate purchaser claims. Under 
     present law, claims by an ultimate purchaser are generally 
     made on an annual basis. However, claims aggregating over 
     $750 may be made quarterly. See secs. 6421(d) and 6427(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Senate amendment also conforms present-law penalty 
     provisions to the new rules.
       The Senate amendment does not change the present-law rules 
     applicable to non-credit card purchases.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     sales after December 31, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment with 
     the following modifications.
       Under the conference agreement, if a credit card issuer is 
     not registered, or if either condition (1) or (2) described 
     above is not met (or if the ultimate purchaser is not 
     exempt), then the credit card issuer is required to collect 
     an amount equal to the tax from the ultimate purchaser and 
     only an (exempt) ultimate purchaser may claim a credit or 
     payment from the IRS.\265\ The conferees intend that tax-paid 
     fuel shall not be sold tax free to an exempt entity by means 
     of a credit card unless the credit card issuer is registered. 
     An unregistered credit card issuer that does not collect an 
     amount equal to the tax from the exempt entity is liable for 
     present-law penalties for failure to register.\266\ The 
     present-law regulatory authority of the Secretary to 
     prescribe the form, manner, terms, conditions of 
     registration, and conditions of use of registration extends 
     to registration under this provision.\267\ Such authority may 
     include rules that preclude persons which are registered 
     credit card issuers from issuing nonregistered credit 
     cards.\268\ The conferees also intend that the IRS will 
     review the registration of a registered credit card issuer 
     that has engaged in multiple or flagrant violations of the 
     requirements of the provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \265\Sec. 6421(c).
     \266\Secs. 6719, 7232, and 7272.
     \267\Sec. 4101(a)(1).
     \268\Because registration occurs at the ``person'' (legal 
     entity) level, it is anticipated that a credit card issuer 
     will use a separate (registered) entity for the issuance of 
     credit cards entitled to the benefits of this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     6. Recertification of exempt status (sec. 5614 of the Senate 
         amendment)


                              Present Law

       If gasoline is sold to any person for an exempt use, an 
     ultimate purchaser that has borne the tax is entitled to 
     claim a refund.\269\ However, a registered ultimate vendor is 
     the appropriate person to claim a refund of Federal excise 
     taxes on gasoline sold to a State or local government or to a 
     nonprofit educational organization.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \269\Sec. 6421(c).
     \270\Sec. 6416(a)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In general, in order to claim a refund of Federal excise 
     taxes on gasoline (and on other articles subject to 
     manufacturers excise taxes under Chapter 32 of the Code) sold 
     to a State or local government or to a nonprofit educational 
     organization, for its exclusive use, a claimant must submit a 
     statement indicating that it possesses evidence of the exempt 
     use giving rise to the overpayment of tax.\271\ Such evidence 
     consists of a certificate executed and signed by the ultimate 
     purchaser, and must identify the article, show the name and 
     address of the ultimate purchaser, and state the exempt use

[[Page 18870]]

     made or to be made of the article. In the case where the 
     certificate sets forth the use to be made of the article, 
     rather than its actual use, it must show that the ultimate 
     purchaser has agreed to notify the claimant if the article is 
     not in fact used as specified in the certificate.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \271\Treas.Reg. sec. 48.6416(b)(2)-3(a)(5).
     \272\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.6416(b)(2)-3(b)(1)(i) and (ii). The 
     certificate must also contain a statement that the ultimate 
     purchaser understands that it and any other party may, for 
     fraudulent use of the certificate, be subject under section 
     7201 to a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for 
     not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of 
     prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       However, if the article to which the claim relates has 
     passed through a chain of sales from the claimant to the 
     ultimate purchaser, a certificate executed and signed by the 
     ultimate vendor is sufficient to document the exempt use. The 
     ultimate vendor certificate must contain the exempt sales 
     information, and a statement that it possesses the ultimate 
     purchaser certificates and will forward them to the claimant 
     within three years from the date of the statement. An 
     ultimate vendor statement may be made covering no more than 
     12 consecutive calendar quarters.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \273\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.6416(b)(2)-3(b)(1)(i) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In general, an ultimate purchaser is the proper party to 
     claim a refund of Federal excise tax on diesel fuel or 
     kerosene used by any person in a nontaxable use.\274\ 
     However, in the case of diesel or kerosene used by a State or 
     local government, the ultimate vendor is the proper person if 
     such vendor is registered and has borne the tax (or receives 
     the written consent of the ultimate purchaser to claim the 
     refund).\275\ A registered ultimate vendor claiming a refund 
     under this provision must provide a statement that it has in 
     its possession an unexpired exemption certificate of the 
     purchaser and that the claimant has no reason to believe any 
     information in the certificate is false.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \274\Sec. 6427(l)(1). In the case of diesel fuel or kerosene, 
     a nontaxable use is any use which is exempt from the tax 
     imposed by section 4041(a)(1) other than by reason of a prior 
     imposition of tax. Sec. 6427(l)(2).
     \275\Sec. 6427(1)(5)(C).
     \276\Treas. Reg. Sec. 48.6427-9(e)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A State or local government includes any political 
     subdivision of a State, or the District of Columbia.\277\ A 
     nonprofit educational organization means an educational 
     organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and 
     curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of 
     pupils or students in attendance at the place where its 
     educational activities are regularly carried on, and which 
     either is exempt from income tax under section 501(a) or is a 
     school operated as an activity of an organization described 
     in section 501(c)(3) which is exempt from income tax under 
     section 501(a).\278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \277\Sec. 4221(d)(4); Treas. Reg. sec. 48.6416(b)(2)-2(d).
     \278\Sec. 4221(d)(5); Treas. Reg. sec. 48.6416(b)(2)-2(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Under the Senate amendment, additional documentation 
     requirements are imposed with respect to purchases of taxable 
     fuel and certain other articles on a nontaxable basis by 
     State or local governments and nonprofit educational 
     organizations and with respect to refunds or credits by any 
     person with respect to such purchases. The Senate amendment 
     covers Federal excise taxes on sales of liquids for use as a 
     fuel (including taxable fuels), compressed natural gas 
     (except if sold for use on school buses or intracity buses), 
     heavy trucks and trailers, recreational equipment (bows and 
     arrows, sport fishing equipment and firearms), and tires 
     (except for tires sold for use on qualified buses). The 
     Senate amendment does not cover Federal excise taxes on sales 
     of coal and vaccines.
       In addition to present-law documentation requirements, in 
     order for a State or local governmental entity to claim 
     exemption from tax on sales of such covered articles, or for 
     any person to claim a credit or refund based upon the State 
     or local governmental status of the purchaser of such 
     articles, the State must certify that the article is sold to 
     a State or local government for the exclusive use of a State 
     or local government. In the case of articles sold to a 
     qualified volunteer fire department, as defined in section 
     150(e)(2),\279\ the State must so certify, and the article 
     must be sold for the exclusive use of the qualified volunteer 
     fire department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \279\In general, as defined in section 150(e)(2), a qualified 
     volunteer fire department is any organization organized and 
     operated to provide firefighting or emergency medical 
     services for persons in an area that is not provided with any 
     other firefighting services, and which is required by written 
     agreement with the political subdivision to furnish 
     firefighting services in such area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In order for a nonprofit educational organization to claim 
     exemption from tax on such articles, or for any person to 
     claim a credit or refund of tax on such articles based upon 
     the nonprofit educational status of an organization, the 
     State in which such organization is providing educational 
     services must certify that such organization is in good 
     standing.
       For purposes of this provision, an Indian tribal government 
     is treated as a State.\280\ Consequently, it is intended that 
     the applicable Indian tribal government will provide the 
     certifications under this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \280\See sec. 7871(a)(2). Section 7871(b) provides that in 
     order for an excise tax exemption (with respect to chapter 31 
     or 32) to apply to an Indian tribal government, the 
     transaction must involve the exercise of an essential 
     governmental function of the Indian tribal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       It is intended that the certifications required under this 
     provision will be provided by exempt purchasers to the refund 
     claimants (in addition to documentation required under 
     present law), and that the IRS may require that such 
     certifications be submitted as part of the claims. The 
     Secretary may prescribe forms for such certifications.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for all 
     sales after December 31, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     7. Reregistration in event of change in ownership (sec. 5615 
         of the Senate amendment and secs. 4101, 6719, 7232, and 
         7272 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Blenders, enterers, pipeline operators, position holders, 
     refiners, terminal operators, and vessel operators are 
     required to register with the Secretary with respect to fuels 
     taxes imposed by sections 4041(a)(1) and 4081.\281\ An 
     assessable penalty for failure to register is $10,000 for 
     each initial failure, plus $1,000 per day that the failure 
     continues.\282\ A non-assessable penalty for failure to 
     register is $10,000.\283\ A criminal penalty of $10,000, or 
     imprisonment of not more than five years, or both, together 
     with the costs of prosecution also applies to a failure to 
     register and to certain false statements made in connection 
     with a registration application.\284\ Treasury regulations 
     require that a registrant notify the Secretary of any change 
     (such as a change in ownership) in the information a 
     registrant submitted in connection with its application for 
     registration within 10 days of the change.\285\ The Secretary 
     has the discretion to revoke the registration of a 
     noncompliant registrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \281\Sec. 4101; Treas. Reg. secs. 48.4101-1(a) and 48.4101-
     1(c)(1).
     \282\Sec. 6719.
     \283\Sec. 7272(a).
     \284\Sec. 7232.
     \285\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4101-1(h)(1)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment requires that upon a change in 
     ownership of a registrant, the registrant must reregister 
     with the Secretary, as provided by the Secretary. A change in 
     ownership means that after a transaction (or series of 
     related transactions), more than 50 percent of the ownership 
     interests in, or assets of, a registrant are held by persons 
     other than persons (or persons related thereto) who held more 
     than 50 percent of such interests or assets before the 
     transaction (or series of related transactions). The 
     provision does not apply to companies, the stock of which is 
     regularly traded on an established securities market. There 
     is an assessable penalty for failure to reregister of $10,000 
     for each initial failure, plus $1,000 per day that the 
     failure continues, and a criminal penalty for failure to 
     reregister of $10,000, or imprisonment of not more than five 
     years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. The 
     Senate amendment applies to changes in ownership occurring 
     prior to, on, or after the date of enactment.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for 
     actions or failures to act after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment and 
     in addition makes the penalties for failure to reregister 
     identical to the present-law penalties for failure to 
     register by also providing for a non-assessable penalty for 
     failure to reregister of $10,000.
     8. Reconciliation of on-loaded cargo to entered cargo (sec. 
         5616 of the Senate amendment and sec. 343 of the Trade 
         Act of 2002)


                              Present Law

       The Trade Act of 2002 directed the Secretary to promulgate 
     regulations pertaining to the electronic transmission to the 
     Bureau of Customs and Border Patrol (``Customs'') of 
     information pertaining to cargo destined for importation into 
     the United States or exportation from the United States, 
     prior to such importation or exportation.\286\ The Department 
     of the Treasury issued final regulations on October 31, 2002. 
     The regulations require the advance and accurate presentation 
     of certain manifest information prior to lading at the 
     foreign port and encourage the presentation of this 
     information electronically. Customs must receive from the 
     carrier the vessel's Cargo Declaration (Customs Form 1302) or 
     the electronic equivalent within 24 hours before such cargo 
     is laden aboard the vessel at the foreign port.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \286\Sec. 343(a) of Pub. L. No. 107-210 (2002).
     \287\19 CFR sec. 4.7(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Certain carriers of bulk cargo, however, are exempt from 
     these filing requirements. Such bulk cargo includes that 
     composed of free flowing articles such as oil, grain, coal, 
     ore and the like, which can be pumped or run through a chute 
     or handled by dumping.\288\

[[Page 18871]]

     Thus, taxable fuels are not required to file the Cargo 
     Declaration within 24 hours before such cargo is laden aboard 
     the vessel at the foreign port. Instead the Cargo Declaration 
     must be filed within 24 hours prior arrival in the United 
     States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \288\19 CFR sec. 4.7(b)(4)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment provides that not later than one year 
     after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, together with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, is to establish an electronic data interchange 
     system through which Customs shall transmit to the Internal 
     Revenue Service information pertaining to cargoes of taxable 
     fuels (as defined in section 4083) that Customs has obtained 
     electronically under its regulations adopted to carry out the 
     Trade Act of 2002 requirement. For this purpose, not later 
     than one year after the date of enactment, all filers of 
     required cargo information for such taxable fuels, as 
     defined, must provide such information to Customs through its 
     approved electronic data interchange system.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective upon 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
     9. Registration of operators of deep-draft vessels (sec. 5617 
         of Senate amendment and secs. 4081 and 4101 of the Code)


                              Present Law

       Blenders, enterers, pipeline operators, position holders, 
     refiners, terminal operators, and vessel operators are 
     required to register with the Secretary with respect to fuels 
     taxes imposed by sections 4041(a)(1) and 4081.\289\ Treasury 
     regulations define a vessel operator as any person that 
     operates a vessel within the bulk transfer/terminal system, 
     excluding deep-draft ocean-going vessels.\290\ Accordingly, 
     operators of deep-draft ocean-going vessels are not required 
     to register. A deep-draft ocean-going vessel is a vessel that 
     is designed primarily for use on the high seas that has a 
     draft of more than 12 feet.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \289\Sec. 4101; Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4101-1(a) and 48.4101-
     1(c)(1).
     \290\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4101-1(b)(8).
     \291\Sec. 4042(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       An assessable penalty for failure to register is $10,000 
     for each initial failure, plus $1,000 per day that the 
     failure continues.\292\ A non-assessable penalty for failure 
     to register is $10,000.\293\ A criminal penalty of $10,000, 
     or imprisonment of not more than five years, or both, 
     together with the costs of prosecution also applies to a 
     failure to register and to certain false statements made in 
     connection with a registration application.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \292\Sec. 6719.
     \293\Sec. 7272(a).
     \294\Sec. 7232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In general, gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene (``taxable 
     fuel'') are taxed upon removal from a refinery or a 
     terminal.\295\ Tax also is imposed on the entry into the 
     United States of any taxable fuel for consumption, use, or 
     warehousing. The tax does not apply to any removal or entry 
     of a taxable fuel transferred in bulk (a ``bulk transfer'') 
     by pipeline or vessel to a terminal or refinery if the person 
     removing or entering the taxable fuel, the operator of such 
     pipeline or vessel, and the operator of such terminal or 
     refinery are registered with the Secretary as required by 
     section 4101.\296\ Transfer to an unregistered party subjects 
     the transfer to tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \295\Sec. 4081(a)(1)(A).
     \296\Sec. 4081(a)(1)(B). The sale of a taxable fuel to an 
     unregistered person prior to a taxable removal or entry of 
     the fuel is subject to tax. Sec. 4081(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment provides that the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall require the registration of every operator of 
     a deep-draft ocean going vessel. Under the provision, if a 
     deep-draft ocean-going vessel is used as part of a bulk 
     transfer of taxable fuel, the transfer is subject to tax 
     unless the operator of such vessel is registered.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective on the 
     date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment 
     except that an operator of a deep-draft ocean-going vessel is 
     not required to register under the provision if such operator 
     uses such vessel exclusively for purposes of the entry of the 
     taxable fuel. For purposes of the bulk transfer exemption, a 
     deep-draft ocean-going vessel operator is not required to be 
     registered for the exemption to be available with respect to 
     the entry of taxable fuel by such vessel.
     10. Gasoline blend stocks and kerosene (sec. 5618 of the 
         Senate amendment and sec. 4083 of the Code)


                              Present Law

     In general
       A ``taxable fuel'' is gasoline, diesel fuel (including any 
     liquid, other than gasoline, which is suitable for use as a 
     fuel in a diesel-powered highway vehicle or train), and 
     kerosene.\297\ An excise tax is imposed upon (1) the removal 
     of any taxable fuel from a refinery or terminal, (2) the 
     entry of any taxable fuel into the United States, or (3) the 
     sale of any taxable fuel to any person who is not registered 
     with the IRS to receive untaxed fuel, unless there was a 
     prior taxable removal or entry.\298\ The tax does not apply 
     to any removal or entry of taxable fuel transferred in bulk 
     to a terminal or refinery if the person removing or entering 
     the taxable fuel, the operator of such pipeline or vessel, 
     and the operator of such terminal or refinery are registered 
     with the Secretary.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \297\Sec. 4083(a).
     \298\Sec. 4081(a)(1).
     \299\Sec. 4081(a)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Gasoline blend stocks
       Definition
       Under the regulations, ``gasoline'' includes all products 
     commonly or commercially known or sold as gasoline and are 
     suitable for use as a motor fuel, and that have an octane 
     rating of 75 or more. Gasoline also includes, to the extent 
     provided in regulations, gasoline blend stocks and products 
     commonly used as additives in gasoline. By regulation, the 
     Treasury has identified certain products as gasoline blend 
     stocks,\300\ however, the term ``gasoline blend stocks'' does 
     not include any product that cannot be blended into gasoline 
     without further processing or fractionation (``off-spec 
     gasoline'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \300\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4081-1(c)(3)(ii). The term 
     ``gasoline blend stocks'' means alkylate; butane; 
     catalytically cracked gasoline; coker gasoline; ethyl 
     tertiary butyl ether (ETBE); hexane; hydrocrackate; 
     isomerate; methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE); mixed xylene 
     (not including any separated isomer of xylene); natural 
     gasoline; pentane; pentane mixture; polymer gasoline; 
     raffinate; reformate; straight-run gasoline; straight-run 
     naphtha; tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME); tertiary butyl 
     alcohol (gasoline grade) (TBA); thermally cracked gasoline; 
     and toluene. Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4081-1(c)(3)(i). Effective 
     January 1, 2005, transmix containing gasoline was removed 
     from the definition of gasoline blend stocks. Internal 
     Revenue Service, Notice 2005-4 (December 15, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Gasoline blend stock exemptions
       If certain conditions are met, the removal, entry, or sale 
     of gasoline blend stocks is not taxable. Generally, the 
     exemption from tax applies if a gasoline blend stock (1) is 
     not used to produce finished gasoline (2) is received at an 
     approved terminal or refinery (3) or in bulk transfer to an 
     industrial user.\301\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \301\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4081-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Gasoline blend stocks not used to produce finished 
     gasoline.--Pursuant to Treasury regulation, no tax is imposed 
     on nonbulk removals from a terminal or refinery, or nonbulk 
     entries into the United States of any gasoline blend stocks 
     if (1) the person liable for the tax is a taxable fuel 
     registrant, and (2) such person does not use the gasoline 
     blend stocks to produce finished gasoline. In connection with 
     a sale, no tax is imposed on the nonbulk removal or entry if 
     (1) the person liable for the tax is a gasoline registrant 
     and (2) at the time of sale such party has an unexpired 
     certificate from the buyer, and has no reason to believe any 
     information in the certificate is false.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \302\Treas. Reg. secs. 48.4081-4(b)(1) and 48.4081-
     4(b)(1)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Any sale (or resale) of a gasoline blend stock that was not 
     subject to tax on nonbulk removal or entry is taxable unless 
     the seller has an unexpired certificate from the buyer and 
     has no reason to believe that any information in the 
     certificate is false.
       The certificate to be provided by a buyer of gasoline blend 
     stocks contains a statement that the gasoline blend stocks 
     covered by the certificate will not be used to produce 
     finished gasoline, identifies the type (or types of blend 
     stocks) covered by the certificate and provides that the 
     buyer will not claim a credit or refund for any gasoline 
     covered by the certificate. The certificate is signed under 
     penalties of perjury by a person with authority to bind the 
     buyer. The certificate expires on the earliest of one year 
     from the effective date of the certificate, the date a new 
     certificate is provided to the seller or the date the seller 
     is notified by the IRS or the buyer that the buyer's right to 
     provide a certificate has been withdrawn.
       Gasoline blend stocks received at an approved terminal or 
     refinery.--Treasury regulations provide that tax is not 
     imposed on the removal or entry of gasoline blend stocks that 
     are received at a terminal or refinery if the person liable 
     for tax is a taxable fuel registrant, has an unexpired 
     notification certificate from the operator of the terminal or 
     refinery where the gasoline blend stocks are received; and 
     has no reason to believe that any information in the 
     certificate is false.\303\ A notification certificate is used 
     to notify another person of the taxable fuel registrant's 
     registration status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \303\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4081-4(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Bulk transfer to an industrial user.--Tax is not imposed if 
     upon removal of the gasoline blend stocks from a pipeline or 
     vessel, the gasoline blend stocks are received by a taxable 
     fuel registrant that is an industrial user.\304\ An 
     industrial user means any person that receives gasoline blend 
     stocks by bulk transfer for its own use in the manufacture of 
     any product other than finished gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \304\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4081-4(d).

[[Page 18872]]


       Refunds or credits for tax imposed on gasoline blend stocks 
           not used for producing gasoline
       If any gasoline blend stock or additive is not used by a 
     person to produce gasoline and that person establishes that 
     the ultimate use of the gasoline blend stock or additive is 
     not used to produce gasoline, then the Secretary is to pay 
     (without interest) to such person, an amount equal to the 
     aggregate amount of tax imposed on such person with respect 
     to such gasoline or blend stock.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \305\Sec. 6427(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If gasoline is used in an off-highway business use, the 
     ultimate purchaser of the gasoline is entitled to a credit or 
     refund for the excise taxes imposed on the fuel. ``Off-
     highway business use'' means any use by a person in a trade 
     or business of such person otherwise than as a fuel in a 
     highway vehicle that meets certain requirements.\306\ 
     Gasoline for this purpose includes gasoline blend 
     stocks.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \306\Secs. 6421(a) and 6421(e).
     \307\Sec. 6421(e)(1) and sec. 4083(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Code also provides for a refund of tax for tax-paid 
     fuel sold to a subsequent manufacturer or producer if the 
     subsequent manufacturer or producer uses the fuel, for 
     nonfuel purposes, as a material in the manufacture or 
     production of any other article manufactured or produced by 
     him.\308\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \308\Sec. 6416(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Kerosene
       Definition of kerosene
       By regulation, kerosene is defined as the kerosene 
     described in ASTM Specification D 3699 (No. 1-K and No. 2-K), 
     ASTM Specification D 1655 (kerosene-type jet fuel), and 
     military specifications MIL-DTL-5624T (Grade JP-5) and MIL-
     DTL-83133E (Grade JP-8). Kerosene does not include any liquid 
     that is an excluded liquid.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \309\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4081-1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       An ``excluded liquid'' is (1) any liquid that contains less 
     than four percent normal paraffins, or (2) any liquid that 
     has a distillation range of 125 degrees Fahrenheit or less, 
     sulfur content of 10 ppm or less, and minimum color of +27 
     Saybolt. These liquids are commonly known as ``mineral 
     spirits'' and are obtained by distillation of crude oil. 
     Mineral spirits are used for a wide variety of purposes, such 
     as in dry-cleaning fluids, paint thinners, varnishes, 
     photocopy toners, inks, adhesives, and as general purpose 
     cleaners and degreasers.
       Exemptions
       Diesel fuel and kerosene that is to be used for a 
     nontaxable purpose will not be taxed upon removal from the 
     terminal if it is dyed to indicate its nontaxable purpose. 
     Kerosene received by pipeline or vessel to satisfy a 
     feedstock purpose is exempt from the dyeing requirement.\310\ 
     Pursuant to Treasury regulations, nonbulk removals of 
     kerosene for a feedstock purpose by a registered feedstock 
     user also are exempt.\311\ The person receiving the kerosene 
     must be registered with the IRS and provide a certificate 
     noting that the kerosene will be used for a feedstock purpose 
     in order for the exemption to apply. Pursuant to the Treasury 
     regulations, tax also does not apply upon the removal or 
     entry of kerosene if the person otherwise liable for tax is a 
     taxable fuel registrant and such person uses the kerosene for 
     a feedstock purpose.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \310\Sec. 4082(d)(1).
     \311\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4082-7(c).
     \312\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4082-7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ``Feedstock purpose'' means the use of kerosene for nonfuel 
     purposes in the manufacture or production of any substance 
     (other than gasoline, diesel fuel or special fuels subject to 
     tax).\313\ Thus, for example, kerosene is used for a 
     feedstock purpose when it is used as an ingredient in the 
     production of paint and is not used for a feedstock purpose 
     when it is used to power machinery at a factory where paint 
     is produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \313\Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4082-7(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Refunds and payments for nontaxable uses of kerosene
       If tax-paid kerosene is used by any person in a nontaxable 
     use, the Secretary is required to pay (without interest) to 
     the ultimate purchaser of such fuel an amount equal to the 
     aggregate amount of tax imposed on such fuel. For this 
     purpose, a nontaxable use is any use which is exempt from the 
     tax imposed by section 4041(a)(1) other than by reason of 
     prior imposition of tax. Claims relating to kerosene used on 
     a farm for farming purposes and by a State are made by 
     registered ultimate vendors. Claims relating to undyed 
     kerosene sold from a blocked pump\314\ or sold for blending 
     with heating oil to be used during periods of extreme or 
     unseasonable cold are also made by registered ultimate 
     vendors. Special rules apply with respect to aviation-grade 
     kerosene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \314\A blocked pump is a fuel pump that is used to dispense 
     undyed kerosene that is sold at retail for use by the buyer 
     in any nontaxable use; is at a fixed location; is identified 
     with a legible and conspicuous notice stating ``Undyed 
     Untaxed Kerosene, Nontaxable Use Only''; and cannot 
     reasonably be used to dispense fuel directly into the fuel 
     supply tank of a diesel-powered highway vehicle or diesel-
     powered train; or is locked by the vendor after each sale and 
     unlocked only in response to a request by a buyer for undyed 
     kerosene for use other than as a fuel in a diesel-powered 
     highway vehicle or diesel-powered train.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Code also provides for a refund of tax for tax-paid 
     fuel sold to a subsequent manufacturer or producer if the 
     subsequent manufacturer or producer uses the fuel, for 
     nonfuel purposes, as a material in the manufacture or 
     production of any other article manufactured or produced by 
     him.\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \315\Sec. 6416(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

     Gasoline blend stocks
       The Senate amendment partially repeals exemptions provided 
     in Treas. Reg. sec. 48.4081-4, which, under certain 
     conditions, exempts from tax gasoline blend stocks that are 
     not used to produce finished gasoline or that are received at 
     an approved terminal or refinery. Under the Senate amendment, 
     tax is imposed on all nonbulk entries and removals of 
     gasoline blend stocks, regardless of whether they will be 
     used to produce finished gasoline or received at an approved 
     terminal or refinery. The Senate amendment does not change 
     the exemption for bulk transfers to registered industrial 
     users.
     Kerosene and mineral spirits
       The Senate amendment requires that with respect to fuel 
     entered or removed after September 30, 2005, the Secretary 
     shall include mineral spirits in the definition of kerosene. 
     Thus, for entries and removals after September 30, 2005, 
     mineral spirits are taxed and exempt from tax in the same 
     manner as kerosene.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for fuel 
     removed or entered after September 30, 2005.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement does not include the Senate 
     amendment provision.
     11. Nonapplication of export exemption to delivery of fuel to 
         motor vehicles removed from United States (sec. 5619 of 
         the Senate amendment)


                              Present Law

       A ``taxable fuel'' is gasoline, diesel fuel (including any 
     liquid, other than gasoline, which is suitable for use as a 
     fuel in a diesel-powered highway vehicle or train), and 
     kerosene.\316\ An excise tax is imposed upon (1) the removal 
     of any taxable fuel from a refinery or terminal, (2) the 
     entry of any taxable fuel into the United States, or (3) the 
     sale of any taxable fuel to any person who is not registered 
     with the IRS to receive untaxed fuel, unless there was a 
     prior taxable removal or entry.\317\ The tax does not apply 
     to any removal or entry of taxable fuel transferred in bulk 
     to a terminal or refinery if the person removing or entering 
     the taxable fuel, the operator of such pipeline or vessel, 
     and the operator of such terminal or refinery are registered 
     with the Secretary.\318\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \316\Sec. 4083(a).
     \317\Sec. 4081(a)(1).
     \318\Sec. 4081(a)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Special provisions under the Code provide for a refund of 
     tax to any person who sells gasoline to another for 
     exportation.\319\ Section 6421(c) provides ``If gasoline is 
     sold to any person for any purpose described in paragraph 
     (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 4221(a), the Secretary shall 
     pay (without interest) to such person an amount equal to the 
     product of the number of gallons so sold multiplied by the 
     rate at which tax was imposed on such gasoline by section 
     4081.'' Section 4221 provides, in pertinent part, ``Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, no tax shall be 
     imposed under this chapter . . . on the sale by the 
     manufacturer . . . of an article . . . for export, or for 
     resale by the purchaser to a second purchaser for export. . . 
     but only if such exportation or use is to occur before any 
     other use. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \319\Secs. 6421(c) and 4221(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       It is the IRS administrative position that the exemption 
     from manufacturers excise tax by reason of exportation does 
     not apply to the sale of motor fuel pumped into a fuel tank 
     of a vehicle that is to be driven, or shipped, directly out 
     of the United States.\320\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \320\Rev. Rul. 69-150, 1969-1 C.B. 286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A duty-free sales facility that meets certain conditions 
     may sell and deliver for export from the customs territory of 
     the United States duty-free merchandise. Duty-free 
     merchandise is merchandise sold by a duty-free sales facility 
     on which neither Federal duty nor Federal tax has been 
     assessed pending exportation from the customs territory of 
     the United States. The statutes covering duty-free facilities 
     do not contain any limitation on what goods may qualify for 
     duty-free treatment.
       The issue of whether fuel sold from a duty-free facility 
     and placed into the tank of an automobile that is then driven 
     out of the country is exported fuel has been litigated in the 
     courts.\321\ The cases involved the same

[[Page 18873]]

     operator of a duty-free facility seeking a refund of excise 
     tax. The facility is near the Canadian border and is 
     configured in such a way that anyone leaving the facility 
     must depart the United States and enter into Canada. Both the 
     Federal Circuit and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals are in 
     accord with the IRS position and ruled that the operator of 
     the duty-free facility did not have standing to pursue a 
     claim for refund.\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \321\See Ammex Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 303 (2002) 
     (on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found that 
     plaintiff established standing to proceed to trial pursuant 
     to sec. 6421(c) respecting its gasoline purchases only); and 
     Ammex Inc. v. United States, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25771 
     (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2002) (granting defendant's motion for 
     summary judgment), reconsideration denied, Ammex, Inc. v. 
     United States, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22893 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 
     22, 2002). Although the Claims Court ruled that Ammex had 
     standing to challenge the excise tax on gasoline, it 
     subsequently held that Ammex was not entitled to a payment 
     pursuant to sec. 6421(c) because it failed to prove at trial 
     that it did not pass the tax on to its customers. Ammex Inc. 
     v. United States, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 63 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 
     26, 2003). The Claims Court finding that the plaintiff had 
     standing was reversed on appeal.
     \322\See Ammex Inc. v. United States, 384 F.3d 1368 (Fed. 
     Cir. 2004) cert. denied 125 S.Ct. 1697 (2005); and Ammex Inc. 
     v. United States, 367 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2004) cert. denied 
     125 S.Ct. 1695 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment reaffirms the long-standing IRS 
     position taken in Rev. Rul. 69-150 and restates present law 
     by amending the Code definition of export to exclude the 
     delivery of a taxable fuel into a fuel tank of a motor 
     vehicle that is shipped or driven out of the United States. 
     It also imposes a tax on the sale of taxable fuel at a duty-
     free sales enterprise unless there was a prior taxable 
     removal, or entry of such fuel.
       Ammex was not entitled to a payment pursuant to sec. 
     6421(c) because it failed to prove at trial that it did not 
     pass the tax on to its customers. Ammex Inc. v. United 
     States, 2003 U.S. Claims LEXIS 63 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 26, 2003). 
     The Claims Court finding that the plaintiff had standing was 
     reversed on appeal.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment applies to sales or 
     deliveries made after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conferees believe that it is beyond dispute that the 
     delivery of fuel into a fuel tank of a motor vehicle that is 
     shipped or driven out of the United States is not an act of 
     exportation of such fuel. The fuel in the fuel tank is not 
     carried in the vehicle for the purpose of transporting the 
     fuel as a commodity from one place to another; the fuel is 
     there to power the vehicle. The conference agreement does not 
     include the Senate amendment because it is present law, 
     supported by the decisions of two Federal appellate courts.
     12. Impose assessable penalty on dealers of adulterated fuel 
         (sec. 5620 of the Senate amendment and new sec. 6720A of 
         the Code)


                              Present Law

       Diesel fuel, gasoline, and kerosene are taxable fuels. 
     Diesel fuel is defined as (1) any liquid (other than 
     gasoline) which is suitable for use as a fuel in a diesel-
     powered highway vehicle or a diesel powered train, (2) 
     transmix, and (3) diesel fuel blend stocks identified by the 
     Secretary.\323\ As a defense to Federal and State excise tax 
     liability, some taxpayers have contended that certain diesel 
     fuel mixtures or additives do not meet the requirements of 
     (1) above because they are not approved as additives or 
     mixtures by the EPA. In addition, under present law, untaxed 
     fuel additives, including certain contaminants, may displace 
     taxed diesel fuel in a mixture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \323\Sec. 4083(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Code provides that any person who, in connection with a 
     sale or lease (or offer for sale or lease) of an article, 
     knowingly makes any false statement ascribing a particular 
     part of the price of the article to a tax imposed by the 
     United States, or intended to lead any person to believe that 
     any part of the price consists of such a tax, is guilty of a 
     misdemeanor.\324\ Another Code provision provides that any 
     person who has in his custody or possession any article on 
     which taxes are imposed by law, for the purpose of selling 
     the article in fraud of the internal revenue laws or with 
     design to avoid payment of the taxes thereon, is liable for 
     ``a penalty of $500 or not less than double the amount of 
     taxes fraudulently attempted to be evaded.''\325\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \324\Sec. 7211. Such a violation is punishable by a fine not 
     to exceed $1,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one 
     year, or both.
     \325\Sec. 7268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment adds a new assessable penalty. Any 
     person other than a retailer who knowingly transfers for 
     resale, sells for resale, or holds out for resale for use in 
     a diesel-powered highway vehicle (or train) any liquid that 
     does not meet applicable EPA regulations (as defined in 
     section 45H(c)(3))\326\ is subject to a penalty of $10,000 
     for each such transfer, sale or holding out for resale, in 
     addition to the tax on such liquid, if any. Any retailer who 
     knowingly holds out for sale (other than for resale) any such 
     liquid, is subject to a $10,000 penalty for each such holding 
     out for sale, in addition to the tax on such liquid, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \326\Section 45H(c)(3) refers to ``the Highway Diesel Fuel 
     Sulfur Control Requirements of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The penalty is dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund.
       Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for any 
     transfer, sale, or holding out for sale or resale occurring 
     after the date of enactment.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.

                IV. FUELS-RELATED TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

A. Fuels-Related Technical Corrections to American Jobs Creation Act of 
                            2004 (``AJCA'')

       The provision includes technical corrections to AJCA. Such 
     technical corrections take effect as if included in the 
     section of AJCA to which the correction relates.
     1. Volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (sec. 10003(a) of the 
         House bill, sec. 5401(a) of the Senate amendment, sec. 
         301 of AJCA, and sec. 6427 of the Code)


                               House Bill

       AJCA repealed the reduced tax rates for alcohol fuels and 
     taxable fuels to be blended with alcohol. The technical 
     correction makes a conforming amendment to eliminate the 
     refund provisions based on those reduced rates (secs. 6427(f) 
     and 6427(o)).


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the House bill and the 
     Senate amendment.
     2. Aviation fuel (sec. 10003(b) of the House bill, sec. 
         5401(b) of the Senate amendment, sec. 853 of AJCA, and 
         sec. 4081 of the Code)


                               House Bill

       Section 853 of AJCA moved the taxation of jet fuel 
     (aviation-grade kerosene) from section 4091 to section 4081 
     of the Code and repealed section 4091. The termination date 
     for the 21.8 cent per gallon rate for noncommercial aviation 
     jet fuel was inadvertently omitted from the Act. The 
     technical correction clarifies that after September 30, 2007, 
     the rate for jet fuel used in noncommercial aviation will be 
     4.3 cents per gallon (sec. 4081(a)(2)(C)).
       An additional technical correction clarifies that users of 
     aviation fuel in commercial aviation are required to be 
     registered with the IRS in order for the 4.3-cents-per-gallon 
     rate to apply (including for purposes of the self-assessment 
     of tax by commercial aircraft operators).


                            Senate Amendment

       The Senate amendment generally follows the House bill with 
     certain technical drafting changes to accommodate changes 
     made by other provisions of the Senate amendment. The Senate 
     amendment also corrects cross-references in section 
     6421(f)(2) to the definition of noncommercial aviation to 
     reflect changes made by the AJCA change in the tax treatment 
     of fuel used in aviation.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.

B. Fuels-Related Technical Corrections to Transportation Equity Act for 
                     the 21st Century (``TEA 21'')

       The provision includes a technical correction to TEA 21. 
     The amendment made by the technical correction takes effect 
     as if included in the section of TEA 21 to which it relates.
     1. Coastal Wetlands sub-account (sec. 5401(c) of the Senate 
         amendment, sec. 9005 of TEA 21, and sec. 9504 of the 
         Code)


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       Section 9005(b)(3) of TEA 21 redesignated Code section 
     9504(b)(2)(B), referring to the purposes of the Coastal 
     Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, as 
     9504(b)(2)(C), but did not cross reference the limitation for 
     such purposes of taxes on gasoline used in the nonbusiness 
     use of small-engine outdoor power equipment. The technical 
     correction makes a conforming cross- reference amendment 
     (sec. 9504(b)(2)).


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.

         C. Correction to the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005

       The provision includes a technical correction to the Energy 
     Tax Incentives Act (''ETIA'') of 2005. The amendment made by 
     the technical correction takes effect as if included in the 
     section of the ETIA to which it relates.
     1. Erroneous reference to highway reauthorization bill (sec. 
         38 of the Code)


                               House Bill

       No provision.


                            Senate Amendment

       No provision.


                          Conference Agreement

       The conference agreement corrects an erroneous reference to 
     the highway reauthorization bill in section 38 as added by 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

                       V. TAX COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS

       Section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of

[[Page 18874]]

     1998 (the ``IRS Reform Act'') requires the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation (in consultation with the Internal Revenue Service 
     and the Department of the Treasury) to provide a tax 
     complexity analysis. The complexity analysis is required for 
     all legislation reported by the Senate Committee on Finance, 
     the House Committee on Ways and Means, or any committee of 
     conference if the legislation includes a provision that 
     directly or indirectly amends the Internal Revenue Code (the 
     ``Code'') and has widespread applicability to individuals or 
     small businesses.
       The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has determined 
     that a complexity analysis is not required under section 
     4022(b) of the IRS Reform Act because the bill contains no 
     provisions that have ``widespread applicability'' to 
     individuals or small businesses.

     From the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
     consideration of the House bill (except title X) and the 
     Senate amendment (except title V), and modifications 
     committed to conference:
     Don Young,
     Thomas E. Petri,
     Sherwood Boehlert,
     Howard Coble,
     John J. Duncan, Jr.,
     John L. Mica,
     Pete Hoekstra,
     Steven C. LaTourette,
     Spencer Bachus,
     Richard H. Baker,
     Gary G. Miller,
     Robin Hayes,
     Rob Simmons,
     Henry E. Brown, Jr.,
     Sam Graves,
     Bill Shuster,
     John Boozman,
     James L. Oberstar,
     Nick Rahall,
     Peter A. DeFazio,
     Jerry F. Costello,
     Eleanor Holmes Norton,
     Jerrold Nadler,
     Robert Menendez,
     Corrine Brown,
     Bob Filner,
     Eddie Bernice Johnson,
     Gene Taylor,
     Juanita Millender-McDonald,
     Elijah E. Cummings,
     Earl Blumenauer,
     Ellen O. Tauscher,
     From the Committee on the Budget, for consideration of secs. 
     8001-8003 of the House bill, and title III of the Senate 
     amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
     Jim Nussle,
     Mario Diaz-Balart,
     John Spratt,
     From the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for 
     consideration of secs. 1118, 1605, 1809, 3018, and 3030 of 
     the House bill, and secs. 1304, 1819, 6013, 6031, 6038, and 
     7603 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
     conference:
     Ric Keller,
     John Barrow,
     From the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for consideration 
     of provisions in the House bill and Senate amendment relating 
     to Clean Air Act provisions of transportation planning 
     contained in secs. 6001 and 6006 of the House bill, and secs. 
     6005 and 6006 of the Senate amendment; and secs. 1210, 1824, 
     1833, 5203, and 6008 of the House bill, and secs. 1501, 1511, 
     1522, 1610-1619, 1622, 4001, 4002, 6016, 6023, 7218, 7223, 
     7251, 7252, 7256-7262, 7324, 7381, 7382, and 7384 of the 
     Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
     Joe Barton,
     Chip Pickering,
     John D. Dingell,
     From the Committee on Government Reform, for consideration of 
     sec. 4205 of the House bill, and sec. 2101 of the Senate 
     amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
     Tom Davis,
     Todd R. Platts,
     From the Committee on Homeland Security, for consideration of 
     secs. 1834, 6027, 7324, and 7325 of the Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     Chris Cox,
     Daniel E. Lungren,
     Bennie G. Thompson,
     From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of 
     secs. 1211, 1605, 1812, 1832, 2013, 2017, 4105, 4201, 4202, 
     4214, 7018-7020, and 7023 of the House bill, and secs. 1410, 
     1512, 1513, 6006, 6029, 7108, 7113, 7115, 7338, 7340, 7343, 
     7345, 7362, 7363, 7406, 7407, and 7413 of the Senate 
     amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
     Lamar Smith,
     John Conyers,
     From the Committee on Resources, for consideration of secs. 
     1119, 3021, 6002, and 6003 of the House bill, and secs. 1501, 
     1502, 1505, 1511, 1514, 1601, 1603, 6040, and 7501-7518 of 
     the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 
     conference:
     Greg Walden,
     Ron Kind,
     From the Committee on Rules, for consideration of secs. 8004 
     and 8005 of the House bill, and modifications committed to 
     conference:
     David Dreier,
     Shelley Moore Capito,
     Jim McGovern,
     From the Committee on Science, for consideration of secs. 
     2010, 3013, 3015, 3034, 3039, 3041, 4112, and title V of the 
     House bill, and title II and secs. 6014, 6015, 6036, 7118, 
     7212, 7214, 7361, and 7370 of the Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     Vernon J. Ehlers,
     David Reichert,
     Bart Gordon,
     From the Committee on Ways and Means, for consideration of 
     title X of the House bill, and title V of the Senate 
     amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
     William M. Thomas,
     Jim McCrery,
     For consideration of the House bill and Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     Tom DeLay,
                                Managers on the Part of the House.

     James M. Inhofe,
     John Warner,
     Kit Bond,
     George V. Voinovich,
     Lincoln Chafee,
     Lisa Murkowski,
     John Thune,
     Jim DeMint,
     Johnny Isakson,
     David Vitter,
     Chuck Grassley,
     Orrin Hatch,
     Richard Shelby,
     Wayne Allard,
     Ted Stevens,
     Trent Lott,
     Jim Jeffords,
     Max Baucus,
     Joe Lieberman,
     Barbara Boxer,
     Tom Carper,
     Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Barack Obama,
     Kent Conrad,
     Daniel K. Inouye,
     Jay Rockefeller,
     Paul Sarbanes,
     Jack Reed,
     Tim Johnson,
                               Managers on the Part of the Senate.

     

                          ____________________


                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  Accordingly (at 7 p.m.), the House stood in recess subject to the 
call of the Chair.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  2245
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bass) at 10 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.

                          ____________________




               COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

                                              Office of the Clerk,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 2005.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in 
     Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the Clerk received the following message 
     from the Secretary of the Senate on July 28, 2005 at 8:45 pm: 
     That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 3045.
       With best wishes, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeff Trandahl,
     Clerk of the House.

                          ____________________




         SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005, PART VI

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on 
Science, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on 
Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill ( H.R. 
3512) to provide an extension of administrative expenses for highway, 
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs 
funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law 
reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?

[[Page 18875]]


  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, is this the legislation extending time for 
the transportation bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, it is.
  Mr. SHAYS. Then, Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, I yield 
to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple extension 
which is necessary once we pass H.R. 3 to give time for an enrollment 
and delivering the package to the Senate, which we hope to do tonight, 
and then after being enrolled on to the President, and that will take 
some time.
  If we do not do this, the Federal Government and the transportation 
system will be shut down. This has been requested by the administration 
and by the other body.
  Mr. SHAYS. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
would love to have a dialogue with the gentleman bringing out the bill, 
but first will express my reservation of objection.
  In the full bill that we will be considering, there is a section 1942 
entitled Opening of Airfield at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. It 
reads: ``Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall, (1) open the Air Field At 
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; and (2) enable flying operations for 
all fixed-wing aircraft at that base.''
  My objection is that I understand this resolution extension will only 
go until August 14. That means that the President is forced to sign the 
bill, the ultimate bill that we pass, even if he has objections to the 
bill. I have deep concern that we are basically forcing the President 
to agree to an act that will reopen a base closed under BRAC without 
any options.
  And if the President does the right thing, which would be to veto 
this bill so that stuff like this is not made into law, then our 
government transportation shuts down. My reservation is that the 
extension is not long enough.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that 
this was asked for by the administration. This was the length that they 
wanted to have it, 14 days. To in fact have this extension any longer 
has not been requested by the administration, and I believe this can do 
the job. The President has to make the decision. If he wishes to veto 
the bill, he can do so.
  But this has been a request by the administration. This is the 
eleventh extension we have had on this legislation, and I will be right 
up front with everybody that I think it is the last one we should be 
doing. This is very important to the States themselves.
  The President will make that decision on the merits of the 
gentleman's argument, and I understand those merits. I will not 
disagree with what he said. I am just suggesting respectfully that this 
is action for the bill itself and for the rule. But for the extension, 
this has been a request made by the administration, by the other body, 
and of course the leadership of this House.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the 
gentleman, and will yield to him for a response to this question: Does 
the President know that in this transportation bill there is 
legislation language that will undo a BRAC closing? Is he aware that 
this language is in this?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am 
confident that the President of the Senate has communicated with the 
White House. All through this process they have been very much involved 
in the process of passage of this legislation. I have not asked his 
opinion on that part of the legislation. I know that this is a request, 
and I am trying to fulfill that request.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this item which the gentleman has raised 
was an item requested by Senate conferees on which Senate conferees 
voted and asked us to consider. We were not aware at the time that it 
was a BRAC item. We learned about it subsequently.
  Our review of the matter reveals that one runway at the Air Force 
base was closed; the other runway is active and still operating as a 
military facility. This language would simply keep the other one runway 
operating for a variety of purposes, multiuse purposes, at the airport.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to 
confide with my colleague that I am told that this is language that 
will basically reopen a base that was closed under BRAC, and that while 
the gentleman is under the interpretation he is under, there are many 
of us who believe it is quite different. While I greatly respect the 
gentleman, it seems to me this House of Representatives has to someday 
stand up to the Senate when they do this kind of stuff, sir.
  What we are seeing here is absolutely outrageous, and what would have 
been a preferred extension, in my judgment, with all due respect to my 
colleagues, would be to have allowed the President such time that he 
could have had an extension until he signed this legislation. And if he 
did not sign this legislation, we could have come back and corrected 
this.
  I am hopeful that before the night is out that we are going to delete 
section 1942. I do not know how it is going to happen, but, Lord knows, 
if it does not, we have basically done something that I think is 
shameful to the process and reflects badly not just on the Senate, but 
on the House that we would allow them.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
concur in the gentleman's feelings about this matter. It should not 
have been an item in a conference report on a transportation bill of 
this magnitude, but as we all know, these things make their way in. We 
did not have full information.
  Our information subsequently is that the base was not closed, but 
that one runway was shut down, and this language was to open that one 
runway. There will be a further opportunity in a technical correction 
to address the concerns of the gentleman from Connecticut, and I am 
confident that the chairman will further consult on the matter.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the concept of a BRAC, the Base Realignment 
Commission, is to remove the political process from the closure of 
bases in order to get us to the type of military that we need to meet 
today's demands to fight terrorism around the globe. And if we insert 
our will from another body, the Senate, into this bill, it will 
jeopardize that process. I do not think any of us want that here on the 
floor.
  If we cannot relieve that dissension among our ranks on this bill, it 
will not pass on the floor tonight. We all would like to see this 
happen, because as the gentleman from Alaska has expressed, we need 
this bill. We need this to occur within each of our States. We need to 
build highways. We need the infrastructure for our economy. But if this 
provision is inserted, it will go beyond the concept of BRAC and take 
the political process out of getting the proper size and scope of our 
military.
  So I hope that whatever provision we have within this rule will 
alleviate these provisions, because if they are not, the bill will not 
pass. I think there will be enough dissent on both sides of this great 
institution, on the floor, in the House, the Republicans and the 
Democrats, to keep this from passing.
  So I hope we can correct this measure within the rule, because if 
not, I think we will have a failed bill. And that will not be good for 
this country or for the efforts that we have here tonight.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I would like to try to put this in perspective. I agree 
with the

[[Page 18876]]

gentleman it is egregious this is in the bill. We had a very difficult 
negotiation with the Senate. This was snuck in. It is not like we are 
reopening a base, repositioning forces and/or equipment. We are talking 
about a runway.
  The question is, will they, in the next month, until we can have a 
technical correction bill, have to run out and pull the weeds and 
repaint the lines on the runway? This is not exactly a major part of 
the BRAC process.
  To forestall the passage of a bill which is almost 2 years overdue, 
which invests $286.4 billion in America's infrastructure, because there 
might be some weeds pulled on a runway in the interim, I agree it is 
offensive, but we can fix it and challenge the Senate at a later date. 
But to hold up the entire bill and forestall the investment, there are 
States who are waiting today and who will spend money under this bill 
and commit money under this bill this construction season, putting 
thousands of people to work and making needed investments in America.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is making a 
case well beyond this issue.
  I would like to ask the gentleman a question, and would be happy to 
yield to him to respond. It was my understanding that this provision of 
60 days had been shorter, and somehow people felt that by extending to 
60 days, they had solved the objection to this bill. Is it true that 
when this bill came out of conference, it was less than 60 days?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I am not sure what provision the gentleman is talking 
about.
  Mr. SHAYS. Does the gentleman know the provision I am talking about? 
It says, ``Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall open the air field at 
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana.'' Open it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Right. It would reopen a runway.
  Mr. SHAYS. ``And enable flying operations for all fixed-wing aircraft 
at that base.'' It is opening a base. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to 
make a closing comment, and if I am not allowed to, I would object. And 
my closing comment is this. This is to open a base that was closed. 
This 60 days was added as a sop to the House, in my judgment, with all 
due respect, to somehow allow everybody to save face. We are not in 
session for all 60 days.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent 
request at this time to consult with the Senate and see if we cannot 
resolve this problem.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unanimous consent is not required. The 
request is withdrawn.

                          ____________________




                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  0015
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bass) at 12 o'clock and 15 minutes a.m.

                          ____________________




CORRECTING ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 3, SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT 
             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 226) providing for a correction to the enrollment of H.R. 3, 
and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 226

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring),  That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3, the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 
     following correction: Strike section 1942 and the item 
     relating to such section in the table of contents.

  The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. DeLAY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of communicating to the Members 
the situation we are in, I want to first say that I greatly appreciate 
the cooperation of all colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I 
appreciate the cooperation and work of the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). We greatly appreciate the 
institution standing together and trying to make corrections that need 
to be made in this bill. I appreciate the hour and everybody coming 
together and working together for the purpose of fixing this bill.
  We will not be able to fix the bill tonight. We hope to come back at 
9 a.m. in the morning and continue work on this very important highway 
bill. We hope to finish it as early as we can tomorrow. My message to 
the Members is go home, get a good night's sleep, and we will be back 
in the morning to finish the work of the House.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the 
kind words of the majority leader and to assure Members the issue 
before us is not a matter of division within the committee or between 
the parties of the House, but a difference or interpretation of a 
provision in the conference report in language that was included by a 
Member of the other body.
  Our expectation is we will be able to resolve that matter of a 
limited scope and pass the broader bill which is of great importance to 
the whole Nation. I appreciate the support, cooperation, and 
participation of the majority leader, and the support of the 
Parliamentarian's Office in helping us bring this to a resolution.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's words.

                          ____________________




               COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
                                              Office of the Clerk,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 2005.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in 
     Clause 2(h) of rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the Clerk received the following message 
     from the Secretary of the Senate on July 28, 2005 at 11:41 
     p.m.:
       That the Senate passed S. 792; that the Senate passed 
     without amendment H. Con. Res. 225; that the Senate passed 
     without amendment H.J. Res. 59.
       With best wishes, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeff Trandahl,
     Clerk of the House.

                          ____________________




                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 19 minutes a.m.), the House stood in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  0107
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Sessions) at 1 o'clock and 7 minutes a.m.

[[Page 18877]]



                          ____________________




REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT 
ON H.R. 3, SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY 
                        ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

  Mrs. CAPITO, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 109-212) on the resolution (H. Res. 399) waiving 
points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill 
(H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, which was 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________




 REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII 
          WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mrs. CAPITO, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 109-213) on the resolution (H. Res. 400) waiving a 
requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration 
of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, which was 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________




REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3514, SURFACE 
             TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005, PART VI

  Mrs. CAPITO, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 109-214) on the resolution (H. Res. 401) providing 
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3514) to provide an extension of 
highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other 
programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a 
law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________




                            LEAVE OF ABSENCE

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
  Ms. Carson (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today after 4:00 p.m. 
and the balance of the week.
  Ms. Schakowsky (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today and the 
balance of the week.
  Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today 
before 4:00 p.m. on account of a death in the family.

                          ____________________




                         SENATE BILLS REFERRED

  Bills of the Senate of the following titles were taken from the 
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

       S. 302. An act to make improvements in the Foundation for 
     the National Institutes of Health; to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
       S. 447. An act to authorize the conveyance of certain 
     Federal land in the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on 
     Resources.
       S. 655. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to the National Foundation for the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention; to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
       S. 792. An act to establish a National sex offender 
     registration database, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       S. 1517. An act to permit Women's Business Centers to re-
     compete for sustainability grants; to the Committee on Small 
     Business.
       S.J. Res. 19. Joint resolution calling upon the President 
     to issue a proclamation recognizing the 30th anniversary of 
     the Helsinki Final Act; to the Committee on International 
     Relations.

                          ____________________




                         ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

  Mr. Trandahl, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled 
bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed 
by the Speaker:

       H.R. 3045. An act to implement the Dominican Republic-
     Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement.
       H.R. 3423. To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act with repsect to medical advice user fees.

                          ____________________




                      SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

  The SPEAKER announced his signature to enrolled bills of the Senate 
of the following title:

       S. 45. An act to amend the Controlled Substances Act to 
     lift the patient limitation on prescribing drug addiction 
     treatments by medical practitioners in group practices, and 
     for other purposes.
       S. 571. An act to designate the facility of the United 
     States Postal Service located at 1915 Fulton Street in 
     Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Congresswoman Shirley A. 
     Chisholm Post Office Building''.
       S. 775. An act to designate the facility of the United 
     States Postal Service located at 123 W. 7th Street in 
     Holdenville, Oklahoma, as the ``Boone Pickens Post Office''.
       S. 904. An act to designate the facility of the United 
     States Postal Service located at 1560 Union Valley Road in 
     West Milford, New Jersey, as the ``Brian P. Parrello Post 
     Office Building''.
       S. 1395. An act to amend the Controlled Substances Import 
     and Export Act to provide authority for the Attorney General 
     to authorize the export of controlled substances from the 
     United States to another country for subsequent export from 
     the country to a a second country, if certain conditions and 
     safeguards are satisfied.

                          ____________________




                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 9 minutes 
a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, July 29, 2005, at 9 
a.m.

                          ____________________




                     EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from 
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

       3362. A letter from the Acting Administrator, AMS, 
     Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule -- Pistachios Grown in California; Establishment 
     of Reporting Requirements [Docket No. FV05-983-1 FR] received 
     July 25, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Agriculture.
       3363. A letter from the Acting Administrator, AMS, 
     Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule -- Increase in Fees and Charges for Egg, Poultry, 
     and Rabbit Growing [Docket No. PY-05-001] (RIN: 0581-AC44) 
     received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Agriculture.
       3364. A letter from the Acting Administrator, AMS, 
     Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule -- Pistachios Grown in California; Establishment 
     of Procedures for Exempting Handlers from Minimum Quality 
     Testing [Docket No. FV05-983-4 IFR] received July 22, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Agriculture.
       3365. A letter from the Director, Office of Energy Policy 
     and New Uses, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Guidelines for Designating 
     Biobased Products for Federal Procurement (RIN: 0503-AA26) 
     received January 19, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     to the Committee on Agriculture.
       3366. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and 
     Mgmt. Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human Services, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Food Additives 
     Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption; 
     Glycerol Ester of Gum Rosin [Docket No. 2003F-0471] received 
     April 18, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Agriculture.
       3367. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Two Isopropylamine Salts of Alkyl 
     C4 and Alkyl C8-10 Ethoxyphosphate Esters; Exemption from the 
     Requirement of a Tolerance; Technical Correction [OPP-2005-
     0115; FRL-7725-1] received July 13, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
       3368. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Sulfuryl Fluoride; Pesticide 
     Tolerance [OPP-2005-0174; FRL-7723-7] received July 13, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Agriculture.
       3369. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Spirodiclofen; Pesticide Tolerance 
     [OPP-2005-0075; FRL-7714-3] received July 11, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
       3370. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Potassium Triiodide; Pesticide 
     Chemical Not Requiring a Tolerance or an Exemption from 
     Tolerance [OPP-2004-0322; FRL-7714-4] received July 11, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Agriculture.

[[Page 18878]]


       3371. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Fenpropathrin; Re-Establishment of 
     Tolerance for Emergency [OPP-2005-0192; FRL-7723-2] received 
     July 21, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Agriculture.
       3372. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Dimethyl Ether; Exemption from the 
     Requirement of a Tolerance; Technical Correction [OPP-2005-
     0109; FRL-7721-1] received July 21, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
       3373. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Alpha-cyclodextrin, Beta-
     cyclodextrin, and Gamma-cyclodextrin; Exemption from the 
     Requirement of a Tolerance [OPP-2002-0294; FRL-7720-9] 
     received July 21, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Agriculture.
       3374. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerance 
     [OPP-2005-0170; FRL-7723-3] received July 19, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
       3375. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Spiromesifen; Pesticide Tolerance; 
     Technical Correction [OPP-2005-0046; FRL-7727-7] received 
     July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Agriculture.
       3376. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Pymetrozone; Pesticide Tolerance 
     [OPP-2005-0106; FRL-7724-5] received July 22, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
       3377. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Propiconazole; Pesticide 
     Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions [OPP-2005-0196; FRL-7727-
     1] received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     to the Committee on Agriculture.
       3378. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Pinoxaden; Pesticide Tolerance 
     [OPP-2005-0184; FRL-7725-5] received July 22, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
       3379. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Lignosulfonates; Exemptions from 
     the Requirement of a Tolerance [OPP-2005-0171; FRL-7720-3] 
     received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Agriculture.
       3380. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- 2, 4-D; Pesticide Tolerance [OPP-
     2005-0038; FRL-7726-8] received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
       3381. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement and 
     Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation Supplement; Contractor Performance of Acquisition 
     Functions Closely Associated with Inherently Governmental 
     Functions [DFARS Case 2004-D021] received March 30, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
       3382. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, MA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Merchant Marine Training [Docket No. MARAD-2004-17760] (RIN: 
     2133-AB60) received May 13, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
       3383. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, MA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Amended Service Obligation Reporting Requirements for State 
     Maritime Academy Graduates [Docket Number: MARAD-2004-19397] 
     (RIN: 2133-AB61) received May 13, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
       3384. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the 
     Board's final rule -- Fair Credit Reporting Medical 
     Information Regulations (RIN: 1550-AB88) received June 7, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Financial Services.
       3385. A letter from the Director, Financial Crimes 
     Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury, transmitting 
     the Department's final rule -- Financial Crimes Enforcement 
     Network; Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Dealers in 
     Precious Metals, Stones, or Jewels (RIN: 1506-AA58) received 
     June 3, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Financial Services.
       3386. A letter from the Regulatory Specialist, LRAD, 
     Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule -- Interagency Guidance on Response Programs for 
     Unauthorized Access to Customer Information and Customer 
     Notice [Docket No. 05-07] (RIN: 1557-AC92) received April 1, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Financial Services.
       3387. A letter from the Regulatory Specialist, LRAD, 
     Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule -- Fair Credit Reporting Medical Information 
     Regulations [Docket No. 05-10] (RIN: 1557-AC85) received June 
     16, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Financial Services.
       3388. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations -- received 
     June 30, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Financial Services.
       3389. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Suspension of Community Eligibility [Docket No. FEMA-
     7879] received June 30, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
       3390. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket No. 
     FEMA-D-7569] received June 30, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
       3391. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received June 
     30, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Financial Services.
       3392. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received June 
     3, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Financial Services.
       3393. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received June 
     3, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Financial Services.
       3394. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket No. 
     FEMA-D-7571] received June 3, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
       3395. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for 
     Regulations, Government National Mortgage Association, 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Removal of Regulation Specifying 
     Minimum Face Value of Ginnie Mae Securities [Docket No. FR-
     4856-F-02] (RIN: 2503-AA17) received June 17, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial 
     Services.
       3396. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Bureau of the Public 
     Debt, Department of Treasury, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule -- Government Securities Act Regulations: 
     Custodial Holdings of Government Securities [Docket No. BPD 
     GSRS 05-01] (RIN: 1505-AB06) received May 18, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial 
     Services.
       3397. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative 
     Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting 
     the Corporation's final rule -- Fair Credit Reporting Medical 
     Information Regulations (RIN: 3064-AC81) received June 23, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Financial Services.
       3398. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative 
     Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting 
     the Corporation's final rule -- Securities of November 
     Insured Banks (RIN: 3064-AC88) received April 14, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Financial Services.
       3399. A letter from the General Counsel, Office of Federal 
     Housing Enterprise Oversight, transmitting the Office's final 
     rule -- Corporate Governance (RIN: 2550-AA24) received April 
     15, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Financial Services.
       3400. A letter from the General Counsel, Office of Federal 
     Housing Enterprise Oversight, transmitting the Office's final 
     rule -- Corporate Governance; Final Amendments (RIN: 2550-
     AA24) received April 5, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
       3401. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, DCF, 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the 
     Commission's final rule -- Use of Form S-8, Form 8-K, and 
     Form 20-F by Shell Companies [Release Nos. 33-8587; 34-52038; 
     International Series Release No. 1293; File No. S7-19-04] 
     (RIN 3235-AH88) received July 18, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
       3402. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, DCF, 
     Securities and Exchange Commission,

[[Page 18879]]

     transmitting the Commission's final rule -- First-Time 
     Application of International Financial Reporting Standards 
     [Release Nos. 33-8567; 34-51535; International Series Release 
     No. 1285; File No. S7-15-04] (RIN: 3235-AI92) received April 
     14, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Financial Services.
       3403. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, DMR, 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the 
     Commission's final rule -- Amendments to the Penny Stock Rule 
     [Release No. 34-51983; File No. S7-02-04] (RIN: 3235-AI02) 
     received July 11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Financial Services.
       3404. A letter from the General Counsel, Corporation for 
     National and Community Service, transmitting the 
     Corporation's final rule -- AmeriCorps National Service 
     Program (RIN: 3045-AA41) received July 14, 2005, pursuant to 
     5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce.
       3405. A letter from the Director, Executive Secretariat, 
     BIA, Department of the Interior, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Implementation of the No Child 
     Left Behind Act of 2001 (RIN: 1076-AE49) received April 21, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce.
       3406. A letter from the Director, CND, Department of 
     Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Food 
     and Nutrition Service For-Profit Center Participation in the 
     Child and Adult Care Food Program (RIN: 0584-AD66) received 
     July 25, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       3407. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Special 
     Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of 
     Education, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 
     (RIN: 1820-ZA36) received May 13, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce.
       3408. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, OGC, 
     Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Supplemental Financial Disclosure 
     Requirements for Employees of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services (RIN: 3209-AA15) received July 7, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
       3409. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator, 
     Office of Diversion Control, DEA, Department of Justice, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Definition and 
     Registration of Reverse Distributers [Docket No. DEA-108F] 
     (RIN: 1117-AA19) received July 14, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3410. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- National Emission Standards for 
     Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Copper Smelting [OAR-
     2003-0185; FRL-7938-5] (RIN: 2060-AE46) received July 13, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce.
       3411. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air 
     Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware; Ambient Air Quailty 
     Standard for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter [R03-OAR-2005-
     DE-0001; FRL-7939-1] received July 13, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3412. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Control of Emissions of Air 
     Pollution From Diesel Fuel [AMS-FRL-7937-3] (RIN: 2060-AN19) 
     received July 11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3413. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State 
     Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants, 
     Commonwealth of Virginia; Control of Municipal Waste 
     Combustor Emissions from Small Existing Municipal Solid Waste 
     Combustor Units [R03-OAR-2005-VA-0009; FRL-7937-5] received 
     July 11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3414. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of 
     Implementation Plans; State of Missouri [R07-OAR-2005-MO-0003 
     FRL-7936-7] received July 11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3415. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgaiton of Air 
     Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Control 
     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions; Correction [R06-OAR-
     2005-TX-0008; FRL-7936-8] received July 11, 2005, pursuant to 
     5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
       3416. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Air Quality Designation of the 
     Fine Particles (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
     -- Supplemental Notice [OAR-2003-0061; FRL-7896-8] (RIN: 
     2060-AM04) received April 6, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3417. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of 
     Implementation Plans; Texas; Transportation Conformity [R06-
     OAR-2005-TX-0024; FRL-7928-6] received July 21, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
       3418. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Aproval and Promulgation of Air 
     Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Approval of 
     Clarification of Requirements for Fuel-burning Equipment 
     [RME-OAR-2005-MD-0006; FRL-7933-6] received July 21, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
       3419. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Idaho: Final Authorization of 
     State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [FRL-7942-
     9] received July 19, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3420. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air 
     Quality Implementation Plan; Idaho; Correction [Docket # ID-
     03-003; FRL-7941-7] received July 19, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3421. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air 
     Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Albuquerque/
     Bernalillo County [R06-OAR-2005-NM-0001; FRL-7942-5] received 
     July 19, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3422. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Tribal Drinking Water Operator 
     Certification Program Guidelines -- received July 19, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
       3423. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- A Regulator's Guide to the 
     Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking Water 
     Treatment Technologies -- received July 19, 2005, pursuant to 
     5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
       3424. A letter from the Principal Deputy Associate 
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting 
     the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of 
     Implementation Plans; Indiana [R05-OAR-2004-IN-0001; FRL-
     7930-9] received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3425. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of 
     Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
     transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Public Records 
     (RIN: 3150-AH12) received June 30, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       3426. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
     Export Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting 
     the Department's final rule -- December 2004 Wassenaar 
     Arrangement Plenary Agreement Implementation: Categories 1, 
     2, 3, 4, 5 Part I (telecommunications), 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the 
     Commerce Control List; Wassenaar Reporting Requirements; 
     Definitions; and Certain New or Expanded Export Controls 
     [Docket No. 050607153-5153-01] (RIN: 0694-AD41) received July 
     11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on International Relations.
       3427. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
     Export Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting 
     the Department's final rule -- Revised contact inforamtion, 
     nomenclature change and correction of citation error [Docket 
     No. 050408099-5099-01] (RIN: 0694-AD48) received April 26, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     International Relations.
       3428. A letter from the Deputy Chief Counsel for 
     Regulations, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting 
     the Department's final rule -- Privacy Act of 1974: 
     Implementation of Exemptions; Registered Traveler Operations 
     Files [Docket No. TSA-2004-18984, Amendment 1507-1] (RIN: 
     1652-AA36) received May 25, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
       3429. A letter from the Director, Division of Policy, 
     Planning and Program Development, Department of Labor, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Affirmative 
     Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and 
     Subcontractors; Compliance Evaluations in All OFCCP Programs 
     (RIN: 1215-AB28) (RIN: 1215-AB27) (RIN: 1215-AB23) received 
     June 23, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

[[Page 18880]]

      801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
       3430. A letter from the Acting Director, DSHRP, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Changes in Pay Administration Rules for General Schedule 
     Employees (RIN: 3206-AK88) received June 13, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government 
     Reform.
       3431. A letter from the Acting Director, DSHRP, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Excepted Service, Privacy Procedures for Personnel Records, 
     Career and Career-Conditional Employment, Temporary 
     Assignment of Employees Between Federal Agencies and State, 
     Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, Institutions of Higher 
     Education, and Other Eligible Organizations, Presidential 
     Management Fellows Program, Repayment of Student Loans, and 
     Pay Administration (General) (RIN: 3206-AK27) received May 
     20, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Government Reform.
       3432. A letter from the Acting Director, DSHRP, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Retirement Coverage of Air Traffic Controllers (RIN: 3206-
     AK73) received June 3, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
       3433. A letter from the Acting Director, DSHRP, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the San Francisco, 
     CA, Nonappropiated Fund Wage Area (RIN: 3206-AK26) received 
     May 23, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Government Reform.
       3434. A letter from the Acting Director, DSHRP, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Federal Long Term Care Insurance Regulation (RIN: 3206-AJ71) 
     received June 3, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Government Reform.
       3435. A letter from the Acting Director, DSHRP, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Changes in Health Benefits Enrollment (RIN: 3206-AK04) 
     received June 29, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Government Reform.
       3436. A letter from the Acting Director, IP, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulation: 
     Large Provider Agreements, Subcontracts, and Miscellaneous 
     Changes (RIN: 3206-AJ20) received June 3, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
       3437. A letter from the Acting Director, SHRPD, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Absence and Leave (RIN: 3206-AK80) received May 9, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Government Reform.
       3438. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Computation of Pay for Biweekly Pay Periods (RIN: 3206-AK62) 
     received May 9, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Government Reform.
       3439. A letter from the Acting Director, IP, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's final rule -- 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Revision of 
     Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, Miscellaneous 
     Changes (RIN 3206-AJ10) Receieved June 3, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
       3440. A letter from the Administrator, Small Business 
     Administration, transmitting a report pursuant to the Federal 
     Vacancies Reform Act of 1998; to the Committee on Government 
     Reform.
       3441. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife 
     and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
     and Plants; Amendment of Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge 
     in Florida (RIN: 1018-AU10) received May 26, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
       3442. A letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 
     Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population for 
     Two Fishes (Boulder Darter and Spotfin Chub) in Shoal Creek, 
     Tennessee and Alabama (RIN: 1018-AH44) received May 26, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Resources.
       3443. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Land and 
     Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, transmitting 
     the Department's final rule -- Rights-of-way, Principles and 
     Procedures; Rights-of-way Under the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act and the Mineral Leasing Act [WO 350 05 1430 
     PN] (RIN: 1004-AC74) received April 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
       3444. A letter from the Federal Liason Officer, PTO, 
     Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Changes to the Practice of Handling Patent 
     Applications Filed Without the Appropriate Fees [Docket No. 
     2005-P-055] (RIN: 0651-AB87) received May 26, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       3445. A letter from the Federal Liason Officer, PTO, 
     Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Requirements to Receive a Reduced Fee for Filing an 
     Application Through the Trademark Electronic Application 
     System [Docket No. 2005-T-056] (RIN: 0651-AB88) received July 
     11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
       3446. A letter from the Rules Administrator, BOP, 
     Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Infectious Disease Management: Voluntary and 
     Involuntary Testing [BOP-1104-F] (RIN: 1120-AB03) received 
     June 1, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       3447. A letter from the Federal Register Certifying 
     Officer, FMS, Department of Treasury, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Salary Offset (RIN: 1510-AA70) 
     received April 27, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       3448. A letter from the Executive Director, Air 
     Transportation Stabilization Board, transmitting the Board's 
     final rule -- Regulations for Air Transportation 
     Stabilization Board Under Section 101(a)(1) of the Air 
     Transporation Safety and System Stabilization Act -- received 
     March 15, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3449. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Special Local 
     Regulations for Marine Events; San Francisco Giants Fireworks 
     Display, San Francisco, CA [CGD 11-05-009] (RIN: 1625-AA08) 
     received July 21, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3450. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Special Local 
     Regulations for Marine Events; San Francisco Giants Fireworks 
     Display, San Francisco, CA [CGD 11-05-013] (RIN: 1625-AA08) 
     received July 21, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3451. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zone; 
     Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC [CGD05-05-
     033] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received July 21, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3452. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge 
     Operation Regulations; Kent Island Narrows, Kent Island, MD 
     [CGD05-05-019] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received July 21, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3453. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Special Local 
     Regulations for Marine Events; Manasquan River, Manasquan 
     Inlet and Atlantic Ocean, Point Pleasant Beach to Bay Head, 
     NJ [CGD05-05-073] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received July 25, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3454. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Special Local 
     Regulations for Marine Events; Prospect Bay, Kent Island 
     Narrows, Maryland [CGD05-05-074] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received 
     July 25, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3455. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Special Local 
     Regulations for Marine Events; Pamlico River, Washington, NC 
     [CGD05-05-066] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received July 25, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3456. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety and 
     Security Zone; Tampa Bay, FL [COTP Tampa 05-079] (RIN: 1625-
     AA00) received July 25, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3457. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone: 
     Hydroplane Races, Columbia Park, Kennewick, Washington. 
     [CGD13-05-026] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July 25, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3458. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zones: 
     Fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Portland Zone. 
     [CGD13-05-027] (RIN: 1625-

[[Page 18881]]

     AA00) received July 25, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3459. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Anchorage Grounds 
     and Safety Zone; Delaware River [CGD05-04-035] (RIN: 1622-
     AA00) (RIN: 1625-AA01) received July 25, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3460. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations -- received 
     July 11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3461. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Changes in Flood Elevation Determination [Docket No. 
     FEMA-D-7573] received July 11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3462. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone: 
     Macy's July 4th Fireworks, East River and Upper New York Bay, 
     NY [CGD01-05-017] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received July 21, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3463. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge 
     Operation Regulations; Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA [CGD13-
     05-020] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received July 21, 2005, pursuant to 
     5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3464. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Special Local 
     Regulations: Annual Offshore Super Series Boat Race, Fort 
     Myers Beach, FL [CGD 07-05-019] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received 
     July 21, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3465. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Special Local 
     Regulation for Marine Events; Pasquotank River, Camden, NC 
     [CGD05-05-022] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received July 21, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3466. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and 
     Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule -- Navigation and 
     Navigable Waters; Technical, Organizational, and Conforming 
     Amendments [USCG-2005-21531] (RIN: 1625-ZA04) received July 
     21, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3467. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket No. 
     FEMA-P-7644] received July 11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3468. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received July 
     11, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3469. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department 
     of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final 
     rule -- Final Flood Elevation Determination -- July 11, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3470. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, Weather Takeoff 
     Minimums; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No. 30450; Amdt. 
     No. 3126] received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3471. A letter from the Chairman, Surface Transportation 
     Board, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Regulations Governing Fees for 
     Service Performed in Connection with Licensing and Related 
     Services -- 2005 Update -- received April 18, 2005, pursuant 
     to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure.
       3472. A letter from the Senior Attorney, Pipeline and 
     Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations to 
     Loading, Unloading, and Storage [Docket No. RSPA-98-4952(HM-
     223)] (RIN: 2137-AC68) received April 12, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3473. A letter from the Ombudsman, FMCSA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection 
     Regulations; Final Rule [Docket No. FMCSA-97-2979] (RIN: 
     2126-AA32) received July 12, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3474. A letter from the Trial Attorney, FRA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Locomotive Event Recorders [Docket No. FRA-2003-16357, Notice 
     No. 3] (RIN: 2130-AB34) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3475. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E2 Airspace; and Modification of Class 
     E5 Airspace; Valentine, NE [Docket No. FAA-2005-20572; 
     Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-9] received July 22, 2005, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3476. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Modification of Class E Airspace; Parsons, KS [Docket No. 
     FAA-2005-20573; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-10] received July 
     22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3477. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Modification and Revocation of Federal Airways; AK [Docket 
     No. FAA-2004-19851; Airspace Docket No. 04-AAL-13] (RIN: 
     2120-AA66) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3478. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Modification of Class E Airspace; Monett, MO [Docket No. FAA-
     2005-20065; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-7] received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3479. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Modification of Class E Airspace; Mountain Grove, MO [Docket 
     No. FAA-2005-20064; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-6] received 
     July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3480. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Modification of Class E Airspace; Macon, MO [Docket No. FAA-
     2005-20066; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-8] received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3481. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Revision of Class E Airspace; St. Michael, AK [Docket No. 
     FAA-2005-20030; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-01] received July 
     22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3482. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Modification of Class E Airspace; Neosho, MO [Docket No. FAA-
     2005-20063; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-5] received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3483. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Revision of Class E Airspace; Kalskag, AK [Docket No. FAA-
     2005-20031; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-02] received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3484. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Revision of Jet Route 94 [Docket No. FAA-2004-19052; Airspace 
     Docket No. 04-ANM-12] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3485. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E Airspace; Perryville, AK [Docket No. 
     FAA-2005-20029; Airspace Docket No. 04-AAL-25] received July 
     22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3486. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; AK [Docket 
     No. FAA-2005-20617; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-12] (RIN: 
     2120-AA66) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3487. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; AK [Docket 
     No. FAA-2005-20413; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-03] (RIN: 
     2120-AA66) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3488. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes;

[[Page 18882]]

     AK [Docket No. FAA-2005-20446; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-04] 
     (RIN: 2120-AA66) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3489. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E Airspace; Sutton, WV [Docket No. 
     FAA-2005-20931; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-08] received July 
     22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3490. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E-2 Airspace; Bar Harbor, ME [Docket 
     No. FAA-2005-21034; Airspace Docekt No. 05-AEA-09] received 
     July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3491. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Revision of Class E Airspace; Shishmaref, AK [Docket No. FAA-
     2005-20567; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-05] received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3492. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E Airspace; Kaltag, AK [Docket No. 
     FAA-2005-20557; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-10] received July 
     22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3493. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Revision of Class E Airspace; Emmonah, AK [Docket No. FAA-
     2005-20555; Airspace Docekt No. 05-AAL-08] received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3494. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E Airspace; Coldfoot, AK [Docket No. 
     FAA-2005-20568; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-11] received July 
     22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3495. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E Airspace; Chalkyitsik, AK [Docket 
     No. FAA-2005-20450; Airspace Docket No. 05-AAL-07] received 
     July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3496. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E Airspace; Bob Barker Memorial 
     Airport, Kiana, AK [Docket No. FAA-2005-20556; Airspace 
     Docket No. 05-AAL-09] received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3497. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Modification of Class E Airspace; Columbus, NE. [Docket No. 
     FAA-2005-20752; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-15] received July 
     22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3498. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Modification of Class E Airspace; McCook, NE [Docket No. FAA-
     2005-21608; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-18] received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3499. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Modification of Class E Airspace; Muskegon, MI [Docket No. 
     FAA-2005-20055; Airspace Docket No. 05-AGL-01] received July 
     22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3500. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Revision of Federal Airways V-2, V-257 and V-343; MT [Docket 
     No. FAA-2005-19410; Airspace Docket No. 04-ANM-09] (RIN: 
     2120-AA66) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3501. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E Surface Area, South Lake Tahoe, CA 
     [Docket FAA 2005-21522; Airspace Docket No. 05-AWP-06[ 
     received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3502. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Establishment of Class E Airspace; Mifflintown, PA; 
     Correction [Docket No. FAA-2004-19458; Airspace Docket No. 
     04-AEA-11] received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3503. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directive; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model 
     S-92A Helicopters [Docket No. FAA-2005-21588; Directorate 
     Identifier 2005-SW-24-AD; Amendment 39-14150; AD 2005-13-13] 
     (RIN: 2120-AA64) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3504. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasiliera de Aeronautica 
     S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes and Model EMB-145, -
     145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes 
     [Docket No. FAA-2005-21598; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-
     121-AD; Amendment 39-14159; AD 2005-13-22] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 
     received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3505. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; [Hoffmann Propeller GmbH & Co KG 
     Models HO-V343 and HO-V343K Propellers] [Docket No. FAA-2004-
     18958; Directorate Identifier 2004-NE-32-AD; Amendment 39-
     14137; AD 2005-13-01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3506. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 Series 
     Helicopters [Docket No. FAA-2005-21589; Directorate 
     Identifier 2004-SW-44-AD; Amendment 39-14154; AD 2005-13-17] 
     (RIN: 2120-AA64) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3507. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; Kelly Aerospace Power Systems Part 
     Number (P/N) 14D11, A14D11, B14D11, C14D11, 23D04, A23D04, 
     B23D04, C23D04, or P23P04 Fuel Regulator Shutoff Valves 
     (formerly owned by ElectroSystems, JanAero Devices, Janitrol, 
     C&D Airmotive Products, FL Aerospace, and Midland-Ross 
     Corporation) [Docket No. FAA-2004-19693; Directorate 
     Identifier 2004-CE-40-AD; Amendment 39-14076; AD 2004-25-16 
     R1] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3508. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; Dornier Model 328-300 Series 
     Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-20414; Directorate Identifier 
     2004-NM-116-AD; Amendment 39-14079; AD 2005-10-02] (RIN: 
     2120-AA64) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3509. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 
     Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-21029; Directorate Identifier 
     2005-NM-045-AD; Amendment 39-14077; AD 2005-09-08] (RIN: 
     2120-AA64) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3510. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 
     Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2002-NM-49-AD; Amendment 39-
     14081; AD 2005-10-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received July 22, 
     2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3511. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; Dornier Model 328-300 Series 
     Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2005-20345; Directorate Identifier 
     2004-NM-101-AD; Amendment 39-14083; AD 2005-10-06] (RIN: 
     2120-AA64) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3512. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 Airplanes, 
     Equipped With An Auxiliary Fuel Tank Having A Fuel Pump 
     Installed [DOcket No. FAA-2005-20355; Directorate Identifier 
     2004-NM-198-AD; Amendment 39-14177; AD 2005-13-40] (RIN: 
     2120-AA64) received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       3513. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Airworthiness Directives; GROB-WERKE Modl G120A Airplanes 
     [Docket No. FAA-05-19473; Directorate Identifier 2004-CE-35-
     AD; Amendment 39-14146; AD 2005-13-09] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 
     received July 22, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       3514. A letter from the Director, Regulations Management, 
     ORPM, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Loan Guaranty: Hybrid Adjustable 
     Rate Mortgages (RIN: 2900-AL54)

[[Page 18883]]

     received May 2, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

                          ____________________




         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as 
follows:

       Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee of Conference. Conference 
     report on H.R. 3. A bill to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
     highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and 
     for other purposes (Rept. 109-203). Ordered to be printed.
       Mr. MANZULLO: Committee on Small Business. H.R. 3207. A 
     bill to direct the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration to establish a pilot program to make grants to 
     eligible entities for the development of peer learning 
     opportunities for second-stage small business concerns; with 
     an amendment (Rept. 109-205). Referred to the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the State of the Union.
       Mr. MANZULLO: Committee on Small Business. H.R. 2981. A 
     bill to amend the Small Business Act to expand and improve 
     the assistance provided by Small Business Development Centers 
     to Indian tribe members, Native Alaskans, and Native 
     Hawaiians; with an amendment (Rept. 109-206). Referred to the 
     Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
       Mr. MANZULLO: Committee on Small Business. H.R. 527. A bill 
     to amend the Small Business Act to direct the Administrator 
     of the Small Business Administration to establish a 
     vocational and technical entrepreneurship development 
     program; with an amendment (Rept. 109-207). Referred to the 
     Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
       Mr. MANZULLO: Committee on Small Business. H.R. 230. A bill 
     to amend the Small Business Act to direct the Administrator 
     of the Small Business Administration to establish a program 
     to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small business 
     concerns, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 
     109-208). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     State of the Union.
       Mr. BARTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 3084. A 
     bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations 
     requiring testing for steroids and other performance-
     enhancing substances for certain associations engaged in 
     interstate commerce; with an amendment (Rept. 109-210 Pt. 1). 
     Ordered to be printed.
       Mr. BOEHLERT: Committee on Science. H.R. 921. A bill to 
     establish a digital and wireless network technology program, 
     and for other purposes (Rept. 109-211 Pt. 1). Ordered to be 
     printed.

         [Filed on July 29 (legislative day of July 28), 2005]

       Mrs. CAPITO: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 399. 
     Resolution providing for consideration of the conference 
     report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for 
     Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit 
     programs, and for other purposes (Rept. 109-212). Referred to 
     the House Calendar.
       Mrs. CAPITO: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 400. 
     Resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 
     from the Committee on Rules (Rept. 109-213). Referred to the 
     House Calendar.
       Mrs. CAPITO: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 401. 
     Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3514) to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, 
     motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out 
     of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law 
     reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century (Rept. 109-214). Referred to the House Calendar.

                          ____________________




                  REPORTED BILLS SEQUENTIALLY REFERRED

  Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the 
Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

       Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. H.R. 889. A bill to authorize appropriations 
     for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006, to make technical 
     corrections to various laws administered by the Coast Guard, 
     and for other purposes, with an amendment; referred to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security for a period ending not later 
     than July 29, 2005, for consideration of such provisions of 
     the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of 
     that committee pursuant to clause 1(i) of rule X (Rept. 109-
     204, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.
       Mr. BARTON: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1065. A 
     bill to establish the United States Boxing Commission to 
     protect the general welfare of boxers and to ensure fairness 
     in the sport of professional boxing, with an amendment; 
     referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for a period 
     ending not later than September 30, 2005, for consideration 
     of such provisions of the bill and the amendment as fall 
     within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 
     1(1), rule X (Rept. 109-209, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________




                    TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL

  Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII the following action was taken by 
the Speaker:

       H.R. 921. Referral to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce extended for a period ending not later than 
     September 30, 2005.
       H.R. 1065. Referral to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce extended for a period ending not later than 
     September 30, 2005.
       H.R. 3084. Referral to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce extended for a period ending not later than 
     September 30, 2005.

                          ____________________




                      PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were 
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

           By Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Wolf, 
             Mr. Hoyer, Ms. Norton, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. 
             Wynn, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Cardin):
       H.R. 3496. A bill to amend the National Capital 
     Transportation Act of 1969 to authorize additional Federal 
     contributions for maintaining and improving the transit 
     system of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Government 
     Reform.
           By Mr. ISTOOK:
       H.R. 3497. A bill to ensure that when Federal law allows a 
     court to award attorney fees to one party, the law must allow 
     the court to award attorney fees to any party; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. TURNER (for himself, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, 
             and Mr. Moran of Virginia):
       H.R. 3498. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to 
     allow certain local tax debt to be collected through the 
     reduction of Federal tax refunds; to the Committee on 
     Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. CULBERSON (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of 
             Maryland, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Paul, 
             Mr. Pence, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Poe, and Mr. Rohrabacher):
       H.R. 3499. A bill to restore State sovereignty over public 
     elementary and secondary education; to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce.
           By Mr. ANDREWS:
       H.R. 3500. A bill to provide grants to States to establish, 
     expand, or enhance prekindergarten programs for children who 
     are not yet enrolled in kindergarten; to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce.
           By Ms. CARSON:
       H.R. 3501. A bill to require financial institutions and 
     financial service providers to notify customers of the 
     unauthorized use of personal financial information, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
     in addition to the Committees on Government Reform, and 
     Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently 
     determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.
           By Mr. WAXMAN (for himself, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Ms. 
             Roybal-Allard):
       H.R. 3502. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act 
     with respect to immunizations against vaccine-preventable 
     diseases, including influenza, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
     Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and the 
     Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. CANNON (for himself and Mr. Inslee):
       H.R. 3503. A bill to ensure privacy for e-mail 
     communications; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. EMANUEL (for himself, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Wasserman 
             Schultz, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. McCarthy, 
             Mr. Waxman, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Berman, Mr. Israel, 
             Mr. Rothman, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and Mr. 
             Bishop of New York):
       H.R. 3504. A bill to prohibit discrimination in the 
     provision of life insurance on the basis of a person's 
     previous lawful travel experiences; to the Committee on 
     Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 
     determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.

[[Page 18884]]


           By Mr. HENSARLING (for himself and Mr. Moore of 
             Kansas):
       H.R. 3505. A bill to provide regulatory relief and improve 
     productivity for insured depository institutions, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
           By Mr. FILNER (for himself and Mr. Thompson of 
             Mississippi):
       H.R. 3506. A bill to establish an Unsolved Crimes Section 
     in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice; to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. ISSA (for himself and Mr. Calvert):
       H.R. 3507. A bill to transfer certain land in Riverside 
     County, California, and San Diego County, California, from 
     the Bureau of Land Management to the United States to be held 
     in trust for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself and Ms. 
             Norton):
       H.R. 3508. A bill to authorize improvements in the 
     operation of the government of the District of Columbia, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Government Reform.
           By Mr. CHABOT (for himself, Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Coble):
       H.R. 3509. A bill to establish a statute of repose for 
     durable goods used in a trade or business; to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. OBEY:
       H.R. 3510. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to develop regulations regarding the transportation 
     of extremely hazardous materials, and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period 
     to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
     for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mr. Peterson of 
             Pennsylvania, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Jindal, and Mrs. 
             Johnson of Connecticut):
       H.R. 3511. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security 
     Act to expand State long-term care partnership programs under 
     the Medicaid Program; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
           By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. 
             Petri, and Mr. DeFazio):
       H.R. 3512. A bill to provide an extension of administrative 
     expenses for highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, 
     transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust 
     Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Resources, and 
     Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota (for himself and Ms. 
             Hooley):
       H.R. 3513. A bill to provide for enhanced Federal penalties 
     for production, distribution, trafficking, and possession of 
     methamphetamine, listed chemicals, and other controlled 
     substances, and for other offenses relaed to such production, 
     distribution, trafficking, and possession; and to provide for 
     enhanced residential substance abuse treatment programs for 
     State and Federal prisoners; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. 
             Petri, and Mr. DeFazio):
       H.R. 3514. A bill to provide an extension of administrative 
     expenses for highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, 
     transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust 
     Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the 
     Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Resources, Science, and Ways 
     and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. ANDREWS:
       H.R. 3515. A bill to amend title I of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require persons who 
     are plan administrators of employee pension benefit plans or 
     provide administrative services to such plans, and who also 
     provide automobile insurance coverage or provide persons 
     offering such coverage identifying information relating to 
     plan participants or beneficiaries, to submit to the Federal 
     Trade Commission certain information relating to such 
     automobile insurance coverage; to the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce.
           By Mr. ANDREWS:
       H.R. 3516. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act 
     with respect to the participation of the public in 
     governmental decisions regarding the location of group homes 
     established pursuant to the program of block grants for the 
     prevention and treatment of substance abuse; to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. ANDREWS:
       H.R. 3517. A bill to establish a program to assist States 
     and local governments for the conduct of electronic 
     governance transactions at libraries and elementary and 
     secondary schools, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. ANDREWS (for himself, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. 
             Saxton):
       H.R. 3518. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to 
     divide New Jersey in 2 judicial districts; to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. ANDREWS:
       H.R. 3519. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     provide a credit toward the non-Federal share of projects 
     carried out under the airport improvement program to an owner 
     or operator of an airport that is utilized to respond to a 
     disaster or emergency; to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
           By Ms. BALDWIN (for herself and Mr. Snyder):
       H.R. 3520. A bill to assist in the conservation of cranes 
     by supporting and providing, through projects of persons and 
     organizations with expertise in crane conservation, financial 
     resources for the conservation programs of countries the 
     activities of which directly or indirectly affect cranes; to 
     the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. BEAUPREZ (for himself, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. 
             Salazar, and Mr. Udall of Colorado):
       H.R. 3521. A bill to provide environmental assistance to 
     non-Federal interests in the State of Colorado; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself and Mr. Kuhl of 
             New York):
       H.R. 3522. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to clarify that installment sales treatment shall not 
     fail to apply to property acquired for conservation purposes 
     by a State or local government or certain tax-exempt 
     organizations merely because purchase funds are held in a 
     sinking or similar fund pursuant to State law; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. BISHOP of New York:
       H.R. 3523. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to exclude from estate taxes the value of farmland so 
     long as the farmland use continues and to repeal the dollar 
     limitation on the estate tax exclusion for land subject to a 
     qualified conservation easement; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
           By Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mr. Weldon of 
             Pennsylvania):
       H.R. 3524. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to make grants to encourage community safety by 
     incorporating disaster mitigation and emergency preparedness 
     into comprehensive land use planning and urban development, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
     determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.
           By Mr. BONILLA:
       H.R. 3525. A bill to redesignate the street in the District 
     of Columbia known as 16th Street Northwest as ``Ronald Reagan 
     Boulevard''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
           By Mr. BONNER:
       H.R. 3526. A bill to extend Federal recognition to the Mowa 
     Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. BUYER:
       H.R. 3527. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of 
     duty on Ethalfluralin; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. BUYER:
       H.R. 3528. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of 
     duty on Diphenyl sulfide; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. BUYER:
       H.R. 3529. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of 
     duty on 4,4-Dimethoxy-2-butanone; to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means.
           By Mr. BUYER:
       H.R. 3530. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of 
     duty on Methacrylamide; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. BUYER:
       H.R. 3531. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of 
     duty on Fenbuconazole; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. CAMP:
       H.R. 3532. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior 
     to conduct a study of maritime sites in the State of 
     Michigan; to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. CAMP:
       H.R. 3533. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide that net operating losses shall not be 
     reduced in connection with a discharge of indebtedness in 
     certain chapter 11 bankruptcy cases involving asbestos-
     related claims; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mrs. CAPPS:
       H.R. 3534. A bill to designate the Piedras Blancas Light 
     Station and the surrounding public land as an Outstanding 
     Natural Area to be administered as a part of the National 
     Landscape Conservation System, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Resources.

[[Page 18885]]


           By Mr. CASE:
       H.R. 3535. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act 
     of 1946 to require country of origin labeling for macadamia 
     nuts; to the Committee on Agriculture.
           By Mr. CASE:
       H.R. 3536. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act 
     to expand the Agricultural Management Assistance Program to 
     include the State of Hawaii; to the Committee on Agriculture.
           By Mr. CASE:
       H.R. 3537. A bill to extend the boundary of the Hawaii 
     Volcanoes National Park in the State of Hawaii; to the 
     Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. CASE:
       H.R. 3538. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior 
     to study the suitability and feasibility of designating 
     certain lands along the southern coast of Maui, Hawaii, as a 
     unit of the National Park System; to the Committee on 
     Resources.
           By Mr. CASE:
       H.R. 3539. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior 
     to study the suitability and feasibility of designating 
     certain lands along the northern coast of Maui, Hawaii, as a 
     unit of the National Park System; to the Committee on 
     Resources.
           By Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Kirk, 
             and Mr. Shays):
       H.R. 3540. A bill to require criminal background checks on 
     all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a 
     venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of 
     firearms, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
           By Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Serrano, 
             Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Meehan, and Ms. 
             Linda T. Sanchez of California):
       H.R. 3541. A bill to affirm that the United States may not 
     engage in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment 
     or punishment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
     International Relations, for a period to be subsequently 
     determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.
           By Mr. CULBERSON:
       H.R. 3542. A bill to confer standing on Members of Congress 
     to bring suit in Federal district court to compel compliance 
     with congressional intent in enacting laws to protect the 
     people of the United States against national security 
     threats; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. DEAL of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Gordon, and 
             Mr. Gingrey):
       H.R. 3543. A bill to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid 
     coverage of drugs when used for treatment of erectile 
     dysfunction; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself and Mr. Sanders):
       H.R. 3544. A bill to provide for the stabilization of 
     prices for gasoline, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on 
     Ways and Means, Government Reform, the Judiciary, Resources, 
     and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently 
     determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.
           By Mr. DELAHUNT (for himself and Mr. Doggett):
       H.R. 3545. A bill to limit assistance to the Government of 
     Uzbekistan, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on 
     the Judiciary, and Armed Services, for a period to be 
     subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. EMANUEL (for himself, Mr. Case, Mr. Lipinski, 
             Ms. Herseth, and Mr. Doggett):
       H.R. 3546. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security 
     Act to provide for public disclosure of average manufacturer 
     prices (AMP) and best prices for prescription drugs; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mrs. EMERSON (for herself, Mr. Rush, Mr. Berry, Mr. 
             Simpson, Mr. Strickland, and Mr. Jones of North 
             Carolina):
       H.R. 3547. A bill to amend section 340B of the Public 
     Health Service Act to increase the affordability of inpatient 
     drugs for Medicaid and safety net hospitals; to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. ENGEL (for himself, Mr. Israel, Mr. Higgins, Mr. 
             Fossella, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. 
             Boehlert, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Meeks of New 
             York, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Crowley):
       H.R. 3548. A bill to designate the facility of the United 
     States Postal Service located on Franklin Avenue in Pearl 
     River, New York, as the ``Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr. Post Office 
     Building''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
           By Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. 
             Peterson of Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart, Mr. Fattah, Mr. 
             Sherwood, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, Mr. 
             Doyle, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Dent, Mr. Murphy, Mr. 
             Shuster, Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, 
             Mr. Platts, Mr. Holden, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, 
             Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Kanjorski):
       H.R. 3549. A bill to designate the facility of the United 
     States Postal Service located at 210 West 3rd Avenue in 
     Warren, Pennsylvania, as the ``William F. Clinger, Jr. Post 
     Office Building''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
           By Mr. EVANS (for himself, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Udall of 
             Colorado, and Mr. Boehlert):
       H.R. 3550. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     improve provisions relating to Parkinson's disease research; 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. FATTAH:
       H.R. 3551. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     by strengthening and expanding the Gaining Early Awareness 
     and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) in order 
     to facilitate the transition of low-income high school 
     students into post-secondary education; to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce.
           By Mr. GILCHREST:
       H.R. 3552. A bill to reauthorize the Coastal Barrier 
     Resources Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Resources.
           By Mr. GINGREY:
       H.R. 3553. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act to prohibit the approval of any drug that 
     infringes the right to life, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. GOODE (for himself and Mr. McIntyre):
       H.R. 3554. A bill to amend the crop disaster assistance 
     program for 2003 to clarify the manner in which the Secretary 
     of Agriculture is required to make assistance available to 
     producers under the program; to the Committee on Agriculture.
           By Ms. HARMAN (for herself, Mr. Shays, Mrs. Johnson of 
             Connecticut, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
             Boehlert, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Costa, Mr. Davis of 
             Illinois, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. 
             McGovern, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, 
             Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Israel, Mr. Larsen of 
             Washington, and Mr. Filner):
       H.R. 3555. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services to award on a competitive basis grants to 
     public and private entities to establish or expand teenage 
     pregnancy prevention programs; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
           By Ms. HARRIS:
       H.R. 3556. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development to carry out pilot programs to insure low-
     downpayment mortgages to enable teachers and public safety 
     officers to purchase homes in the jurisdictions they serve 
     and to assist Federal, State, and local public safety 
     officers purchasing homes in locally-designated at-risk 
     areas; to the Committee on Financial Services.
           By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida:
       H.R. 3557. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 to require States to permit individuals to register to 
     vote at polling places on the date of an election, to cast 
     ballots at designated polling places prior to the date of an 
     election, and to obtain absentee ballots for an election for 
     any reason, and for other purposes; to the Committee on House 
     Administration, and in addition to the Committees on 
     Government Reform, and Education and the Workforce, for a 
     period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
     case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Ms. HERSETH:
       H.R. 3558. A bill to amend the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
     Equitable Compensation Act to provide compensation to members 
     of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for damage resulting from 
     the Oahe Dam and Reservoir Project, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. HOBSON (for himself and Mr. Tanner):
       H.R. 3559. A bill to amend part B of title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act to assure access to durable medical 
     equipment under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. HONDA (for himself and Mr. Towns):
       H.R. 3560. A bill to require the Food and Drug 
     Administration to carry out certain activities with respect 
     to food choking hazards to children, including a program to 
     provide education to the public; to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
           By Mr. HONDA (for himself, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Watt, 
             Mr. Kildee, Ms. Bordallo, Ms. Solis, Mrs. 
             Christensen, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Menendez, 
             Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Clyburn):
       H.R. 3561. A bill to improve the health of minority 
     individuals; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
     addition to

[[Page 18886]]

     the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Resources, the 
     Judiciary, Ways and Means, and Agriculture, for a period to 
     be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Ms. HOOLEY:
       H.R. 3562. A bill to amend the Specialty Crops 
     Competitiveness Act of 2004 to increase the authorization of 
     appropriations for grants to support the competitiveness of 
     specialty crops, to amend the Agricultural Risk Protection 
     Act of 2000 to improve the program of value-added 
     agricultural product market development grants by routing 
     funds through State departments of agriculture, to amend the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act to require a nationwide expansion 
     of the adjusted gross revenue insurance program, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education 
     and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined 
     by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
     provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
     concerned.
           By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Rahall, 
             Mr. Shays, Mr. Wu, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. 
             George Miller of California, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. 
             Leach, Mr. Payne, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. McDer-
             mott, Ms. Lee, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Honda, Mr. Nadler, 
             Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Case, Ms. Hooley, Mr. 
             Kildee, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Serrano, 
             Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, 
             Mr. Farr, Mr. Kind, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Moran of 
             Virginia, Mr. Stark, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
             Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. 
             Costello, Mr. Owens, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Cummings, Mrs. 
             Davis of California, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. 
             Hastings of Florida, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Dingell, Mrs. 
             McCarthy, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Engel, Mr. Lynch, Ms. 
             Harman, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Doggett, Mr. 
             Michaud, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
             Wexler, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
             McGovern, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Ms. Schwartz of 
             Pennsylvania, Mr. Holt, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, 
             Mr. Sabo, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Doyle, Mr. 
             Menendez, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Rothman, 
             Mr. Weiner, Mr. Filner, Mr. Allen, Mr. Price of North 
             Carolina, Mr. Towns, Mr. Tierney, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. 
             McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Ms. 
             Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Ramstad, 
             Mrs. Capps, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. 
             DeFazio, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Schiff, Mr. 
             Carnahan, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, 
             Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Chandler, Ms. Solis, Mr. Gene Green 
             of Texas, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Clay, Mr. Reyes, Mr. 
             Larsen of Washington, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
             Olver, Mr. Levin, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Berman, Mrs. 
             Tauscher, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
             Snyder, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Neal of 
             Massachusetts, Mr. McNulty, Ms. Eshoo, Mrs. Jones of 
             Ohio, Ms. Norton, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Millender-
             McDonald, Mr. Evans, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Crowley, Ms. 
             Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. 
             Meek of Florida, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. 
             Ferguson, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
             Ford, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
             California, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Watt, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. 
             Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Rush, Mr. Meehan, Ms. 
             Pelosi, Ms. Carson, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Roybal-Allard, 
             Mr. Israel, Mrs. Lowey, and Ms. Waters):
       H.R. 3563. A bill to protect inventoried roadless areas in 
     the National Forest System; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
     and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period 
     to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
     for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mrs. JONES of Ohio:
       H.R. 3564. A bill to make a technical correction to the Act 
     providing for the designation of the David Berger Memorial; 
     to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island (for himself, Mr. 
             Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. McIntyre, Ms. Jackson-
             Lee of Texas, Mr. Langevin, and Mr. Ford):
       H.R. 3565. A bill to promote the development of disaster 
     plans that will protect the maximum number of citizens; to 
     foster public trust, confidence, and cooperation with these 
     plans; and to encourage greater public participation in 
     homeland security by allowing the American people to have a 
     direct and influential role in developing and modifying 
     community disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and 
     mitigation plans in collaboration with government officials, 
     emergency managers, health authorities, and professional 
     responders, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
     Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Homeland Security, for 
     a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
     each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
     the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. KING of Iowa:
       H.R. 3566. A bill to provide that no Federal funds may be 
     expended for the payment or reimbursement of drugs when 
     prescribed for the treatment of erectile or sexual 
     dysfunction; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Government 
     Reform, Armed Services, Veterans' Affairs, Resources, 
     International Relations, and the Judiciary, for a period to 
     be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. KING of New York (for himself and Mr. Pascrell):
       H.R. 3567. A bill to provide for certain tunnel life safety 
     and rehabilitation projects for Amtrak; to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mr. LATHAM (for himself, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Leach, and 
             Mr. Nussle):
       H.R. 3568. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to 
     provide for the transfer of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and 
     phenylpropanolamine to schedule V of the schedules of 
     controlled substances, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently 
     determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.
           By Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mrs. Capps, Mr. King of New 
             York, Mr. Owens, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Reyes, Mr. 
             McDermott, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Stark, Mr. Waxman, Mr. 
             Cardoza, Mr. Payne, Mr. Allen, Mr. Burton of Indiana, 
             Mr. Higgins, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Boswell, 
             and Mr. Moore of Kansas):
       H.R. 3569. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     authorize capitation grants to increase the number of nursing 
     faculty and students, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mrs. LOWEY:
       H.R. 3570. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act relating to freshness dates on food; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mrs. LOWEY:
       H.R. 3571. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act to require that foods containing spices, 
     flavoring, or coloring derived from meat, poultry, or other 
     animal products (including insects) bear labeling stating 
     that fact and their names; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
           By Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Lewis of 
             Georgia, and Mr. Crowley):
       H.R. 3572. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow the Attorney General to 
     award grants under a homeland security overtime program to 
     reimburse law enforcement agencies for past overtime 
     expenditures and to require the Attorney General to waive the 
     matching funds requirement for such grants; to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
           By Mrs. LOWEY:
       H.R. 3573. A bill to provide an enhanced penalty for 
     threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, or 
     to cause property damage, by means of fire or an explosive on 
     school property; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Miller of 
             Florida, Mrs. Bono, and Mr. Foley):
       H.R. 3574. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to expand incentives for saving; to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means.
           By Mrs. MALONEY (for herself, Mr. King of New York, Mr. 
             Weiner, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Farr, Mr. 
             Serrano, Mr. Engel, Mr. Owens, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
             Lantos, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, 
             Ms. Solis, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Berman, Mr. Pallone, Mr. 
             Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Mr. Grijalva):
       H.R. 3575. A bill to provide the nonimmigrant spouses and 
     children of nonimmigrant aliens who perished in the September 
     11 terrorist attacks an opportunity to adjust their status to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. McDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. George 
             Miller of California, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Stark, Mr. 
             Becerra, Mr. Emanuel, and Mr. Davis of Illinois):
       H.R. 3576. A bill to improve outcomes for vulnerable 
     children by investing in families, improving accountability 
     in the child welfare system, and finding safe, stable, and 
     permanent homes for foster children; to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means.
           By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Mr. 
             Pascrell, Mr. Andrews, and Mr. Rothman):

[[Page 18887]]


       H.R. 3577. A bill to amend section 10501 of title 49, 
     United States Code, to exclude solid waste disposal from the 
     jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mr. MENENDEZ:
       H.R. 3578. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to exclude from gross income military pay received by a 
     member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States who is called to active duty; to the Committee 
     on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. MICHAUD (for himself and Mr. Evans):
       H.R. 3579. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
     require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide 
     sufficient blind rehabilitation outpatient specialists at 
     medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs; to 
     the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
           By Mr. MURPHY (for himself, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Peterson of 
             Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart, and Mr. English of 
             Pennsylvania):
       H.R. 3580. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide for a transferable credit against the income 
     tax for producing energy from waste coal; to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means.
           By Mr. NADLER (for himself, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Meeks 
             of New York):
       H.R. 3581. A bill to establish the African Burial Ground 
     National Historic Site and the African Burial Ground 
     International Memorial Museum in New York, New York, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. NEY (for himself, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. 
             Bonner, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. 
             Kuhl of New York, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. 
             Chabot, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
             Wexler, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Weldon of 
             Pennsylvania, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Hastings 
             of Florida, and Mr. Filner):
       H.R. 3582. A bill to promote the improvement of information 
     on, and protections against, child sexual abuse; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be 
     subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mrs. NORTHUP (for herself, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Brown of 
             Ohio, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Berry, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
             Emanuel, Mr. Gutknecht, and Mr. Simpson):
       H.R. 3583. A bill to clarify that the overall trade 
     negotiating objectives of the United States include avoiding 
     provisions in trade agreements that restrict the access of 
     consumers in the United States to pharmaceutical imports, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. PALLONE:
       H.R. 3584. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend the financing of the Superfund; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. PORTER (for himself, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Garrett of 
             New Jersey, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. 
             Ruppersberger, Mr. Hostett-
             ler, Mr. Kline, Mr. Paul, Mr. Souder, Mr. Neugebauer, 
             Mr. Platts, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Rehberg):
       H.R. 3585. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to exclude from gross income employer contributions to 
     college tuition plans and education savings accounts; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. PORTER:
       H.R. 3586. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide for Small Business Protection Accounts, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
     in addition to the Committee on Small Business, for a period 
     to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
     for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. RAMSTAD (for himself and Mr. Pomeroy):
       H.R. 3587. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend to church plans the exemption from unrelated 
     business tax for debt-financed property held by pension 
     plans; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. RAMSTAD:
       H.R. 3588. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act to provide for access to telehealth services in 
     the home; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
     subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. RENZI:
       H.R. 3589. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to 
     provide an additional place of holding court for the District 
     of Arizona; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. RENZI:
       H.R. 3590. A bill to amend the Community Forest Restoration 
     Act to expand the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program 
     established under such Act to cover the State of Arizona in 
     addition to the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. ROGERS of Michigan:
       H.R. 3591. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide a credit to facilitate the accelerated 
     development and deployment of crash avoidance and crash 
     protection systems; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. ROTHMAN:
       H.R. 3592. A bill to enable America's schools to use their 
     computer hardware to increase student achievement and prepare 
     students for the 21st century workplace, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
           By Mr. ROTHMAN:
       H.R. 3593. A bill to prohibit the use of vending machines 
     to sell tobacco products in all locations other than in 
     locations in which the presence of minors is not permitted; 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. ROTHMAN:
       H.R. 3594. A bill to amend Federal crime grant programs 
     relating to domestic violence to encourage States and 
     localities to implement gun confiscation policies, reform 
     stalking laws, create integrated domestic violence courts, 
     and hire additional personnel for entering protection orders, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. ROTHMAN:
       H.R. 3595. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 to reauthorize the Matching Grant 
     Program for School Security; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
           By Mr. ROTHMAN:
       H.R. 3596. A bill to improve the quality of life and safety 
     of persons living and working near railroad tracks; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mr. ROTHMAN:
       H.R. 3597. A bill to require the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a feasibility 
     study for applying airport bubbles as a method of 
     identifying, assessing, and reducing the adverse 
     environmental impacts of airport ground and flight operations 
     and improving the overall quality of the environment, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
     in addition to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
     the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
     provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
     concerned.
           By Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD (for herself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
             Waxman, Mr. Grijalva, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. 
             Woolsey, Mr. Farr, Ms. Solis, Mr. Cardoza, Ms. Zoe 
             Lofgren of California, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. Capps, Ms. 
             Eshoo, Mr. Honda, Mr. Costa, Mr. Royce, Mr. Inslee, 
             Mr. Pastor, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Baca, Mr. 
             Becerra, Mrs. Napolita-
             no, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
             California, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Reyes, 
             Mr. Leach, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Walsh, 
             Mr. Bonner, Mr. Castle, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, 
             Mr. Crenshaw, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, 
             and Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California):
       H.R. 3598. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     provide for increased funding for the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention to carry out activities toward 
     increasing the number of medically underserved, at-risk 
     adults who are immunized against vaccine-preventable 
     diseases, to require a study regarding standards for the 
     measurement of use by beneficiaries under the Medicare and 
     Medicaid Programs of adult immunizations for influenza, to 
     amend title 5, United States Code, with respect to the 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and certain 
     immunization services, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
     Committees on Ways and Means, and Government Reform, for a 
     period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
     case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin:
       H.R. 3599. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to clarify the calculation of the reserve allowance for 
     medical benefits of plans sponsored by bona fide 
     associations; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself and 
             Mr. Royce):
       H.R. 3600. A bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to 
     Dr. Robert H. Schuller, Pastor of the Crystal Cathedral; to 
     the Committee on Financial Services.
           By Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Ney, Mr. Brown of 
             Ohio, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Platts, Mr. Wynn, Mr. George 
             Miller of California, Mr. Farr, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. 
             Grijalva, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, 
             Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Kildee, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Costello, 
             Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Weiner, Mr. 
             Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Pallone, Mr. 
             Conyers, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Herseth, Mrs. McCarthy, Ms. 
             Lee, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Owens, Mr. 
             Kanjorski, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Stark,

[[Page 18888]]

             Mr. Filner, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Ginny 
             Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Wexler, Mr. LaTourette, 
             Mr. Duncan, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. 
             Oberstar, Mr. Olver, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. 
             Rothman, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. 
             Solis, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Rush, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Ms. 
             Millender-McDonald, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hall, Mr. 
             Payne, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. 
             Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Bishop 
             of Georgia, Mr. Michaud, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. 
             Stupak, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. 
             Carson, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Inslee, Mr. 
             Cramer, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, 
             Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Towns, Ms. Watson, 
             Mr. Higgins, Mr. Ross, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Van Hollen, 
             Mr. Israel, Mr. Honda, Mr. Holden, Mr. Schiff, Mr. 
             Simmons, Mr. Murtha, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
             Davis of Alabama, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Hastings of 
             Florida, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. 
             Hinchey, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Davis 
             of Illinois, Mr. Engel, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Evans, 
             Mr. Wu, Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Crowley):
       H.R. 3601. A bill to require the establishment of a 
     Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers to compute cost-
     of-living increases for Social Security and Medicare benefits 
     under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 
     Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Education and the 
     Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
             McDermott, and Mr. Davis of Illinois):
       H.R. 3602. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     award credit toward the service of a sentence to prisoners 
     who participate in designated educational, vocational, 
     treatment, assigned work, or other developmental programs, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. SIMPSON:
       H.R. 3603. A bill to promote the economic development and 
     recreational use of National Forest System lands and other 
     public lands in central Idaho, to designate the Boulder-White 
     Cloud Management Area to ensure the continued management of 
     certain National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land 
     Management lands for recreational and grazing use and 
     conservation and resource protection, to add certain National 
     Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands in 
     central Idaho to the National Wilderness Preservation System, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
           By Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. Weldon of 
             Pennsylvania, Ms. Scha-
             kowsky, and Ms. Watson):
       H.R. 3604. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     provide expanded protections against the misuse of public 
     safety officer uniforms, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. SMITH of Washington (for himself and Mr. 
             Bachus):
       H.R. 3605. A bill to require the President to develop and 
     implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United 
     States foreign policy objective of vastly reducing global 
     poverty and eliminating extreme global poverty, to require 
     periodic reports on the progress toward implementation of the 
     strategy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     International Relations.
           By Mr. STUPAK:
       H.R. 3606. A bill to modify a land grant patent issued by 
     the Secretary of the Interior; to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. SWEENEY (for himself and Mr. Osborne):
       H.R. 3607. A bill to improve the quality of health care 
     through the implementation of computerized provider order 
     entry systems in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities 
     that will result in a reduction in the rate of medication 
     errors and in redundancies and will create more efficiency; 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. SWEENEY:
       H.R. 3608. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to 
     prohibit third-party Internet sales sites from posting offers 
     to sell controlled substances, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently 
     determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.
           By Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania:
       H.R. 3609. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of 
     duty on thiophanate methyl and application adjuvants; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania:
       H.R. 3610. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on zinc 
     dimethyldithiocarbamate; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania:
       H.R. 3611. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of 
     duty on thiophanate methyl; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
           By Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (for himself and Ms. 
             DeGette):
       H.R. 3612. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act to improve access to diabetes self management 
     training by designating certified diabetes educators who are 
     recognized by a nationally recognized certifying body and who 
     meet the same quality standards set forth for other providers 
     of diabetes self management training, as certified providers 
     for purposes of outpatient diabetes self-management training 
     services under part B of the Medicare Program; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
     determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.
           By Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Norwood, 
             Mrs. Drake, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. 
             Bonner, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Barrett of South 
             Carolina, Mr. Keller, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Kingston, Mr. 
             Sullivan, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Davis of 
             Kentucky, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Conaway):
       H.R. 3613. A bill to amend the National Apprenticeship Act 
     to provide that applications relating to apprenticeship 
     programs are processed in a fair and timely manner, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce.
           By Mr. WOLF:
       H.R. 3614. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to allow physicians a credit against income tax for 
     providing charity care; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. WU (for himself, Ms. Hooley, Mr. DeFazio, and 
             Mr. Blumenauer):
       H.R. 3615. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior 
     to carry out a study of the feasibility of designating as a 
     national historic trail the route followed by Governor Isaac 
     Stevens of the Washington Territory and Joel Palmer, 
     Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Oregon Territory, in 
     1855 when they negotiated treaties with the Indian tribes of 
     northeastern Oregon, Washington, northern Idaho and western 
     Montana; to the Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. CULBERSON (for himself, Mr. Akin, Mrs. Jo Ann 
             Davis of Virginia, Mr. Duncan, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Goode, 
             Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Herger, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, 
             Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, 
             Mr. Marchant, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Poe, Mr. Tancredo, and 
             Mr. Wilson of South Carolina):
       H.J. Res. 62. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States to require that Federal 
     district court judges be reconfirmed every ten years by the 
     executive and legislative authorities of the State in which 
     they serve; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. FORTUNO (for himself, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Lincoln 
             Diaz-Balart of Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Mario 
             Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Souder):
       H. Con. Res. 224. Concurrent resolution calling on the 
     Government of Venezuela to uphold the human rights and civil 
     liberties of the people of Venezuela; to the Committee on 
     International Relations.
           By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
       H. Con. Res. 226. Concurrent resolution providing for a 
     correction to the enrollment of H.R. 3; considered and agreed 
     to.
           By Mr. CROWLEY:
       H. Con. Res. 227. Concurrent resolution commemorating the 
     60th anniversary of the Korean independence movement and 
     recognizing Korean National Liberation Day; to the Committee 
     on International Relations.
           By Ms. HARRIS:
       H. Con. Res. 228. Concurrent resolution supporting the 
     observance of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida:
       H. Con. Res. 229. Concurrent resolution supporting the goal 
     of the United States establishing a responsible energy policy 
     toward the Gulf of Guinea region in Western Africa that 
     encourages local content development and greater governmental 
     transparency; to the Committee on International Relations, 
     and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
     period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
     case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. ISSA (for himself and Ms. Watson):
       H. Con. Res. 230. Concurrent resolution expressing the 
     sense of the Congress that the Russian Federation must 
     protect intellectual property rights; to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means.
           By Mr. PICKERING (for himself, Mr. Towns, Mr. Hall, Mr. 
             Sessions, Mr. Goode, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Burgess, Mr. 
             Whitfield, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Olver, Mr. 
             Cardoza, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Payne, Mr. Baird, Mr. 
             Lynch, Mr. Evans, Ms. Herseth, Mr.

[[Page 18889]]

             Case, Mr. McDermott, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Sanders, 
             Mr. Capuano, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Norwood, 
             Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Terry, Mr. Al 
             Green of Texas, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Norton, Mr. Putnam, 
             and Mr. Filner):
       H. Con. Res. 231. Concurrent resolution recognizing the 
     benefits and importance of Federally-qualified health centers 
     and the Medicaid prospective payment system for such centers; 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. COX (for himself and Mr. Thompson of 
             Mississippi):
       H. Res. 398. A resolution expressing the sense of the House 
     of Representatives that the employees of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, their partners at all levels of 
     government, and the millions of law enforcement agents and 
     emergency response providers nationwide should be commended 
     for their dedicated service on the Nation's front lines in 
     the war against terrorism; to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security.
           By Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mr. Paul, and Mr. 
             Gingrey):
       H. Res. 402. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals 
     of Infant Mortality Awareness Month; to the Committee on 
     Government Reform.
           By Mr. CAPUANO (for himself, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Kuhl of 
             New York, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. 
             McDermott, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Gutierrez, 
             Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Frank of 
             Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Markey, Mr. Lynch, 
             Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Olver):
       H. Res. 403. A resolution recognizing the importance of 
     Knowing My 8 Rules for Safety in addressing the problem of 
     missing children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce.
           By Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. Hunter, 
             Mr. Buyer, Mr. Evans, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Filner, Mr. 
             Grijalva, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Issa, and Mr. Cunningham):
       H. Res. 404. A resolution expressing the condolences of the 
     House of Representatives on the death of Vice Admiral 
     (retired) James B. Stockdale, United States Navy; to the 
     Committee on Armed Services.
           By Mr. DAVIS of Illinois:
       H. Res. 405. A resolution expressing the sense of the House 
     of Representatives that observing a Movement Disorders 
     Awareness Month would promote awareness, diagnosis, and 
     advocacy concerning the issue; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
           By Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania:
       H. Res. 406. A resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary 
     of the first official meeting between soldiers of the United 
     States Army and soldiers of the Soviet Army at Torgau, 
     Germany, and commending the excellent service of the 69th 
     Infantry Division of the United States Army during World War 
     II; to the Committee on Armed Services.
           By Mr. GOHMERT:
       H. Res. 407. A resolution recognizing the 75th anniversary 
     of the discovery of the East Texas Oil Field on October 3, 
     1930, and the 25th anniversary of the East Texas Oil Museum; 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. HINCHEY:
       H. Res. 408. A resolution requesting the President and 
     directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House 
     of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of 
     the adoption of this resolution all documents in the 
     possession of the President and Secretary of Defense relating 
     to communications with officials of the United Kingdom 
     relating to the policy of the United States with respect to 
     Iraq; to the Committee on International Relations.
           By Mr. LANTOS (for himself, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Berman, Mr. 
             Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Waxman, 
             Mr. Tancredo, Ms. Watson, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. 
             Abercrombie, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Wex-
             ler, Mr. Farr, Mr. McNulty, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. 
             Pitts, and Mr. Jackson of Illinois):
       H. Res. 409. A resolution condemning the Government of 
     Zimbabwe's ``Operation Murambatsvina'' under which homes, 
     businesses, religious structures, and other buildings and 
     facilities were demolished in an effort characterized by the 
     Government of Zimbabwe as an operation to ``restore order'' 
     to the country; to the Committee on International Relations, 
     and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a 
     period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
     case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. MEEHAN (for himself, Mr. English of 
             Pennsylvania, Mr. Allen, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Carson, 
             Mr. Dingell, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
             Gilchrest, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Higgins, 
             Mr. Holden, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McNulty, 
             Mr. Michaud, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Neal of 
             Massachusetts, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Ross, Mr. Sanders, 
             Mr. Snyder, and Mr. Watt):
       H. Res. 410. A resolution expressing the sense of the House 
     of Representatives that there should be established a 
     National Weatherization Day to recognize the need for 
     reducing home energy costs, particularly for low-income 
     families, through the use of conservation technologies, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Government Reform.
           By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. 
             Bilirakis, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Pallone, 
             Mr. McCotter, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. 
             Schwarz of Michigan):
       H. Res. 411. A resolution urging the Republic of Turkey to 
     comply with all European Union standards and criteria prior 
     to its accession to the European Union; to the Committee on 
     International Relations.
           By Mr. POE:
       H. Res. 412. A resolution expressing the sense of the House 
     of Representatives that the President should disapprove of 
     the report of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
     Commission containing its recommendations for the closure and 
     realignment of military installations in the United States 
     unless the President is convinced that implementation of such 
     recommendations will not adversely affect the homeland 
     security of the United States; to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
           By Mr. POE (for himself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Ms. Berkley, 
             Mr. Saxton, Mr. Pence, Mr. Weiner, and Mr. Feeney):
       H. Res. 413. A resolution expressing the concern of House 
     of Representatives regarding the amount of United States 
     foreign assistance provided to Egypt over the past 25 years 
     without meaningful political reforms by the Government of 
     Egypt, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     International Relations.
           By Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself and Mr. Lantos):
       H. Res. 414. A resolution condemning the imprisonment of 
     Ali Akbar Ganji by the Government of Iran and the continuous 
     violations of the fundamental human rights of the Iranian 
     people by the Government of Iran; to the Committee on 
     International Relations.
           By Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself and 
             Mr. Burton of Indiana):
       H. Res. 415. A resolution expressing the sense of the House 
     of Representatives that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
     needs to do more to resolve claims for confiscated real and 
     personal property, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on International Relations.
           By Mr. WEXLER (for himself, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Stearns, 
             Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Strickland, Ms. Wasserman 
             Schultz, and Mr. Engel):
       H. Res. 416. A resolution recognizing the Republic of 
     Poland and philanthropic organizations and individuals for 
     supporting the establishment of the Museum of the History of 
     Polish Jews in Warsaw, Poland; to the Committee on 
     International Relations.

                          ____________________




                               MEMORIALS

  Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as 
follows:
       121. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Legislature of 
     the State of Washington, relative to Substitute Senate Joint 
     Memorial No. 8010 petitioning the United States Department of 
     Agriculture regarding Canadian beef importation and export of 
     United States beef; to the Committee on Agriculture.
       122. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 107 requesting 
     Congress to increase the death benefit for soldiers killed in 
     combat or who die of combat related injuries and requesting 
     that supplemental programs be considered by Congress and the 
     President to put the lives of the widow or widower and 
     dependents back together; to the Committee on Armed Services.
       123. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Louisiana, relative to House Concurrent No. 138 memorializing 
     the Congress of the United States to make permanent the 
     increases in Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage 
     and the Death Gratuity benefits to provide financial security 
     of survivors of members of the Louisiana National Guard and 
     other servicemembers who make the ultimate sacrifice with 
     their lives while serving our country and the state of 
     Louisiana; to the Committee on Armed Services.
       124. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of Florida, relative to House Memorial 821 urging 
     Congress to ensure that the aircraft carrier USS John F. 
     Kennedy remains in active service, that Naval Station Mayport 
     remains the home port for the USS John F. Kennedy, and that 
     the strength of the U.S. Navy's Atlantic carrier fleet is 
     maintained at its current level; to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
       125. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Maine, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 1160 
     memorializing the Congress of the United States to avoid 
     sole-sourced shipbuilding; to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
       126. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Louisiana, relative to House

[[Page 18890]]

     Concurrent Resolution No. 92 memorializing the Congress of 
     the United States to take such actions as are necessary to 
     require financial institutions to notify consumers prior to 
     publication of negative credit information and to allow 
     adequate time for correction; to the Committee on Financial 
     Services.
       127. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State 
     of Nevada, relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 13 urging 
     Congress to preserve the Community Services Block Grant 
     program as an independent federal program; to the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce.
       128. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of Kansas, relative to House Resolution No. 6038 
     memorializing the Congress of the United States to continue 
     funding the TriO and GEARUP educational programs; to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       129. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 105 urging the 
     Congress of the United States to enact the appropriate 
     legislation to authorize the individual states to 
     autonomously implement the Safe Drinking Water Act in their 
     respective states, and to provide federal funds to the states 
     via block grants to be used for the implementation of the 
     Act, in accordance with the determination of best use by each 
     state, to protect the public health and environment of the 
     people of each state; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
       130. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Minnesota, relative to Senate Joint Resolution 31 urging that 
     proposals to transition the Bonneville Power Administration 
     from cost-based rates to market-based rates and accelerate 
     the Bonneville Power Administration's debt repayment to the 
     United States Treasury, as expressed in the President's 
     fiscal year 2006 proposed budget, be rejected; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       131. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Washington, relative to Substitute Senate Joint Memorial 8018 
     to reject the proposal to transition the Bonneville Power 
     Administration from cost-based rates to market-based rates; 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       132. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, 
     relative to Senate Resolution No. 22 urging the President of 
     the United States, the Congress of the United States and the 
     Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to preserve the 
     amount of medicaid coverages and amount of benefits; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       133. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, relative to a Resolution 
     expressing to the Congress of the United States concern over 
     the proposal of reducing the appropriation of federal funds 
     for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program; 
     to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       134. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State 
     of Nevada, relative to Assembly Joint Resolution No. 4 urging 
     the Congress of the United States to recognize the 
     unsuitibility of Yucca Mountain as the site for a repository 
     to store and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       135. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to House Joint Memorial No. 9 urging the 
     Congress of the United States to reject the Administration's 
     proposal to move PMA rates to market rates thereby ensuring 
     the continued responsible management of power generation, 
     transmission and sale; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce.
       136. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State 
     of Indiana, relative to Senate Resolution No. 25 
     memorializing the Congress of the United States to give due 
     consideration to the readiness of the Republic of China on 
     Taiwan for membership in the United Nations; to the Committee 
     on International Relations.
       137. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Hawaii, relative to House Concurrent Resolution 62 supporting 
     the government and the people of the Republic of Kiribati in 
     their efforts to address war reparations; to the Committee on 
     International Relations.
       138. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of Minnesota, relative to House File No. 2143 
     memorializing the President, Congress and the United States 
     Postal Service to maintain current levels of service; to the 
     Committee on Government Reform.
       139. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     North Dakota, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 
     4040 urging the Comissioner of Major League Baseball to 
     reinstate Roger Maris as holder of the single-season major 
     league baseball home run record; to the Committee on 
     Government Reform.
       140. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     North Dakota, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 
     3058 urging the Federal Aviation Administration to maintain 
     the Grand Forks Automated Flight Service Station as a federal 
     air traffic facility properly staffed by government 
     employees; to the Committee on Government Reform.
       141. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 102 urging 
     Congress to support broadening the federal regulation, 
     ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulation 
     for Nonessential Experimental Populations of the Western 
     District Population Segment of the Gray Wolf,'' to authorize 
     citizens to protect their pet dogs and sporting dogs in the 
     same manner as provided for livestock, including dogs that 
     guard or herd livestock; continued funding through federal 
     grants of Idaho's Wolf Depredation Compensation Plan and the 
     broadening of compensation criteria to provide compensation 
     for wolf to the Committee on Resources.
       142. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 103 urging the 
     President of the United States and the Congress of the United 
     States to pass legislation establishing an equitable 
     reimbursement formula based upon the number of users or 
     acreage or another equitable basis for the Bureau of Land 
     Management to reimburse counties for local law enforcement 
     services; to the Committee on Resources.
       143. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Memorial 109 supporting 
     reauthorization of the ``Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self-Determination Act''; to the Committee on Resources.
       144. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 104 urging the 
     President of the United States and the Congress of the United 
     States to pass legislation establishing an equitable 
     reimbursement formula based upon the number of users or 
     acreage or another equitable basis for the Forest Service to 
     reimburse counties for local law enforcement services; to the 
     Committee on Resources.
       145. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Maine, relative to a Joint Resolution memorializing the 
     President and Congress of the United States to allow Poland's 
     citizens to travel to the United States without visas; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       146. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 111 requesting 
     Congress to comprehensively review current immigration 
     policy, to examine enforcement of that policy, and further, 
     to actively seek reasonable revisions to such policy; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       147. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Louisiana, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 218 
     memorializing the Senate of the United States to pass the 
     constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the 
     American flag which was passed by the House of Presentative 
     of the United States on June 22, 2005; to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary.
       148. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of Louisiana, relative to House Resolution No. 102 
     recognizing the need for an apology to the victims of 
     lynching and their descendants by the Senate of the United 
     States for the Senates' failure to enact anti-lynching 
     legislation; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       149. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania, relative to Senate Resolution No. 25 urging the 
     Congress of the United States to make the Republic of Poland 
     eligible for the Department of State's Visa Waiver Program; 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       150. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, relative to a Resolution 
     expressing support of the extension of the term of 
     effectiveness of Pub. L. 107-56, known as the ``USA Patriot 
     Act''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       151. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 2 urging the 
     Congress of the United States to continue their endeavors on 
     behalf of Idaho's citizens for appropriate compensation 
     through RECA; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       152. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Memorial 112 urging Congress 
     to take whatever steps are possible to facilitate dredging of 
     the Snake and Clearwater Rivers by the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers; to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       153. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Louisiana, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 103 
     memorializing the Congress of the United States to take such 
     actions as are necessary to advocate changes in the Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Regulations relative to issuance of 
     restricted commercial drivers' licenses, which currently 
     prohibit aerial applicators from qualifying for issuance of 
     such license; to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       154. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State 
     of Georgia, relative to House Resolution No. 14 requesting 
     the Congress of the United States pass legislation allowing 
     hybrid or alternative fueled passenger vehicle to use 
     established HOV lanes; to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.

[[Page 18891]]


       155. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of Florida, relative to urging the Congress of the 
     United States to support the nation's new Vison for Space 
     Exploration and encouraging the Congress to continue to enact 
     and fund the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
     program implementing the nation's new Vision for Space 
     Exploration; to the Committee on Science.
       156. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to House Joint Memorial No. 6 petitioning the 
     Congress of the United States to pledge continued support and 
     provide sufficient long-term funding to assure execution of 
     the federal government's stated, public record vision for the 
     Idaho National Labratory; to the Committee on Science.
       157. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of New 
     Hampshire, relative to Senate Resolution 1 requesting the 
     United States Congress to assure that compensation is 
     provided to certain United States pilots held as prisoners of 
     war during the 1991 Gulf War; to the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs.
       158. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, relative to a Resolution 
     expressing support of the reform of the Social Security 
     System by the President of the United States and the Congress 
     of the United States; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       159. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Oregon, relative to House Joint Memorial 6 urging the United 
     States Congress to amend section 143(1)(4)(A) and (B) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code to allow veterans who entered the Armed 
     Forces of the United States after December 31, 1976, to 
     become eligible for Oregon home loans for veterans using the 
     proceeds of qualified veterans' mortgage bonds; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
       160. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Maine, relative to H.P. 1014 Joint Resolution memorializing 
     the President and Congress of the United States to support 
     the reform of the Social Security offsets of the government 
     pension offset and the windfall elimination provision; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
       161. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to House Joint Memorial No. 1 urging the 
     Congress of the United States to support legislation that 
     will authorize and fund a feasibility study by the United 
     States Corps of Engineers relating to the possibilities, 
     benefits and costs of providing flood control above Bear 
     Lake; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       162. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 4 urging the 
     Congress of the United States to renegotiate the provisions 
     of CAFTA and the FTAA to limit exports from the Involved 
     foreign countries to fairly protect agricultural producers in 
     the United States; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       163. Also,a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Louisiana, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 19 
     memorializing the Congress of the United States to take such 
     actions as are necessary to enact legislation establishing 
     English as the official language of the United States; 
     jointly to the Committees on Education and the Workforce and 
     the Judiciary.
       164. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Kansas, 
     relative to Senate Resolution No. 1862 memorializing the 
     Congress of the United States to continue the current federal 
     moratorium on specialty hospitals; jointly to the Committees 
     on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
       165. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State 
     of Colorado, relative to Senate Joint Resolution 05-015, 
     concerning opposition to the ``Federal Lands Recreation 
     Enhancement Act''; jointly to the Committees on Resources and 
     Agriculture.
       166. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of Louisiana, relative to House Resolution No. 131 
     memorializing the members of the Senate of the United States 
     from Louisiana to continue to work toward enacting federal 
     legislation to ensure that deserving victims of asbestos 
     exposure receive compensation; jointly to the Committees on 
     the Judiciary and Energy and Commerce.
       167. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Maine, relative to H.P. 1115 Joint Resolution memorializing 
     the President of the United States and the Congress of the 
     United Sates to fulfill the intent to fund 40 percent of the 
     costs of special education and to end unfunded mandates; 
     jointly to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, 
     Government Reform, the Judiciary, the Budget, and Rules.

                          ____________________




                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 5: Mr. Hall.
       H.R. 11: Mr. Marchant, Mr. Gohmert, and Mr. Sweeney.
       H.R. 14: Mr. Chabot and Mr. Hall.
       H.R. 23: Mr. Stupak.
       H.R. 47: Mr. Kline.
       H.R. 49: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
       H.R. 94: Mr. Reichert.
       H.R. 97: Mr. Reichert and Mr. Snyder.
       H.R. 98: Mr. Wolf.
       H.R. 110: Mr. Pallone and Mr. Hastings of Florida.
       H.R. 224: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
       H.R. 239: Mr. Ryun of Kansas and Mr. Gary G. Miller of 
     California.
       H.R. 269: Mr. Bishop of Georgia and Mr. DeFazio.
       H.R. 282: Mr. Fortuno.
       H.R. 309: Mr. Honda.
       H.R. 312: Mr. Wolf.
       H.R. 363: Ms. DeGette.
       H.R. 414: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Inslee, Mr. 
     Simmons, and Mr. Kline.
       H.R. 422: Mr. Moore of Kansas and Mr. Wexler.
       H.R. 478: Mr. Grijalva.
       H.R. 490: Mr. Herger.
       H.R. 519: Mr. Meek of Florida and Mr. Wexler.
       H.R. 521: Ms. Herseth and Mr. Davis of Alabama.
       H.R. 551: Mr. Markey and Mr. Stupak.
       H.R. 552: Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. 
     Beauprez, and Mr. Price of Georgia.
       H.R. 561: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
       H.R. 586: Mr. Matheson.
       H.R. 602: Mr. Kline.
       H.R. 615: Mr. Gonzalez.
       H.R. 699: Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Davis of Alabama, and Mr. 
     Miller of Florida.
       H.R. 717: Mr. Pastor.
       H.R. 759: Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Baldwin, and Ms. Matsui.
       H.R. 817: Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Schwarz of 
     Michigan.
       H.R. 839: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
       H.R. 851: Mr. Reichert.
       H.R. 856: Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Castle, Mr. Boustany, 
     Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Mr. Kline, Mr. McCaul of 
     Texas, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Kuhl of New York.
       H.R. 859: Mr. Jindal.
       H.R. 864: Mr. Lantos and Mrs. Capps.
       H.R. 867: Mr. Murtha.
       H.R. 881: Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Herger, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
     Fortenberry, Mr. Gutknecht, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Goode, Mr. 
     Rohrabacher, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Culberson, and Mr. 
     Olver.
       H.R. 896: Mr. Van Hollen and Miss McMorris.
       H.R. 897: Mr. Walsh.
       H.R. 898: Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Al Green of Texas.
       H.R. 913: Mr. Gallegly.
       H.R. 916: Mr. Levin, Mr. Gerlach, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Ryan 
     of Ohio.
       H.R. 930: Mr. Moore of Kansas.
       H.R. 936: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 949: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr. 
     Tom Davis of Virginia.
       H.R. 963: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 964: Mr. Pickering, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Snyder, Mr. 
     Gordon, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Larsen of 
     Washington, and Mr. Grijalva.
       H.R. 968: Mr. Marchant and Mrs. Drake.
       H.R. 972: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
       H.R. 976: Mr. Andrews.
       H.R. 983: Mr. Berman.
       H.R. 994: Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Taylor of 
     Mississippi, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Souder.
       H.R. 1059: Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania.
       H.R. 1062: Mr. Weldon of Florida.
       H.R. 1070: Mr. King of Iowa.
       H.R. 1130: Mr. Watt.
       H.R. 1131: Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. Beauprez.
       H.R. 1175: Mr. Clay.
       H.R. 1177: Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Sabo, and Mr. Moore of Kansas.
       H.R. 1188: Mr. DeFazio and Ms. Bordallo.
       H.R. 1200: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Meehan, and Mr. 
     Lewis of Georgia.
       H.R. 1202: Mr. Whitfield.
       H.R. 1217: Mr. Baird.
       H.R. 1227: Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Baird, and Mr. Simpson.
       H.R. 1233: Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, 
     Mr. Davis of Alabama, and Mr. Gutierrez.
       H.R. 1243: Mr. Hensarling.
       H.R. 1245: Mr. Cunningham, Miss McMorris, Mr. Rahall, Mr. 
     Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Reichert, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Mica, 
     Mr. Nunes, Mr. Baca, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Mack.
       H.R. 1246: Mr. Sherman and Mr. Regula.
       H.R. 1249: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. 
     Ryan of Ohio.
       H.R. 1251: Mrs. Napolitano.
       H.R. 1259: Mr. Nunes.
       H.R. 1264: Mr. Pastor.
       H.R. 1273: Mr. Hall.
       H.R. 1281: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
       H.R. 1290: Mr. Pastor.
       H.R. 1298: Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Al Green of 
     Texas, and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
       H.R. 1303: Mr. Berman.
       H.R. 1306: Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
       H.R. 1312, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. 
     Brady of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Crowley, 
     Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Evans, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Harman, 
     Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lewis 
     of Georgia, Mr. Markey, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. 
     Meehan, Mr. Meeks of New

[[Page 18892]]

     York, Mr. Olver, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Rangel, Mr. 
     Rothman, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta 
     Sanchez of California, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Solis, Mrs. Tauscher, 
     Mr. Tierney, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Becerra, Ms. 
     Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Clay, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. 
     Hastings of Florida, Mr. Honda, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. 
     Lantos, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Owens, Mr. Towns, 
     Ms. Velazquez, and Ms. Waters.
       H.R. 1333: Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mrs. Emerson, Mrs. 
     Capps, and Mr. Feeney.
       H.R. 1365: Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Evans, Mr. Wu, Mr. Davis of 
     Florida, Mr. Ross, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Clay, Mr. Marshall, Mr. 
     Boswell, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Berry.
       H.R. 1366: Mrs. Drake.
       H.R. 1376, Mr. Inslee.
       H.R. 1380: Mr. Kirk.
       H.R. 1390, Mrs. Napolitano.
       H.R. 1399: Mr. Filner.
       H.R. 1401: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 1402: Mr. LaHood, Mr. Farr, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Conyers, 
     Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Neal of 
     Massachusetts, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Baird, Mr. Bishop of 
     Georgia, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Brown of 
     Ohio, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Carnahan, Ms. Carson, Mr. Costello, Mr. 
     Crowley, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Engel, Ms. 
     Eshoo, Mr. Evans, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Gene Green of 
     Texas, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Holden, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. 
     Israel, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, 
     Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Larsen of 
     Washington, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. 
     Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Markey, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
     McIntyre, Ms. McKinney, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. 
     Obey, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
     Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Snyder, 
     Mr. Tanner, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Ryan of 
     Ohio, Mr. Berry, and Mr. Case.
       H.R. 1406: Mr. Marshall.
       H.R. 1409: Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. 
     Engel, Mr. Calvert, Ms. Waters, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Gonzalez, 
     and Mr. Baird.
       H.R. 1413: Mr. Andrews, Mr. Emanuel, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. 
     Filner, Mr. Al Green of Texas, and Mr. Markey.
       H.R. 1414: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 1426: Mrs. Capps.
       H.R. 1431: Mr. Walsh and Mr. Spratt.
       H.R. 1439: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
       H.R. 1451: Mr. Wu, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. Larson of 
     Connecticut.
       H.R. 1471: Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Kline.
       H.R. 1510: Mr. Cole of Oklahoma and Mr. Cantor.
       H.R. 1517: Mr. Hyde.
       H.R. 1526: Ms. Berkley.
       H.R. 1545: Mr. Ford.
       H.R. 1548: Mr. Shimkus and Ms. Berkley.
       H.R. 1554: Mr. Stark and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
       H.R. 1558: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 
     Mr. Stark, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Schwarz of 
     Michigan.
       H.R. 1574: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
       H.R. 1595: Mr. Jefferson.
       H.R. 1598: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
       H.R. 1632: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Whitfield, and Mr. 
     Waxman.
       H.R. 1648: Mr. Watt.
       H.R. 1651: Mr. Tiahrt.
       H.R. 1652: Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Langevin, and 
     Mr. Blumenauer.
       H.R. 1668, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
       H.R. 1687: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, and 
     Mr. Jefferson.
       H.R. 1693: Mr. Nadler.
       H.R. 1696: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida and Mr. Clyburn.
       H.R. 1704: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Gerlach, and Mr. 
     Forbes.
       H.R. 1708: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
       H.R. 1709: Mr. Dingell, Mr. Ackerman, Mrs. Tauscher, and 
     Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
       H.R. 1736: Mr. Brown of Ohio and Mr. Hinojosa.
       H.R. 1749: Mr. Akin, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Beauprez.
       H.R. 1801: Mr. Wexler.
       H.R. 1816: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California and Mr. 
     Sullivan.
       H.R. 1849: Ms. Matsui.
       H.R. 1872: Mr. Feeney.
       H.R. 1898: Mr. Neugebauer and Mrs. Emerson.
       H.R. 1953: Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
     Andrews, Mr. Baca, Mr. Baird, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrow, Mr. 
     Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Bass, Ms. Bean, Mr. Becerra, Ms. 
     Berkley, Mr. Berman, Mr. Berry, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. 
     Bishop of New York, Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Boozman, 
     Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Boren, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Boucher, Mr. 
     Boustany, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Corrine 
     Brown of Florida, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Burgess, Mr. 
     Butterfield, Mr. Calvert, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano, Mr. 
     Cardin, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Carnahan, Ms. Carson, Mr. Case, Mr. 
     Chandler, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Clay, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. 
     Clyburn, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cooper, Mr. 
     Costa, Mr. Costello, Mr. Cox, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. 
     Crowley, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. 
     Davis of Illinois, Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. Davis of 
     Tennessee, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. 
     DeGette, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Dingell, 
     Mr. Doyle, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Emanuel, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Engel, 
     Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. 
     Evans, Mr. Everett, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fattah, 
     Mr. Filner, Mr. Ford, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
     Gilchrest, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. 
     Gordon, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. 
     Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hall, Ms. Harman, Mr. Hastings 
     of Florida, Mr. Hayworth, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Higgins, Mr. 
     Hinchey, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Holden, Mr. Holt, Mr. Honda, Ms. 
     Hooley, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Israel, Mr. 
     Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Jefferson, 
     Mr. Jindal, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mrs. Johnson 
     of Connecticut, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Kanjorski, Ms. 
     Kaptur, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Kildee, Ms. 
     Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Kind, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. 
     Kuhl of New York, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Lantos, Mr. 
     Larsen of Washington, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Ms. Lee, Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. 
     Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Linder, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Zoe Lofgren 
     of California, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of 
     California, Mr. Lynch, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
     Marshall, Mr. Matheson, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. McCarthy, Ms. 
     McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. McCotter, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
     McGovern, Mr. McIntyre, Ms. McKinney, Mr. McNulty, Mr. 
     Meehan, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. 
     Melancon, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Millender-McDonald, 
     Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. George Miller of 
     California, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Moore of 
     Kansas, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. 
     Murtha, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neal of 
     Massachusetts, Mr. Ney, Ms. Norton, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Obey, 
     Mr. Olver, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Owens, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pascrell, 
     Mr. Pastor, Mr. Payne, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. 
     Pomeroy, Mr. Porter, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Rahall, 
     Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
     Ross, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. 
     Rush, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Salazar, Ms. Linda T. 
     Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. 
     Sanders, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
     Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Scott 
     of Virginia, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Shays, Mr. Sherman, Mr. 
     Shimkus, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Skelton, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Smith 
     of Washington, Mr. Snyder, Ms. Solis, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Stark, 
     Mr. Strickland, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tanner, Mrs. 
     Tauscher, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson 
     of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Thornberry, 
     Mr. Tierney, Mr. Towns, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of 
     New Mexico, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. 
     Wamp, Ms. Waters, Ms. Watson, Mr. Watt, Mr. Waxman, Mr. 
     Weiner, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon of Florida, 
     Mr. Wexler, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Wilson 
     of South Carolina, Mr. Wolf, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wu, Mr. Wynn, 
     Mr. Dreier, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Kennedy 
     of Minnesota, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Hulshof, 
     Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Weller.
       H.R. 1981: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
       H.R. 2012: Mr. Lipinski.
       H.R. 2014: Mrs. McCarthy.
       H.R. 2018: Mr. Costa.
       H.R. 2045: Mr. Sensenbrenner.
       H.R. 2051: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
       H.R. 2062: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, and Mr. 
     Kanjorski.
       H.R. 2076: Mrs. Drake.
       H.R. 2092: Mr. Grijalva.
       H.R. 2131: Mr. Kanjorski.
       H.R. 2177: Mr. Wexler and Mr. McCaul of Texas.
       H.R. 2207: Mr. Osborne.
       H.R. 2229: Mr. Goode, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Bishop 
     of Utah.
       H.R. 2238: Mr. Al Green of Texas and Mr. Scott of Virginia.
       H.R. 2291: Mr. Michaud and Mr. Barrow.
       H.R. 2308: Mr. Leach.
       H.R. 2317: Mr. Pallone and Ms. Slaughter.
       H.R. 2327: Mr. Oberstar.
       H.R. 2340: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
       H.R. 2347: Mr. Carnahan.
       H.R. 2356: Mr. Platts and Mr. Boozman.
       H.R. 2369: Mr. Van Hollen.
       H.R. 2386: Mr. Souder, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mrs. Cubin, 
     Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. 
     Goodlatte, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Ms. Berkley, Mrs. Biggert, 
     Mr. Scott of Georgia, Miss McMorris, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, 
     Ms. Herseth, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Simons, 
     Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Dent, Mr. 
     Sessions, and Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
       H.R. 2410: Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Sabo.
       H.R. 2413: Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Hall, 
     Mr. Hensarling, Mr.

[[Page 18893]]

     Barton of Texas, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Paul, 
     Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
     Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Al Green of Texas, 
     Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Conway, Ms. Granger, Mr. Thornberry, 
     Mr. Burgess, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, 
     Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Marchant, Mr. 
     Doggett, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Carter, and 
     Mr. Sessions.
       H.R. 2429: Mr. Pascrell and Ms. DeGette.
       H.R. 2471: Mr. Boehner and Mr. Andrews.
       H.R. 2498: Mrs. Blackburn.
       H.R. 2521: Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
     Serrano, Mr. Ross, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Kline, and Mr. 
     Emanuel.
       H.R. 2533: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
       H.R. 2567: Mr. Pascrell.
       H.R. 2631: Mr. Clay.
       H.R. 2639: Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Case.
       H.R. 2640: Mr. Cummings.
       H.R. 2659: Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Owens, Mr. Peterson 
     of Minnesota, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Filner.
       H.R. 2671: Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Al Green of Texas.
       H.R. 2680: Mr. Engel.
       H.R. 2681: Ms. Solis.
       H.R. 2682: Mr. Gordon and Mr. Andrews.
       H.R. 2686: Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. McIntyre, and Mr. Butterfield.
       H.R. 2717: Mr. Clay.
       H.R. 2736: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 2737: Mr. Al Green of Texas.
       H.R. 2747: Ms. Berkley.
       H.R. 2795: Mr. Carter and Mr. McCaul of Texas.
       H.R. 2803: Mr. Upton, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. 
     Shuster, and Mr. McKeon.
       H.R. 2835: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
       H.R. 2872: Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Terry, Mrs. 
     Capito, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Jindal, Mr. Smith of 
     Washington, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. 
     Peterson of Minnesota, and Mr. Bass.
       H.R. 2874: Mr. Towns.
       H.R. 2876: Mr. Allen, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. 
     Ferguson, Mr. Owens, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Davis of 
     Alabama, Mr. Leach, Mr. Ford, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, 
     Mrs. Lowey, and Ms. Berkley.
       H.R. 2896: Mr. Jindal.
       H.R. 2923: Mr. Owens, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Davis 
     of Illinois, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Al 
     Green of Texas, and Ms. Harris.
       H.R. 2926: Mr. Oberstar.
       H.R. 2928: Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. 
     Langevin, and Mrs. Biggert.
       H.R. 2947: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. 
     Carson, and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
       H.R. 2952: Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Marchant, Mr. 
     Calvert, and Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
       H.R. 2961: Mr. Beauprez.
       H.R. 2962: Mr. Gordon.
       H.R. 2963: Mr. Conyers.
       H.R. 2989: Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Wexler.
       H.R. 2990: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
       H.R. 3005: Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Bishop of 
     Georgia, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
     Calvert, Mr. Clay, Mr. Clyburn, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of 
     Virginia, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Foley, Mr. 
     Grijalva, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hall, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Herger, 
     Ms. Herseth, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. 
     Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr. 
     Knollenberg, Mr. Lynch, Mr. McKeon, Ms. McKinney, Mr. 
     Marchant, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, 
     Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. Norton, Mr. Owens, Mr. Ramstad, 
     Mr. Reyes, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Strickland, 
     Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. 
     Wamp, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,  Ms. Waters, Mr. Weiner, and Mr. 
     Wynn.
       H.R. 3006: Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
       H.R. 3040: Mr. Kildee, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. 
     Olver, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Clay.
       H.R. 3041: Mr. Pascrell.
       H.R. 3042: Mr. Wexler and Ms. Schakow-
     sky.
       H.R. 3055: Mr. Lantos, Ms. Matsui, and Mr. Al Green of 
     Texas.
       H.R. 3063: Mr. Boucher, Mr. Price of North Carolina, and 
     Mr. Moore of Kansas.
       H.R. 3080: Mrs. Myrick, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Garrett of 
     New Jersey, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, 
     Mr. Bachus, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, and Mr. Wicker.
       H.R. 3096: Mr. Capuano, Mr. Israel, Mr. Hinchey, and Ms. 
     Zoe Lofgren of California.
       H.R. 3098: Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Boren, Ms. Zoe 
     Lofgren of California, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Price 
     of North Carolina, Mr. Paul, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Pascrell, 
     Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. 
     Matheson.
       H.R. 3127: Mr. Engel and Mr. Levin.
       H.R. 3128: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Emanuel.
       H.R. 3132: Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Schiff, 
     Mr. Westmoreland, Ms. Harris, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Weldon of 
     Pennsylvania, Mr. Souder, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Coble, Mr. Price 
     of Georgia, and Mr. Whitfield.
       H.R. 3135: Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Renzi, and Mr. Leach.
       H.R. 3144: Mr. Green of Wisconsin.
       H.R. 3146: Mr. Bachus, Mr. Bonilla, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
     Michaud, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Baca, Mrs. Maloney, 
     Mr. Price of Georgia, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. 
     Meeks of New York, Mr. Camp, and Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
       H.R. 3161: Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Simmons.
       H.R. 3165: Mr. McGovern.
       H.R. 3183: Mr. Pickering.
       H.R. 3185: Mr. Lantos, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Sanders.
       H.R. 3186: Mr. McCaul of Texas.
       H.R. 3187: Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island.
       H.R. 3192: Mr. Waxman, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Berkley, 
     and Mr. Olver.
       H.R. 3195: Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia and Mr. Filner.
       H.R. 3248: Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Andrews, Mr. 
     Wolf, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Emanuel, 
     Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Menendez, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. 
     Sanders, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Wu, Ms. Loretta 
     Sanchez of California, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Van Hollen, 
     Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Doyle, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. 
     Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
     Strickland, Mr. Melancon, and Mr. Price of North Carolina.
       H.R. 3254: Mr. Cuellar and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
       H.R. 3268: Mr. King of Iowa and Mr. Cardoza.
       H.R. 3270: Mr. Nadler.
       H.R. 3298: Mrs. Maloney.
       H.R. 3304: Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Gohmert, and Ms. Hart.
       H.R. 3323: Mr. Pallone, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Upton, Ms. Zoe 
     Lofgren of California, and Ms. Berkley.
       H.R. 3324: Mr. Dicks.
       H.R. 3325: Mr. Dicks.
       H.R. 3326: Mr. Nadler, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Olver, Mr. Sanders, 
     Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Gonzalez, and 
     Ms. DeGette.
       H.R. 3333: Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
       H.R. 3334: Mr. Shays, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Platts, 
     Mr. Porter, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Ortiz, 
     Ms. Herseth, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. 
     Ruppersberger, Mr. Emanuel, and Mr. Clyburn.
       H.R. 3337: Mr. Filner.
       H.R. 3352: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Baird, Mr. Honda, Mr. 
     Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Kline, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Hinojosa, 
     Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Costa.
       H.R. 3358: Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. McGovern, and 
     Mr. Spratt.
       H.R. 3361: Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Rush.
       H.R. 3373: Mr. King of New York, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. 
     Abercrombie, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Weldon of 
     Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and 
     Mr. Wexler.
       H.R. 3402: Mr. Gibbons, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Scott of 
     Virginia, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Gohmert, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, 
     Mr. Nadler, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
       H.R. 3405: Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. 
     Baker, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Hall, Mr. Pitts, Mr. 
     Pence, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Flake, Mr. Wamp, Mr. 
     Lucas, Mr. Scott of Georgia, and Mr. Sessions.
       H.R. 3406: Mr. Wexler.
       H.R. 3407: Mr. Wexler.
       H.R. 3417: Mr. Calvert.
       H.R. 3422: Mr. Paul.
       H.R. 3426: Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Carson, Mr. Paul, 
     Mr. Rangel, and Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 3436: Mr. Otter, Mr. Jindal, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, 
     Mr. Goode, and Mr. Burton of Indiana.
       H.R. 3441: Mr. Miller of Florida.
       H.R. 3442: Mrs. Capps and Mr. Clay.
       H.R. 3449: Mrs. McCarthy.
       H.R. 3482: Mr. Pastor, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Baca, Ms. Solis, 
     Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. 
     Gonzalez, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
     California.
       H.R. 3492: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. 
     Berman.
       H.J. Res. 55: Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mrs. Christensen, 
     Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Lewis of 
     Georgia, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Serrano.
       H.J. Res. 56: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Farr, 
     Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Owens, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. 
     Grijalva, Mr. Nadler, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Frank of 
     Massachusetts, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Cummings, Ms. Lee, Mr. 
     Pallone, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Honda, and 
     Ms. Scha-
     kowsky.
       H. Con. Res. 40: Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
       H. Con. Res. 90: Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Schiff, Ms. McKinney, Mr. 
     Delahunt, and Mr. Shadegg.
       H. Con. Res. 99: Mr. Boswell.
       H. Con. Res. 125: Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania.
       H. Con. Res. 146: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and 
     Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
       H. Con. Res. 172: Mr. Moran of Virginia and Ms. Bean.
       H. Con. Res. 178: Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Stupak, Mr. 
     Lantos, and Mr. Cul-
     berson.

[[Page 18894]]


       H. Con. Res. 194: Mr. Ross.
       H. Con. Res. 195: Mr. Bishop of New York and Ms. Norton.
       H. Con. Res. 209: Mr. Reichert, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Udall of 
     Colorado, and Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
       H. Con. Res. 210: Mr. Gerlach, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
     Matheson, Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Mr. Simmons.
       H. Con. Res. 213: Mr. Gordon.
       H. Con. Res. 215: Mr. Gordon.
       H. Con. Res. 218: Mr. Rothman and Ms. Berkley.
       H. Con. Res. 220: Mr. Shays and Mr. Fossella.
       H. Res. 15: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. 
     Cummings, and Mr. McHugh.
       H. Res. 61: Mr. Rothman.
       H. Res. 166: Mr. Blumenauer.
       H. Res. 220: Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Goode, Mr. Camp, and Mr. 
     Sessions.
       H. Res. 246: Mr. Matheson.
       H. Res. 261: Mr. Moore of Kansas.
       H. Res. 276: Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Kildee, 
     and Mr. Berman.
       H. Res. 316: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. 
     DeLauro, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Ms. Berkley, Mr. 
     Blumenauer, and Mr. LoBiondo.
       H. Res. 325: Mr. McHugh.
       H. Res. 327: Mr. Watt, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. 
     Kilpatrick of Michigan, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, 
     Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Clay, Ms. Watson, Mr. Bishop of 
     Georgia, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. 
     Cummings, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. 
     Wynn, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Butter-
     field, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
     California, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Clyburn, 
     Mr. McGovern, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Barrow, Mr. McNulty, Mr. 
     Israel, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Wu, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Rangel, Mr. 
     Honda, Mr. Rush, Mr. Boren, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Thompson of 
     Mississippi, Mr. Scott of Virginia, and Mr. Smith of New 
     Jersey.
       H. Res. 357: Mr. Beauprez.
       H. Res. 360: Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. 
     Hostettler, and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
       H. Res. 368: Mr. Doyle, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, and Mr. 
     Delahunt.
       H. Res. 371: Mrs. Blackburn.
       H. Res. 375: Mr. Honda, Mr. George Miller of California, 
     and Ms. Kaptur.
       H. Res. 382: Mr. Owens, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Roybal-Allard, 
     Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Gri-
     jalva, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
     Texas, and Mrs. Christensen.
       H. Res. 388: Mr. Chabot, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Pallone, Mr. 
     Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. 
     McCaul of Texas, Mr. Souder, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mrs. Drake.
       H. Res. 390: Mr. DeLay, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Brady 
     of Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. 
     Thomas, Mr. Hall, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Culberson, 
     Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Poe, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. 
     Marchant, Mr. Paul, Mr. Bachus, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
     Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Edwards, 
     Ms. Granger, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Upton, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. 
     Reyes, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Gene Green of 
     Texas, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Regula, 
     Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Conaway, Mr. 
     Feeney, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. 
     Cuellar, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Oxley, Ms. Matsui, Mr. 
     Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Sessions, and 
     Mr. Fossella.

                          ____________________




        DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 1295: Mr. Owens.
       H.R. 1946: Mr. Price of Georgia.

                          ____________________




                            PETITIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the 
clerk's desk and referred as follows:
       28. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Marinette 
     County Board of Supervisors, Wisconsin, relative to 
     Resolution No. 192 urging the Congress of the United States 
     to take action to eliminate the gridlock occurring in Forest 
     Service Land Use Planning and in the implementation of timber 
     sale projects; to the Committee on Agriculture.
       29. Also, a petition of the Village of Carpentersville 
     Board of Trustees, Illinois, relative to a Resolution in 
     support of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     continued administration of the Community Development Block 
     Grant Program; to the Committee on Financial Services.
       30. Also, a petition of Lexington Fayette Urban County 
     Government, relative to Resolution No. 193-2005 expressing 
     concern about ongoing discussions and plans to either 
     eliminate or cut funding to the Community Development Block 
     Grant (CDBG) Program and to remove the program from the 
     supervision of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development (HUD); expressing support for and the importance 
     of the CDBG program; and requesting that the President and 
     Congress of the United States of America leave the CDBG 
     program under the auspices of HUD and fund the program at no 
     less than the current level of $4.7 billion; to the Committee 
     on Financial Services.
       31. Also, a petition of the Midwest Operating Engineers 
     Fringe Benefit Funds, Illinois, relative to an amendment to 
     the Multiemployer Pension Plan Reform Proposal urging the 
     Congress on the United States to include appropriate relief 
     to multiemployer plans and the employers who contribute to 
     them; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       32. Also, a petition of the Legislature of Rockland County, 
     relative to Resolution No. 613 of 2004 commemorating and 
     honoring Haitian involvement in the Battle of Savannah during 
     the American Revolution and marking the significance and 
     importance of Haitian culture and activism in the United 
     States; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       33. Also, a petition of Keweenaw County Board of 
     Commissioners of Eagle River, Michigan, relative to a 
     Resolution dated May 11, 2005, supporting the the 
     reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant for FY 
     2006 and beyond, and that funding for (CSBG) be continued at 
     its current level; to the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce.
       34. Also, a petition of Office of the Governor of Guam, 
     relative to a Resolution for amendments to the reimbursement 
     and guideline requirements for Guam's National School Meals 
     program; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
       35. Also, a petition of the County Board of the County of 
     DuPage, Illinois, relative to a Resolution urging the 
     Congressional Approriations Committee to recommit at least 
     $85 million, the same funding as last year, to the Prostate 
     Cancer Research Program at the Department of Defense and to 
     restore the $35 million cut from the group of programs; to 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       36. Also, a petition of the Legislature of Rockland County, 
     New York, relative to Resolution No. 612 of 2004 petitioning 
     the President of the United States and the United States 
     Congress to introduce and enact legislation to provide for a 
     ``registry of persons who abuse the mentally retarded/
     developmentally disabled/mentally disabled'' (MR/DD/MDR) for 
     the purposes of recording abuse or maltreatment of MR/DD/MD 
     persons residing in subsidized communities, certified 
     agencies and family care situations; to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce.
       37. Also, a petition of Parliamentary Assembly Union of 
     Belarus and Russia, relative to a statement in connection 
     with the growing anti-Byelorussian campaign conducted by 
     leading Western states and international organizations and 
     associations; to the Committee on International Relations.
       38. Also, a petition of the Legislature of the County of 
     Rockland, New York, relative to Resolution No. 257 requesting 
     the Congress of the United States to introduce and pass S. 
     391 -- A Bill To Amend The Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 To Prohibit Certain State Election Administration 
     Officials From Actively Participating in Electoral Campaigns; 
     to the Committee on House Administration.
       39. Also, a petition of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, 
     Hawaii, relative to Resolution No. 243 supporting the passage 
     of S.147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act 
     of 2005; to the Committee on Resources.
       40. Also, a petition of the Ashland County Board of 
     Supervisors, Wisconsin, relative to Resolution No. R06-2005-
     808 urging the Congress of the United States to restore the 
     PILT funding to no less that the FY 2005 level plus the 
     additional amount of the national increase in inflation; to 
     the Committee on Resources.
       41. Also, a petition of the Municipal Council of the 
     Township of Belleville, New Jersey, relative to Resolution 
     No. 05-157 supporting Senate Bill S.825 and House of 
     Representative Bill H.R.87 known as the ``Crossroads of the 
     American Revolution National Heritage Area Act''; to the 
     Committee on Resources.
       42. Also, a petition of the Vilas County Forestry, 
     Recreation & Land Committee, Wisconsin, relative to 
     Resolution No. 2005-52 urging the Congress of the United 
     States to reathorize and fund Pub. L. 106-393, the Secure 
     Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act; to the 
     Committee on Resources.
       43. Also, a petition of the Marinette County Board of 
     Supervisors, Wisconsin, relative to Resolution No. 190 urging 
     the Congress of the United States to reauthorize and fund 
     Pub. L. 106-393, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
     Determination Act; to the Committee on Resources.
       44. Also, a petition of the Board of County Commissioners 
     of San Juan County, Colorado, relative to Resolution No. 05-1 
     requesting the repeal of the Federal Land Recreation 
     Enhancement Act by the Congress of the United States; to the 
     Committee on Resources.
       45. Also, a petition of the Essex County Board of 
     Supervisors, New York, relative to

[[Page 18895]]

     Resolution No. 122 opposing the development and 
     implementation of a plan to require United States, Canadian 
     and Mexican citizens to present a passport or other secure 
     document when entering the United States; to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary.
       46. Also, a petition of the Lauderdale Lakes City 
     Commission, Florida, relative to Resolution No. 05-68 
     supporting and encouraging the Restoration of the Civil 
     Rights of Ex-Felons; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       47. Also, a petition of Ms. Jacquelyn Finney, a citzen of 
     Encinitas, California, relative to support of the fundamental 
     constitutional right to access the courts that is guaranteed 
     by the Americans with Disabilities Act Title II; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
       48. Also, a petition of Cook County Board of Commissioners, 
     relative to a resolution dated June 21, 2005, condemning the 
     use of torture as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading 
     treatment upon anyone being held by, or under the permission 
     of, any governmental authority; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
       49. Also, a petition of the Board of Chosen Freeholders of 
     the County of Hudson, New Jersey, relative to Resolution No. 
     162-4-2005 petitioning the Congress of the United States to 
     fully support and fund the Passaic River Restoration 
     Initiative; to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       50. Also, a petition of the City of Oceanside, California, 
     relative to Resolution No. 05-R0339-1 requesting the Congress 
     of the United States provide adequate operating and capital 
     funding for Amtrak and to establish a multi-year capital 
     funding program available to the states on a matching basis 
     to initiate, improve and expand passenger rail services and 
     provide a adequate level of capital funding for Amtrak to 
     sustain the mandated rail passenger services; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       51. Also, a petition of the Chamber of Commerce of the 
     United States, relative to Recommendations to the Congress of 
     the United States on the TEA-21 Reauthorization; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       52. Also, a petition of the Board of County Commissioners 
     of San Juan County, Colorado, relative to Resolution No. 05-2 
     supporting the adoption of legislation that would amend the 
     Clean Water Act to allow Good Samaritans to contribute to the 
     cleanup of mine drainage within San Juan County; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       53. Also, a petition of the City of Shaker Heights, Ohio, 
     relative to Resolution No. 05-48 opposing the Congress of the 
     United States proposed job cuts at NASA, and declaring an 
     emergency; to the Committee on Science.
       54. Also, a petition of the City Council of Honolulu, 
     Hawaii, relative to Resolution No. 05-147 urging the Congress 
     of the United States to support legislation conferring 
     veterans' benefits on Filipino World War II veterans; to the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
       55. Also, a petition of the County of Whiteside, Illinois, 
     relative to a resolution urging the Congress of the United 
     States to fully support the Department of Veterans Affairs; 
     to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
       56. Also, a petition of the California Veterans Board, 
     California, relative to a resolution on federal budget 
     proposals to reduce federal aid for state veterans homes and 
     for daily care of veterans in state homes; to the Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs.
       57. Also, a petition of the Macomb County Board of 
     Commissioners, Michigan, relative to Resolution No. 05-13 
     urging the Congress of the United States to make the 
     bipartisan adjustments necessary to extend the Social 
     Security program; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       58. Also, a petition of City of Bay City, Michigan, 
     relative to a Resolution petitioning Congress to actively 
     oppose any efforts by the Internal Revenue Service to 
     eliminate or modify the tax exempt status on municipal 
     gasoline consumption; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       59. Also, a petition of the Legislature of the County of 
     Rockland, New York, relative to Resolution No. 57 requesting 
     the Congress of the United States not to reduce or eliminate 
     the federal income tax return deductions for state and local 
     taxes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
       60. Also, a petition of the Ashland County Board of 
     Supervisors, Wisconsin, relative to Resolution No. R06-2005-
     810 requesting the Congress of the United States to approve 
     the continuation of Pub. L. 106-393 for an additional 6 years 
     and that the current rate plus an annual increase in the 
     appropriated amount be at the full rate of national 
     inflation; jointly to the Committees on Agriculture and 
     Resources.
       61. Also, a petition of the Legislature of the County of 
     Rockland, New York, relative to Resolution No. 59 requesting 
     the Congress of the United States pass S. 1684 and H.R. 1886, 
     A Bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1774; jointly to 
     the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Education and the 
     Workforce.
       62. Also, a petition of the Legislature of the County of 
     Rockland, New York, relative to Resolution No. 58 requesting 
     the Congress of the United States to pass S. 493 and H.R. 
     792, A bill to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     to authorize physical therapists to evaluate and treat 
     medicare beneficiaries without a requirement for a physician 
     referral; jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce 
     and Ways and Means.
       63. Also, a petition of the County of Marathon, Wisconsin, 
     relative to Resolution No. R-29-05 requesting that the 
     Congress of the United States take action to eliminate the 
     gridlock that is occurring in Forest Service Land Use 
     Planning and in the implementation of timber sale projects 
     that are permissable within approved Foreset Plan; jointly to 
     the Committees on Resources and Agriculture.
       64. Also, a petition of the County of Marathon, Wisconsin, 
     relative to Resolution No. R-28-05 urging the Congress of the 
     United States to reauthorize and fund Pub. L. 106-393, the 
     Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act; 
     jointly to the Committees on Resources and Agriculture.
       65. Also, a petition of the County of Marathon, Wisconsin, 
     relative to Resolution No. R-27-05 urging the Congress of the 
     United States to restore Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) 
     Funding from the Federal Government to Townships Containing 
     Federal Forest Lands to the FY 2005 Level Plus Inflation; 
     jointly to the Committees on Resources and Agriculture.
     
     


[[Page 18896]]

                     SENATE--Thursday, July 28, 2005

  The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable 
John E. Sununu, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire.
                                 ______
                                 

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Almighty God, our mighty rock, You have promised to supply all our 
needs. Today, give our lawmakers wisdom that they may know what to do. 
Give them courage to accomplish Your will. Give them skill to navigate 
through life's inevitable challenges. Give them perseverance to not 
become weary in doing well. Give them strength to resist all the 
temptations which would lure them from Your plan. Help each of us to 
begin to continue and to end all things in You.
  Thank You for answering our prayers, for You are our strong shield, 
and we place our trust in You. Amen.

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The Honorable John E. Sununu led the Pledge of Allegiance, as 
follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________




              APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to 
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
  The legislative clerk read the following letter:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                        President pro tempore,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 2005.
     To the Senate:
       Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable 
     John E. Sununu, a Senator from the State of New Hampshire, to 
     perform the duties of the Chair.
                                                      Ted Stevens,
                                            President pro tempore.

  Mr. SUNUNU thereupon assumed the Chair as Acting President pro 
tempore.
  Mr. FRIST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________




                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________




                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning we will begin with a period of 
morning business for 60 minutes. Following that time, we will resume 
consideration of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms 
legislation. Senator Kohl has an amendment pending related to trigger 
locks, and there will be an hour of debate on that amendment prior to 
the vote. That vote should begin before noon, in the next 2\1/2\ hours. 
The managers will continue to work through the day to see what 
additional amendments are ready for votes. The cloture vote could be as 
early as 1 a.m. Friday morning. We haven't set the vote for that time. 
I mention that early hour only to highlight the fact that we have so 
much work to do.
  We have conference reports, the gun liability bill, nominations, all 
of which we need to accomplish before we leave for the recess. We have 
the Interior appropriations conference report that has the veterans 
health money in it that we have addressed before. We have the energy 
conference report, which I believe is very close; the highway 
conference report, which has not been filed yet but which will be 
hopefully later today. We have the Legislative appropriations 
conference report. Once we address the pending bill, we can hopefully 
expedite completion of all of the remaining measures prior to the 
August break. I will be working with the Democratic leader to schedule 
these important items over the next couple of days.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the leader be good enough to yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, several of us have amendments directly 
related to the underlying legislation. We understand the time goes to 1 
o'clock this evening. I have two amendments dealing with the ability of 
terrorists to purchase weapons. I know both Senators from New Jersey 
have amendments. We are more than willing to enter into short time 
agreements. We want to cooperate on the conference reports, but we 
understand the process and the procedure that is going on is that the 
majority is making a judgment decision about which amendments we are 
going to consider and which ones we are not.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in response to our distinguished colleague 
from Massachusetts, there have been several filed amendments. I 
mentioned 1 o'clock today because then we will have the whole universe 
of filed amendments. We are going to proceed and have a rollcall vote 
on the trigger lock amendment before noon today, and then we need to 
look at each of the amendments. Including the amendments mentioned, 
Senator Levin has an amendment, Senator Lautenberg, and the Senator 
from Massachusetts has filed two amendments. We will be looking at 
those amendments over the course of the day.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The leader controls the time. Does 
the leader yield for a question?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The only point is that, as the leader just said, we are 
following a procedure where the leadership is going to look at the 
amendments and then make their judgment as to whether the Senate will 
get a chance to consider these issues. I must say, that is an unusual 
procedure to follow, when many of us are trying to cooperate with the 
leadership. We are more than glad to enter into short time agreements 
and then to let the Senate work its will.
  I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________




                   RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.

                          ____________________




            UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 810 AND S. 1317

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to the distinguished majority leader 
leaving the floor, I have a short statement I would like him to listen 
to. Then I will propound a unanimous-consent request.
  Two months ago, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 810, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Two months in legislative time may 
not seem like a lot of time. But in the lives of people who are sick or 
who have loved ones who are sick, it can be an eternity. The bill that 
passed the House was a rare victory of bipartisanship. I sincerely 
hoped, after having read that it had passed, that we would embrace the 
same spirit of bipartisanship in the Senate and pass this legislation 
that offers hope to millions of

[[Page 18897]]

Americans who suffer from deadly disease, and their families.
  In May, I spoke with my friend, the distinguished majority leader, 
about the need to take up this crucial legislation as soon as possible. 
I was assured that Senator Frist would work with Members of both sides 
of the aisle so that we could consider the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act before we broke for our August recess.
  The month of July, of course, is almost over. We hope to be able to 
complete things in the next day or two or three. But this legislation, 
in the lives of the people I mentioned, can't go on forever. We believe 
this legislation could produce and will produce stunning medical 
breakthroughs to some of the dread diseases that affect mankind.
  What we have been asking is simple. We propose that the Senate take 
up two bills: the stem cell bill, which is H.R. 810, and a blood cord 
bill, which is S. 1317, just like the House bill. Instead, we have 
heard that we are going to consider six bills, and now we read seven 
bills. We haven't seen the language of all seven.
  It doesn't have to be that complicated, I don't think. The House 
dealt with the issue very simply, and we should do the same.
  A bipartisan majority supported the stem cell bill in the House. I 
believe there is a tremendous body of Senators who will also support 
this legislation. Every day we delay consideration of this bill is 
another day we deny hope to millions of Americans and people throughout 
the world with Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, 
heart disease, and diabetes, to name only a few.
  These patients, as I have said, don't have the luxury of time like 
some of us do. Let's have an up-or-down vote on these bills and send 
them to the President as quickly as possible--like today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 119, H.R. 810, the stem cell research 
bill, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 156, S. 1317, the cord blood and bone 
marrow transplant bill; that the committee substitute be agreed to; the 
bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. The issue of 
support for stem cell research is one that I believe deserves 
examination by this body. Stem cell research itself is very promising. 
I ran a very large multidisciplinary transplant center, and part of 
that was a transplant arm that transplanted literally hundreds of 
people with cord blood--or with bone marrow transplants, which is very 
similar to using cord blood, which one of the bills addresses. Passage 
of that bill would extend that therapy--which is with adult stem 
cells--with the variance of cord blood. I agree that passage of that 
bill would help hundreds of people by establishing registries that 
could be easily accessed.
  H.R. 810, Calendar No. 119, the stem cell research bill--the bill the 
Democratic leader mentioned--is also a bill that I believe should be 
addressed in this body. It is a bill that has passed the House of 
Representatives in a bipartisan way.
  In trying to address those two bills, I have extended to both sides 
of the aisle the opportunity to have clean up-or-down votes on those 
bills, as well as a fascinating new arena of research--very promising--
that gives an alternative not to the Castle bill or the H.R. 810 bill, 
but an alternative where you don't have to destroy embryos at all, with 
the opportunity to develop what are called pluripotential stem cells, 
or embryonic-like stem cells, which also should be addressed.
  Thus, my proposal has been to address the cord blood bill, H.R. 810, 
the alternative new research, where embryos do not have to be 
destroyed; a cloning bill, Senator Brownback's bill; and a bone marrow 
bill. I have been unsuccessful in trying to bring that to the Senate 
floor. There are concerns on our side of the aisle about that 
approach--having clean votes on these bills.
  I am not going to give up on the stem cell issue because the research 
is hugely promising. I think, although each of us has individual 
thoughts about the potential of stem cells and the moral and ethical 
issues around stem cells, it deserves our body politic addressing the 
issue. So with that, I will continue to address the issue. I hope that 
after we come back over the recess, we will be able to address the 
issue.
  I do object to the unanimous-consent request, as we finish over the 
last 48 hours with our business on the floor of the Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________




                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, 
leadership time is reserved.

                          ____________________




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be a period for the transaction of morning business for 1 
hour, with the first half of the time under the control of Democratic 
leader or his designee, and the second half of the time under the 
control of the majority leader or his designee.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

                          ____________________




                         STEM CELL LEGISLATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before leaving the floor, if I can have 
the attention of our minority leader. Is it the understanding of the 
leader in propounding this request that the measures proposed in the 
request had bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, and he 
believes as I believe--and I see my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, 
who is a great leader on this, who believes as well--that there is very 
strong bipartisan support for the legislation, and we could, in a 
reasonable period of time--really in a matter of hours--pass the 
legislation and still not exclude the possibility of continued debate 
and discussion on the other measures relating to stem cells; and that 
this would permit us to act before August 9, which would be the fourth 
year since we had the limitation and restriction on stem cell research, 
the kind of research that 80 Nobel laureates in a letter to President 
said offers the greatest opportunity for progress in the areas of 
Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes, cancer, and so many other 
diseases--do I understand the position of the Senator from Nevada is 
that he believes the progress taken in the House of Representatives in 
a bipartisan way should be given the opportunity for action in the 
Senate?
  Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to my friend that I believe there 
is a significant majority in the Senate that would quickly support both 
of these bills. I say that without any hyperbole. I believe without 
question that a significant number would vote for this legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the position of the Senator from Nevada that this 
is the same kind of research that, as I mentioned earlier, Nobel 
laureates indicate offers the greatest opportunity for progress in 
dealing with the kinds of illnesses and diseases that just about every 
family in America in one way or the other is affected by, and he 
believes, as I do, that this offers an enormous opportunity for hope 
and progress in conquering or curing these diseases?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken with scientists, physicians, 
people who have diseases, and the families of those who have diseases, 
and there is a sparkle of hope and anticipation from the scientific 
community, from the people who are ill, and from their loved ones--a 
sparkle of hope and opportunity that I have never seen before. There is 
the hope that these children, for example, who are stuck with needles 
tens of thousands of times in their little lives will no longer have to 
have

[[Page 18898]]

that done; the hope that someone who is beginning Parkinson's syndrome 
will be able to be cured. This is hope I have never seen before.
  We need to go forward with this as quickly as possible. That is why 
for us in the Senate, a couple of months is not much. For those people 
who are sick and the loved ones of those people, it is an eternity. I 
can remember Steve Rigalio, an executive at Nevada Power, the largest 
power company in Nevada, who got sick with this disease. I personally 
watched this man. He had Lou Gehrig's disease. I personally watched 
this man deteriorate before my eyes. He was dead in a matter of months. 
The average life expectancy from the time the disease is diagnosed is 
16 months. That is why the time we spend here is so important and why 
we must move forward.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this time I have taken 
this morning be charged to leader time and not to morning business 
time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if I might follow up on the discussion now 
on the Senate floor, might I ask the distinguished majority leader a 
question. It is this Senator's understanding, and I think the 
understanding of others with whom I have spoken, that the distinguished 
majority leader, during the last work period--I think that was prior to 
the Memorial Day--no, before the Fourth of July break, I guess it was. 
It was my understanding that the majority leader had made a commitment 
that we would bring up a stem cell bill prior to the August recess. I 
may be mistaken. If so, I stand to be corrected.
  My question is to the distinguished majority leader, was a commitment 
made to bring up the stem cell bill? If so, I am wondering why we have 
not done so and why we have waited until 2 days before we leave and we 
still don't have a stem cell bill before us?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Democratic 
leader, our colleagues from both Iowa and Massachusetts. It gives me an 
opportunity to make it clear. My belief both in the science, the 
potential--we have to be careful not to overpromise. I know my 
colleagues are aware of that. As a physician, you never overpromise and 
give false hope. You have to be very careful. On the other hand, I 
understand the huge promise of this science, the proven therapies of 
adult stem cells, as well as these magnificent embryonic stem cells. 
Unfortunately, the only way you can obtain them is from the destruction 
of the blastocyst. That is the ethical issue everybody struggles with.
  As majority leader, people come to me all the time and have this 
discussion in a very personal way, about the complexities and the 
advancing science coming together in a nexus that we are going to 
increasingly have to face in this Chamber. Both of my colleagues who 
have spoken this morning have been real leaders in that field. I, in 
the last 2 months, have said we have a responsibility to come back and 
review policy--policy where you have advancing science. You have moral 
considerations for each one of us, but that is our responsibility.
  As individuals, we have different feelings, but as a body politic, 
this body needs to address them. Now, in doing that, I have put on the 
table, as leader and in discussions with the Democratic leader for the 
last 6 weeks, the opportunity to address the Castle bill, H.R. 810, 
which passed the House, and bring it to the Senate floor free of 
amendments. The bill is not written very well. It doesn't have the 
ethical construct that I believe we absolutely need.
  So I think the bill is not ideal. But to give the opportunity to have 
a vote on that bill, to give the opportunity to have a vote on the cord 
blood bill, which is proven therapy--and cord blood can be used, and 
bone marrow transplants are used right now for thousands of people. 
That is adult stem cells. Then to address the newer science, which is 
too preliminary but gets through a lot of ethical issues--right now, to 
get the stem cells, it requires the destruction of the embryo. There is 
a science out there that is preliminary but promising, and maybe you 
don't have to destroy embryos to get these cells. That really has been 
developed in talking to scientists, and that deserves consideration on 
the floor as well because it gets beyond all the ethical 
considerations.
  As we said, let's get clean shots on these three bills so everybody 
can express themselves and see where the votes are. Others have come 
forward, and my colleague from Kansas says he cannot agree to that, to 
giving these bills up-or-down votes on the floor without the 
consideration also of another very important bill, and that is the 
cloning bill, which is an element a little bit outside of just the 
developing embryos and the destruction of embryos. So I put that offer 
on the table after discussion with the Democratic leader.
  With that, other people have their individual bills. That is why we 
are not addressing it right now, because I have not been able to get 
unanimous consent to do that. What I hope both of my colleagues and 
others recognize is that I believe, as leader, it is an important issue 
that has to be addressed by this body. It needs ongoing review, and I 
am trying to do just that. I have been denied that by the body thus 
far. To bring up a bill and pass it today, which strikes at the moral 
and ethical fundamentals of each and every one of us, and try to just 
take that single bill--or just two bills through without respecting my 
colleagues, I just cannot do that. I look forward to working with both 
of my colleagues on this important issue, which I believe needs to be 
addressed.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa controls the 
time.
  Mr. FRIST. I am happy to respond.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the majority leader. It is this Senator's 
understanding that there have been a number of different bills proposed 
to deal with cloning and a number of other issues that don't really 
pertain to the issue of embryonic stem cell research as the bill was 
passed by the House.
  Is it not true, I ask the distinguished majority leader, that H.R. 
810--the bill we are talking about that passed the House with a 
bipartisan majority and has a number of supporters on both sides of the 
aisle in the Senate--has bipartisan support in the Senate? Last year, I 
will say in further expanding on my question, I think there were 58 
Senators who signed a letter in support of that legislation, many of 
the same Senators who are still here. So it has a lot of bipartisan 
support. These other bills, we don't know. In fact, I say to the 
distinguished majority leader, there are a couple of bills we heard 
about but we have never seen any language on.
  My question to the majority leader is: Why can't we bring up the bill 
that passed the House, which everyone knows about--it is clear, it is 
straightforward, it passed the House, as I said, with a bipartisan 
majority, it has bipartisan support here; we all know it has enough 
votes to pass probably many more than even 60 votes, I would venture to 
guess--why can't we take that up, pass it, get it to the President, and 
then when we come back in September, we can take up these other bills?
  I do not have any problem with these other bills coming up. Some I 
may support when they come up. To bring them all up together clouds and 
confuses the issue. Why can't we just bring up the House bill, simple, 
straightforward, have a limited debate on it, and vote it up or down as 
they did in the House, I ask my leader?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the majority 
leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the question. It 
gives me the opportunity to show the work and the challenge it is to 
address an issue that strikes at the science and ethical concerns.
  My approach has been to include what I think the Senator from Iowa 
wants, and that is a clean up-or-down-vote on this bill. I have real 
concerns

[[Page 18899]]

with how that bill is written, and I will give several examples of why 
it bothers me a bit the way it is written and passing as a clean bill. 
But I am willing to do that if I can take into consideration the moral 
concerns and scientific concerns of others in this body and give them 
the same opportunity that the Senator from Iowa is asking for, and, 
thus, put together a group, a defined group, but not an unlimited 
group--we will be voting up or down on all sorts of votes--but see 
where everybody is on alternative ways: You do not have to destroy 
embryos to get the same cells you get from embryos, the cord blood 
bill, H.R. 810, and the cloning bill. It is a separate issue but 
involves the creation of embryos and ultimately the destruction of 
embryos.
  That is what we are talking about. That is my attempt. It is going to 
take a while on the floor of the Senate because of the fact of it not 
having gone through the committee process and the fact everybody does 
stand in little different positions, from an ethical standpoint, on any 
of the bills.
  On H.R. 810, the consent process is inadequate, from my standpoint. 
There is not an ideal ethical construct. It says informed consent, but 
it does not specifically talk about the potential for financial 
incentives between, say, a physician and an in vitro fertilization 
clinic. That is not addressed specifically in the bill. Instead of 
voting up or down, I would like to at least discuss those issues.
  Another issue--there is informed consent and the financial 
incentives--would be if we pass it, it is passed forever; there is no 
opportunity to come back and look at it on a periodic basis, say, every 
4 or 5 years.
  I mention those concerns because I am willing to step back and give a 
clean vote on that if we can take into consideration other people's 
issues or their particular bills. I am a little surprised my colleagues 
have not taken me up on that opportunity, but since they have not, we 
will have to come back and figure the best way to address it when we 
get back after the recess.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
response. I know Senator Kennedy wants time to make a speech. On the 
stem cell bill, I say to my friend from Tennessee, the distinguished 
leader, the clock is ticking. It does have a lot of support. There may 
be a lot of ideas out there. No bill that ever passes here has 100-
percent approval by everybody of every, as they say, ``jot and tittle'' 
in the bill. If I were to rewrite H.R. 810, I might want to write it 
differently myself.
  The fact is a lot of thought was given to it. The disease groups that 
represent the very ill people in this country--the Juvenile Diabetes 
Foundation, Spinal Cord Injury Foundation, and a whole host of other 
groups--have put their stamp of approval on this bill. They want it 
passed.
  It just seems to me that the more we dawdle around here--I understand 
we are in the last couple of days. We have been here all of July. This 
bill, H.R. 810, has been sitting here. We could have taken it up at any 
time. It is this Senator's observation that all of a sudden all these 
other bills are popping up on cloning, chimeras, and others, which I am 
not saying are not important issues, but they are separate and aside 
from this issue.
  If the distinguished majority leader wants to bring those up at some 
other time for debate and amendments and bring them up for a straight 
up-or-down vote, that is fine, I don't have a problem with that, but 
don't tie them in with a bill that has strong majority support on both 
sides of the aisle, strong bipartisan support, as was shown in the 
House, and one which, if passed, could be sent to the President right 
away for his signature and which could really open the door so our 
scientists could get to work on embryonic stem cell research.
  It seems--I am not accusing anyone of this, but it is the process we 
go through sometimes--there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on, and 
a lot of bills are popping up to confuse the issue and to try to pull 
people away from support of H.R. 810.
  Again, I say to my friend from Tennessee, I hope that we can have 
some assurance from the leader that when we get back in September that 
we will take up H.R. 810 and, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, if 
they want to bring up these other bills at some other time, in some 
other context, I can assure him this Senator would not object. I would 
have no objection to it. But right now there are objections to bringing 
them up at the same time, not just on this side of the aisle, but I 
also understand on the other side of the aisle.
  It seems to me the clearest way is to bring up H.R. 810 and the cord 
blood bill and get them out of the way and deal with the others. I hope 
the majority leader will assure us we will do that when we come back in 
September.
  Mr. FRIST. To complete this, from my standpoint, I want it to be very 
clear, to be understood that the majority leader of the Senate has 
offered to his colleagues to bring up six bills. The statement is made 
this is going to have an overwhelming bipartisan support. It did in the 
House. All I am saying is, let's, in a short period of time--what has 
been offered to both sides, is spend a day debating these six bills 
which do, if you look at the six bills, take the range of ethical 
considerations and moral considerations of this body and do look at the 
science--alternative ways of developing embryonic stem cells--and let's 
take them to the floor and allow each one to get a vote, and let's see 
where the votes are.
  It may be the bill of my distinguished colleague from Iowa will get a 
majority vote or a supermajority vote, but so may the cord blood bill. 
I hope it does. I think it will save lives. The alternative bill, let's 
see what it is. It has never been discussed on the floor. I would hope 
the distinguished colleague from Iowa would vote for it because there 
is potential hope there, as well as obtaining embryonic stem cells from 
embryos. Also, the cloning bill. Let's debate it in a defined period of 
time and vote on that. Let's see where the body is. That has been my 
approach, and that has been the offer to both sides.
  The Senator is correct, on both sides of the aisle there is this 
hesitation to do it. I need for my colleagues to understand that I am 
pushing for clean votes over a period of time, where we can address the 
very issues my two colleagues want to address.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing my 
deep sorrow and regret that the Republican leadership has allowed 
another month to go by without taking action on the bipartisan stem 
cell bill approved overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives.
  Over the last several weeks, Republican leaders in the Senate have 
ignored the true priorities of the American people. They have denied 
the Senate the opportunity to provide our troops the protections they 
need against attack. They have denied the Senate the chance to 
guarantee funding for veterans' health, and to raise the minimum wage, 
and to allow importation of lower cost medicine from Canada and other 
nations.
  And they have stalled and delayed, and twisted and turned, to deny 
action on legislation to unlock the healing potential of stem cell 
research.
  They say there is no time for stem cells, or for the needs of our 
troops, or our veterans, or working families. There's plenty of time to 
protect the makers of lethal assault weapons--but no time for 
lifesaving cures.
  The bill is right there, Mr. President, right there on that desk in 
front of you. At any time, the majority leader could walk over, pick it 
up and have a vote on a bill that would bring new hope to millions of 
Americans.
  For years, patients and their families waited for a medical 
breakthrough to provide new hope for serious illnesses like Parkinson's 
disease, spinal injury, and Alzheimer's disease.
  Then at last, dedicated scientists made that breakthrough. They 
discovered stem cells, which can repair the injuries that cause untold 
suffering and shorten lives.
  The cruel irony is that just as medicine was giving patients new 
hope, the Bush administration snatched it away through needless 
restrictions on stem cell research,
  In a few days, on August 9, patients across America will mark the 
fourth

[[Page 18900]]

tragic anniversary of that cruel decision.
  We in the United States Senate had the opportunity--no, we had the 
responsibility--to see that August 9 of this year did not mark 4 years 
of failure and 4 years of missed opportunity.
  But the Republican leadership would not let us meet that 
responsibility. They let the first week of July slip by, and then the 
second, and now the last--all with no action on this urgently needed 
legislation.
  Every day that we delay is another day of falling behind in the race 
to cure diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's disease, and many other serious 
illnesses.
  It is another day for America to lose ground to Korea, Singapore, 
Britain, and other nations in the competition for global leadership in 
biotechnology.
  Most of all, it is another day of shattered hopes for millions of 
patients and their families across America.
  Some respond to the failure of the current policy by saying we should 
explore new ways to develop embryonic stem cells. I agree. Let's 
explore the potential of new discoveries in genetics and cell science 
to improve the ways we can tap the potential of stem cells. But let's 
not restrict essential research while scientists explore speculative 
and preliminary theories.
  Some say we should encourage research on stem cells from the blood in 
umbilical cords or on adult stem cells from bone marrow and other 
tissues. Again, I agree. We should seek help for patients wherever it 
may be found. But it makes no sense to limit medical research to one 
narrow channel when the Nation's leading scientists agree that these 
alternatives have a more limited potential than embryonic stem cells. 
As a letter signed by 80 Nobel laureates in February 2001 stated:

       Current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have 
     markedly restricted differentiation potential. Therefore, for 
     disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult stem 
     cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell research risks 
     unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die or 
     endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult 
     stem cells is evaluated.

  The conclusion of an NIH report in June 2001 is clear:
  Stem cells in adult tissues do not appear to have the same capacity 
to differentiate as do embryonic stem cells.
  It would be cruel to base the hopes of millions of patients on an 
ideological conclusion that these experts are wrong. By all means, 
let's pursue vigorous research on adult stem cells, but let's not 
deceive the American public into thinking it's an adequate substitute 
for embryonic stem cell research.
  Legislation should be an expression of our values, and our 
legislation says loud and clear that we value patients and their 
families--not rigid ideology.
  It is a travesty that no action has been taken on this lifesaving 
measure.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
unanimous consent request offered today by Senator Reid. The Senator 
has asked unanimous consent for the Senate to take up H.R. 810, the 
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and S. 1317, the Bone Marrow and 
Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act.
  Both of these bills have been passed by the House and are sitting at 
the desk waiting to be passed by the Senate and sent to the President 
for his signature.
  The month of July has come and is nearly gone. Yet these two House-
passed bills, with strong bipartisan support, sit and wait at the desk.
  The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act has 41 sponsors--Republicans 
and Democrats alike. This legislation is the result of many years of 
bipartisan cooperation in both the House and Senate. I am pleased to 
join my colleagues, Senator Arlen Specter, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Ted 
Kennedy, and Gordon Smith, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of 
patients and their families across this Nation to see that embryonic 
stem cell research moves forward.
  This legislation is proof positive that Senators from many different 
points of view, be they liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-
choice, can work together on legislation that will help speed the pace 
of cures and treatments for more than 110 million Americans.
  Identical legislation passed the House on May 24 by a vote of 238 to 
194. Congressman Mike Castle, Republican, Delaware, and Diana DeGette, 
Democrat, Colorado, are to be commended for their tireless work in 
getting this bill passed in the House.
  It is essential that the Senate move quickly to pass this bill. The 
clock is ticking. August 9 marks the fourth anniversary of President 
Bush's policy limiting Federal funding for embryonic stem cell 
research. At the time it was thought there were 78 stem cell lines 
available to researchers, today that number is 22. And all 22 of the 
lines available are contaminated by mouse feeder cells and not usable 
for research in humans.
  So why has the Senate still not acted? The simple unanimous consent 
request put forth by Senator Reid would allow the Senate to vote on 
this bill as early as today. We could send it to the President for his 
signature tonight.
  What is going on here is an attempt to obscure what is a very simple 
issue. What is going on here is an attempt to allow votes on other 
bills in order to pull votes away from H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
Enhancement Act.
  I think it is appropriate for the Senate to debate other related 
issues at a later time. In fact, yesterday I introduced S. 1520, the 
Human Cloning Ban Act--with 25 bipartisan cosponsors--which would 
prohibit once and for all the immoral and unethical act of human 
reproductive cloning. I believe strongly that Congress must pass a 
prohibition on human cloning or attempts to clone human beings.
  But first we must act on the unanimous consent request offered today 
by Senator Reid, and I hope that request will be one of the first 
issues the Senate deals with after the August recess.
  Embryonic stem cell research is the bright new frontier of medicine. 
We owe it to the 110 million Americans suffering daily with 
debilitating and catastrophic diseases to pass H.R. 810.

                          ____________________




                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa yields the floor. The 
Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that exchange be 
part of leader time and not interfere with the morning hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. To be 
more precise for our timekeeping purposes, did the Senator say part of 
the leader's time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The time not to be charged as part of the morning hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have half an hour; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I ask the Chair to notify me when I 
have 3 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.

                          ____________________




                         END TO ARMED CAMPAIGN

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this morning the IRA has issued a 
statement indicating that it has formally ordered an end to the armed 
campaign. I welcome the statement. Hopefully, the statement means we 
are finally nearing the end of this very long process to take guns and 
criminality out of politics in Northern Ireland once and for all.
  I look forward to the final act of decommissioning and the 
verification that paramilitary activity and criminality have ended. The 
all-important restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly is 
reestablished. Peace and violence cannot coexist in Northern Ireland, 
and all who care about peace and stability look forward to these final 
actions.

                          ____________________




               PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to speak on another subject, the 
underlying legislation, the gun immunity

[[Page 18901]]

bill. This bill is deceptively named the Protection of Lawful Commerce 
in Arms Act, but it will make it virtually impossible to bring lawsuits 
against the gun industry, even in circumstances in which the industry's 
conduct contributes to unlawful gun violence.
  The bill purports to exempt suits in which the manufacturers and 
sellers engage in illegal or negligent conduct, but these exemptions 
are poorly defined and clearly would not cover many types of bad 
conduct.
  The Senate majority leader says this bill is of urgent importance, 
taking precedence over the Defense bill because the Department of 
Defense faces the real prospect of having to outsource side arms for 
our soldiers to foreign manufacturers. But the real story is that the 
Republican leadership and the Bush administration will do whatever it 
takes to give the gun industry all that it wants.
  The NRA wants gun dealers and manufacturers to be protected from 
lawsuits. The NRA expects--the NRA demands--that this body remove the 
last resort for victims of gun violence against negligent and often 
complicit gun dealers and manufacturers by barring all types of cases.
  Let's be clear about what this bill does not do.
  It does not help our law enforcement officials fight crime or 
terrorism.
  It does not meet the urgent need to strengthen any of our gun control 
laws.
  It does not affect--it does not address at all--the rights or ability 
of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own a gun.
  It does not have anything to do with the second amendment, no matter 
how you interpret the language of that amendment.
  This bill has one motivation: payback by the Bush administration and 
the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special 
interests of the National Rifle Association.
  As the New York Times reported less than 2 weeks ago, Wayne LaPierre, 
the executive vice president of the NRA, made it clear that the NRA 
expected total support from its allies--or else.
  Mr. LaPierre said, ``It's simply bad politics to be on the wrong side 
of the second amendment at election time,'' asserting that Vice 
President Al Gore lost the 2000 Presidential election because he 
supported gun control, including a Federal ban on assault weapons.
  That is the same assault weapons ban that President Bush told the 
American people he supported but then allowed to expire.
  We know what happened when the NRA pushed this special interest bill 
last year. When the Senate voted to reauthorize the assault weapons ban 
as part of the bill, the NRA called their supporters and instructed 
them to vote against the bill for which it had just lobbied. What a 
disgraceful spectacle, Members of this great body reversing themselves 
on the Senate floor minutes before a vote because of a single call from 
the NRA.
  That same kind of raw special interest power is now being used again 
to take the Senate away from the important business of protecting our 
men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan so that a few 
unsavory gun dealers and gun manufacturers can channel powerful killing 
machines into the hands of criminals and terrorists in this country 
without any regulation or judicial oversight whatever.
  The manufacturing of guns, unlike the manufacturing of nearly every 
other consumer product in the country, is not subject to consumer 
product safety standards. As it stands, manufacturers and sellers in 
the industry are free to design, make, and market these products with 
no independent review of their potential risk.
  The gun industry is the only industry whose products are not subject 
to basic consumer health and safety regulation. Why stop with the gun 
industry? Why not make tire manufacturers immune from lawsuits or car 
manufacturers or bicycle manufacturers or toy manufacturers? Obviously, 
it would be absurd to shield any negligent manufacturers from liability 
for their action. But when it comes to shielding the gun industry, the 
NRA is calling the tune and too many Members of this body are 
tragically dancing to it.
  The other side also tells us that it is too burdensome on the gun 
industry to fight these lawsuits. After all, we are told there are 
thousands of gun laws on the books and the Government can enforce them. 
Let us look at some of those gun laws and how the gun lobby has 
systematically made it more difficult, and in some cases even 
impossible, for the Government to police negligent gun dealers and 
manufacturers while making it easier for criminals to get their hands 
on guns.
  Federal gun dealers are regulated under Federal law and required to 
perform background checks of gun buyers, but at the urging of the gun 
lobby several years ago, Congress drastically narrowed the definition 
of gun dealer. Now there are many unregulated individuals who do not 
meet the new definition. These reckless and unlicensed dealers are now 
selling millions of guns to people, including criminals and terrorists, 
without background checks. All of that is legal because the U.S. 
Congress kowtowed to the NRA.
  In the case of Afghanistan, our troops found an al-Qaida manual that 
instructed terrorists on how to buy guns legally in the United States 
without having to undergo a background check. Al-Qaida understands that 
we have created a mess that allows, even encourages, criminals and 
terrorists to traffic in guns. But we will not do anything about the 
so-called gun show loophole because the NRA has snapped its fingers and 
said no.
  We are told by the other side that victims of gun violence do not 
need recourse to the courts because the Government is already 
inspecting and overseeing the businesses of gun dealers. But is that 
the whole story? Absolutely not. At the direction of the NRA, Congress 
limited Federal inspection of gun dealers to once a year, and passed 
laws making it virtually impossible for agents to conduct inspections 
more than once a year. If an agent happens to inspect a negligent or 
even grossly negligent gun dealer in January, the dealer does not have 
to worry about the feds showing up for at least another year.
  Federally regulated financial institutions can be inspected without 
notice whenever and as often as the regulators deem appropriate. 
Meatpacking companies, shipyards, iron foundries, gas refineries can 
all be inspected without notice whenever and as often as the regulators 
deem appropriate, but not gun dealers. Congress and the NRA have said 
they can be inspected only once a year.
  What difference does that make in the life of the average citizen? It 
makes a lot of difference. Just ask the innocent victims of the DC 
sniper attacks. When the regulators cannot keep tabs on gun dealers it 
means the companies like Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Store, the dealer 
that supplied the Bushmaster rifle to the DC snipers, can get away with 
supposedly losing the rifle that ended up in the hands of DC snipers 
and losing more than 200 other guns that ended up who knows where.
  The DC sniper victims had only the courts to turn to for recourse 
because Congress made it impossible for Federal agents to police 
unsavory gun dealers such as Bull's Eye. Now the NRA is telling us, 
take away the courts, too. Why? An obvious answer is that gun dealers 
and manufacturers want to sell more guns.
  Our laws are designed by the NRA to increase the sales of guns by 
dealers and manufacturers even if they are sold to or by criminals. The 
NRA is lavishly rewarded for lobbying successes and so are the Members 
of Congress who do their bidding. It is hard to reach any other 
conclusion. The unholy alliance and control of the legislative process 
against the safety of our citizens is immoral and it is a disgrace. But 
let us look at the other outrageous actions that this body has taken 
because the NRA has demanded it.
  Congress has cut Federal funding for the agency that oversees gun 
dealers and manufacturers. In fact, the GAO has recently reported that 
the ATF is so underfunded that it would take 22 years to inspect the 
records of all gun dealers in this country just once. The GAO report 
has also found that terrorists and people on the terrorist watch

[[Page 18902]]

list are not automatically barred from purchasing guns and are 
routinely buying guns in this country. This must stop.
  The gun industry must have some accountability. That is why I am 
offering my amendment that would ensure that cases could be brought 
against gun manufacturers and dealers aiding or abetting a 
representative of a designated foreign terrorist organization. One can 
find a list of the designated foreign terrorist organizations on the 
Internet, and it includes al-Qaida and Hamas among others.
  How can Congress deny victims the right to challenge a manufacturer 
or dealer that provided guns to a foreign terrorist organization which 
caused them harm?
  This administration continuously says that we are engaged in a war on 
terror, but it takes a position that the war on terror does not allow 
us to prevent terrorists from buying guns in this country. Because of 
the actions of this administration, this Congress is caving to the NRA. 
Terrorists can now add assault weapons to their arsenals, all to 
appease the NRA so they will give campaign contributions and get out 
the vote. This is not only a disgrace, it is criminal and it has to 
stop.
  The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. After 9/11, the worst terrorist 
attack in the history of the Nation, the Justice Department, over the 
objection of the FBI, at the urging of the NRA, decided that the 
Government had to destroy within 24 hours the background check records 
of all gun purchases. What is the rationale for the destruction of 
background checks of records in 24 hours? Former Attorney General 
Ashcroft and the NRA decided that it was a violation of privacy rights 
of law-abiding citizens to have their records held on file for 90 days, 
as they have been for years since the passage of the Brady bill.
  This is the same John Ashcroft who, in the immediate aftermath of 9/
11, prohibited--that is right, he prohibited--the FBI from examining 
the gun purchasing records of any of the 19 hijackers or any of the 
1,200 other terrorist suspects who were detained for questioning. What 
kind of society are we turning into? We are supposed to be protecting 
this Nation from terrorism, not aiding and abetting terrorists.
  Within days of the 9/11 attacks, we knew who the hijackers were. We 
knew where they sat on the planes. We saw some of their faces on 
surveillance videos. We know what they had charged on their credit 
cards. We know where they had gone to school. We know where they lived, 
where they traveled. We know that they had tried to get pilots 
licenses. We know they had looked for ways to transport hazardous 
chemicals, but we did not know where they or their terrorist friends 
had purchased their firearms because we were worried about their 
privacy rights and their rights to bear arms. Give me a break.
  Every day, law-abiding Americans have their every move videotaped by 
surveillance cameras. They are required to take off their shoes and 
jackets and be searched at airports, have their luggage inspected and 
opened. Yet our Government worries about the privacy rights of 
terrorist gun owners and refuses to let the FBI look at gun purchase 
records of suspected terrorists? The Justice Department refuses to stop 
suspected terrorists from buying guns, and then it destroys those 
records in 24 hours? Something is rotten here, and it has to stop.
  I ask again, whose side are we on? Instead of addressing the real 
issues that can make our country and our communities safer, we are 
considering a bill that will close the courthouse door to victims of 
gun crimes and give a free pass to the handful of gun dealers and gun 
manufacturers who sell firearms to terrorists and criminals. We are 
doing it to appease the special interests of the NRA.
  Law-abiding citizens who sell or purchase firearms do not want to 
give criminals a free pass, but that is exactly what this bill will do. 
If we vote for it, we will be aiding and abetting these wrongdoers, 
just as Congress has done for years at the command of the NRA. This 
bill gives greater protection to the gun industry than Congress gave to 
the health care industry, to teachers and volunteers under the headline 
of tort reform. The legislation is so extreme that it requires the 
immediate dismissal of any cases pending in either State or Federal 
court.
  By doing so, the bill denies victims their day in court. It amounts 
to an unprecedented interference with the judicial branch of Government 
and is an outrageous violation of the rule of law.
  The bill's supporters misrepresent the real goal of the lawsuits 
filed against this industry. These lawsuits are not filed in an effort 
to bankrupt the industry. Like all tort suits, the victims turn to the 
courts to obtain compensation for their injuries and demand responsible 
conduct.
  Let's be clear and debunk a few myths that the other side is 
spinning. The gun industry is not uniquely burdened with lawsuits. They 
just do not like what the public discovers about the industry and its 
practices when documents are produced in litigation.
  This immunity bill is not aimed only at frivolous lawsuits. The truth 
is, it bars almost all actions for negligence. If this bill had become 
law last year, the families of the victims of the DC snipers would have 
been barred from suing and receiving the settlement from the gun dealer 
in Washington State that lost and could not account for more than 200 
guns in its inventory, like the assault rifle used by the DC snipers, 
that were used in the commission of other crimes.
  If passed, the bill forces the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the 
family of Massachusetts victim Danny Guzman, an innocent bystander shot 
on Christmas Eve in 1999. Danny was killed by a gun stolen by an 
employee working in a gun manufacturing plant. Danny, here in the 
picture with his cousin, was a true victim of negligent conduct. This 
gun factory lacked adequate security, recordkeeping, and other 
reasonable safeguards to prevent employees from taking guns in their 
pockets out of the plant. The lack of security was so bad that the 
owners of the plant did not even know the guns were missing. Danny's 
mother and his two surviving daughters sued the manufacturer claiming 
that it had negligently hired criminals to work in its plant and had 
such irresponsible security that allowed them to walk out of the plant 
with guns that did not have serial numbers. One of these guns was used 
to shoot Danny. This case should not be dismissed.
  This bill will result in the automatic dismissal of a case just filed 
in Pennsylvania. Anthony Oliver, a 14-year-old boy, was killed by a 
handgun that discharged accidentally when he was playing with his 
friends. Anthony's life was cut short due to the gun seller's reckless 
conduct. His family filed a case against the gun companies that 
negligently allowed one of Anthony's friends to obtain a handgun. The 
dealer who sold the gun had a history of supplying guns to criminals 
and not even taking the minimum step to screen the purchasers. Over a 
4-year period, Lou sold over 400 guns traced to criminals. Under this 
bill, Anthony's family will not get their day in court, and the 
irresponsible activities of this gun dealer and its supplier will not 
be stopped. This case should not be dismissed.
  This bill would also bar municipal lawsuits. If this case passes, 
four pending cases involving New York City, the District of Columbia, 
Gary, IN, and Cleveland, OH, will all be dismissed. This bill is not 
about protecting the gun industry from bankruptcy. This bill is a 
blatant special interest bill to protect gun manufacturers and sellers 
who provide guns to criminals and even terrorists.
  With this bill, Congress is aiding and abetting in the perpetuation 
of these crimes. Enough is enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in saying no to this shameful bill and get back to the serious 
issues that face our country.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I first commend the Senator from Massachusetts for 
explaining what is before the Senate, not only today but yesterday and 
the day before. Would the Senator be kind

[[Page 18903]]

enough to tell those who are observing and following this debate which 
bill we took off the calendar, which bill we were considering, to move 
this bill on the calendar, this special interest bill to protect gun 
manufacturers and gun dealers from being held personally responsible 
for their wrongdoing? Would the Senator from Massachusetts tell us what 
bill we pushed off the calendar to bring on this special interest bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Illinois knows that one of the most 
important bills that we consider at any time of the year is the Defense 
authorization legislation. That is the legislation which provides basic 
resources and support for our armed services, not only in Iraq and 
Afghanistan but all over the world. It is the basic document which is 
the expression of our national priority in terms of national security 
and national defense.
  As one who has been here for some years, having been a member of the 
Armed Services Committee, we met in the day and in the evening to 
report that bill out in a timely way so that it could be considered 
before the August recess. That is what we heard, as members of the 
Armed Services Committee, and we were in the process of doing that at 
the end of last week. As a matter of fact, there was one amendment 
offered by the chairman of the committee to restore money for up-
armoring humvees, which I welcomed the opportunity to support. The 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee had opposed that up-armoring 
at the time we had the supplemental. That is very important, making 
sure our men and women serving in Iraq are going to have the body armor 
and have the best in terms of their protection. That is what is in that 
legislation. That is what we were considering. That is what we hoped to 
deal with.
  All of a sudden, out of the blue, the Republican leadership says, No, 
we are going to pull that bill down and we will put it back on the 
calendar and consider this special interest legislation, which they 
have called up. They now use parliamentary procedures in order to even 
deny those of us who want to amend that legislation the opportunity to 
do so.
  I don't know whether the Senator was here a few moments ago when our 
majority leader was talking about stem cell research, which we wanted 
to take up, which offered such hope and opportunity to conquer 
diseases. The majority leader said: We want everyone's views on our 
side of the aisle to be considered.
  It is interesting. They want that on the stem cell research, but not 
on this special interest legislation.
  It is deplorable. I know of at least 20 amendments from Members of 
our side and the other side, amendments that would provide additional 
help and support for the National Guard, for our reservists in the 
armed services of this country, that would have provided additional 
strengthening for our fighting men and women. To deflect that to 
consider this special interest legislation that is just going to serve 
the gun manufacturers makes no sense.
  I know this is an extended answer. As the Senator remembers, we spent 
2 weeks on the credit card industry legislation and bankruptcy. We 
spent 2 weeks in order to protect the credit card industry. We spent 2 
weeks after that on class action legislation. We spent more than a week 
debating highways. We have spent 3 days on the Defense authorization 
bill. And then we have the Republican leadership pull that down? It 
makes no sense to me.
  I wonder what the service men and women think about our priorities 
when an action like that is taken.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would further yield for a question, I 
would say to the Senator, through the Chair, that the Army Times, the 
publication for our U.S. Army and its soldiers who are risking their 
lives in Iraq, ran a headline story that the Senate pushed off the 
Department of Defense authorization bill, which included amendments 
which were being offered to provide additional financial assistance to 
the widows and orphans of those soldiers who lost their lives in 
combat, took away the bill which included an amendment to allow 
additional payment for totally disabled veterans, and instead moved on 
the floor this bill for one special interest group, the gun lobby.
  The Senator has made it clear the Republican leadership considers 
this bill, a National Rifle Association sponsored bill, more important 
than the Department of Defense authorization bill.
  I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he could tell me if he knows 
of any other industry, any business in America which enjoys the same 
kind of immunity from liability for their wrongdoing--any other 
business with immunity from liability that the gun industry and gun 
dealers are asking for in this legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator knows the answer to that; that is, there is 
none. This will be special, unique to a single industry that prides 
itself, as the spokesman for the NRA said--you better support this or 
else; basically saying that to the Congress of the United States.
  Just to complete the thought about the sense of priorities, as 
legislators we basically express the priorities for the people of our 
State and the Nation. We express those priorities in our budget, on 
what we ought to be expending resources, and we express priorities by 
what we address on the floor of the Senate.
  One of those amendments that was going to be offered to the Defense 
authorization bill--I know the Senator from Michigan was going to 
provide assurance that there was going to be mandatory spending to 
protect the veterans who are coming back from Iraq so they are 
guaranteed the kind of health care they are guaranteed before they go 
over there and fight and become wounded and need those kinds of 
services. That is offered in light of the fact that we are not 
providing the resources to serve our veterans.
  That is something worthy of debate on the floor of the Senate. It 
seems to me that has a lot more priority for debate and discussion and 
decision by this body than the special interest legislation that we are 
considering with the National Rifle Association.
  I ask whether the Senator would not agree with me on that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts another 
question about this bill. The Senator raises an important point. If a 
gun dealer in the United States sells a gun to someone----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Illinois will suspend, the 
Senator from Massachusetts wanted to be informed when he had 3 minutes 
left. He has 3 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DURBIN. If a gun dealer in the United States has a history of 
selling guns to criminals--in other words, someone comes in and buys 
100 Saturday night specials, ``fill up my trunk with guns''--obviously, 
not a sportsman or hunter or someone interested in personal defense, 
but someone who comes in and buys clearly for guns to be sold through 
straw purchasers to others--if the gun dealer has not even taken the 
time to check the FBI's Most Wanted list when making a sale across the 
counter, is this legislation saying that dealer, so negligent in his 
conduct, cannot be held personally responsible, or responsible as a 
business, in court for the victims of the gun violence that follows 
from that negligent act?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes an absolutely accurate point. We have 
here a list from the FBI of the Most Wanted fugitives. There is an 
amendment to say at least they have to look at the FBI's Most Wanted 
fugitives. Under this legislation, if the gun dealer sells it to one of 
the Most Wanted, they still get a free pass.
  Under the current legislation, we are not even asking them to look on 
the Internet for those who are going to be listed on the Internet as 
members of terrorist organizations. We are not even asking them to do 
that. If they do, and they sell it, as we saw from the al-Qaida book 
over in Afghanistan saying go on in there and purchase it because you 
are not going to be bothered--we are not even holding them accountable 
to do that. Is that what we want to do, when we have seen what has 
happened in London, and what is

[[Page 18904]]

happening, and we appropriate more and more resources for homeland 
security, not even to require that the gun dealer is going to check the 
Most Wanted list of the FBI?
  We can't even offer that amendment so it will be voted on. We are 
being blocked by the power interests on the other side from even having 
the Senate consider that amendment. That is the power of the NRA. They 
are not letting any of these kinds of amendments dealing with the Most 
Wanted list or the terrorist list--we can't even get it before the 
Senate. That is the lock, the hold that the NRA has. It is disgraceful.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts yields the 
floor. The Democratic side has 30 seconds remaining.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
to conclude the morning business.
  I think the Senator from Massachusetts has laid out the case. Can you 
imagine? We took the bill off the floor for the Department of Defense, 
for our soldiers and their families, and said we didn't have time to 
finish it this week because we had to go to this bill, the National 
Rifle Association's most important bill, which says that gun 
manufacturers and gun dealers selling their firearms to those on the 
FBI Most Wanted list, or to those in terrorist organizations, would not 
be held accountable for their misconduct? Where are the priorities of 
this Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the Democratic side has expired. 
Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of arguments on the 
floor in my day, but some of these arguments are some of the worst ever 
heard. I don't know, maybe I missed something. We were moving ahead on 
the Defense authorization bill when all of a sudden we couldn't get 
cloture. We couldn't move ahead because of the very people who have 
been making these arguments, in a holy fashion, that they want to help 
our soldiers. Yet they filibuster by preventing cloture and preventing 
a full acceptance of the Department of Defense authorization bill, and 
then turn around and say we stopped them from amending the bill. If 
they were stopped, it is because their amendments were not germane.
  I have never heard arguments like this, that we are just going to 
give gun dealers an absolute right to violate the law. They haven't 
read this legislation at all.
  And then they bring in an antiter-
rorism argument. What they do not tell the American public is that 
there are millions of guns out there in the underworld that people can 
get. But that doesn't justify holding liable gun manufacturers--who 
manufacture guns for our soldiers, by the way; if they all go broke we 
will not have the guns for our soldiers--when somebody takes one of 
their guns and misuses it. The person misusing it ought to be liable, 
not the gun manufacturer who cannot supervise the persons to whom they 
legitimately sold guns.
  Let's face it. The folks on that side of the aisle hate guns. They 
talk in terms of, We want to take care of our hunters and our gun 
collectors and people who love guns who are decent, law-abiding 
citizens. But look over the years how they have argued against anything 
that makes sense with regard to the right to manufacture weapons that 
we have always had in this country, and the right to keep and bear 
arms, which is explicitly in the Constitution. These are the same 
people who are constantly arguing about things that are not explicitly 
in the Constitution, claiming that they should be given the 
sanctification of constitutional protection. Yet something that is 
expressly written in the Constitution, they turn around and blast.
  I could spend a lot of time on that, but that is not what I came over 
here to do. All I can say is I find it amazing that an argument would 
be made, after they voted against cloture--in other words, proceeding 
with the Defense authorization bill, they voted against proceeding--and 
now they are saying, Why didn't we proceed. I missed something maybe. 
But I don't think so. This is just typical: Politics trumps everybody. 
No one is saying, with regard to this issue of the gun manufacturer's 
right to manufacture guns that are legal, they have a legal right to do 
so--nobody is making the argument that dealers who are honest and 
decent and honorable should not be able to sell those guns to decent, 
honorable people. We have plenty of restrictions already in law against 
illegality with regard to the sale of weapons.
  My gosh, is there no end to politics in these issues? This argument 
that this modest bill gives criminals a free pass and aids and abets 
terrorists is as phony an argument as I have heard. And the argument 
that it lets manufacturers off the hook for their wrongdoing--if they 
do wrong, they are on the hook under this bill.
  They are not doing wrong. That is the problem. What is wrong is the 
chief fundraiser of our friends on the left happens to be--the chief 
hard-money funder in this country happens to be the personal injury 
trial lawyer for liberals. And those people literally are the reason 
why we have these, I think, misconceived arguments.
  I could not sit here without saying something about it because it is 
hard to believe that they can stand and make these kinds of arguments. 
Much as I respect my fellow Senators, it is mind-boggling that they can 
make an argument that we are preventing going ahead with the DOD bill 
when they are the ones who stopped it. My gracious. Let me shift gears. 
I could talk for hours on that subject.

                          ____________________




                       NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the 
Supreme Court presents the Senate with some real challenges and 
opportunities.
  First, it allows us the specific opportunity to place on our Nation's 
highest Court a man of impeccable qualifications and unquestioned 
character. Everbody here knows that.
  After an unprecedented degree of consultation with the Senate, 
President Bush has nominated a truly outstanding individual.
  Judge Roberts has a strong background in terms of education and 
experience.
  Judge Roberts is a summa cum laude graduate of Harvard College--a 
degree which he finished in just three years--and a magna cum laude 
graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was the managing editor of the 
Harvard Law Review; meaning he is at the pinnacle of Law school 
students at the time throughtout the country.
  He was a law clerk for two distinguished Federal judges: First for 
the late Judge Henry Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit, widely recognized as one of the most influential 
appellate judges of his time; and next on the U.S. Supreme Court for 
then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist. Now Chief Justice, he too is 
one of the most outstanding jurists of his time.
  Judge Roberts's career in legal practice covers both the public and 
private sectors.
  He held several positions in two administrations, including Special 
Assistant to the Attorney General, Associate Counsel to the President, 
and Principal Deputy Solicitor General, all high positions. They don't 
get much higher in the law.
  In between his stints in public service, Judge Roberts became a 
leading member of the prestigious law firm of Hogan and Hartson, an 
internationally recognized law firm.
  Overall, Judge Roberts became, by all accounts, one of the leading 
practitioners before the Supreme Court, arguing nearly 40 cases.
  Not only does Judge Roberts have the education and experience, but 
his colleagues in the bar tell us that he possesses the integrity and 
character to make a fine member of the Supreme Court.
  Just two years ago, the American Bar Association unanimously gave 
Judge Roberts its highest well qualified rating for serving in his 
current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

[[Page 18905]]

  Mr. President, a second opportunity, as well as a great challenge, 
presented by this nomination is more general.
  We can better educate ourselves and our fellow citizens about the 
proper role of judges in our system of government.
  We can clarify the kind of judge we need on the bench.
  We can get straight just what judges are supposed to do.
  We must seize this opportunity, because I am concerned that lack of 
clarity on this point, a misunderstanding of what judges are supposed 
to do, contributes to the rancor and the partisan conflict surrounding 
the judicial selection process.
  Mr. President, last week here on the Senate floor, I began to address 
this by comparing judges to umpires or referees.
  I used that analogy because I believe we can be simple without being 
simplistic, even regarding some of these very important, and sometimes 
confusing matters.
  Judges, like umpires or referees, take rules they did not make and 
cannot change and apply them to the contest before them.
  Neither judges nor umpires may first pick a winner and then 
manipulate the rules to produce that outcome or the final result.
  Every American of a certain age remembers only too well the Olympic 
basketball game in which biased referees unfairly replayed the final 
seconds of the game so that the Soviets would win. And we all saw the 
tainted, colluding French ice skating judge at the last winter Olympics 
in Salt Lake City.
  Neither judges nor umpires may allow their personal views of the 
parties or teams before them to influence their application of the law 
or the rules.
  And they certainly may not prejudge the contest before the teams even 
take the field.
  This role or function, this job description, must guide the hiring or 
selection process.
  We hear it said, for example, that we must know a judicial nominee's 
views. At least on the surface, that notion sounds practical, even an 
assertin of common sense.
  The problem is, that by itself, this general demand to know a 
nominee's views begs rather than answers the important questions.
  It is so general that it simply cannot mean what it says. We have 
neither desire, need, nor right to know most of Judge Roberts's views 
on most imaginable subjects.
  The real questions are these: What views do we actually need to know? 
What views may we properly seek to know?
  I submit, that properly understanding what judges do helps us 
properly establish which of a nominee's views we need to know.
  This is quickly coming to a head.
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, aided in turn by 
some of their friends among left-wing interest groups, are demanding to 
know Judge Roberts's views related to how he is likely to rule on 
certain issues.
  They seek to elicit those views in a variety of different ways and 
seem committed to ask carefully crafted questions designed to poke and 
prod, cajole and extract, but they are after the same thing.
  Simply put, it appears that some of our Democratic colleagues want, 
in essence, Judge Roberts to prejudge issues and cases that might come 
before him.
  It appears some Senators may even base their confirmation vote on his 
future judicial votes.
  I might add that one Senator, I believe, said that he would vote no 
if the Jugde Roberts does not explicitly endorse Roe v. Wade. That is 
outrageous.
  When Judge Roberts appears before the Judiciary Committee, I hope we 
will follow a standard, for both questions and answers, that is 
consistent with the nature of the judicial office and with Senate 
tradition.
  The nature of the judicial office itself requires independence and 
impartiality. Nominees for judicial office, and especially those who 
are already sitting judges, must protect these essential elements of 
judicial character.
  Many questions and answers will be consistent with judicial 
independence and impartiality, but others are not.
  I have said before that Senators can ask any questions they choose, 
whether I disagree with those questions or not, whether I feel those 
questions are wise or not.
  I have served on the Judiciary Committee during hearings for eight of 
the nine current Supreme Court Justices and more than 1400 lower court 
judges.
  I know from experience that Senators want to know a great many things 
from a judicial nominee. Being legislators and being political, we may 
even want to know many political things.
  I do, however, encourage my colleagues, and remind myself, to resist 
using a purely political standard to evaluate a nominee for judicial 
office.
  Even more than Senators, however, the nominee before us will 
certainly use a judicial standard to answer even political questions.
  Many of us have already met with Judge Roberts. I know him 
personally. I have seen him sit there for 14 years because he wasn't 
even given the courtesy of a hearing.
  He is a thoughtful, sincere, and honest man.
  We can be confident that he will do his best to balance the need to 
be forthcoming and responsive, on the one hand, with his commitment to 
judicial independence and impartiality, on the other.
  There is, however, more for him to consider than simply that a 
Senator wants to know something.
  Judge Roberts has not only been nominated to a judicial position, he 
already has one. He is a sitting judge.
  He will be on the Federal bench, on one court or another, for many 
years to come.
  Those who come before him deserve to know, need to know, that he is 
impartial. Nothing shatters that confidence more than knowing a judge 
has, under oath, already pledged to rule one way or another, which is 
being demanded by some of my colleagues on the other side.
  In fact, this duty not to prejudge issues or cases is so important 
that it is codified in the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Let me read a 
portion of it here. I think it should be interesting to everybody.
  ``[A] judge or a candidate for appointment . . . to judicial office 
shall not . . . with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that 
are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or 
commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the 
adjudicative duties of the office.''
  I know that Judge Roberts takes his judicial responsibilities, his 
judicial ethics, very seriously.
  We can look not only to the nature of the judicial office, but to 
past judicial confirmations, for more concrete definition of this 
judicial standard.
  As each Supreme Court nominee came before the Judiciary Committee, 
Senators asked different kinds of questions on a wide range of issues. 
Some of them sought, more or less obviously, to zero in on how the 
nominee would likely rule in the future cases raising particular 
issues.
  We are probably all guilty of that at one time or another, but judges 
who use common sense refuse to answer those kind of questions. They 
should.
  Senators of both parties pressed nominees of both parties.
  The remarkable thing, which we will do well to keep in mind today, is 
the consistency with which nominees handled these questions. There were 
variations, to be sure, but those were variations in degree.
  Nominees regularly took the same basic approach to the issue of 
prejudging issues and cases.
  Let us look briefly at some examples from nominees of both parties.
  Anthony Kennedy's nomination was sent by a Republican President to a 
Democratic Senate. At his confirmation hearing in January 1988, he 
said, ``[T]he public expects that the judge will keep an open mind, and 
that he is confirmed by the Senate because of his temperament and his 
character, and not because he has taken particular positions on the 
issues.'' That is a pretty important statement.

[[Page 18906]]

  The Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy by a vote of 97-0.
  David Souter's nomination was also sent by a Republican President to 
a Democratic Senate. At his confirmation hearing in September 1990, he 
asked rhetorically, ``[C]an you imagine the pressure that would be on a 
judge who had stated an opinion, or seemed to have given a commitment 
in these circumstances to the Senate of the United States?''
  By the way the Senate confirmed Justice Souter by a vote of 90-9.
  Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nomination was sent by a Democratic President 
to a Democratic Senate. At her confirmation hearing in July 1993, she 
gave what she called her rule when asked to prejudge issues or cases--a 
rule which we honored in the committee and the Senate ``No hints, no 
forecasts, no previews.'' That was a Democratic nominee and we honored 
those views, Democrats and Republicians.
  The Senate confirmed Justice Ginsburg by a vote of 96-3.
  And finally, Stephen Breyer's nomination was sent by a Democratic 
President to a Democratic Senate. At his confirmation hearing in July 
1994, he said, ``I do not want to predict or to commit myself on an 
open issue that I feel is going to come up in the Court. . . . it is so 
important that the clients and the lawyers understand the judges are 
really open-minded.''I agree with his statement and so did members of 
the Judiciary Committee by and large.
  The Senate confirmed Justice Breyer by a vote of 87-9.
  I hope everyone sees the pattern here. Each of these Supreme Court 
nominees was, like Judge Roberts, already a Federal appeals court 
judge.
  Each of them, whether Republican or Democrat, used the same judicial 
standard when Senators, Republican or Democrat, sought prejudgment.
  They refused.
  These judicial nominees refused to prejudge issues or cases because 
it would compromise their own independence and impartiality.
  They refused to prejudge issues or cases because litigants deserve 
confidence that the judge before whom they appear is impartial and 
open-minded. Let me put back up here the simple, straightforward 
Ginsburg Rule.
  No hints, no forecasts, no previews.
  We honored her in that. Why is it that somebody can come to the floor 
and say, unless he is against overturning Roe v. Wade, I will not vote 
for him? I guess that is a Senator's right, but it certainly is not 
consistent with the way we treated other Supreme Court nominees.
  She was asked about her personal views on issues and precedents.
  She was asked her judicial views on issues and cases. She steadfastly 
refused.
  Once again, the Ginsburg Rule is no hints, no forecasts, no previews.
  I know that this way of balancing responsiveness to Senators with 
commitment to judicial independence and impartiality can be 
frustrating. But we confirmed her nomination overwhelmingly.
  Let me be clear. Senators have the right to ask any questions they 
choose. I do hope that Senators, myself included, consider the absolute 
imperative of judicial independence and impartiality when we decide 
what questions to ask.
  But we must realize as we have in the past that simply asking the 
question does not mean a judicial nomination answer. I am concerned 
that some are already planning to change standards to demand that Judge 
Roberts abandon the Ginsburg rule or the rule of the other Justices. 
Some have already released a list of questions they intend to ask this 
nominee. Many of the questions asked in various ways how Judge Roberts 
will rule on issues. Many of the questions ask how he will prejudge 
cases. I am concerned that we might hear Senators demand that Judge 
Roberts sacrifice his independence and impartiality, that he violate 
his sense of judicial ethics before they will vote for him. I hope this 
does not happen. This political standard will not only undermine 
judicial independence and impartiality but will be a radical departure 
from Senate tradition. I hope we do not see it.
  Some have also argued that the Senate allowed Justice Ginsburg to 
follow her ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews'' rule because she had 
already been on the appeals court for more than a decade. This 
reasoning is faulty also. As I have described, the Ginsburg rule is 
compelled by the judicial function itself, by the absolute imperative 
of judicial independence and impartiality. This imperative exists 
whether someone had never before been a judge, been a judge for 2 
weeks, or was a judicial veteran of 25 years. We should have faith in 
this fine nominee to take his responsibility as a judge seriously. I 
firmly believe we should follow the standard that the judicial function 
compels and Senate tradition confirms. Justice Ginsburg stated it as 
``no hints, no forecasts, no previews.'' We respected her and we 
confirmed her.
  This administration has given up 75,000 pages of materials. Frankly, 
that is the haystack. I guess some are calling to now look for the 
needle.
  We should do the same for Judge Roberts, and that is respect him and 
confirm him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The majority whip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We are talking with the floor staff on the other side 
about getting additional time on this side since a bit more was used on 
the other side.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be given 2 extra minutes, 
then I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, followed by Senator 
Brownback for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will spend no more than 10 minutes to 
comment on the President's nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  Several weeks ago, shortly before the President nominated Judge 
Roberts, we were informed that the strategy on the other side of the 
aisle was a three-pronged strategy: one, to claim that there was 
inadequate consultation; two, to somehow paint the nominee as extreme; 
and three, to use document requests to go on a fishing expedition to 
delay the confirmation for as long as possible.
  Before this nominee was proposed by the President, there was 
unprecedented consultation with both sides of the aisle, and because 
this nominee is clearly in the mainstream of American jurisprudence and 
has a distinguished record of public service as a judge and as an 
advocate on behalf of the United States in the Solicitor General's 
Office and elsewhere, it looks as if we already have jumped to prong 
three, the first two prongs being unavailable.
  Some members on the other side of the aisle are already intimating 
that, unless the White House finds and turns over every piece of paper 
written by Judge Roberts when he was a Government lawyer, they cannot 
properly assess his qualifications to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is 
preposterous. The public record on Judge Roberts is already immense. It 
is telling that opponents of this nomination, or at least those who 
want to slow it down unnecessarily, have not even had a chance to 
review the documents that are already available. Yet they are calling 
for more documents. If history is any teacher, and I believe it is, 
this may indeed be the beginning of a case of moving the goalpost each 
time a document request is made and then satisfied, to then ask for 
more, which then leads to another request for more, and a game that the 
nominee cannot win because the goalposts move each time.
  I would like to remind my colleagues what we already have. Judge 
Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Court of Appeals just 2 short years 
ago. He testified extensively before this Senate on two previous 
occasions, and these transcripts total 14 hours of testimony. In 
conjunction with those hearings, he completed more than 100 pages of 
responses to written questions posed to him by Senators on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. If this were not

[[Page 18907]]

enough, the Senate already has before it various legal briefs and oral 
argument transcripts from the hundreds upon hundreds of briefs written 
by Judge Roberts, or in which he participated, when he practiced as a 
lawyer both in the private sector and in the Solicitor General's 
Office. The committee and the Congress already has before it 10 
articles authored by Judge Roberts, scholarly legal articles which 
reflect some of his thought processes and his expertise on various 
issues of law.
  All of this, of course, was more than enough for the Senate to 
unanimously confirm Judge Roberts as it did 2 short years ago to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called the second most 
important court in the land.
  There is more. Since his confirmation to the bench, he has 
participated in more than 300 appellate cases and opinions that cover 
more than 2,000 pages. The White House, as recently as yesterday or 
perhaps the day before, has pledged to expedite the public processing 
of more than 75,000 pages of memoranda that Judge Roberts wrote while 
an adviser to President Reagan during the 1980s. By any measure, this 
is a vast public record.
  I am quite confident none of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle or even on our side of the aisle have had an opportunity to 
digest this huge disgorging of public information at this point. Yet 
there is the clamor already for more, more, more and complaints that 
the President and this administration have not given them enough. 
Perhaps my colleagues, I respectfully suggest, should read what has 
already been produced before they start complaining that it is not 
enough unless, of course, this is more about picking a fight than it is 
about finding a reasonable path toward an orderly process leading to an 
up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
  The documents my colleagues are demanding to see, the documents that 
remain that have not been provided, are documents written while he was 
a Government lawyer working in the Office of Solicitor General at the 
Department of Justice. As my colleagues know, the Solicitor General is 
the public official who argues cases on behalf of the U.S. Government 
in the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, there are a number of lawyers who 
work there assisting the Solicitor General. Those lawyers write 
memoranda suggesting various litigation strategies--weighing, on the 
one hand, we could make this argument; perhaps it would be better to 
make this argument--and make a recommendation on the litigation 
strategy of the U.S. Government in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  In 2002, all seven former living Solicitors General of both political 
parties wrote a letter asking the President to refuse to turn over 
these confidential documents because they said such a move would chill 
for years to come the candid advice the Government receives from its 
lawyers. They noted that ``our decisionmaking process requires the 
unbridled, open exchange of ideas--an exchange that simply cannot take 
place if attorneys have reason to fear their private recommendations 
are not private at all, but vulnerable to public disclosure.''
  Most Americans understand that it makes sense to allow this sort of 
private communication between a lawyer and a client in order to provide 
the most effective legal representation, and the same principle 
applies, of course, whether you are the Solicitor General representing 
the U.S. Government or whether you are a lawyer representing someone 
who has been accused of a crime or someone who is pursuing a civil 
claim in a court of law.
  A couple of our distinguished Senators from Vermont and Massachusetts 
have in recent days argued that confidential memoranda written by 
Government lawyers are the property of the American people and, 
therefore, should be handed over to the Senate. Of course, that is in 
direct contradiction to what the seven bipartisan appointees of the 
Office of Solicitor General have said as recently as 2002.
  But we all understand that the nature of the attorney-client 
relationship is not one that should be breached simply because the 
government is a party to the communication. For example, the Federal 
Government's veterans hospitals are there to take care of the men and 
women who fought for our freedom. Does this mean that Members of this 
Senate are entitled to see confidential medical files of veterans who 
receive care in these facilities? Does that mean somehow we should be 
able to invade the doctor-patient relationship by making public their 
private medical records? Certainly not. The same principle holds true, 
this principle of confidential communications in a position of trust or 
fiduciary relationship, between lawyers and clients as well. To hold 
otherwise would deny the American people the vigorous and outstanding 
representation they are entitled to before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I suggest, in accordance with traditional practice, that the claim of 
attorney-client privilege for these Solicitor General documents, these 
deliberate documents written by Judge Roberts when he was working in 
that office representing the U.S. Government, can and should remain 
confidential. They should not be made public. And we should stop 
playing this game of ``gotcha'' by moving goalposts on the President's 
nominees.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yesterday, I expressed my concern that some may try to 
turn the confirmation process for Judge John Roberts into a political 
circus. After recent media reports, I have become concerned that some 
of those fears I spoke of earlier in this Senate are coming true; 
namely, that our friends on the other side of the aisle are going to do 
everything they can to obstruct the confirmation process of the 
President's nominee to the Supreme Court.
  Earlier, I spoke of the Washington Post article that outlined a 
carefully constructed plan of attack on the Roberts nomination. It was 
a three-staged battle plan.
  The first stage was to assert that the amount of consultation from 
the White House, no matter the amount, no matter how much consultation, 
was somehow insufficient. But that dog clearly won't hunt. The White 
House consulted with over 70 Senators, including two-thirds of the 
Democratic caucus and every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. The 
President himself met with the Democratic leader and the Democratic 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. He and his staff were 
receptive to any and all suggestions our Democratic friends cared to 
give. Frankly, he has done more than the Constitution requires by far, 
and more than his predecessors did. No one can say he did not consult 
the Senate, period. End of story.
  The second salvo against the President's nominee, as told to the 
Washington Post, was to try to distort and destroy his record and paint 
him as extreme. This plan, too, has failed.
  Judge Roberts is one of the preeminent jurists of his generation. He 
is a top graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard University. He was 
unanimously approved by the Senate for his current position on the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Over 150 of his peers, Democrat 
and Republican alike, endorsed him for the current position he holds. 
And he has argued, as we have pointed out numerous times, before the 
Supreme Court 39 times. He is clearly in the mainstream, is fair-
minded, has a keen intellect, and a sterling record of integrity.
  So now some of our Democratic friends, as some of us could have 
predicted, have come to the third and final stage of the attack plan. 
They are making unreasonable demands for documents about the nominee.
  Now, the administration has been very generous in releasing documents 
from Judge Roberts's time in the Justice Department as a special 
assistant to Attorney General William French Smith and his tenure in 
the White House Counsel's Office.
  In fact, the Judiciary Committee will receive some 70,000 pages of 
documents, at the behest of the administration. Let me say again: That 
is 70,000 pages

[[Page 18908]]

turned over. I doubt that our colleagues have pored through those pages 
already, and yet they are hungry for more.
  Since the release of these documents, some in the media have 
hurriedly--some might say recklessly--skimmed document after document, 
many of them quite complex, looking for any hint of controversy so 
precious to the demands of the 24-hour news cycle. In so doing, they 
run the risk of simplifying complex constitutional issues beyond 
recognition.
  For example, during the last couple of days, there has been a great 
deal of media attention regarding the arcane issue of so-called ``court 
stripping,'' a shorthand term describing the issue of whether Congress 
has the authority to deny jurisdiction to Federal courts.
  The New York Times writes this morning that:

       Mr. Roberts consistently argued that courts should be 
     stripped of authority of abortion, busing, school prayer and 
     other matters.

  The Washington Post yesterday:

       Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would 
     have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over 
     abortion, busing and school prayer cases.

  The Boston Globe:

       One memo suggested that [Roberts] supported proposals in 
     Congress to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over 
     abortion, busing and school prayer cases. ``Aha,'' say our 
     friends in the media. The media and some of our friends on 
     the other side of the aisle suggest that John Roberts may 
     have taken a position on these controversial issues. The 
     problem is not that this is an oversimplification. The 
     problem is that it is just plain wrong.

  As a young attorney in the Justice Department, John Roberts was 
assigned to write a memo advocating that Congress had the 
constitutional authority to determine the appellate jurisdiction of the 
Supreme Court and other federal courts. This memo was written in 
response to legislation introduced in Congress proposing to strip 
Federal jurisdiction on a number of controversial social issues. Now, 
Mr. Roberts was a constitutional scholar, and he did what 
constitutional scholars are frequently asked to do: argue a legal 
theory about congressional authority. Mr. Roberts was given this 
assignment by his boss, and he responded with the outstanding advocacy 
for which he is justly admired.
  Making a legal argument, however, is miles away from endorsing the 
policy underlying the constitutional argument. And, as it turns out, 
John Roberts did not think that ``court stripping'' was good policy in 
the first place. Let me say again: John Roberts did not think that 
``court stripping'' was a good policy in the first place.
  The Associated Press reported, yesterday, that in 1985:

       [A]s a lawyer in the Reagan White House, John Roberts wrote 
     that Congress had authority to strip the Supreme Court of 
     jurisdiction over cases involving school prayer and similar 
     issues, but he added that ``such bills were bad policy and 
     should be opposed.''

  The second half of the story was he added that ``such bills were bad 
policy and should be opposed.'' This tempest in a teapot over ``court 
stripping'' refers to a position that Mr. Roberts never agreed with in 
the first place.
  That is the problem with a rush to judgment on a complex legal 
document--these documents that have been released just recently. 
Instant media reports can muddy the waters by confusing a legal opinion 
with a policy position. A legal opinion is different from a policy 
position.
  Now, half the story only conveys half the truth. Half the story only 
conveys half the truth. And a half-truth is frequently 100 percent 
wrong. I hope those in the media who got it wrong will not make the 
same mistake again. This is the exact kind of misrepresentation I hope 
the Senate can avoid as it debates the Roberts nomination.
  Now, Judge Roberts deserves a fair and dignified process. The Senate 
needs to be thorough and deliberate, but it must be fair. I would say 
to our friends in the media, half a story is frequently 100 percent 
wrong. Read all the documents before reaching a conclusion.
  So, Mr. President, I suggest we all take a deep breath and not rush 
to judgment in an effort to get tomorrow morning's headlines out before 
we have read the entire story.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________




                         STEM CELL LEGISLATION

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise this morning to address some of 
the comments that have been made on the other side of the aisle 
regarding the Castle bill on embryonic stem cell research that passed 
in the House a few weeks ago: I have heard the proposal this morning 
from my colleagues from the other side that we should discuss and talk 
about embryonic stem cell research and the proposed umbilical cord 
blood bill that have been put on the calendar here in the Senate, but 
without any discussion about human cloning. I want to try to put this 
issue in context a little, and to propose some factual information.
  Mr. President, we need to have a broad discussion about bioethical 
issues in this body and all across the country, and it needs to involve 
the full range of issues that have come to light as we attempt to grasp 
the implications and come to understand the decisions that must be made 
in this challenging area.
  This discussion should involve cord blood stem cells. These types of 
cells are stem cells that come from the umbilical cord when a child is 
born; they are a rich source of pluripotent stem cells that have proven 
very helpful in providing a number of treatments for humans.
  We need to continue to talk honestly about embryonic stem cell 
research: the possible limitations of this research to cure diseases in 
humans, as well as the certain destruction of embryos that this type of 
research necessitates.
  We need to talk about human cloning, whether or not we want to 
continue to allow the practice of cloning to take place in the United 
States of America (it is currently a legal process in this country, to 
clone, create and kill an embryo, a young human).
  We need to talk about the cutting edge related research applications, 
we need to consider where the science is leading us on issues such as 
the creation and manipulation of chimeras--human-animal crosses that 
are created by, for instance, taking human brain cells and putting them 
in a mouse--we cannot bypass these critical issues in this discussion.
  And we need to talk about some exciting new application prospects of 
these broad-based pluripotent cells, cells that can do virtually 
anything--but I speak of cells where it is not necessary to extract 
them from a human embryos, destroying that embryo in the process, but 
cells yielded from other places in the body.
  With this background in mind, I want to point out a couple of quick 
facts.
  No. 1, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record, from this morning's Washington Post, an article describing new 
revelations about pluripotent adult stem cells that can answer many of 
these questions. I ask that the article be included and printed at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to read one section of this 
article:

       A team of Harvard scientists is claiming the discovery of a 
     reservoir of cells that appear capable of replenishing the 
     ovaries of sterilized mice, possibly providing new ways to 
     [create human eggs].

  Adult stem cells in the body with the ability to create human eggs. 
Now, people may say: What do you mean by that? Well, here we have a 
pluripotent adult stem cell (derived from bone marrow) with a broad 
capacity to create a lot of different cells, so much so that they can 
generate, when placed in the right place in the body--a woman's ovary--
human eggs.
  Listen to what the scientists here say about this:

       In addition, because the cells appear to be a particularly 
     versatile type of adult stem cell--

  I would like to pause for a moment to point out that there are no 
ethical

[[Page 18909]]

problems or objections to research conducted with adult stem cells. We 
should put millions of dollars into this type of research. This type of 
research is yielding cures--65 treatment applications for humans with 
adult stem cell research. However, I'd like to conclude the reading of 
this excerpt:

      . . . a particularly versatile type of adult stems cells 
     [which] could provide an alternative to those obtained from 
     embryos, avoiding the political and ethical debates raging 
     around the use of those cells.

  End of quote, in this morning's Washington Post, from Harvard 
researchers.
  Mr. President, I ask then, why would we want to kill young human 
embryos, young humans, who are clearly alive, who are clearly human, 
when we have the capacity, in adult stem cells, to conduct useful and 
productive research to cure diseases, that is not hindered by ethical 
problems?
  In an article from this month's The Lancet--a well-respected British 
medical journal--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. The author of this editorial--this is the lead British 
medical journal--says:

      . . . what is unarguable is that the human embryo is alive 
     and is human, and intentionally ending the life of one human 
     being for the potential benefit of others is not territory to 
     which mainstream clinical researchers have hitherto sought 
     claim--or which ethically conscientious objectors could ever 
     concede.

  These embryos are alive. They are alive. They are human.
  I want to conclude, because time is very limited--Mr. President: I 
want cures for people. I want cures for juvenile diabetes, for cancer, 
for spinal cord injuries, for Parkinson's disease. And, with research 
generated from pluripotent adult stem cells, we are getting these 
treatments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of human clinical trials going on now, using adult or cord blood 
stem cells, involving no ethical dilemmas, for 65 different human 
maladies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. The number of areas of treatment for human ailments or 
medical conditions in humans using human embryonic stem cells is zero. 
So the notion that delaying this Castle-Specter bill is going to hurt 
current patients is completely false. If we want to help current 
patients, the key--the key--is to put more research into adult and cord 
blood stem cell research. If you want to help current patients, you 
should be ever so careful not to promise impossibilities to these 
hurting individuals; you should state what the scientists are telling 
us, that the possibility of embryonic stem cells yielding cures, if 
ever--and I really doubt if it ever happens--is decades away. And we 
have had problems in the past with these types or cells forming 
dangerous and cancerous tissues--a problem which has not yet been 
worked out. If we want cures, let's go the route where we know we are 
going to reach our destination, and where we know treatment is true 
possibility.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, July 28, 2005]

       Scientists Claim To Find Cells That Restore Egg Production

                             (By Rob Stein)

       A team of Harvard scientists is claiming the discovery of a 
     reservoir of cells that appear capable of replenishing the 
     ovaries of sterilized mice, possibly providing new ways to 
     help infertile women have babies.
       While cautioning that more research is needed to confirm 
     that similar cells exist in women and that they can safely 
     restore fertility, the researchers said the findings could 
     revolutionize the understanding of female reproduction and 
     the power to manipulate it.
       ``This may launch a new era in how to think about female 
     infertility and menopause,'' said Jonathan L. Tilly, a 
     reproductive biologist at Harvard Medical School and 
     Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston who led the 
     research. It is being published in tomorrow's issue of the 
     journal Cell.
       Other researchers agreed that the findings could have 
     profound implications, but several expressed caution and 
     skepticism, saying many key questions remain about whether 
     the researchers have proved their claims.
       ``This is really exciting and a revolutionary idea. The 
     implications are potentially huge,'' said Lawrence Nelson of 
     the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 
     ``But before this could have any type of application to 
     humans, a whole lot of work has to be done. We have to be 
     careful not to get ahead of ourselves.''
       But Tilly said he was confident of his findings, which 
     could, for example, enable women to bank egg-producing cells 
     when they are young in case they have health problems that 
     leave them infertile or they get too old.
       ``In theory, these cells could provide an insurance policy. 
     We could harvest them and store them away for 20 years. Then 
     you put them back in, and they are going to do exactly what 
     they are supposed to--find the ovaries and generate new 
     eggs'' to restore fertility, Tilly said.
       The discovery could also lead to ways to prevent, delay or 
     reverse menopause, perhaps by stimulating dormant cells in 
     the bone marrow or ``tweaking'' the ovaries to accept them, 
     Tilly said. It may also be possible to transplant them from 
     one woman to another, he said.
       In addition, because the cells appear to be a particularly 
     versatile type of adult stem cell, they could provide an 
     alternative to those obtained from embryos, avoiding the 
     political and ethical debates raging around the use of those 
     cells.
       ``The implications are mind-boggling, really,'' Tilly said.
       The research is a follow-up to results the team reported in 
     March 2004, when it claimed it had shown that mice can 
     produce eggs throughout their lives. For decades, scientific 
     dogma has been that female mammals such as mice and humans 
     are born with a finite number of eggs. To alleviate doubts 
     about their original claim, the researchers conducted another 
     round of experiments, which they said confirm the findings 
     and explain how it might work.
       First, the scientists sterilized female mice with a cancer 
     chemotherapy drug that destroyed eggs in the ovaries but 
     spared any egg-producing cells elsewhere. They tested the 
     animals' ovaries 12 to 24 hours later and found signs their 
     egg supply was rapidly regenerating. Two months later, the 
     animals' ovaries looked normal, and they remained that way 
     for life.
       After tests indicated the source of the cells may lie in 
     the animals' bone marrow, the researchers infused marrow from 
     healthy mice into those that were either genetically 
     engineered to be infertile or had been made infertile with 
     chemotherapy. Two months later, the recipients' ovaries 
     looked normal, whereas those that had not received the 
     transplants remained barren, the researchers reported. Blood 
     transfusions produced similar results, they said.
       The researchers then infused blood into infertile mice from 
     animals that had been genetically engineered so that their 
     reproductive stem cells glowed fluorescent green. Within two 
     days, green egg cells appeared in the recipients' ovaries, 
     which the researchers said indicated the cells had traveled 
     through the blood to the ovaries.
       Finally, the researchers screened human bone marrow and 
     blood from healthy women and found that both tested positive 
     for biological markers indicating the presence of immature 
     reproductive cells.
       ``Mice and humans appear to be the same--they appear to 
     have a set of genes in bone marrow consistent with . . . 
     cells that can make themselves a new egg,'' Tilly said.
       The findings could help explain previously mysterious cases 
     of women sterilized by cancer treatment who spontaneously 
     became pregnant after receiving bone marrow transplants, 
     Tilly said. This may happen only rarely because some, but not 
     all, techniques used to process bone marrow before 
     transplantation may destroy the cells in some cases, he 
     speculated.
       The research triggered a mixture of excitement, caution and 
     deep skepticism.
       ``It's quite amazing,'' said Hans Schoeler of the Max 
     Planck Institute in Germany. ``The idea that cells from bone 
     marrow may be a reservoir for egg cells would be quite 
     astonishing.''
       But Schoeler and other researchers cautioned that many 
     crucial questions remained. Several researchers had doubts 
     about some of the techniques the researchers used. Others 
     were puzzled by the speed with which the ovaries appeared to 
     be repopulated with eggs. Many pointed out that the 
     researchers had failed to show the eggs were viable, the mice 
     were ovulating or that they could give birth to healthy 
     offspring.
       ``I'm very skeptical,'' said David F. Albertini of the 
     University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kan. 
     ``There are a lot of holes in the research.''
       Tilly attributed the skepticism to the radical nature of 
     the findings and said he already had work underway to address 
     the concerns, including breeding studies aimed at producing 
     healthy offspring.
       ``We hope we will have the answers very soon,'' Tilly said.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                    Stem-Cell Therapy: Hope and Hype

       In the fifth year since human cloning to generate stem 
     cells was legalised in the UK,

[[Page 18910]]

     what progress has been made towards taking stem-cell therapy 
     from laboratory to clinical practice? In 2000, articulating 
     robust UK Government support, then Health Minister Yvette 
     Cooper proclaimed that stem cells from cloned human embryos 
     ``could prove the Holy Grail in finding treatments for 
     cancer, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, osteopo-
     rosis, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's disease, leukemia 
     and multiple sclerosis . . . transform[ing] the lives of 
     hundreds of thousands of people''. But 4 years later, the 
     technical difficulties and biological hazards inherent in 
     cloning human embryos and developing treatments from their 
     stem cells led Richard Gardner, Chairman of the Royal Society 
     Working Group on Stem Cells and Therapeutic Cloning, to doubt 
     whether this would ever be a ``a procedure that becomes 
     widely available . . . There are concerns about the 
     efficiency and elaborateness of the procedure, and it's going 
     to be very time-consuming and very expensive''. So, to 
     paraphrase May 25th's Saving Faces event in London, UK, are 
     stem-cell therapies hype, or hope, or substance?
       Only two UK groups currently seek to clone human embryos, 
     both with immediate aims not of developing therapies but of 
     improving understanding of embryonic development or specific 
     diseases. Techniques for culturing human embryonic stem cells 
     have advanced--e.g., allowing them (like adult stem cells) to 
     be grown--but an increasing appreciation of the hazards of 
     embryonic stem cells has rightly prevented the emergence or 
     immediate prospect of any clinical therapies based on such 
     cells. The natural propensity of embryonic stem cells to form 
     teratomas, their exhibit of chromosomal abnormalities, and 
     abnormalities in cloned mammals all present difficulties.
       The prospect of having to clone (to obtain embryonic stem-
     cells) every patient requiring therapy is surely unrealistic 
     (the Korean report of cloning human embryos for stem cells 
     used almost 250 human eggs in generating a single stem-cell 
     line). If cloning is unrealistic and/or too hazardous, the 
     autologous advantage of (cloned) embryonic stem cells 
     vanishes: and immune rejection of embryonic stem cells 
     generated from ``foreign'' in-vitro fertilisation or abortion 
     presents further problems.
       These biological problems only add to the ethical 
     objections. The Lancet declared in 2001 that: ``the creation 
     of embryos solely for the purpose of producing human stem 
     cells is not only unnecessary but also a step too far''. 
     Semantic questions about embryology and personhood are 
     interesting, if unprovable, but what is unarguable is that 
     the human embryo is alive and is human, and intentionally 
     ending the life of one human being for the potential benefit 
     of others (i.e., for research) is not territory to which 
     mainstream clinical researchers have hitherto sought claim--
     or which ethically conscious objectors could ever concede.
       So is stem-cell research a damp squib, another over-hyped 
     funding gambit? Far from it, for the embryonic stem-cell 
     story forms only one aspect. Excitement about the potential 
     of adult stem cells was tempered by reports in 2002 that in 
     some circumstances such cells can fuse. Fusion might give a 
     false appearance of metadifferentiation, the argument ran, 
     therefore adult stem cells are not really multipotent, and 
     are a nonstarter as an alternative to embryonic stem cells.
       Fortunately, for the now highly expectant patient, reports 
     of the death of adult stem cells were greatly exaggerated. 
     Much research (some indeed antedating the fusion excitement) 
     clearly shows that although fusion can and does occur in 
     certain tissues, adult (say) bone-marrow-derived stem cells 
     can also generate multiple lineages without cell fusion. 
     Interestingly, fusion may be an unexpected mechanism of 
     achieving repair, and could additionally offer means of 
     delivering gene therapy. Normal (bone-marrow-derived) donor 
     nuclei were found in the muscle of a patient with Duchenne 
     muscular dystrophy, over a decade after bone-marrow 
     transplantation for immune deficiency, offering proof of 
     principle for fusion of bone-marrow-derived stem cells as 
     gene therapy, and presenting tantalising therapeutic 
     prospects. Also, it is now clear that aneuploidy represents a 
     not uncommon, spontaneous, and normal process, rather than 
     necessarily carrying sinister implications, as speculated.
       Suggestions of low rates of differentiation of bone-marrow-
     derived stem cells and integration in situ, and of 
     questionable differentiation, have also been addressed. 
     Perhaps the most compelling (and extraordinary) evidence 
     unambiguously confirming the ability of adult bone-marrow-
     derived stem cells not only to metadifferentiate but also to 
     integrate fully into adult (human) organs, and survive for 
     decades, comes from postmortem studies of sex-mismatched 
     recipients of bone-marrow transplants, showing donor-derived 
     fully differentiated neuronal cells of a highly complex 
     morphology apparently fully functionally established within 
     the host brain, with no evidence of fusion.
       We now know that bone marrow-derived stem-cells circulate 
     systemically and actively migrate into damaged tissue to 
     contribute to spontaneous repair. Experimentally, therapeutic 
     benefit occurs in numerous disease models but, importantly, 
     repair by bone-marrow-derived stem cells does not stop at the 
     laboratory door. Safety data from 50 years of clinical bone-
     marrow transplantation, during which nonhaemopoetic stem 
     cells have inadvertently also been transplanted, and the 
     accompanying clinical expertise in collecting, handling, 
     freeze-storing, thawing, and delivering marrow, have safety 
     allowed a rapid translation of bone-marrow-stem-cell science 
     from laboratory to clinic. Controlled trials have shown 
     significant benefit of marrow-derived stem-cell therapy in 
     myocardial infarction, and trials are planned or underway in 
     chronic cardiac failure, stroke, and other diseases: reports 
     of successful adult stem-cell therapy in myocardial 
     infarction, and trials are planned or underway in chronic 
     cardiac failure, stroke, and other diseases: reports of 
     successful adult stem-cell therapy in patients with corneal 
     disease have just appeared. The next few years, not decades, 
     will show whether adult stem-cell treatments are to join the 
     mainstream therapeutic arsenal.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 3

Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients--Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic 
          Stem Cells (Published Treatments in Human Patients)


                      adult stem cells: 65--escr:0

                                Cancers

       1. Brain Cancer
       2. Retinoblastoma
       3. Ovarian Cancer
       4. Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
       5. Testicular Cancer
       6. Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
       7. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
       8. Hodgkin's Lymphoma
       9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
       10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
       11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
       12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
       13. Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic 
     Lymphadenopathy
       14. Multiple Myeloma
       15. Myelodysplasia
       16. Breast Cancer
       17. Neuroblastoma
       18. Renal Cell Carcinoma
       19. Various Solid Tumors
       20. Soft Tissue Sarcoma
       21. Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia
       22. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
       23. POEMS syndrome

                          Auto-Immune Diseases

       24. Multiple Sclerosis
       25. Crohn's Disease
       26. Scleromyxedema
       27. Scleroderma
       28. Rheumatoid Arthritis
       29. Juvenile Arthritis
       30. Systemic Lupus
       31. Polychondritis
       32. Sjogren's Syndrome
       33. Behcet's Disease
       34. Myasthenia
       35. Autoimmune Cytopenia
       36. Systemic vasculitis
       37. Alopecia universalis

                             Cardiovascular

       38. Heart damage

                                 Ocular

       39. Corneal regeneration

                           Immunodeficiencies

       40. X-Linked hyper immunoglobuline-M Syndrome
       41. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
       42. X-linked lymphoproliferative syndrome

                 Neural Degenerative Diseases/Injuries

       43. Parkinson's disease
       44. Spinal cord injury
       45. Stroke damage

                        Anemias/Blood Conditions

       46. Sickle cell anemia
       47. Sideroblastic anemia
       48. Aplastic Anemia
       49. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
       50. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
       51. Fanconi's Anemia
       52. Diamond Blackfan Anemia
       53. Thalassemia Major
       54. Red cell aplasia
       55. Primary Amyloidosis

                            Wounds/Injuries

       56. Limb gangrene
       57. Surface wound healing
       58. Jawbone replacement
       59. Skull bone repair

                       Other Metabolic Disorders

       60. Osteogenesis imperfecta
       61. Sandhoff disease
       62. Hurler's syndrome
       63. Krabbe Leukodystrophy
       64. Osteopetrosis
       65. Cerebral X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

                          ____________________




                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

                          ____________________




               PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 397, which the clerk will report.

[[Page 18911]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 397) to prohibit civil liability actions from 
     being brought or continued against manufacturers, 
     distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition 
     for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the 
     misuse of their products by others.

  Pending:

       Frist (for Craig) amendment No. 1605, to amend the 
     exceptions.
       Frist amendment No. 1606 (to amendment No. 1605), to make 
     clear that the bill does not apply to actions commenced by 
     the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act and 
     National Firearms Act.
       Reed (for Kohl) amendment No. 1626, to amend chapter 44 of 
     title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a 
     child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a 
     handgun.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                           Amendment No. 1626

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are back on this very important piece of 
legislation, S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
  Under a unanimous consent agreement entered into last evening, we are 
on the Kohl trigger lock amendment. I understand there is an hour 
equally divided, and we hope we can get to a vote on this before 12:30. 
This is an important amendment, which I am confident Senator Kohl will 
be here in a few moments to discuss.
  In the short term, let me visit the broader issue of the bill itself. 
We now have 62 cosponsors. I am pleased Senator Conrad has joined us in 
support of this important piece of legislation to limit predatory and 
junk lawsuits from attempting to destroy the capability of the private 
sector to produce legal, effective firearms for our Nation's citizens 
and for our police and military. Unlike most nations, we are a nation 
that does not have a government company or a government manufacturer of 
firearms. It has always been the responsibility of the private sector. 
They have done extremely well. Innovation and creativity has always 
allowed the latest and best firearm capability, not only for our 
private citizens but for the military and police departments and the 
armed services that contract with these private sector companies to 
produce not only the firearms but the effective ammunition for them.
  Some years ago, we saw a frustration growing in the gun control 
community that the public and the Congress collectively would not bend 
to their wishes. The public, in its inevitable wisdom, recognized that 
guns were not an issue in deaths caused by guns or in the commission of 
crimes, but the criminal element was the issue and that we ought to get 
at the business of law enforcement and taking those off the streets who 
used a gun in the commission of a crime. That is exactly what this 
administration has done in the last 5\1/2\ years. The use of a firearm 
or criminal activities in which a firearm is used has rapidly dropped 
in the last 6 years because this Justice Department has said, clearly, 
they will enforce the law.
  The law is basically if you use a gun in the commission of a crime, 
you do the time. You don't get to plea bargain it away and go back to 
the streets to reengage as a criminal to once again misuse your rights 
as a citizen in a violent or criminal activity.
  Because the anti-gun community didn't get it their way, they, over 
the years, have determined that they could use the legal system, the 
court system, to bypass and suggest that the third party, or the 
manufacturer, even though he or she was a law-abiding company and 
produced under the auspices of the Federal laws in responsible ways in 
that those products were sold through federally licensed firearms 
dealers, that wasn't good enough. Somehow you had to pass through and 
say that the crime and the fallout of crime was going to get paid for 
in some way by these responsible citizens who were building a legal and 
responsible product. That is the game--I say that--that has been 
played.
  As a result, these legal, law-abiding manufacturers and citizens have 
increasingly had to pay higher and higher legal costs to defend 
themselves in lawsuit after lawsuit that have, in almost every 
instance, been denied and thrown out of court by the judges when filed 
largely by municipalities who, obviously frustrated by gun violence in 
their communities, chose this route. Instead of insisting that their 
communities and prosecutors and law enforcement go after the criminal 
element, they, in large part, in their frustration, looked for an easy 
way out. That has brought this legislation to the floor to limit the 
ability of junk or abusive kinds of lawsuits in a very narrow and 
defined way, but in no way--and I have said it very clearly--denying 
the recognition that if a gun dealer or a manufacturer acted in an 
illegal or irresponsible way or produced a product that was faulty and 
caused harm or damage, this bill would not preempt or in any way 
protect them or immune them from the appropriate and necessary legal 
sentence.
  That is what we are about. I see that the sponsor of the trigger lock 
amendment is on the Senate floor.
  Before I relinquish the floor, I ask unanimous consent to print in 
the Record a letter from the Department of Defense as to the importance 
of this issue, the Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense 
speaking to the importance of S. 397 in safeguarding and protecting 
these gun manufacturers that produce a large amount of our firearms and 
weapons for all of our men and women who serve in harm's way in defense 
of our freedoms.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Department of Defense,


                                    Office of General Counsel,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2005.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sessions: This responds to your request for 
     the Department of Defense's view on S. 397 a bill to 
     ``prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or 
     continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
     importers of firearms ammunition for damages, injunctive or 
     other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by 
     others.''
       The Department of Defense strongly supports this 
     legislation.
       We believe that passage of S. 397 would help safeguard our 
     national security by limiting unnecessary lawsuits against an 
     industry that plays a critical role in meeting the 
     procurement needs of our men and women in uniform.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the presentation of this letter for the 
     consideration of the community.
           Sincerely,
                                              Daniel J. Dell'Orto,
                                                           Acting.

  Mr. CRAIG. In the last few days, I have found interesting editorials 
in the Wall Street Journal. They get it. They understand it. They have 
put it very clearly as to the reality of this bill, that is not just 
for the protection of law-abiding citizens but recognizing that tort 
reform is necessary. When the Congress can't do it in sweeping ways, we 
have chosen targeted ways to get at the misuse of our court system in 
large part by the trial bar.
  I ask unanimous consent to print those in the Record as well.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2005]

                         Gun Liability Control

       If we recall correctly, it was Shakespeare who wrote ``the 
     first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.'' That's going 
     too far, but the Senate can do the metaphoric equivalent this 
     week by voting to protect gun makers from lawsuits designed 
     to put them out of business.
       Senate Republicans say they have 60 votes to pass the 
     Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which would 
     protect gun makers from lawsuits claiming they are 
     responsible for crimes committed with their products. The 
     support includes at least 10 Democrats, which speaks volumes 
     about the political shift against ``gun control'' in recent 
     years.
       The ``assault weapons ban'' expired with a whimper last 
     year. State legislatures have been rolling back firearm laws 
     because the restrictions were both ineffectual and unpopular. 
     Gun-controllers have responded by avoiding legislatures and 
     going to court, teaming with trial lawyers and big city 
     mayors to file lawsuits blaming gun makers for murder. 
     Companies have been hit with at least 25 major lawsuits, from 
     the likes of Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago and

[[Page 18912]]

     Cleveland. A couple of the larger suits (New York and 
     Washington, D.C.) are sitting in front of highly creative 
     judges and could drag on for years.
       Which seems to be part of the point. The plaintiffs have 
     asked judges to impose the sort of ``remedies'' that Congress 
     has refused to impose, such as trigger locks or tougher 
     restrictions on gun sales. Some mayors no doubt also hope for 
     a big payday. But short of that, the gun-control lobby's goal 
     seems to be keep the suits going long enough to drain profit 
     from the low-margin gun industry.
       Gun makers have yet to lose a case, but these victories 
     have cost more than $200 million in legal bills. This is a 
     huge sum for an industry collectively smaller than any 
     Fortune 500 company and that supports 20,000 jobs at most. 
     Publicly listed companies such as Smith & Wesson have seen 
     the legal uncertainty reflected in their share price. Money 
     for legal fees could be better spent creating new jobs, 
     researching ways to make guns safer, or returning profits to 
     shareholders.
       Congress has every right to stop this abuse of the legal 
     system, all the more so because it amounts to an end-run 
     around its legislative authority. A single state judge 
     imposing blanket regulations on a gun maker would effectively 
     limit the Second Amendment rights of gun buyers across the 
     nation. Liability legislation would also send a message that 
     Congress won't stand by as the tort bar and special interests 
     try to put an entirely lawful business into Chapter 11.
       The gun makers aren't seeking immunity from all liability; 
     they would continue to face civil suits for defective 
     products or for violating sales regulations. The Senate 
     proposal would merely prevent a gun maker from being pillaged 
     because a criminal used one of its products to perform his 
     felony. Murder can be committed with all kinds of everyday 
     products, from kitchen knives to autos, but no one thinks GM 
     is to blame because a drunk driver kills a pedestrian. (On 
     the other hand, give the lawyers time.) To adapt a familiar 
     line, guns don't kill industries; lawyers do.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2005]

   Senate Moves Closer to Shielding Gun Makers From Negligence Suits

                           (By David Rogers)

       Cashing in its election gains, the gun lobby was the big 
     winner in a 66-32 Senate vote that moves Congress closer to 
     enacting legislation that would shield the firearms industry 
     from lawsuits charging negligence in the manufacture or 
     distribution of weapons and ammunition.
       Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) vowed to complete 
     Senate passage before the August recess, which is to begin 
     this weekend. Minutes after the vote, the White House warned 
     that any amendment that ``would delay enactment of the bill 
     beyond this year is unacceptable.''
       The action came as House-Senate negotiators reached 
     agreement on a $26 billion-plus natural resources budget last 
     evening that would cut funding for clean-water and lands-
     conservation programs after Oct. 1. The Environmental 
     Protection Agency is directed to complete a rulemaking on 
     human toxicity studies, important to the pesticide industry, 
     within 180 days, but the agreement prohibits any use of 
     pregnant women, infants or children as part of such studies.
       The Senate gun bill, as drafted, seeks to bar third parties 
     from bringing civil-liability actions against manufacturers, 
     distributors or dealers for damages from the unlawful misuse 
     of a qualified product. People directly harmed in a firearms 
     incident still would be able to sue, but the standard for 
     charging negligence is so tightly written that critics say it 
     would be difficult to prevail.
       The National Rifle Association's goal is a clean Senate 
     bill that the House can send on to President Bush quickly for 
     his signature. Gun-liability legislation has twice before 
     passed the House, and the NRA now hopes to grind down the 
     Senate opposition, which has stymied the gun lobby over the 
     past five years.
       In March 2004, for example, the NRA withdrew its support 
     for a Senate bill when opponents successfully attached gun-
     control amendments unacceptable to the lobby. Eight months 
     later, the NRA wrought vengeance at the polls, helping to 
     defeat then-Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South 
     Dakota and picking up a total of four Senate votes for its 
     position.
       The changed climate is demonstrated by the fact that 
     Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, up for reelection next year in 
     West Virginia, added his name to the co-sponsors this week. 
     Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who still harbors presidential 
     ambitions, also has become a co-sponsor since the last 
     Congress. And Mr. Daschle's leadership post now is filled by 
     Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a strong NRA ally and one of 12 
     Democrats to support the lobby yesterday.
       At a time of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, both Sen. Frist 
     and the White House have cast the fight as a matter of 
     national security, given the threat of ``frivolous lawsuits'' 
     against firearms manufacturers who are part of the larger 
     military establishment. The same protections also would 
     extend to dealers and distributors, who have no real role in 
     national defense. Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Brady 
     Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the framing of the issue 
     was ``classic misdirection'' to narrowly focus on a few 
     manufacturers.
       Critics argue that laws governing the distribution of 
     firearms are too lax and that only by applying broader tort 
     standards of negligence can dealers be held accountable for 
     showing inadequate diligence to secure their products or 
     determine the real buyer in straw transactions. ``Clearly, 
     this is an attempt to achieve sweeping legal immunity, the 
     kind that can only be dreamed about by other industries,'' 
     Mr. Henigan said.
       The NRA's victory was all the more striking because it 
     required the Senate to set aside debate--perhaps until 
     September--on a $441.6 billion defense-authorization bill for 
     the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Democrats chided 
     Republicans for sacrificing national interests for the 
     ``special self-interests'' of the gun lobby, a powerful 
     political ally. But Mr. Frist had effectively locked himself 
     into a position where he felt compelled to proceed on the gun 
     bill as a show of strength as party leader.
       In fact, Mr. Frist's hope had been to cut off debate on the 
     defense bill and complete its passage by tonight, before 
     turning to the gun legislation. That strategy had the double 
     advantage of helping the White House avoid a protracted fight 
     over base closings and its treatment of military detainees in 
     the war against terrorism.
       On a 50-48 roll call, the leader fell 10 votes short of the 
     60-vote supermajority needed to limit debate. A large part of 
     his losing margin can be explained by the fact that seven 
     Republicans broke ranks, including Sen. McCain, a former 
     prisoner of war in Vietnam who has a big stake in the debate 
     on setting a more uniform policy for the treatment of 
     detainees.
       Among accounts in the natural-resources budget bill, modest 
     increases are provided for Indian health services and forest 
     programs. The EPA's budget is cut almost $200 million below 
     present funding, and lawmakers both trimmed their own home-
     state projects and denied two-thirds of the funds sought for 
     an arts and humanities initiative backed by first lady Laura 
     Bush.

  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, if we are going to give gun dealers immunity 
from lawsuits, then I believe we should insist they take every safety 
precaution available when selling firearms. This amendment goes a long 
way to help reduce the number of accidental shootings, particularly 
among the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, by 
requiring dealers to sell a safety device with all handguns. We have 
all read troubling stories about lives cut short by accidental 
shootings and teen suicides. They are made all the more terrible by the 
knowledge that many were preventable. The annual number of firearm 
injuries and deaths involving children is startling.
  According to the most recent stats available, thousands of people are 
injured every year in accidental shootings, including more than 800 
gun-related tragedies that resulted in death. In addition, it is 
estimated that every 6 hours, a young person between the ages of 10 and 
19 commits suicide with a firearm. In all, 13,053 children were injured 
by firearms in 2002. Securing the firearm with a child safety lock 
could have prevented many of these tragedies. The sad truth is that we 
are inviting disaster every time an unlocked gun is easily accessible 
to children.
  Eleven million children live in households with guns, and in 65 
percent of those homes, the gun is accessible to the child. In 13 
percent of them, the gun is left loaded and not locked. This amendment 
will help address this problem. It requires that a child safety device 
be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in form, but the most 
common resembles a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and 
immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by tens of thousands of 
responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use, 
and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than $10.
  The Senate has already expressed its support for the sale of trigger 
locks with handguns, most recently last year, when 70 Senators voted in 
favor of this exact same amendment.
  The mandatory sale of trigger locks is equally supported in the rest 
of the country and the law enforcement community. Polls have shown that 
between

[[Page 18913]]

75 and 80 percent of the American public, including gun owners, favors 
a mandatory sale of safety locks with guns. In a recent survey of 250 
of Wisconsin's police chiefs and sheriffs, 91 percent agreed that child 
safety locks should be sold with each handgun.
  The current administration has indicated its support for this 
concept. During his campaign in 2000, President Bush indicated that if 
Congress passed a bill making the sale of child safety locks mandatory 
with every gun sale, then he would sign it.
  All of these people agree that we should be doing everything within 
our power to promote the use of locks or other safety devices with 
handguns. Nobody has ever claimed that this would be a total panacea. 
To be sure, it will not prevent every single firearm-related accident. 
But its importance cannot be overstated. Stats show that those who buy 
locks are more likely to use them. And when they are used, they do 
prevent accidental deaths. While imposing a minimal cost on consumers, 
it would prevent the deaths of many innocent children every year, which 
is a small price to pay. The Senate spoke overwhelmingly in favor of 
this type of proposal just last year. We should do so again today.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of 
the amendment: Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Corzine, and Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Senator Kohl for this amendment. 
He has worked with so many of our colleagues to ensure that children 
are adequately protected. There are too many deaths each year of 
children because the weapons are unsecure. They are able to get access 
to them, and they are able to discharge them. There are accidental 
deaths. Sadly, there are too many childhood suicides that result from 
having access to weapons.
  The Kohl amendment is a practical and appropriate response to that by 
requiring the sale of a child safety lock along with the weapon. There 
is huge public support for this issue. Over 70 percent of Americans 
polled think this is an appropriate and necessary proposal. In fact, I 
believe 6 out of 10 gun owners similarly believe this is a sensible 
approach to dealing with the issue of the accidental death of children 
with firearms.
  We are here today to move forward on this amendment, to have a vote 
which is scheduled. I would hope, also, that we can move to other 
amendments so they could be offered for votes. Several of my colleagues 
have offered amendments. It is appropriate, since we have begun the 
process of debate and amendment and vote, to continue that process 
forward. I hope we can do that.
  I certainly commend Senator Kohl for his efforts over many years. As 
he rightfully points out, there was overwhelming support for this 
measure last year. More than 70 Senators supported it. I hope we see 
that same support this year. Certainly, the danger to children has not 
diminished from the last Congress. The practicality and efficacy of 
this approach continues to be compelling. I would hope we would have 
another strong vote in support of the amendment, as we go forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a trigger lock does not a safe weapon make. 
A trigger lock can lay right beside a firearm. Unless it is inserted 
and locked, the firearm is still accessible. You can sell a firearm. 
You can demand that there be a trigger lock. Yet still someone who is 
irresponsible in the storage and/or use of a firearm can cause that 
firearm, by the absence of a trigger lock or the absence of a safe 
storage place, to be harmful to a child. That is reality.
  Sometimes we stand on the floor of the Senate and think we can fix 
the world by simply writing a law. I am not, by that statement, 
questioning the sincerity of Senator Kohl. Last year, his amendment got 
70 votes in the Senate. At the same time, it is a mandate. In that 
mandate, have you created a safer world? I am not sure.
  I do know this: I do know what creates a safer world. That is an 
awareness, an understanding of and an educational process of how you, 
in fact, create a safer world. Gun manufacturers know that. Licensed 
and responsible firearms dealers know that. Today, more than 90 percent 
of the new handguns already sold in the United States have a safety 
device attached to them or that comes with it that is part of the sales 
package.
  So already, clearly, the educational process has gone forward. There 
are several national private organizations out there who have 
constantly and repetitively taught young people about the misuse of 
firearms. The Eddie Eagle program of the National Rifle Association 
educates thousands and thousands of young people each year to stay away 
from a firearm if they see one, to report it if they see one and, 
obviously, to seek an adult's knowledge about it.
  Still, tragically enough, a child's curiosity in a misplaced firearm 
can cause accidents; it always has and, even with the passage, 
tragically enough, of the Kohl amendment, if it becomes law, it always 
will. You cannot create the perfect world. It is simply an 
impossibility to do. We try, and we try to at least shape that world in 
a way that makes it safer. But there is a reality I think all of us 
clearly understand. The statistics, though, while alarming if it is 
even one child, are dramatically improving. I think it is important to 
say on the record what the facts are. Unintentional firearm deaths--
this is from the National Safety Council records. In 2001, there were 
802 total; 15 of those 802 were under the age of 5 years; 57 were from 
5 years old to 14 years old. That is that phenomenal time of curiosity 
among young children. No question about it, if that trigger lock was in 
place, a life might have been saved. I don't question that either. But 
then again, you have to get the adult who has the responsibility with 
that firearm to put the trigger lock in place. It is not automatically 
attached or automatically activated. It has to be humanly attached and 
humanly activated. There were 110 of the 802 deaths from age 15 to age 
19. My guess is, unintentional, yes, by statistical fact it was. But 
again, that is an age when young people ought to know, ought to have 
been trained, ought to have had some level of education about the 
understanding of the safe use of a firearm. From age 20 to 24, there 
were 96 of the 802. Age 25 to 45, there were 268 accidental, 
unintentional deaths of the 802 total in 2001; and age 45 to 64--these 
are, without question, mature adults who clearly ought to understand 
and, yet, unintentional, accidental firearm deaths numbered 177. That 
was out of the 802 total in 2001. In 2002, it was 800. In 2003, it 
dropped to 700.
  The point is this: From 1992 to 2003, there has been a 54-percent 
decline in accidental, unintentional deaths caused by firearms. 
Something is beginning to work out there, because gun ownership 
continues to go up in our country. So there is, without doubt, an 
educational process underway about the importance of handling a firearm 
appropriately and correctly, using safety devices when that firearm is 
in storage or nonuse, and in a way that is protecting. The 90-percent 
sales of trigger locks today on new weapons, new firearms, may be a 
contributing factor to that. That number continues to go up. So there 
was a 54-percent increase from 1992 to 2003 in the reduction--54 
percent down--of accidental, unintentional firearms deaths. From 2001 
to 2003, that figure was a 13-percent decline. Those are very important 
statistics.
  Once again, in no way should my statement on the floor be taken as 
someone who doesn't care or recognize that one child's death is one too 
many. We will not talk about safety belts and about safety seats and 
about any of the other kinds of deaths of children in that 5-year-old 
and under age group. Those are so dramatically higher than firearms 
that one could argue something ought to be done about those.

[[Page 18914]]

Clearly, some things are being done about those. If you have a child in 
a safety seat or not in a safety seat and it is a State law and you 
have a law enforcement officer out there, you can, in many instances, 
note that and cause the adult to be more responsible than you can in 
the privacy of a home, where most of our firearms are today.
  My point in arguing or discussing this issue is not to suggest we 
ought not to be concerned, but to clearly recognize that we will not, 
by this, in any way create a perfect world. Safe storage devices are no 
substitute for common sense and a clear understanding that a firearm 
misuse can become, as we all know, a lethal device. A firearm 
irresponsibly used can become a lethal device. While I know this is a 
popular thing to do, the point is--and I hope it is made clear by what 
I have said--the world better understands today than ever before, and 
unintentional deaths, accidental deaths by firearms have dramatically 
dropped in this country, and they are continuing to drop.
  Nothing replaces the responsible action of an adult in his or her 
exercising of their constitutional rights to provide safe storage away 
from that casual curiosity of a small child about the uniqueness of a 
mom or dad's firearm, owned and held in the homes of America.
  So I am certainly going to suggest to my colleagues that they vote 
their will on this, but it is important we shape it in the right 
context. I have always appreciated working with Senator Kohl and his 
sincerity on these kinds of issues. I think what he suggests today, as 
it relates to fines, or revocation of license, or failing to sell, is 
an appropriate fashion to go. But again, it is a mandate that I think 
today's reality in the marketplace would suggest is in part an 
unnecessary thing to do.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask that the time be charged equally on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I rise to talk about this bill. There has been a lot 
of debate on the floor, and some have suggested this is a special 
interest group piece of legislation. I am here to say that I think it 
is very important this Senate do everything it can to stop frivolous 
lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Class action lawsuit reform, which 
we enacted earlier this year, also was an effort to curb the overly 
litigious society America now lives in.
  We have found in so many instances that it is the litigiousness of 
America's society that drives jobs overseas and out of our country 
because we have lawsuit abuse of mammoth proportions. One of the areas 
in which there is lawsuit abuse is suing a gun manufacturer for the 
misuse of a gun. That is like suing the maker of a plate because 
someone throws a plate at another person. That is not what plates are 
for. And most certainly, the misuse of a gun is not caused by the 
manufacturer of a gun; it is caused by the person who is misusing the 
gun. So the Senate is taking steps in every area we can to curb this 
abuse of our legal system.
  Today, we are addressing one portion of that in trying to stop gun 
manufacturers from being sued erroneously. There are many areas in 
which you can sue a gun manufacturer. If the gun malfunctioned, then 
that kind of lawsuit, of course, would be allowed. They would also be 
allowed where there is a knowing violation of a firearms law, when the 
violation is the proximate cause of the harm for which the relief is 
sought. Negligent entrustment, defective product, or breach of contract 
or warranty are certainly areas where litigation is warranted. But when 
we have lawsuits filed by cities against plaintiffs such as Colt or 
Beretta, and the cities are filing a lawsuit against the gun 
manufacturer to stop the manufacture of guns, that is wrong.
  The second amendment is one of the most treasured of our amendments 
to the Constitution, and that is the right to keep and bear arms, the 
right to protect yourself and your family in your home. That is 
something I have a bill to address right here in the District of 
Columbia, to make sure no person is deprived of their right under the 
Constitution to protect themselves in their homes by owning a firearm. 
You know, America is one of the few countries that doesn't have 
Government manufacture of guns. We don't. We have private manufacturers 
of guns and, therefore, we have the private use and private lawsuits 
that sometimes are filed just because a gun is used in a crime.
  Well, it is not the fault of the gun manufacturer a crime is being 
committed. We need to put the fault for a crime on the person 
committing the crime. So I am speaking for this bill. I think Senator 
Craig has laid out very well the issues of the gun laws. I certainly 
want every gun to be sold with a lock, and most guns in America are. 
And if they are not, having that device added to the gun, I think, is 
fine.
  I want everyone to have safety protection for guns in homes, because 
nothing could be worse than a child going into a gun cabinet and 
getting a gun that is not understood by the child and is fired. That is 
why we have safety locks. Most gun owners are responsible gun owners, 
and they should have a safety lock on a gun, particularly if there are 
children in the home.
  I want to add my support for the bill and the ability for our private 
gun manufacturers to face lawsuits that are legitimate, but not to have 
a frivolous lawsuit that is filed against a gun manufacturer through no 
fault of the manufacturer for the misuse of the gun--not a malfunction, 
but a misuse.
  I applaud the efforts of Senator Craig, and I hope we can take one 
more step toward curbing the lawsuit abuse that has been happening in 
this country in many areas. Frivolous lawsuits have been filed against 
gun manufacturers not for the malfunction of a gun, but the misuse. 
That is not the fault of the manufacturer, just as it is not the fault 
of other manufacturers of products that are misused.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this important 
legislation. Let me say, in closing, I have heard a lot of debate about 
stopping the Defense bill to go to this bill.
  We had a cloture vote on Defense. Many people voted against cloture, 
and therefore the bill was brought down. I hope we can address the 
Defense authorization bill. I voted for cloture so we could go 
forward--not to stop the debate, but to curb it and keep it to relevant 
amendments so we may get this very important legislation through. With 
the cooperation of the other side, we will be able to do that the very 
first week we return. But I do think relevant amendments, not 100 
amendments, including issues that do not even pertain to our defense, 
are legitimately cut off through a cloture vote.
  If we can get cooperation from the other side, we certainly intend to 
pursue the Defense authorization bill. I wish we could have done it 
this week, and I voted for cloture so that we could. We did not win. 
There were over 40 people who voted against cloture. So now we are on 
another very important bill, and we intend to take up the energy 
conference report and the highway conference report, two major pieces 
of legislation that we will be able to send to the President this week.
  I think we are going to have quite a successful week, a successful 
first part of this session of Congress to get important legislation on 
energy to create more incentives for different sources of energy for 
our country so we can become more self-sufficient.
  Certainly the highway bill will be a jobs creator to put the highway 
people to work with the larger amount of money that is now available in 
the highway trust fund. Mass transit is going to get its authorization 
as well in this highway bill.

[[Page 18915]]

  So we have a lot to do. I hope we can continue to pass this gun 
manufacturers liability bill--it is a good bill--and go forward with 
the other important business of our country. The first week we get 
back, I hope we will be able to address the elimination of inheritance 
taxes, death taxes, and I hope very much that we can get the Defense 
authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill out by the first 
of the fiscal year so there will not be one day's delay in the money 
that is needed by our Department of Defense for the needs of the men 
and women who are fighting for the continued freedom of our country by 
fighting terrorism overseas.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the other side has asked if we would 
consider yielding back time. I will certainly work with the floor 
leader. We are checking to see if there is anyone else on our side who 
would want to come for the purpose of debating the Kohl amendment. If 
there is not, we will yield back time and accommodate as much as we 
can.
  While we work out our time here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, while we are 
working out the time situation to see if anyone else wants to debate, 
the time under the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are ready to 
vote on the Kohl amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1626. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
  The amendment (No. 1626) was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


             Modifications to Amendments Nos. 1605 and 1606

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand there is a technical drafting 
error in the Craig amendment No. 1605, and I would therefore ask 
unanimous consent that amendments 1605 and 1606 be modified with the 
changes at the desk. I would note that these are technical changes 
only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The modifications are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1605

       On page 10, line 16, at the end, add the following:

     ``; or (iv) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney 
     General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of Title 18''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1606

       At the end of the Amendment, add the following:

     ``or chapter 53 of Title 26, United States Code.''.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for those who are interested and watching, 
at this moment we are attempting to look at all the amendments that 
have been offered, and we are close to proceeding on another meeting. 
We are requesting unanimous consent now which will allow Members to 
debate that between 2 and 3, with votes, and then we will attempt in 
all sincerity to move forward on the process that takes us through to a 
cloture vote at some time late afternoon, evening, or early tomorrow 
morning on this important issue. There is progress being made as we 
move through this process.
  With that, until the unanimous consent is ready, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think the floor leader has seen the UC, 
has he not?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 o'clock today, the 
pending amendments be temporarily set aside and Senator Levin be 
recognized in order to offer amendment No. 1623; provided further that 
there then be 1 hour for debate equally divided in the usual form, with 
no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reed.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, under a previously proffered unanimous 
consent agreement, we will spend 1 hour, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., on the 
Levin amendment, with the time equally divided. We anticipate a vote at 
or around 3 o'clock.
  I see the Senator from Michigan is now on the floor and ready to 
offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 1623

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1623.

[[Page 18916]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1623.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To clarify the prohibition on certain civil liability 
                                actions)

       On page 13, after line 4, add the following:

     SEC. 5. GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR RECKLESS CONDUCT.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     prohibit a civil liability action from being brought or 
     continued against a person if the gross negligence or 
     reckless conduct of that person was a proximate cause of 
     death or injury.
       (b) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``gross negligence'' has the meaning given 
     that term under subsection (b)(7) of the Bill Emerson Good 
     Samaritan Food Donation Act (42 U.S.C. 1791(b)(7)); and
       (2) the term ``reckless'' has the meaning given that term 
     under section 2A1.4 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 
     Manual.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, although I am tempted to allow the reading 
to take place, it is a short amendment, and I am going to read the 
heart of it myself:

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a civil 
     liability action from being brought or continued against a 
     person if the gross negligence or reckless conduct of that 
     person was a proximate cause of death or injury.

  The bill itself provides in section 2, page 3, that the purpose of 
this bill--one of them--is that ``the possibility of imposing liability 
on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an 
abuse of the legal system. . . .''
  And I agree with that.
  On page 5 of the bill where it states its purpose:

       Purpose.--
       (1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, 
     distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or 
     ammunition products . . . for the harm solely caused by the 
     criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products by others. . 
     . .

  And I agree with that. Nobody should be held responsible or 
accountable for harm which is perpetrated by others.
  What about their own reckless or negligent conduct? When we look at 
the language of this bill, it is not just that manufacturers and 
dealers are not held accountable for the misconduct of others, except 
for three or four very narrowly described categories, they are off the 
hook for their own misconduct, their own reckless conduct, their own 
negligent misconduct. And that is what my amendment seeks to correct or 
clarify.
  The stated purpose of this bill is that if negligence or recklessness 
is caused by others, if the misconduct of a third party is the cause of 
damage, that the gun dealer or manufacturer should not be held 
accountable. We agree with that. But what if their own recklessness, 
their own gross negligence contributes to the damage or, to put it in 
legalistic terms, what happens if their own misconduct is a proximate 
cause of the damage, injury, or death to somebody else? Why should they 
be off the hook for their own misconduct?
  I ask unanimous consent, by the way, that Senator Durbin be added as 
a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what the amendment says is this act does 
not prohibit a civil liability action from being brought or continued 
against a person if his own gross negligence or reckless conduct was a 
proximate cause of the death or injury.
  We have heard about a number of cases that have been brought to the 
attention of this body. These are cases where manufacturers or dealers 
have been held liable for their own misconduct, their own negligence, 
their own recklessness where the allegation against a dealer or 
manufacturers had to do with their own behavior.
  We heard about the tragic DC area sniper shootings case where there 
was a settlement that was obtained from a gun supplier, called Bull's 
Eye Shooter Supply, for their own negligence. Mr. President, 238 guns 
had gone missing from Bull's Eye's inventory. Fifty had been traced to 
criminal actions since 1997. If this bill had been enacted prior to the 
DC area sniper shootings, the victims would have been unable to even 
have their case against that supplier heard in court. And there are 
many other cases. There are so many cases that this is why police 
officers, police chiefs, and police departments around the country 
oppose this bill as it is written.
  We should protect innocent manufacturers and gun dealers, just the 
way we should protect any innocent party in this country. But we should 
not protect anybody--I don't care if it is a manufacturer of guns or a 
manufacturer of automobiles or a manufacturer of refrigerators or a 
dealer in those products or any other products--we should not protect 
their folks from their own reckless conduct, their own negligence. And 
this bill does that. It does not say that it does that. It says it is 
protecting folks from the conduct of others. But the bill's analysis 
clearly indicates, when you go beyond the stated purpose, that it is 
the manufacturers' and gun dealers' own negligence and recklessness 
which is immunized, with very narrow exceptions.
  If they committed a violation of law, if they have committed a crime, 
you can go after them; they are still on the hook. If they negligently 
entrust, knowing that the person to whom they have entrusted a weapon 
is going to go out and commit a crime or do something unlawful, they 
are still on the hook. But if they just left their guns sloppily around 
the store, or if they hired employees who they knew or should have 
known were going to illegally sell guns, steal guns, and then have 
those guns used in a criminal endeavor--and these are real cases--if 
that is the type of negligence or recklessness that is at issue, then 
they are off the hook.
  They are only kept on the hook, under the language of this bill, if 
they designed something negligently, if they have negligently entrusted 
in a very narrow definition, or if they have committed a crime.
  I want to read excerpts from a letter which has been signed by, I 
believe, 75 law professors:

       Dear Senators and Representatives: S. 397 . . . described 
     as ``a bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being 
     brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, 
     dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages 
     resulting from the misuse of their products by others,'' 
     would largely immunize those in the firearms industry from 
     liability for negligence. This would represent a sharp break 
     with traditional principles of tort liability. No other 
     industry enjoys or has ever enjoyed such blanket freedom from 
     responsibility for the foreseeable and preventable 
     consequences of negligent conduct. . . .
       American law has never embraced a rule freeing defendants 
     from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their 
     negligence merely because those consequences may include the 
     criminal conduct of third parties.

  Under American tort law, they say:

      . . . actors may be liable if their negligence enables or 
     facilitates foreseeable third party criminal conduct.

  These professors remind us:

       Thus, car dealers who negligently leave vehicles 
     unattended, railroads who negligently manage trains, hotel 
     operators who negligently fail to secure rooms, and 
     contractors who negligently leave dangerous equipment 
     unguarded are all potentially liable if their conduct--

  Their conduct--
     creates an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of third party 
     misconduct, including illegal behavior, leading to harm.

  In this amendment, we make it clear that if the conduct of gun 
manufacturers and gun dealers is grossly negligent or reckless, and if 
that is a proximate cause of the death or injury of someone else, they 
are not off the hook, and they should not be. No one in this country 
should be. No one in this country is, as far as I know.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes 40 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate that. My cosponsor, Senator Dayton, would 
like 5 minutes yielded to him. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Dayton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page 18917]]


  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the senior Senator 
from Michigan, for whom I have so much respect. He is a leader and 
champion in so many important areas and has, once again, risen to this 
occasion. I am proud to be cosponsor of the Levin amendment.
  Mr. President, this legislation eviscerates the liability for 
negligence for one industry in America, the gun industry. I strongly 
support the second amendment.
  I have enjoyed the support of the NRA in the past, probably not in 
the future. Last year in this country, by the industry statistics, over 
1.3 million handguns were sold and over 2 million long guns--legally, 
properly, in almost all cases constitutionally protected. Nothing in 
this country, nothing being considered here, nothing that would ever 
pass this body, in my lifetime, would prevent law-abiding citizens from 
lawfully buying and owning firearms. Nothing should and nothing will, 
not because of the existence of the NRA, not because they are holding 
forth and preventing the marauding hordes from somehow overriding and 
overturning this constitutional amendment--it is not going to be 
changed because the political support in this country would not be for 
it. The people would not support it. That right is constitutional and 
it is inviolable, but it is not inconsistent with that right to also 
require the responsible distribution and sale of those millions of 
firearms.
  We all know what damage they can do to innocent people when they are 
misused by criminals or mistakenly used by children. We should do all 
we reasonably can to prevent those tragedies to innocent people and to 
innocent families. We should insist that everyone in the gun industry 
do all they can to prevent them as well. That is what the legal 
standard of negligence requires. It is what most people in this 
industry consistently practice.
  I own two handguns. I own two shotguns. They are in Minnesota, 
purchased from Minnesota dealers who take their responsibilities very 
seriously. They are not our concern. They need not be concerned because 
their own practices are a clear defense against any unwarranted 
accusations.
  However, there are a few in this country, as there are in any 
industry, that are not responsible manufacturers, distributors, or 
dealers. Senator Levin has cited evidence of the results of those 
irresponsible actions, and they should be our concern. They certainly 
do not warrant our protection. They certainly do not deserve to be 
elevated to a special status that is not accorded to responsible 
manufacturers and sellers of every other consumer product in America.
  The Levin amendment, and I will read it again, says that if gross 
negligence or reckless conduct of that person was the proximate cause, 
a direct cause of death or injury to somebody else, this act shall not 
prohibit a civil liability action from being brought forth. How can 
anyone here be opposed to that? It defines those terms clearly in the 
amendment, which was one of the specious excuses used to oppose it last 
year. It defines its terms more clearly than does the underlying bill. 
So if this amendment fails, it truly gives lie to the claim that this 
bill intends to hold the gun industry to any standard of liability. If 
not for gross negligence that is a direct cause of death or injury to 
an innocent person, if not for that, there is no standard of liability 
at all.
  The American Bar Association has taken a position in opposition to 
this legislation, and I would just note a couple of references. I ask 
unanimous consent that following my remarks, this be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DAYTON. It says that this proposed legislation would remove 
defendants from one of the oldest principles of civil liability law--
that persons or companies who act negligently should be accountable to 
victims harmed by this failure of responsibility. It states that under 
product liability laws in most States, manufacturers must adopt 
feasible safety devices that would prevent injuries caused when their 
products are foreseeably misused, regardless of whether the uses are 
``intended'' by the manufacturer or whether the product ``fails or 
improperly functions.''
  Thus, as the Senator from Michigan noted, automobile makers have been 
held civilly liable for not making cars crashworthy even though the 
intended use is not to ``crash the cars.'' Manufacturers of cigarette 
lighters must make them childproof even though children are not 
intended to use them. Under this proposed legislation, however, State 
laws would be preempted so that gun manufacturers would enjoy a special 
immunity.
  The letter also points out that this is happening in the existing 
legal backdrop of the present unparalleled immunity that the firearms 
industry already enjoyed from any Federal safety regulation. Unlike all 
other consumer products except for tobacco, there is no Federal law or 
regulatory authority that sets minimum safety standards for 
domestically manufactured firearms because that industry was able to 
gain an exemption for firearms from the 1972 enacted Consumer Product 
Safety Act, the primary Federal law that protects consumers from 
products that present unreasonable risk of injury. Of all the products 
we should have included in that legislation, firearms are among them 
given the inherent danger from their misuse or from their improper 
manufacture. Instead, they are exempted from the consumer product 
safety oversight by the Federal Government. That is the power of the 
industry. I guess they have the power, they are demonstrating, to get 
this bill enacted as well and remove themselves from all liability. 
That is not in the best interest of America. It is not a fair standard 
for America. It is an injustice to other businesses, manufacturers and 
sellers of every other product in America.
  If we are going to recognize, as we should, that excessive litigation 
is a problem for this industry and for most all others, we should deal 
with tort reform in its entirety as it applies fairly and equally to 
all businesses and all industries, not single out one for special 
treatment.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                         American Bar Association,


                                    Government Affairs Office,

                                                    April 4, 2005.
       Dear Senator: I am writing on behalf of the American Bar 
     Association to express our strong opposition to S. 397, the 
     Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and to similar 
     legislation to enact special tort laws for the firearms 
     industry. The ABA opposes S. 397, and has opposed similar 
     legislation in the past two Congresses, because we believe 
     the proposed legislation is overbroad and would unwisely and 
     unnecessarily intrude into an area of traditional state 
     responsibility.
       The responsibility for setting substantive legal standards 
     for tort actions in each state's courts, including standards 
     for negligence and product liability actions, has been the 
     province of state legislatures and an integral function of 
     state common law since our nation was founded. S. 397 would 
     preempt state substantive law standards for most negligence 
     and product liability actions for this one industry, 
     abrogating state law in cases in which the defendant is a gun 
     manufacturer, gun seller or gun trade association, and would 
     insulate this new class of protected defendants from almost 
     all ordinary civil liability actions. In our view, the 
     legitimate concerns of some about the reach of a number of 
     suits filed by cities and state governmental units several 
     years ago have since been answered by the deliberative, 
     competent action of state courts and within the traditions of 
     state responsibility for administering tort law.
       There is no evidence that federal legislation is needed or 
     justified. There is no hearing record in Congress or other 
     evidence to contradict the fact that the state courts are 
     handling their responsibilities competently in this area of 
     law. There is no data of any kind to support claims made by 
     the industry that it is incurring extraordinary costs due to 
     litigation, that it faces a significant number of suits, or 
     that current state law is in any way inadequate. The Senate 
     has not examined the underlying claims of the industry about 
     state tort cases, choosing not to hold a single hearing on S. 
     397 or its predecessor bills in the two previous Congresses. 
     Proponents of this legislation cannot, in fact, point to a 
     single court decision, final judgment or award that has been 
     paid out that supports their claims of a ``crisis''. All 
     evidence points to the conclusion that state legislatures and 
     state courts have been and

[[Page 18918]]

     are actively exercising their responsibilities in this area 
     of law with little apparent difficulty. S. 397 proposes to 
     exempt this one industry from state negligence law. The 
     proposed federal negligence law standard will unfairly exempt 
     firearms industry defendants from the oldest principle of 
     civil liability law: that persons, or companies who act 
     negligently should be accountable to victims harmed by this 
     failure of responsibility. Negligence laws in all 50 dates 
     traditionally impose civil liability when individuals or 
     businesses fail to use reasonable care to minimize the 
     foreseeable risk that others will be injured and injury 
     results. But this proposed legislation would preempt the laws 
     of the 50 states to create a special, higher standard for 
     negligence actions for this one protected class, different 
     than for any other industry, protecting them from liability 
     for their own negligence in all but extremely narrow 
     specified exceptions. The ABA believes that state law 
     standards for negligence and its legal bedrock duty of 
     reasonable care should remain the standard for gun industry 
     accountability in state civil courts, as these state 
     standards do for the rest of our nation's individuals, 
     businesses and industries.
       The proposed federal product liability standards will 
     unfairly insulate firearm industry defendants from 
     accountability in state courts for design defects in their 
     products. The proposed new federal standard would preempt the 
     product liability laws in all 50 states with a new, higher 
     standard that would protect this industry even for failing to 
     implement safety devices that would prevent common, 
     foreseeable injuries, so long as any injury or death suffered 
     by victims resulted when the gun was not ``used as 
     intended''.
       Under existing product liability laws in most states, 
     manufacturers must adopt feasible safety devices that would 
     prevent injuries caused when their products are foreseeably 
     misused, regardless of whether the uses are ``intended'' by 
     the manufacturer, or whether the product ``fails'' or 
     ``improperly'' functions. Thus automakers have been held 
     civilly liable for not making cars crashworthy, even though 
     the ``intended use'' is not to crash the car. Manufacturers 
     of cigarette lighters must make them childproof, even though 
     children are not ``intended'' to use them. Under. this 
     proposed legislation, however, state laws would be preempted 
     so that gun manufacturers would enjoy a special immunity.
       Enactment of S. 397 would also undermine responsible 
     federal oversight of consumer safety. The broad and, we 
     believe, unprecedented immunity from civil liability that 
     would result from enactment of S. 397 must be viewed against 
     the existing legal backdrop of the present, unparalleled 
     immunity the firearms industry enjoys from any federal safety 
     regulation. Unlike other consumer products, there is no 
     federal law or regulatory authority that sets minimum safety 
     standards for domestically manufactured firearms. This is 
     because the firearms industry was able to gain an exemption 
     for firearms from the 1972-enacted Consumer Product Safety 
     Act, the primary federal law that protects consumers from 
     products that present unreasonable risk of injury. Over the 
     last 30 years, an average of200 children under the age of 14 
     and over a thousand adults each year have died in gun 
     accidents which might have been prevented by existing but 
     unused safety technologies. A 1991 Government Accounting 
     Office report estimated that 31 percent of U.S. children's 
     accidental firearm deaths could have been prevented by the 
     addition of two simple existing devices to firearms: trigger 
     locks and load-indicator devices. Sadly, these minimal safety 
     features are still not required.
       This bill, if enacted, would insulate the firearms industry 
     from almost all civil actions, in addition to its existing 
     protection from any consumer product safety regulations. Such 
     special status for this single industry raises serious 
     concerns about its constitutionality; victims of gun violence 
     have the right--as do persons injured through negligence of 
     any party--to the equal protection of the law.
       The risk that states may at some future date fail to 
     appropriately resolve their tort responsibilities in an area 
     of law--where there is no evidence of any failure to date--
     cannot justify the unprecedented federal preemption of state 
     responsibilities proposed in this legislation. The ABA 
     believes that the states will continue to sort out these 
     issues capably without a federal rewriting of state 
     substantive tort law standards. The wiser course for 
     Congress, we believe, is to respect the ability of states to 
     continue to administer their historic responsibility to 
     define the negligence and product liability standards to be 
     used in their state courts. For these reasons, we urge you to 
     reject S. 397.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert D. Evans.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of the opposition time 
to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that 
has been proposed by the Senator from Michigan and cosponsored by the 
Senator from Minnesota. While this amendment appears to be innocuous, 
it would actually gut the very underlying purpose of this legislation. 
Let me explain briefly.
  First, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit frivolous lawsuits 
from being brought against manufacturers or sellers of firearms, lawful 
products, but which result from the criminal or unlawful use of a 
firearm.
  Now, the Senate has many people who have had a lot of experience in 
the legal profession, and any of us who have had any experience with 
civil litigation, particularly tort litigation, know that the scope of 
the discovery, the scope of the litigation is determined by what is 
pled actually by the person who brings the lawsuit, or the plaintiff.
  In my experience, and I am confident that it is generally true, in 
virtually every civil lawsuit where damages are sought, not only is 
there a pleading of ordinary negligence--or perhaps strict liability if 
it is a product or manufacturer--but in addition there is an allegation 
of gross negligence, which is what this amendment would except from the 
general prohibition against lawsuits against manufacturers of these 
lawful products for harm resulting from criminal or unlawful use of a 
firearm.
  It is clear to me that the litigation expense, the harassment of a 
lawful manufacturer of this product, would not be avoided. In fact, one 
of the very purposes of this legislation would be undermined if this 
amendment were agreed to. So I urge my colleagues to oppose it, as I 
do.
  The fact is, in America today, we are less competitive globally 
because of a variety of reasons, but it can be summarized this way: our 
tax policy, our regulatory policy, our lawsuit culture, the cost of 
health care, just to name four items. But the fact is, because of our 
litigation culture today in this country, we are less competitive with 
other countries around the world, and we are seeing the exodus of jobs 
in America because, simply stated, manufacturers and producers of other 
lawful goods can do it cheaper and more efficiently elsewhere. That is 
a threat to our economy and our prosperity that we enjoy in this 
country.
  This is actually true in the case of gun manufacturers. For example, 
one such manufacturer is located in the small town of Eagle Pass in my 
home State of Texas. A company by the name of Maverick Arms, Inc., 
assembles Maverick and Mossberg brand firearms there and is one of a 
group of companies that is in the fourth generation of family ownership 
that dates as far back as 1919. Maverick employs approximately 150 
skilled workers in Eagle Pass, as well as supplying other work to other 
vendors.
  Maverick and its parent company, Mossberg, cannot withstand the 
continued onslaught of frivolous litigation against this manufacturer 
for merely doing what lawful manufacturers do--making a legal product 
but in this instance one that is misused by a criminal. They know if 
they get caught up in the litigation, too often emotions run high, 
reason and rationality is suspended, and these manufacturers become not 
only sued but actually on occasion held responsible for the acts of 
criminals.
  I certainly respect the distinguished Senator from Michigan, and I 
was just thinking, of course, his State is known in particular for 
manufacturing automobiles. It strikes me that automobiles can be used 
safely or unsafely, but certainly no one would claim that General 
Motors or any other manufacturer of an automobile should be held 
responsible if someone decides to take that automobile that is 
operating in completely good condition and decides to run over somebody 
and kill them or cause them physical harm.
  For the same reason, firearms can be used both for lawful purposes 
and safely or they can be misused. For the same reason we would say 
General Motors or any car manufacturer would not be responsible for the 
criminal use

[[Page 18919]]

of an automobile, so should manufacturers of firearms not be held 
responsible for the criminal acts or misuse of their lawful product.
  We know in the end that what this is all about is trying to drive gun 
manufacturers out of business. Unfortunately, that means American jobs 
are being threatened. Eventually it means that the second amendment 
rights of law-abiding citizens are compromised.
  I wish we would focus more of our efforts, as we have in the recent 
past, on criminals, the people who misuse firearms, the ones who cannot 
lawfully own or sell firearms, and leave those who are making a lawful 
product that can be and is used safely day in and day out out of the 
picture.
  Indeed, the effect of this amendment, I submit to my colleagues, is 
to undermine the effect of the entire bill which would protect these 
lawful manufacturers from frivolous litigation when their product is 
misused by a criminal and causes harm to some person. So I urge my 
colleagues to reject it, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I thank the 
managers for the courtesy they showed us in the course of managing this 
bill.
  I rise, as I did in the previous consideration of this bill, to 
support my colleague from Michigan. I do so because I basically want to 
be counted among those who are trying to bring a measure of relief to 
those professional people, such as doctors and educators, a whole list 
of people I enumerated last night when I addressed this bill on the 
Senate floor, who need help. In my judgment, Senator Levin--both of us 
are lawyers--is reaching back to the very fundamentals of the common 
law. These standards which the Senator wishes to have in this bill are 
the same standards that have withstood the test of time in court 
litigation from the very beginning of the judicial process, indeed in 
England and in our country. It is for that reason that I support it.
  I also draw the attention of my colleagues to my amendment, which is 
not pending, but as I understand, it is filed at the desk, amendment 
No. 1625. I rise at this time to speak to it because it really 
addresses, in a very narrow way, one of the ultimate goals of the 
Senator from Michigan.
  My concern is that the gun dealers across America need some 
protection themselves in this legislation. Ninety-nine percent are 
honest, law-abiding citizens. Yet they are subjected to the problems of 
our society today; namely, people can come in and steal from them.
  My amendment adds to the bill, which has a provision in it on page 8 
of the exclusions, and it would simply say, in actions brought against 
a gun dealer, a dealer which has a record of misconduct, negligence, 
and other types of criteria should not be entitled to the exemptions 
provided by this piece of legislation. So I want to be supportive. It 
protects those dealers who are trying to act in a lawful way who may 
have an accident, for some reason, and it does clearly remove from the 
protection of this bill dealers such as the one the Senator cited in 
the sniper case which struck my State of Virginia and Maryland and the 
District and paralyzed our businesses. People were afraid to go out on 
the street at night to conduct their ordinary affairs of life because 
of the threats.
  That was a stolen weapon from a gun dealer that, for one reason or 
another, allowed some 200 weapons to disappear from the shelves of that 
store or inventory over a period of a year or two. That dealer, in my 
judgment, would be protected as it now stands, unless the provisions 
comparable to perhaps those from the Senator from Michigan or in my 
amendment are brought to the attention of the Senate. At some time, I 
will arduously try to get my amendment in that status--I believe it is 
germane--that it can be considered by this body, as is the amendment of 
the Michigan Senator now being reviewed.
  So I say to my distinguished manager, I hope that whatever procedure 
by which you hereby determine such amendments can be heard--others 
not--that mine, which I understand is germane, can be heard by the 
Senate at an appropriate time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.
  Let me get back to the Levin amendment which is our pending business. 
This amendment was tabled last year, and it should be again defeated or 
tabled. It is an amendment which would, in effect, be a poison pill for 
the entire bill because, in effect, what it says is if you allege gross 
negligence or recklessness, then the exemption the bill provides 
evaporates. So you are a lawyer. All you do is allege gross negligence 
or recklessness and, bingo, you are back in court again. So it totally 
undercuts the purpose of this legislation.
  Secondly, last year the bill didn't contain a definition of gross 
negligence or recklessness. This year that was corrected, at least 
after a manner of speaking. But what definition do we have of gross 
negligence, for example? The bill provides that we turn to section B of 
the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. The definition of 
gross negligence under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation 
Act is totally different from the case law definition of any State in 
the Union. It is totally different from the settled or standard concept 
of gross negligence in tort law.
  Let me illustrate the difference. Under this bill, the term would 
mean: Voluntary and conscious conduct, including a failure to act by a 
person who at the time of the conduct knew that the conduct was likely 
to be harmful to the health or well being of another person.
  That is not gross negligence. Black's Law Dictionary captures the 
essence of the definition. It defines gross negligence as the 
intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of 
the consequences as affecting the life or property of another. And it 
consists of the conscious and voluntary act or omission which is likely 
to result in grave injury when in the face of clear and present danger 
of which the alleged tortfeasor is aware. And the standard, obviously 
in comparison to the Levin standard to be inserted into the statute 
this year, is quite different. Even if the judge were to look to the 
standard itself, he would find that that standard is significantly 
different than the usual concept of the term and does not rise, in any 
meaningful way, to what any of us who have practiced tort law would 
understand gross negligence to mean.
  Third, this is a highly regulated industry by law, by Federal law and 
State law and even some local laws. And most of the acts that would 
meet the definition of gross negligence would already be in violation 
of law. And if they are in violation of law, they are not exempted from 
this legislation. We don't try to exempt any gun manufacturer for 
conduct which is in violation of law. So by definition that would be an 
exemption from the provisions of the bill, if it becomes law, and 
therefore would not need to be included.
  The bottom line here is that if there really is a problem, that is to 
say, the conduct is so bad that it is a violation of law, no lawsuit is 
precluded under our bill in any way. And if it doesn't rise to that 
level, then it should not be considered to be within the concept of 
gross negligence under that term as it has always been applied in tort 
law. The definition that is to be substituted this year is clearly not 
a definition most of us would deem appropriate under these 
circumstances.
  So in fact if the gross negligence or reckless conduct of a person 
was the proximate cause of death or injury--that is the allegation--you 
are in court irrespective of this bill, and clearly it totally 
undercuts the purpose of the bill.
  So, Mr. President, I urge that our colleagues vote against the Levin 
amendment or table it, as was done last year, and recognize that this 
is designed to totally undercut the bill and,

[[Page 18920]]

for that reason, would not be an appropriate amendment to be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains for the proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 18\1/2\ minutes, 
the Senator from Michigan has 8 minutes and 11 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Idaho has how much time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 18\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
his statement.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The reason I am supporting this bill, from a 30,000-foot 
view of it rather than getting down into the weeds, is I think this is 
a defining ``cultural moment'' in the history of our country--when 
under what circumstances can someone get in your wallet, hold you 
responsible financially for an event, no matter how unfortunate it 
might be. Generally speaking, in the law of negligence, the first thing 
you have to establish in civil liability is a duty. You have to prove 
that the person being sued had a duty and violated that duty and the 
violation was the proximate cause and the damages flow from that event.
  Here is what this bill does not do. It does not let a gun 
manufacturer off the hook from the duty of producing a reliable and 
safe gun. If you defectively produce a weapon, you can be held liable. 
It doesn't let a seller or a distributor off the hook for violating a 
statute or making a sale illegally because it says, if you violate the 
law that exists, then you have broken a duty. Duty can be established 
by relationships. It can be established by a statute. So this bill does 
not allow someone to sell a gun without following the procedures that 
we have set out to sell a gun. It doesn't allow someone to make a gun 
that is unsafe. You are on the hook, and you can be held accountable 
based on a simple negligence theory or a negligence per se theory, if 
you violate a specific statute during the sale of a gun or 
manufacturing of a gun.
  But what this bill prevents, and I think rightfully so, is 
establishing a duty along this line: That you have a responsibility, 
even if you do a lawful transaction or make a safe gun, for an event 
that you can't control, which is the intentional misuse of a weapon in 
a criminal fashion by another person.
  That is the heart of this bill. It doesn't relieve you of duties that 
the law imposes upon you to safely manufacture and to carefully sell. 
But we are not going to extend it to a concept where you are 
responsible, after you have done everything right, for what somebody 
else may do who bought your product and they did it wrong and it is 
their fault, not yours. So it does not matter whether you use a gross 
negligence standard, a simple negligence standard, you have blown by 
the concept of the bill in my opinion. The debate should be, is there a 
duty owed in this country for people who follow the law, manufacture 
safely, sell within the confines of the laws we have written at the 
State and Federal level to the public at large if an injury results 
from the criminal act of another? If that ever happens, this country 
has made a major change in the way we relate to each other and a major 
change in the law.
  There are other efforts to make this happen. There is an effort, on 
the part of some, to hold food manufacturers liable if you choose to 
buy a lawful product and misuse it by eating too much of it, creating a 
duty on the part of the people who sell food to manage your own 
behavior, the behavior of another. Once you leave the store, if you 
follow this out, they should go home with you and make sure you are 
doing everything else right.
  That to me is why this amendment from my good friend from Michigan 
should not be adopted and why we need to pass this bill. I am all for 
legal duties where there is a reason for them to exist. Safely 
manufacture a gun? You better believe it. If you put it in a stream of 
commerce and it hurts somebody and it is your fault, you will have a 
day in court.
  If you sell a gun and you don't do it right and you have it in the 
wrong hands, then you will have your day in court.
  The bill even has a negligent provision. If you negligently entrust a 
weapon to someone you know or should know should not have that gun, you 
will have your day in court. What we are not going to do, under a gross 
negligence or simple negligence standard, is create a duty on the part 
of sellers and manufacturers for an event that they can't control, 
which is the intentional misuse of a weapon to commit a crime or 
something akin to that, something that you can't control, nor should 
you be required to be responsible for the actions of others in that 
area of life. If we ever hold people who make products accountable for 
the misdeeds and the mistakes of others when there is no rational 
relationship or no rational ability to control it, then we have 
fundamentally changed America. This bill is very important, I say to 
Senator Craig. We have to pass this bill and stop this kind of legal 
reasoning because it is going to undermine our country.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I wonder if 
Senator Graham might wait. I want to comment on his remarks, and I 
don't want to do this without him being aware of it.
  The good Senator said that if you have done everything right, you 
should not be held accountable. Of course. That is a given. I accept 
that. But what if you have been reckless, what if you have been grossly 
negligent and that gross negligence--by the way, I am perfectly happy 
to accept the Black's Law Dictionary definition if my good friend from 
Arizona wants to substitute that for the definition in this bill. That 
is not the issue. But if the gross negligence and recklessness is a 
proximate cause of injury, why should the manufacturer or dealer be 
immunized then?
  What the Senator from South Carolina says is a truism; of course you 
should not be held accountable for the wrongdoing of other people. The 
question is whether you should be held accountable for your own 
recklessness, your own gross negligence. We should not immunize people 
against their own negligence. That is the issue. That is the only issue 
of this amendment. We don't see but what this bill does is eliminate 
rights, rights of people to get compensation against others who have 
been a cause of their death or injury. That is what the bill does, and 
that is what is wrong. There is no other industry, no other industry 
has that immunity. But this industry would be given that immunity for 
the first time that I know of in American history or tort history. You 
can perform, perpetrate an act of gross negligence or reckless conduct 
and not be held accountable. Now, if you commit a crime you will be 
held accountable, or if you negligently entrust, you will be held 
accountable, but all the other acts of negligence, which are 
perpetratable, are going to be immunized. It is not a matter, by the 
way, of alleging gross negligence or recklessness. It is a matter of 
proving recklessness or gross negligence, because the amendment says, 
not that the allegation is enough; it is that if you show gross 
negligence or recklessness caused your death or injury, you must have, 
still, a cause of action.
  I am happy to yield at this time to my dear friend from Illinois.
  I don't know how much time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 5 minutes 15 
seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield 5 minutes. Does the Senator from Rhode 
Island want any time?
  Mr. REED. No. Go ahead.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Michigan.
  Let me describe a tragedy, a tragedy which hits a little close to 
home for me. My grandson is 9 years old.

[[Page 18921]]

  This is a tragedy involving a 10-year-old little boy in Philadelphia. 
On February 11 of last year, this little boy, Faheem, was on his way to 
school, walking from home to school. As he came into the schoolyard 
through the gates, a gang member came up and shot him in the face. He 
remained conscious for a short period of time, lapsed into a coma, and 
died 5 days later. That is a tragedy.
  The reason I bring it up is because the amendment of Senator Levin, 
before us, addresses this tragedy. Where did the gun from come? It 
turns out it was in the hands of a gang member, one of these drug gang 
kids, crazed, trying to find money, shooting in every direction. He had 
the gun in his hand.
  The obvious question to be asked is, Where did this drug gang member 
get his gun? We know where he got it. He got it through the American 
Gun and Lock Company of Girard Avenue, in Philadelphia, PA.
  Did he buy it there? No. What happened was one of the gang members 
walked into this gun store with his girlfriend and he said, My 
girlfriend wants to buy some guns.
  Why did he say his girlfriend? Because the gang member had a criminal 
record. He couldn't buy the guns. So the gun owner, the gun store 
owner, sees the girlfriend buying the guns for the gang member standing 
next to her, and decides he is going to charge a handling fee because 
she is a third-party purchaser.
  They knew what was going on. The girl friends buy guns for the gangs 
to use on the street. So the store sold the gun, clearly understanding 
what was going on here, even charging a handling fee for it. It gets on 
the street in the hands of a gang member and a 10-year-old little boy 
walking into the schoolyard is shot in the face and killed.
  So the question is this: Did the gun dealer do anything wrong? That 
is the question. I think it is a legitimate question. I think the gun 
dealer knew exactly what was going on here. The gun dealer wanted to 
make some money. The gun dealer was willing to look beyond the obvious 
criminal standing in front of him to the straw purchaser, this 
girlfriend, and let the girlfriend buy the gun and even charge a 
handling fee. What Senator Levin's amendment says is this is gross 
negligence. If you did not know this gun was going to be used in a 
crime, you were certainly negligent in allowing this to occur on your 
premises and we ought to be able to go to court. The family of this 
little boy who was murdered on the street should be able to go to court 
and say that gun dealer should be held responsible.
  Do you know what? This bill before us will never allow that gun 
dealer to be held responsible for that misconduct. He sold the gun to 
the girlfriend of the gang member. The gun hits the street. The gun 
kills the little boy. And the courthouse doors will be closed to that 
family because of this bill unless we pass the amendment of Senator 
Levin.
  That is what this is all about. If you think that is fair to let that 
gun dealer off the hook and to say to the family of that 10-year-old 
boy, ``We are sorry; you don't have the right to go to court and hold 
that gun dealer personally responsible,'' then you naturally would have 
to oppose the amendment of Senator Levin. But if you think this 
business, as every business in America, has a responsibility to do the 
right thing, there is a standard of care in the products they sell and 
the way they sell them, that this company, like every other company in 
America, should be held responsible for their own misconduct, then I 
suggest you should vote for the amendment of Senator Levin.
  I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 13 minutes 19 seconds for the 
Senator from Idaho, 36 seconds for the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have heard some of the most fascinating 
arguments in relation to the Levin amendment on both sides. I think it 
is clear if the Levin amendment were to become part of this legislation 
and this legislation were to become law, it would be relatively 
meaningless as to where we are in relation to the kind of junk or 
dilatory lawsuits that are currently being filed against gun 
manufacturers and gun dealers who not only produce a legal product to 
the market but sell it in the legal context.
  It is important that we understand the arguments about gross 
negligence and reckless conduct. The idea that has been expressed by 
the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Texas, and certainly the 
Senator from South Carolina, is that once you argue that, then 
obviously as an attorney the process must prove you are either right or 
wrong. In so arguing it, and in the effort of making proof, you have in 
large part destroyed the intent, of the legislation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am more than happy to yield to the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. This has been a fascinating legal discussion. May I have 
a minute or two to answer?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will allow the Senator to take as much time as he 
desires.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I missed it. I think the fact pattern goes along the 
lines of a criminal goes in with a girlfriend or some other person and 
tries to purchase a weapon. What responsibility would someone have 
there?
  If the dealer or the seller or the person in question had a 
reasonable opportunity to know a crime was afoot, or this was a sham 
deal, then I argue the bill would cover it under negligent entrustment. 
But here is what we would not want to do, in my opinion. You wouldn't 
want to hold the seller or the distributor liable if he had no reason 
to understand that a criminal conspiracy by two people he is not 
responsible for was about to happen. Because that would be unfair. But 
if he had a reason to know, a reasonable opportunity to know, then that 
would be a totally different scenario.
  That is a classic example of what we do not want to do. If a person, 
about to make a sale, should have known something was afoot to violate 
the law, they can be held responsible. But if you as a dealer are a 
victim of a criminal conspiracy you had no part or knowledge of, we are 
not going to make you responsible. That is the essence of this bill. 
Because to do so would undo legal concepts that stood 200 years, would 
put people out of business, and makes no sense.
  I yield back to Senator Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, over the last good number of years, law-
abiding gun manufacturers in this country producing a legal product to 
the market, law-abiding gun dealers performing within the confines of 
the Federal firearms licensing process, have spent over $225 million 
defending themselves from the very arguments the Senator from Michigan 
would like to have continued.
  The Senator from South Carolina has well spelled out that there is a 
duty and there is a responsibility. But if that duty is taken beyond 
your ability to know it, to understand it, to be able to act against 
it, then you ought not be responsible.
  We have gotten ourselves into a very litigious society. So in a way 
it has cost our society more than almost any other society in the 
developed world today. Why? Because we would like to shove blame off 
onto someone else. When society wrongs society, it has to be somebody 
else's fault besides the one who perpetrated the wrong. So we have 
attempted to reach back through law, time and time again. As a result--
we have heard it, whether it is the cost of an automobile or whether it 
is the cost of a firearm today or whether it is the cost of almost any 
consumer product--it is going to cost you more because somewhere the 
producers have to mount large amounts of money to pay their legal fees 
to fend off someone looking for an excuse to blame someone else for the 
action of someone who should have been responsible for themselves.

[[Page 18922]]

  That is the essence or the underlying construction of what has 
brought us to the floor today. This argument will not be argued in 
behalf of gun manufacturers. Over the course of the next several years 
it will be argued in behalf of a lot of law-abiding, producing 
Americans who have simply grown tired and fed up with the idea that 
they always have to be sued although what they are doing is legal, even 
though they are within the law. That is because somehow somebody used 
what they have made illegally, and as a result they should have known 
and they are responsible because surely the person who perpetrated the 
crime cannot be held responsible because society either produced them 
or the environment in which they became irresponsible was a societal 
responsibility.
  Oh, my goodness, where do we rest the blame? I think many of our 
parents suggested that we were responsible for our actions and we would 
have to pay the price. But the argument here is quite the opposite, 
that someone who might have a deep pocket somewhere down the road, 
because what they produced is a legal product for the market which was 
then used in a criminal act, should pay that price. And the criminal--
not suggesting they would go free, but certainly suggesting they can't 
afford to pay, so someone else ought to pay, and the argument goes on 
and on.
  You have heard my arguments over the course of the last 48 hours. We 
are the only nation who doesn't have a government-owned weapons 
factory. It has always been a product of the private market. If we 
choose to run them out of our country, then all of the firearms our men 
and women in the military use, our law enforcement community uses, our 
law-abiding citizens own, will be made in some other country.
  I do not believe that is where our country wants to go, and it is 
clear that is not where a majority of the Senate wants to go. I do 
believe the Senate, as reflected by its vote on the cloture motion to 
proceed and ultimately get us to this bill, is reflective of society as 
a whole.
  I hope a majority of the Senate will oppose the Levin amendment. I do 
not believe you can suggest you are going to correct a problem in one 
instance and then open another door and allow a death by a thousand 
cuts, as obviously would occur here, if that case were the one we are 
arguing.
  Mr. President, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 5 minutes 42 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the next 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. He has made very strong arguments 
here. Nobody who is thinking should vote for this amendment.
  I rise today to speak against this amendment No. 1623, an amendment 
which, in my view, would have the effect of gutting this gun liability 
bill. This amendment, if passed, could actually expand the number of 
lawsuits against gun makers and sellers dramatically. This is because 
the definition of gross negligence referenced in the amendment 
eliminates the requirement that a duty of care exists in order to be 
negligent in one's actions toward another.
  As any of us who has been to law school knows, a duty toward another 
is the first element of any tort. But this amendment wipes out this 
element from the definition of gross negligence. In other words, this 
amendment would allow anti-gun lawyers to easily claim that gun makers 
and sellers know their products are ``likely to be harmful,'' without 
having to prove any duty or clear connection to the injured party.
  This turns common law tort principles on its head. This is nothing 
more than a calculated effort by opponents of this legislation to 
expand the reach of this doctrine to get at conduct that had not 
previously been covered.
  Furthermore, this amendment is simply not needed. Virtually any act 
that would meet the definition of gross negligence referenced in this 
amendment would already be a violation of Federal, State or local law, 
and therefore would not receive the protection of this law anyway.
  This amendment is an attempt to undermine this legislation. We 
defeated this amendment soundly last year--soundly. I urge my 
colleagues to vote to defeat it again.
  I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Idaho who has led 
this fight courageously and in every way with the highest of standards. 
Frankly, this is one that should not see the light of day. I hope our 
colleagues will vote against it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am prepared to yield back the balance of our time if the 
Senator from Michigan is.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe I have half a minute remaining, and I would like 
to use it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 36 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have been told people should not be held 
accountable for the wrongdoing of others; that is true. The question is 
whether they should be held accountable for their own wrongdoing.
  This amendment would make sure that gun dealers and manufacturers--
such as any other dealer or manufacturer--could be held accountable for 
their own wrongdoing. That is the issue. It is very clear in the 
wording of the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter from 75 law professors describing 
what this bill would do in terms of eliminating responsibility for 
manufacturers' and gun dealers' own conduct be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        The University of Michigan


                                                   Law School,

                                                    Ann Arbor, MI.
       Dear Senators and Representatives: As a professor of law at 
     the University of Michigan Law School, I write to alert you 
     to the legal implications of S. 397 and H.R. 800, the 
     ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.'' My colleagues, 
     who join me in signing this letter, are professors at law 
     schools around the country. This bill would represent a 
     substantial and radical departure from traditional principles 
     of American tort law. Though described as an effort to limit 
     the unwarranted expansion of tort liability, the bill would 
     in fact represent a dramatic narrowing of traditional tort 
     principles by providing one industry with a literally 
     unprecedented immunity from liability for the foreseeable 
     consequences of negligent conduct.
       S. 397 and H.R. 800, described as ``a bill to prohibit 
     civil liability actions from being brought or continued 
     against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of 
     firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse 
     of their products by others,'' would largely immunize those 
     in the firearms industry from liability for negligence. This 
     would represent a sharp break with traditional principles of 
     tort liability. No other industry enjoys or has ever enjoyed 
     such a blanket freedom from responsibility for the 
     foreseeable and preventable consequences of negligent 
     conduct.
       It might be suggested that the bill would merely preclude 
     what traditional tort law ought to be understood to preclude 
     in any event--lawsuits for damages resulting from third party 
     misconduct, and in particular from the criminal misuse of 
     firearms. This argument, however, rests on a fundamental 
     misunderstanding of American tort law. American law has never 
     embraced a rule freeing defendants from liability for the 
     foreseeable consequences of their negligence merely because 
     those consequences may include the criminal conduct of third 
     parties. Numerous cases from every American jurisdiction 
     could be cited here, but let the Restatement (Second) of 
     Torts suffice:


  Sec. 449. TORTIOUS OR CRIMINAL ACTS THE PROBABILITY OF WHICH MAKES 
                       ACTOR'S CONDUCT NEGLIGENT

       If the likelihood that a third person may act in a 
     particular manner is the hazard or one of the hazards which 
     makes the actor negligent, such an act whether innocent, 
     negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal does not 
     prevent the actor from being liable for harm caused thereby. 
     (emphasis supplied)
       Similarly, actors may be liable if their negligence enables 
     or facilitates foreseeable third party criminal conduct.
       Thus, car dealers who negligently leave vehicles 
     unattended, railroads who negligently manage trains, hotel 
     operators who negligently fail to secure rooms, and 
     contractors who negligently leave dangerous equipment 
     unguarded are all potentially liable if their conduct creates 
     an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of third party 
     misconduct, including illegal behavior, leading to harm, In 
     keeping with these principles, cases have found that sellers 
     of firearms and other products (whether manufacturers, 
     distributors or

[[Page 18923]]

     dealers) may be liable for negligently supplying customers or 
     downstream sellers whose negligence, in turn, results in 
     injuries caused by third party criminal or negligent conduct. 
     In other words, if the very reason one's conduct is negligent 
     is because it creates a foreseeable risk of illegal third 
     party conduct, that illegal conduct does not sever the causal 
     connection between the negligence and the consequent harm. Of 
     course, defendants are not automatically liable for illegal 
     third party conduct, but are liable only if--given the 
     foreseeable risk and the available precautions--they were 
     unreasonable (negligent) in failing to guard against the 
     danger. In most cases, moreover, the third party wrongdoer 
     will also be liable. But, again, the bottom line is that 
     under traditional tort principles a failure to take 
     reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangerous illegal 
     conduct by others is treated no differently from a failure to 
     guard against any other risk.
       S. 397 and H.R. 800 would abrogate this firmly established 
     principle of tort law. Under this bill, the firearms industry 
     would be the one and only business in which actors would be 
     free utterly to disregard the risk, no matter how high or 
     foreseeable, that their conduct might be creating or 
     exacerbating a potentially preventable risk of third party 
     misconduct. Gun and ammunition makers, distributors, 
     importers, and sellers would, unlike any other business or 
     individual, be free to take no precautions against even the 
     most foreseeable and easily preventable harms resulting from 
     the illegal actions of third parties. And they could engage 
     in this negligent conduct persistently, even with the 
     specific intent of profiting from sales of guns that are 
     foreseeably headed to criminal hands. Under this bill, a 
     firearms dealer, distributor, or manufacturer could park an 
     unguarded open pickup truck full of loaded assault rifles on 
     a city street corner, leave it there for a week, and yet be 
     free from any negligence liability if and when the guns were 
     stolen and used to do harm. A firearms dealer, in most 
     states, could sell 100 guns to the same individual every day, 
     even after the dealer is informed that these guns are being 
     used in crime--even, say, by the same violent street gang.
       It might appear from the face of the bill that S.397 and 
     H.R. 800 would leave open the possibility of tort liability 
     for truly egregious misconduct, by virtue of several 
     exceptions set forth in Section 4(5)(i). Those exceptions, 
     however, are in fact quite narrow, and would give those in 
     the firearm industry little incentive to attend to the risks 
     of foreseeable third party misconduct.
       One exception, for example would purport to permit certain 
     actions for ``negligent entrustment.'' The bill goes on, 
     however, to define ``negligent entrustment'' extremely 
     narrowly. The exception applies only to sellers, for example, 
     and would not apply to distributors or manufacturers, no 
     matter how egregious their conduct. Even as to sellers, the 
     exception would apply only where the particular person to 
     whom a seller supplies a firearm is one whom the seller knows 
     or ought to know will use it to cause harm. The ``negligent 
     entrustment'' exception would, therefore, not permit any 
     action based on reckless distribution practices, negligent 
     sales to gun traffickers who supply criminals (as in the 
     above example), careless handling of firearms, lack of 
     security, or any of a myriad potentially negligent acts.
       Another exception would leave open the possibility of 
     liability for certain statutory violations, variously 
     defined, including those described under the heading of 
     negligence per se. Statutory violations, however, represent 
     just a narrow special case of negligence liability. No 
     jurisdiction attempts to legislate standards of care as to 
     every detail of life, even in a regulated industry; and there 
     is no need. Why is there no need? Because general principles 
     of tort law make clear that the mere absence of a specific 
     statutory prohibition is not carte blanche for unreasonable 
     or dangerous behavior. S. 397 and H.R. 800 would turn this 
     traditional framework on its head; and free those in the 
     firearms industry to behave as carelessly as they would like, 
     so long as the conduct has not been specifically prohibited. 
     If there is no statute against leaving an open truckload of 
     assault rifles on a street corner, or against selling 100s of 
     guns to the same individual, under this bill there could be 
     no tort liability. Again, this represents radical departure 
     from traditional tort principles.
       My aim here is simply to provide information, and insure 
     that you are not inadvertently misled about the meaning and 
     scope of S. 397 and H.R. 800. As currently drafted, this Bill 
     would not simply protect against the expansion of tort 
     liability, as has been suggested, but would in fact 
     dramatically limit the application of longstanding and 
     otherwise universally applicable tort principles. It provides 
     to firearms makers and distributors a literally unprecedented 
     form of tort immunity not enjoyed or even dreamed of by any 
     other industry.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Sherman J. Clark.
       Professor Sherman J. Clark, University of Michigan Law 
     School; Professor Richard L. Abel, UCLA Law School; Professor 
     Barbara Bader Aldave, University of Oregon School of Law; 
     Professor Mark F. Anderson, Temple University Beasley School 
     of Law; Professor Emeritus James Francis Bailey, III Indiana 
     University School of Law; Professor Elizabeth Bartholet, 
     Harvard Law School; Professor Peter A Bell, Syracuse 
     University College of Law; Professor Margaret Berger, 
     Brooklyn Law School; Professor M. Gregg Bloche, Georgetown 
     University Law Center; Professor Michael C. Blumm, Lewis and 
     Clark Law School; Professor Carl T. Bogus, Roger Williams 
     University School of Law; Professor Cynthia Grant Bowman, 
     Northwestern University School of Law; Director of the 
     MacArthur Justice Center and Lecturer in Law, Locke Bowman, 
     University of Chicago Law School; Professor Scott Burris, 
     Temple University Beasley School of Law; Professor Donna 
     Byrne, William Mitchell College of Law; Professor Emily 
     Calhoun, University of Colorado School of Law; Professor 
     Erwin Chemerinsky, Duke Law School; Associate Clinical 
     Professor Kenneth D. Chestek, Indiana University School of 
     Law; Associate Professor Stephen Clark, Albany Law School; 
     Professor Marsha N. Cohen, University of California Hastings 
     College of the Law; Professor Anthony D'Amato, Northwestern 
     University School of Law; Professor John L. Diamond, 
     University of California Hastings College of Law; Professor 
     David R. Dow, University of Houston Law Center; Professor 
     Jean M. Eggen, Widener University School of Law; Associate 
     Professor Christine Haight Farley, American University, 
     Washington College of Law; Associate Professor Ann E. 
     Freedman, Rutgers Law School--Camden.
       Professor Gerald Frug, Harvard Law School; Professor Barry 
     R. Furrow, Widener University School of Law; Associate 
     Clinical Professor Craig Futterman, University of Chicago Law 
     School; Professor David Gelfand, Tulane University Law 
     School; Professor Phyllis Goldfarb, Boston College Law 
     School; Professor Lawrence Gostin, Georgetown University Law 
     Center; Professor Michael Gottesman, Georgetown University 
     Law Center; Professor Stephen E. Gottlieb, Albany Law School; 
     Professor Phoebe Haddon, Temple University Beasley School of 
     Law; Professor Jon D. Hanson, Harvard Law School; Professor 
     Douglas R. Heidenreich, William Mitchell College of Law; 
     Professor Kathy Hessler, Case Western Reserve University 
     School of Law; Professor Eric S. Janus, William Mitchell 
     College of Law; Professor Sheri Lynn Johnson, Cornell Law 
     School; Professor David J. Jung, University of California 
     Hastings College of Law; Associate Professor Ken Katkin, 
     Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University; 
     Professor David Kairys, Temple University Beasley School of 
     Law; Professor Kit Kinports, University of Illinois School of 
     Law; Professor Martin A. Kotler, Widener University School of 
     Law; Professor Baily Kuklin, Brooklyn Law School; Professor 
     Arthur B. LaFrance, Lewis and Clark Law School; Professor 
     Sylvia A. Law, NYU School of Law; Professor Ronald Lasing, 
     Lewis and Clark Law School; Professor Robert Justin Lipkin, 
     Widener University School of Law; Professor Hugh C. Macgill, 
     University of Connecticut School of Law.
       Professor Mari J. Matsuda, Georgetown University Law 
     Center; Associate Professor Finbarr McCarthy, University 
     Beasley School of Law; Director (Retired Professor) Christine 
     M. McDermott, Randolph County Family Crisis Center, North 
     Carolina; Professor Joan S. Meier, George Washington 
     University Law School; Professor Naomi Mezey, Georgetown 
     University Law Center; Professor Eben Moglen, Columbia Law 
     School; Professor Dawn C. Nunziato, George Washington 
     University Law School; Professor Michael S. Perlin, New York 
     Law School; Clinical Professor Mark A. Peterson, Northwestern 
     School of Law, Lewis and Clark College; Professor Mark C. 
     Rahdert, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Professor 
     Denise Roy, William Mitchell College of Law; Professor Joyce 
     Saltalamachia, New York Law School; Clinical Assistant 
     Professor David A. Santacroce, University of Michigan School 
     of Law; Professor Niels Schaumanm, William Mitchell College 
     of Law; Professor Margo Schlanger, Washington University 
     School of Law; Professor Marjorie M. Shultz, University of 
     California Boalt School of Law; Senior Lecturer Stephen E. 
     Smith, Northwestern University School of Law; Professor Peter 
     J. Smith, George Washington University Law School; Professor 
     Norman Stein, University of Alabama School of Law; Professor 
     Frank J. Vandall, Emory University School of Law; Professor 
     Kelly Weisberg, University of California Hastings College of 
     the Law; Professor Robin L. West, Georgetown University Law 
     Center; Professor Christina B. Whitman, University of 
     Michigan School of Law; Professor William M. Wiecek, Syracuse 
     University College of Law; Professor Bruce Winick, University 
     of Miami School of Law; Professor Stephen Wizner, Yale Law 
     School; Professor William Woodward, Temple University Beasley 
     School of Law.

  Mr. CRAIG. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
  I move to table the motion and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.

[[Page 18924]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Domenici
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe the legislation before us 
today is a good tort reform bill. It deals with a discrete area of 
abuse in our legal system. We in this Congress have the responsibility 
to monitor our legal system. If it is not functioning well, we ought to 
deal with it. It is a practical act to protect manufacturers and 
sellers of a lawful item, and it has constitutional implications 
because the destruction of our firearms industry in America indeed 
would implicate and undermine the constitutional right Americans have 
of keeping and bearing arms. It is good for jobs.
  We know American manufacturers are under siege from lawsuits, and we 
could end up losing an entire industry, which is a pretty big industry. 
It is good for our police and national defense; that is where they get 
their firearms. The Secretary of Defense wrote us a letter indicating--
actually, the legal counsel wrote the letter to say they support it 
because they are concerned about the manufacturing capability of 
firearms used by our military. The same companies fighting these suits 
are also the companies that produce firearms for the military and our 
police forces.
  It is good because it restores the historic principles of what 
liability should be in our country. Where and how should one be liable? 
What acts can justify someone coming and taking your property? What 
kind of acts of wrongdoing do you have to commit before that is 
possible? Also, we might ask ourselves, what industry might be next? If 
we erode the classical defenses and principles that protect legitimate 
businesses in this case, what business might be next? I was pleased to 
hear that we achieved a bipartisan consensus, it seems, with 61 
cosponsors for the legislation. I had hoped we would move it through 
rather rapidly. I knew a good number of Senators cared deeply about it 
and did not approve of it, and they wanted to speak about it. But the 
truth of the matter is, this is taking quite a long time. We have had a 
filibuster even on a motion to proceed to the bill, which included 30 
hours of post-cloture debate on that, and 66 Senators voted to have 
cloture and bring this bill up on the floor for debate. So we have 
good, strong, bipartisan support for moving forward with this 
legislation.
  I know the majority leader is committed. We can complete it, even if 
we have to go into the weekend. Hopefully, that won't happen, but I am 
prepared to be here and I think most Senators are. After this amount of 
effort, let's complete this. We can see the end in sight. I urge that 
the discussions going on allow us to proceed more rapidly. I hope we 
will have good success on that.
  I believe the opposition to this legislation spins out of a hostility 
to firearms by some. If you look at it, it is mostly in the big cities 
where they are not familiar with hunting, outdoors, and recreational 
shooting. The emotional fervor for radically limiting the historic 
American right to keep and bear arms arises out of a fear of crime and 
a desire to be safe and, I think, a misunderstanding of the nature and 
character of decent, law-abiding citizens in this country who possess 
firearms and use them to hunt and for recreational purposes on a 
regular basis. But I understand crime is a big part of the objection to 
firearms. It is out of that fear and concern that we have mayors and 
cities passing laws that create strict liability, such as the District 
of Columbia. In a recent case that ruled against the Beretta Company, 
Beretta wrote us that if this law remains in effect, they could become 
liable for every murder using a Beretta handgun that may occur in 
Washington, DC, even though they may have lawfully sold the gun through 
a dealer in Alabama, Minnesota, Maine, or California. But if it ended 
up here some way by some criminal and somebody got shot, they have the 
ability to hold the manufacturer or the dealer liable for that. They 
become an insurer against criminal activity by criminals.
  It is not a sound principle of law. It cannot be defended on 
principle. That is what we are trying to curtail here--this utilization 
of the legal system, the court system, the lawsuit system, to effect a 
public policy end that has not been supported by the people and 
actually could threaten the ability to keep and bear arms and threaten 
an entire industry in our country. I understand what is bringing this 
up.
  I want to share some important things. What is causing crime? We 
don't know for sure. We know some of the causes. What can we do to deal 
with it? How can we utilize gun laws to reduce crime and violence and 
make our communities safer, do the right thing? Does passing more and 
more burdensome laws and regulations that fall on lawful gun owners 
help reduce crime? I submit to you it does not.
  There are dramatic numbers that I think indicate the effectiveness of 
gun law prosecutions to reduce crime. When I came to the Senate in 
1997, I had been a U.S. attorney and, as such, prosecuted criminals who 
utilized guns and violated Federal gun law. I know the Presiding 
Officer has done that, too; he has been a prosecutor. He dealt with 
these Federal gun laws. What we did was focus on the law that dealt 
with criminal behavior, and we were aggressive about it. I remember 
coming up with a name for our project. We called it Project Triggerlock 
in, I guess, the late 1980s. We had a newsletter and we talked with all 
our sheriffs and local police about the new, tough Federal gun laws 
that crack down on the utilization of a gun during a criminal act, and 
the 5-year mandatory penalty without parole if you carry a firearm 
during a drug offense, or if you possess a firearm after having been 
convicted of a felony, you would go to jail and it would be without 
parole.
  I thought it was an effective thing and we worked hard to prosecute 
those cases. Then I was elected Alabama attorney general and then I 
came to the

[[Page 18925]]

Senate. When I came here, there was one new gun law after another that 
attempted to restrict gun ownership and the ability to get guns. We 
were voting on them all the time. I began to say, what are we doing 
prosecutionwise with the laws we have? I began to inquire in the 
Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. In 1997 when Attorney 
General Janet Reno or the division chief, or the head of the ATF came 
up, I began to ask questions.
  If you can see this chart, you begin to see where my concerns came 
from. Going along in the 1990s, in 1992 and 1993, there were 3,700 and 
3,800 gun prosecutions per year. They began to drop off 20 percent. By 
1996, they had fallen 20 percent, and by 1997, 20 percent. We began to 
ask questions about that and push this issue with the Attorney General. 
I raised it every time she came before the committee with her staff 
people. I think maybe that or other things happened that began to show 
a trend change. We started moving up a little bit. By 2000, we were 
back up to 6,000 gun prosecutions.
  President Bush campaigned on it. When John Ashcroft came up for his 
confirmation, I reminded him of the promise the President had made. I 
asked Attorney General Ashcroft: Will you make prosecution of gun 
crimes a high priority by the U.S. Department of Justice? He said: Yes, 
sir, I will. Now we have Attorney General Gonzales. Look at these 
numbers; they have doubled since 2000. We have 11,000 prosecutions per 
year now. Many of those carry significant time in jail. If a person 
carries a fully automatic weapon--a MAC-11 or a machine gun of some 
kind--during a drug trafficking offense, the penalty they suffer is 30 
years in jail without parole. We saw that happen all over Miami. People 
were shooting. There were gang wars, with machine guns that were used 
to shoot people down.
  These tough laws that were passed in the early 1980s cracked down. 
Now you don't see machine guns among drug dealers. In fact, because of 
these prosecutions you are seeing fewer and fewer drug dealers carrying 
guns and fewer other criminals carry guns because they know if they get 
caught, they will be sent to Federal jail without parole for a long 
time.
  I want to talk about that. Somewhere along in 1998, 1999, or 2000, we 
had before the Judiciary Committee the testimony of a very impressive 
U.S. attorney from Richmond, appointed by the Clinton administration. 
He was an African American. He had developed what he called Project 
Exile. I called it ``Project Trigger Lock with Steroids.'' It was a 
better plan than I had developed. He believed if you utilize these laws 
aggressively, you could save lives. He saw people in his community 
dying in shootouts and criminal fights, he believed, unnecessarily. So 
he started this project.
  He put up billboards that said: You use a gun, we will send you off 
for a long period of time. You will be exiled. You will go off to a 
Federal jail. You don't get to go to the county jail. You will go off 
to the Federal jail, 10 years without parole, 20 years without parole, 
depending on the offense. He had some dramatic results from that 
project.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased, I say to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Project Exile in Richmond, which the Senator referenced, 
in Richmond was a fascinating demonstration, as I think the Senator is 
pointing out. In the testimony of a person arrested for holding up a 7-
Eleven--he went in with a baseball bat; this is true evidence--when he 
was being questioned as to why he used a bat instead of a gun in the 
commission of a crime, he said, Because if I use a gun in the 
commission of a crime, I do time in a Federal jail, just as the Senator 
has spoken to. So he chose the baseball bat as his weapon and not the 
firearm. That happened in Richmond under Project Exile.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I could not agree more. The U.S. attorney in 
Philadelphia was aggressive on some of these cases, and they would make 
a big bust with State and local law enforcement and Federal officers. 
The criminals did not want to go to the Federal court. They were afraid 
they would go there and sort them out, and the ones who had the guns 
would be the ones sent to Federal court, and they would get tough time.
  Here are some of the numbers that occurred on Project Exile. From 
2000 to 2003, Federal gun crime prosecutions nationally increased 68 
percent. There is this perception that Republican administrations, 
because they are dubious and concerned about encroaching controls on 
the right of lawful Americans to have guns, that they are somehow soft 
on gun crime, that they do not care about people being victimized by 
crime.
  Nothing could be further from the truth, as these numbers will show. 
From 2000 to 2003, Federal gun prosecutions increased 68 percent. 
Between the year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the number of Federal 
firearms prosecutions nationally increased nearly 24 percent. In 
Colorado, for example, under their Project Exile program, Federal 
firearm charges between 1999 and 2003 were brought against more than 
600 defendants, and in 365 of those cases that were completed, prison 
sentences were handed down totaling 18,671 months or 1,600 years.
  As these prosecutions have increased, the number of crimes where a 
gun is used has decreased. Surprise. Between 1999 and 2000 and between 
2001 and 2002, the violent crime victimization rate plunged 21 percent. 
Approximately 130,000 fewer Americans were victims of gun crime in 2001 
and 2002 than in 1999 and 2000.
  Project Exile began as a coordinated approach to fighting gun 
violence in the Richmond metropolitan area. That is where it started. 
It began in 1997 by a group of Federal prosecutors. They did a 
communitywide effort. In 1997, there were 140 homicides in Richmond. 
Just one year after the project was initiated, the overall murder rate 
dropped 36 percent, the number of firearm homicides dropped 41 percent, 
and robberies dropped by one-third.
  In 2000, 3 years after Project Exile was implemented in Richmond, 
there were only 72 homicides during the year 2000, close to a 50-
percent reduction. In its first year, Project Exile achieved the 
following: 372 persons were indicted for Federal gun violations, 440 
guns were seized, and 196 persons sentenced to an average of 55 months 
of imprisonment.
  There are three essential elements: Federal prosecution; integrated 
and coordinated partnership among local, State, and Federal law 
agencies; outreach for community involvement; and increased public 
awareness where we make sure the people in the community know in 
advance that if they carry a gun around while they are carrying on 
their criminal activities, they are in big trouble.
  One of the main reasons that Project Exile has been so successful is 
the campaign to educate citizens about the lengthy terms they would be 
facing. Billboards all over Richmond broadcast it: An illegal gun gets 
you 5 years in Federal prison. It resonated throughout the community. 
Police and criminals knew the stories of what was happening on the 
streets. The criminals would throw away guns when officers approached. 
They would confess to almost anything, but they would not confess to 
having a gun, and they specifically referred to Project Exile. So we 
know it was having an impact.
  There are a number of important laws that are bread-and-butter laws 
that allow proper focus on criminal use of firearms. What I want to say 
is real simple. I don't want to overstate all of this, but it is 
significant. The simple fact is, it is not how many laws we pass, it is 
not whether we pass some convoluted law about this, that, or the other 
in Federal laws. It is whether we are allowing the gun prosecutions to 
drop 20 percent or whether they have gone up from under 4,000 to almost 
12,000, three times.
  If we maintain aggressive, systematic prosecution of dangerous 
criminals who carry firearms and they are sent to jail for long periods 
of time, we will protect the public. That is what I am saying. These 
other things make life more difficult for lawful gun owners and 
implicate, sometimes improperly,

[[Page 18926]]

the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But the real power of 
reducing crime, making our streets safer, resides in effective 
prosecution of these cases.
  I could not be more pleased to see some of the good numbers we are 
getting in terms of reducing crime.
  Look what is happening in States. It further amplifies what I have 
said. The overall homicide rate in jurisdictions that have the most 
severe restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership--let's look at 
this. Let's look at the homicide rate on the States that have the 
toughest firearm purchase laws, States that make it the hardest to buy 
a firearm: California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and 
Washington, DC. Their homicide rate is 23 percent higher than the rest 
of the country.
  The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented 
restrictions on gun manufacturers, dealers, and owners. However, in the 
5 years after its enactment, the national homicide rate averaged 50 
percent higher than in the 5 years before the bill was enacted. The 
national homicide rate was 75 percent higher 10 years after the 
enactment of the Federal Gun Control Act, and 81 percent higher after 
15 years. So passing a law that is not effectively prosecuted--not 
aggressively, systematically prosecuted, to the extent the criminals 
know you mean business--does not mean anything. You end up with just 
restrictions, regulations, costs, and burdens on honest Americans.
  I have offered legislation--I am having a hard time getting any 
cosponsors on the Democratic side, but I think the Federal crack 
cocaine laws tend to be too tough, and they tend to fall 
disproportionately on African Americans. I think we ought to fix it and 
do something about it. I have proposed and written legislation and 
offered it more than once to do just that.
  I am not here as one who believes locking people up and throwing away 
the key is the answer to fighting crime, but it is a big part of 
fighting crime that people receive substantial punishment if they 
represent a danger to the community or if they commit a serious crime.
  Look at the incarceration rates: From 1980 to 1994, the 10 States 
with the greatest increase in prison population averaged a decrease of 
13 percent in violent crime, while the 10 States with the smallest 
increase in prison population averaged a 55-percent increase in violent 
crime.
  They say lock everybody up. Everybody does not shoot someone. There 
is only a small number of people in this country who have the 
maliciousness, the violent nature, or the hostility or meanness to go 
around shooting somebody. The more of those you can identify, the more 
of those you lock up, you can reduce the violent crime rate. You can 
make our communities safer and protect innocent Americans from that 
kind of activity. It is just as plain as night and day.
  If you put violent criminals behind bars and keep them there, good 
things can happen. In 1991, 162,000 criminals who were placed on 
probation committed 44,000 violent crimes during their probation. A 
fourth of them committed a violent crime while they were out on 
probation. Twenty-one percent of the persons involved in the felonious 
killing of law enforcement officers during the last decade were on 
probation or parole at the time they murdered a police officer.
  Some say if you really like police officers, you will vote against 
this bill because somehow this bill has something to do with protecting 
police officers from being murdered. Police officers are not telling me 
if one of their brothers or sisters is killed by a criminal that they 
want to sue Smith & Wesson. They are saying they want the criminal 
convicted and prosecuted. They believe if more criminals were 
prosecuted aggressively and fewer were given parole and probation 
early, then more police officers would be alive and healthy today. This 
is what we need to do.
  I want to share this story on this general subject. It came to my 
attention recently, in June of this year. Leura Canary, a fine U.S. 
attorney in Montgomery, AL, the Middle District of Alabama, presides 
over 23 counties in the southwestern part of the State as a Federal law 
officer, and she works with others. She was presented a national award 
for most improved gun violence program.
  I saved this release and would like to share it with you because it 
is emblematic of what we can do to save lives, protect the innocent, 
and reduce crime in America.
  She calls their program Alabama ICE. It emphasizes cooperation among 
Federal, State, and local law agencies. They developed in the region an 
effective task force, a task force to combat gun crimes. The task force 
developed a training program and a case preparation technique plan. It 
produced significant results. Look at this. Federal gun prosecutions in 
the middle district of Alabama tripled in fiscal year 2003 over fiscal 
year 2002. Three times as many were prosecuted. And the number of gun 
crime matters referred for prosecutions increased 257 percent in that 
same period. Between 2000 and 2003, the number of gun prosecutions in 
the middle district has increased 513 percent.
  She obviously took Attorney General Ashcroft's injunctions and 
directions to heart, a fact mentioned by Attorney General Ashcroft in 
his keynote address.
  According to local officials, these efforts--local officials, not the 
U.S. attorney--have had a measurable effect on violent crime. In 
calendar year 2003, there was a 42-percent reduction in criminal 
homicides in the city of Montgomery over the previous year, 2002, a 42-
percent reduction in the number of people murdered in the city of 
Montgomery.
  Montgomery Police Chief John Wilson, whom I have known for quite a 
number of years, and who has been a professional in his career, who was 
an early partner in this effort, Alabama ICE task force, said:

       Alabama ICE is the only new program we implemented during 
     this time period which targets violent crime in our city. I 
     believe that ICE is a major factor in these reductions in the 
     number of violent offenses. Without this program, these 
     criminals would still be in our community committing crimes.

  And, I would add, murdering people.
  Local Alabama ICE task force members also expressed their reactions 
to the program and the award. Chief Anthony Everage of the city of 
Troy, a midsized or smaller city, said this:

       I think this is an excellent example of what can be 
     accomplished through a joint effort by the United States 
     Attorney's Office of the Middle District and law enforcement. 
     Ms. Canary presented this very effective program along with a 
     plan of action to our agency and the implementation has and 
     will continue to make Troy a safer place.

  ``When Alabama ICE was implemented in Dothan, it was as though 
someone threw a large rock into still waters. The ripple effect 
shuddered through the criminal culture almost overnight. The word is 
out, get caught committing a crime while holding a gun and you're done. 
Even Johnny Cochran can't get you off,'' said Dothan Police Chief John 
White.
  Actually, Johnny Cochran supported this effort and warned that people 
who commit crimes with guns suffer serious Federal time, because he 
knew innocent people's lives are at stake.
  District Attorney Randall Houston of the 19th Judicial Circuit of 
Autauga, Elmore, and Chilton Counties, stated:

       Working with Federal prosecutors has expanded our charging 
     options and our ability to lock up the most dangerous 
     criminals in our community. We received this award because of 
     the effectiveness of our partnership in combating crime.

  Sheriff Jay Jones of Lee County said:

       This award represents the positive result of criminal 
     justice agencies on Federal, State, and local levels working 
     in concert to confront and effectively reduce the incidents 
     of gun violence in our community.

  Is that not what it is all about, reducing gun violence?

       Actual, measurable reductions in violent gun crimes have 
     occurred in all of the fine programs implemented throughout 
     the United States, and of those the program in the Middle 
     District, administered under the direction of U.S. Attorney 
     Leura Canary, was chosen as one of the best. It puts an 
     exclamation point on the statement of hard work that so many 
     law enforcement agencies

[[Page 18927]]

     in central Alabama do each day to provide for the safety of 
     the public.

  Sheriff Jimmy Abbett of Tallapoosa County said:

       Alabama ICE has been very beneficial to our department in 
     the successful arrest and convictions of persons in our area. 
     The U.S. attorney has provided a willingness to work with 
     local agencies. . . . The program . . . has provided local 
     law enforcement agencies another tool to take the habitual 
     criminals off the street.

  That is what it is all about. Violent crime rates have reached the 
lowest level in 30 years, almost to the level of 1950. The crime rate 
went up steadily beginning in the 1950s into the early 1960s to the 
mid-1970s. In 15 years the murder rate doubled in this country. 
President Reagan came in and we saw about a 20-percent reduction. Then 
that flattened out during the crack cocaine years and then in the 1990s 
we began to see this go down.
  One of the reasons is the Project Exile program that began in 1997 
and is now spreading all over the country, which focuses on the 
criminal use of firearms. Whereas I am proud to review any legislation 
anybody wants to offer, I would note this, that I am willing to bet--I 
do not have the numbers on it, but I am willing to bet that perhaps 90 
percent of the cases prosecuted in Federal court under these Project 
Exile type programs, the main ones are prosecuting any criminal in 
America who carries a firearm or possesses a firearm after having been 
convicted of a felony. If one is a felon, they are no longer able to 
possess a firearm. If firearms are kept out of the hands of felons, we 
are going to have less murders.
  The next one is very close and very significant. It is carrying a 
firearm during the commission of a crime. It can be a crime of 
violence, a drug crime, a burglary, or a robbery. If someone is 
carrying a gun during criminal activity, they have a mandatory 5 years, 
60 months, without parole, if they are convicted, in addition to what 
time they get for the underlying crime. That information is getting out 
there. The word is out there. Fewer and fewer criminals are carrying 
guns because of that.
  Then there is carrying a sawed-off shotgun, possessing a firearm 
where the serial number has been erased or erasing a serial number. 
Those are the kinds of activities that form the bread and butter of the 
criminal prosecutions I mentioned today. That is what will break the 
back of crime. That is what can hold out hope that if we effectively 
and professionally maintain the pressure on the criminal gun element 
through these prosecutions, we can reduce crime, make our communities 
safer, and save innocent lives.
  I do not think suing gun manufacturers is the right approach. That is 
not the way we are going to deal with it. We have the right approach. 
It was proven by the U.S. attorney in Richmond. It is being replicated 
all over America today. The Attorney General is driving this as one of 
his highest priorities, and if we stay on it, we are going to continue 
to see the murder rate in this country go down. Who knows, the murder 
rate could actually reach the level of the 1950s. We are not far from 
that today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I will take a moment to talk about the bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I hope the Senator is not too disturbed with me. I 
noticed in the New York Times today they had my picture in there and 
they described it as that of Senator Reed. It probably will cost him 
50,000 votes in his home State. But it was not my fault and if the 
Senator sues anybody, sue the New York Times.
  Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, I say to my distinguished friend and 
dear friend from Alabama, I am not perturbed. I just fear for his 
safety, and I thank him.
  Mr. President, we have heard over the course of the last few days 
numerous homilies about personal responsibility. The irony, of course, 
is this legislation says everyone is responsible except for gun 
manufacturers, gun dealers, and gun trade associations.
  There has been a discussion about the law. If one breaks a law they 
should be punished, but such discussions fail to capture the fact that 
we have essentially two systems with our legal system. There is the 
system of laws, the statutes, the ordinances that are passed by 
legislative bodies such as this body, and then there is the civil law: 
the criminal law and the civil law.
  The Senator from Alabama went on at length about how we can enforce 
criminal laws more effectively; we can do good things with respect to 
criminal law enforcement. But I think we are ignoring the sense that 
there is also this civil law, where people can go to court if they have 
been injured and seek redress.
  What this legislation would do is prevent many Americans who have 
been injured from going to court and seeking redress, either some type 
of compensation or some type of equitable remedy.
  It is important that we recognize this bill will deny a voice to many 
people, modest people, who have been injured and who seek redress.
  I was trying to think of a somewhat mundane example about these 
different systems. Since so much of this legislation talks about, well, 
if a particular statute is violated, one will be liable, but there is 
this intersection of obligations both under the criminal law and 
statutes and under the general principles of civil law.
  The example I think of is there are some jurisdictions that make it a 
violation of the law to operate a cell phone in one's hand while they 
drive, and if one had an accident in that circumstance and someone is 
injured, the person could be prosecuted for violating the law, but they 
also could be sued because they have an obligation and duty to pay full 
attention as they drive. In other jurisdictions without this law, one 
could not be criminally charged but, of course, they could be sued.
  Here is what essentially this legislation does in lots of respects. 
It says we are disregarding those instances where one has a duty to 
someone under the civil law. We will let them proceed with their suit 
if there is a criminal violation or a statutory violation, a violation 
of regulations, but for the vast number of other responsibilities we 
owe to each other, that are defined for the civil law, one will not 
have the opportunity to go to court.
  Essentially, what we have said is we all have these obligations and 
responsibilities, except this now special, privileged class of gun 
manufacturers, gun dealers, and gun associations.
  There is the presumption that has been persistent throughout that the 
law of the United States in general does not recognize any type of 
obligation if there is a criminal intervention, if a criminal gets 
involved in proximity to the injury. As I mentioned before, the black 
letter law of this country that is established in the restatement of 
torts clearly says if there is a criminal intervention, one can still 
be held liable for negligence if they fail to perform their duty, even 
if in the chain of action of causation there is a criminal act. So this 
notion that we are charging these gun dealers and gun manufacturers 
with the crimes of another, a bad person or criminal, is without 
substance.
  What Senator Levin said so eloquently and others said so eloquently 
talking about his amendment, is this is about the responsibility of the 
manufacturer, the gun dealer, and the gun associations to fulfill their 
duties to the general public and to specific individuals who have been 
harmed: the duty to secure weapons, the duty to act reasonably, the 
duty to look beyond the superficial aspects of someone coming into a 
store.
  We have seen classic examples: The fellow who walks in with the 
girlfriend and picks out 12 weapons, gives her cash, she pays for it. 
It is so suspicious that the operator of the gun store calls ATF and 
says, well, I got the money, they got the guns, but watch out for them. 
That was the circumstance that led to a chain of causation to the 
serious wounding of two New Jersey police officers. That gun dealer had 
an obligation to avoid straw purchases. He did

[[Page 18928]]

not even follow the standards of the industry in terms of being careful 
of selling multiple guns to some person under those circumstances.
  So it is not about the crimes of others being attributed to gun 
dealers and gun manufacturers. It is not about social conditions that 
are being excused by these suits. It is about whether an individual had 
a duty to another person who was injured and failed to carry out that 
duty.
  One of the major reasons we are here, taking very radical action to 
change 200 years of legal history in the United States, taking the 
radical action of going into 50 States and saying, We don't care about 
your laws--the General Assembly of Rhode Island, the General Assembly 
of North Carolina, of Alabama--we don't care about your laws, we don't 
care that for 200 years, you specified the standards for negligence in 
your State, we are changing them for these special people. We don't 
care that your courts should have the right to take the claims of your 
citizens who have been harmed. We don't care about that. And we are 
doing it for a very narrow, defined group of individuals. This is a 
radical departure from the standards we have adopted and abided by for 
200 years.
  The pretext for all of this is that there is this huge crisis with 
respect to manufacturers that threatens their existence, that they are 
financially on the ropes, that these suits are numerous and literally 
driving them to bankruptcy.
  Where are the facts? The facts that we can establish from the public 
filings of certain companies suggest that there is no crisis. There is 
no crisis at all. This is a manufactured crisis. This is a pretext to 
do the bidding, I believe, of the gun lobby. If you look at the facts 
as reported, there is no financial crisis that is apparent.
  Yesterday, my colleague, the Senator from Idaho, read a letter from 
the president and chief executive officer of Smith & Wesson that talked 
about or tried to explain their filings with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, their 10-Q filing, and concluded with a stirring 
passage about the necessity, the criticality of this legislation to 
Smith & Wesson. It gave the suggestion, of course, that my discussion 
of their financial reports was somehow inaccurate or incomplete. So I 
went back and I got their 10-Q report, which was filed on March 10, 
2005, for the period January 31 to March 10. It was filed, let me say, 
March 10, 2005.
  They go on to describe these suits, as generally is done. They 
conclude:

       We monitor the status of known claims and the product 
     liability accrual, which includes amounts for defense costs 
     for asserted and unasserted claims. While it is difficult to 
     forecast the outcome of these claims, we believe, after 
     consultation with litigation counsel, it is uncertain whether 
     the outcome of these claims will have a material adverse 
     effect on our financial position, results of operations, or 
     cash flows.

  They are not quite certain whether those cases will cripple them. 
They go on to say:

       We believe that we have provided adequate reserves for 
     defense costs.

  They go on and say further:

       We do not anticipate material adverse judgments and intend 
     to vigorously defend ourselves.

  In a sworn statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission, they 
say: We don't know if this is going to be critical to our financial 
status. In fact, we don't anticipate material adverse judgments. We 
don't think any of these cases will be resolved in a way that will 
negatively affect our position, and we will vigorously defend 
ourselves.
  They went on to say, and we said this before on the Senate floor:

       In the nine months ended January 31, 2005, we incurred 
     $4,535 in defense costs, net of amounts receivable from 
     insurance carriers, relative to product liability and 
     municipal litigation.

  That is $4,500, basically, out-of-pocket costs they have received 
from reimbursements from insurance companies. That is the nature of 
insurance: You pay the premium; if something happens, you get 
reimbursed.

       During this period, we paid no settlement fees relative to 
     product liability cases. As a result of our regular review of 
     our product liability claims----

looking at these claims we talked about here as strangling their 
ability to be competitive and to survive----

     we were able to reduce our reserves by $286,022 for the nine 
     months ended January 31, 2005.

  This is such a perilous threat to a company like Smith & Wesson that 
they are actually reducing the reserves they have on hand to handle 
these claims.
  Again, this is not a crisis. Again, their own data suggest--this from 
their Web site. This is 2001. These are the industry municipal cases 
pending or on appeal: 32 and 10 in 2001; in 2002, 26 and 8; 2003, 20 
and 5; 2004, 13 and 4; 2005, 4 industry municipal cases pending and 2 
product liability cases pending against Smith & Wesson.
  The curve is going the wrong way for a crisis. It is going down: 
four, and two pending cases. It suggests that the courts are doing 
their job, that the present system we have in place is actually 
handling these cases pretty well. There is no flood of cases coming 
over the transom. In fact, this is exactly consistent with their 
reduction of the reserves for liability because it appears that these 
cases are dwindling, not increasing. It appears that the system is 
working pretty well right now. Yet we are here today debating 
legislation that will deny the rights of individual citizens to go to 
court, rights they have enjoyed for 200 years in this country, rights 
that stem not from the actions of criminal third parties but from the 
failure of the individual defendants to take appropriate action in 
their duty with respect to the general public and specific individuals.
  It is the same with respect to other companies for which we have 
public records. Many of these companies are privately held. Beretta USA 
is domiciled in the United States, but it is a subsidiary of an Italian 
corporation which is privately held, and they are not publicly 
reporting. But all of this suggests again--not only with Smith & Wesson 
but with Sturm, Ruger--that there is no material adverse impact 
reflected by these individuals in their reporting under the pain of 
penalty for perjury under the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Also, there is a general record of claims and legal cases which goes 
to suggest that these suits are not an epidemic. As we have indicated 
before, from 1993 to 2003, 57 suits were filed against gun industry 
defendants out of an estimated 10 million tort suits. I am not good at 
math, but that is way below 1 percent. This is not an epidemic. This is 
not a crisis. Certainly this is not a crisis that is going to threaten 
our national security.
  We have heard claims that the gun industry is being forced to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars. The alleged litigation costs have 
risen in $25 million increments. In fact, I think they have risen since 
we started this debate, from what I have heard, without any kind of 
factual data to support them. They are just claims that they are 
spending all of this money. In fact, if you look at these SEC reports, 
it hardly adds up to $200 million. Indeed, it seems, based on Smith & 
Wesson, that reflecting the declining cases they are actually reducing 
their reserves and potentially, hopefully, reducing what they have to 
pay out of pocket. But these estimates grow and grow and grow. In 2004, 
it was $150 million in July. In November 2004, other estimates, $175 
million. Now it is up to $200 million. I think I heard in this debate 
$250 million. No substantiation, no documents, no data.
  This is not a crisis. Yet we have displaced the Defense bill to take 
up this legislation. We have displaced other legislation that could be 
extremely valuable in order to take up this legislation. Because there 
is no crisis----
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. First, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his 
leadership on this issue. The Senator from Rhode Island is a member of 
the Armed Services Committee. I think it raises some questions and 
bears repeating that we left the Department of Defense authorization 
bill, which was on the floor of the Senate, the bill for our Department 
of Defense that covers our

[[Page 18929]]

 soldiers and their families, buys the necessary equipment so they can 
execute the war successfully and come home, with amendments pending 
relative to payments to widows and orphans for soldiers who died in the 
line of duty, with amendments pending to provide additional assistance 
to totally disabled veterans, with an amendment pending that would have 
provided additional compensation to members of the Guard and Reserve 
who happen to work for the Federal Government and are activated.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island, can the Senator 
from Rhode Island tell me, before we moved to this special interest 
legislation to protect the gun industry manufacturers and dealers from 
personal responsibility for their wrongdoing, would the Senator from 
Rhode Island describe for those following the debate what was on the 
floor of the Senate when the Republican leadership decided to move to 
this bill?
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his question. There 
were a series of extraordinarily important questions with respect to 
the quality of life for our soldiers and their families: childcare 
amendments, amendments with respect to veterans health care, amendments 
that applied not only to active-duty personnel but their dependents. We 
had passed legislation already, an amendment that would increase the 
number of up-armored HMMWVs we are providing to our soldiers. That 
stands in abeyance until we finish the legislation.
  There were important inducements for additional service and 
enlistment that are necessary to meet the growing and real crisis in 
recruiting military personnel. If you want to talk about a crisis, it 
is a crisis, the fact that our Army, despite efforts, has fallen short 
of the recruiting goal at a time when we need every person to fill out 
the demand for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. 
It is extraordinarily serious.
  I don't know if I can find it, but I saw an editorial cartoon in a 
magazine, a newspaper, which had a picture of a humvee and three 
soldiers. The caption, if I recall it, is:

       Why don't we just take a 4-week recess during this 
     difficult time and then return to this operation afterwards?

  Essentially, I think it captured the dilemma the soldiers are feeling 
right now. What are we doing?
  As the Senator previously indicated, in the Army Times, they wrote of 
this:

       Senate delays action on the defense bill.

  I ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed in the Record, 
one from the Hill and the other from the Army Times, which talk about 
this issue of leaving the Defense bill and also the impact on 
procurement of weapons because of this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From The Hill, July 28, 2005]

                  Frist: Lawsuits Threaten Gun Supply

                           (By Roxana Tiron)

       Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) interrupted 
     debate on the 2006 defense authorization bill to consider 
     legislation to block lawsuits against gun manufacturers, 
     saying that ``frivolous'' litigation could leave the Defense 
     Department without a U.S. source for sidearms.
       Despite Frist's alarming claims, the military is not 
     currently facing any shortage of small arms, according to 
     Pentagon officials.
       American gun manufacturers supply the military with 
     hundreds of millions of dollars worth of small arms, which 
     includes a broad variety of firearms from pistols to machine 
     guns. The weapons are worth even more when ammunition, 
     modifications and special features such as optical sights are 
     included.
       The U.S. firearms industry has been facing repeated 
     lawsuits, an attempt to hold manufacturers liable when guns 
     that were sold lawfully are subsequently misused by 
     criminals, explained Lawrence Keane, senior vice president 
     and general counsel for the National Shooting and Sports 
     Association, a nonprofit organization representing the 
     firearms industry.
       The Senate is considering a new version of a gun-liability 
     measure that was effectively killed by its own supporters 
     last year. Sponsored by Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), the 
     measure would prohibit civil-liability actions against 
     manufacturers, dealers and importers of firearms and 
     ammunition in any state or federal court.
       In April, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled 
     that any victim of a shooting in the District could sue the 
     industry, which Keane said would make gun manufacturers 
     ``absolutely and automatically'' liable for a criminal 
     shooting in D.C. Beretta USA, the manufacturer of the M9 
     pistol, the standard firearm for the armed forces, expressed 
     concern that a single jury ruling in the District could 
     bankrupt the company.
       ``Every criminal shooting in the District gives rise to a 
     suit against the industry, and these are the types that need 
     to be stopped,'' Keane said.
       ``Without this legislation it is probable the American 
     manufacturers of legal firearms will be faced with a real 
     prospect of going out of business, ending a critical source 
     of supply for our armed forces, our police and our 
     citizens,'' Frist said.
       Frist's decision to take up the gun-liability measure comes 
     amid an Army review of more than a half-dozen requests for 
     proposals for new small arms. In fact, the Army has extended 
     the request for six months to allow more companies to compete 
     and included the Marine Corps's requests, according to an 
     Army spokesperson.
       While the Defense Department refused to comment on 
     ``speculative legislation,'' an Army spokesperson said the 
     Army currently is not experiencing any problems with the 
     supply of its sidearms. The Army is the purchasing agent for 
     most services' sidearms; some exceptions exist for special-
     operations forces.
       Army leaders are revamping their small-arms inventories to 
     be better suited to the kind of guerrilla wars being fought 
     in Iraq. The spokesperson said the Army has not had problems 
     buying these weapons, although the spokesperson acknowledged 
     that because the Defense Department is the largest gun 
     purchaser, it could serve as a ``relevant hypothesis'' for 
     Frist's arguments.
       ``These frivolous suits threaten a domestic industry that 
     is critical to our national defense, jeopardize hundreds of 
     thousands of jobs,'' Frist said. ``Many support this 
     legislation, and I am hopeful that with the cooperation of 
     members we can complete all action on this legislation before 
     the recess.''
       Frist used the gun-liability legislation in part as a 
     strategy to divert attention from amendments related to 
     treatment of detainees and the Pentagon's base closures and 
     realignments. The Bush administration opposes those 
     amendments.
       Keane argued that the liability bill still allows 
     manufacturers to be sued if they violate any laws governing 
     gun sales.
       ``There is nothing in the legislation that prevents the 
     Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau from enforcing the gun-
     control act because a dealer has violated regulations,'' he 
     said.
       According to Keane, the gun industry has spent at least 
     $225 million on lawsuits in the past 10 years and small 
     companies such as Charco 2000 have filed for bankruptcy 
     because of lawsuit expenses. Both Beretta and Sigarms, the 
     two top suppliers to the military have been sued numerous 
     times.
       ``If . . . [a company] like Beretta, which has been sued, 
     is driven out of business, it will not be able to fulfill 
     [its] contractual obligation,'' to the military, Keane said.
       He argued that these issues should pose immediate concern 
     to the Defense Department. The firearms (buying) system 
     hasn't ``collapsed,'' said the spokesperson.
       Beretta recently received a contract to supply 18,744 M9 
     semiautomatic pistols to the U.S. Air Force with an option to 
     purchase an additional 5,190 pistols.
       The pistol is produced at the Beretta USA headquarters in 
     Accokeek, MD., where it has been made for 20 years. The Air 
     Force plans to buy 34,374 M9s between 2004 and 2007 at a 
     price of $39 million, according to Air Force budget 
     projections. Meanwhile, the Army is planning to buy $8 
     million worth of modifications to the M9 and M11, which is 
     produced by Sigarms, between 2006 and 2007.
       The Navy is planning to buy 1,069 M11s through 2011 at a 
     total cost of $722,000 and to spend $5.6 million on 
     modifications to the M9 pistols, which are supposed to be 
     completed this year.
       According to Hoovers, a business-information service, 
     Beretta's revenue is estimated at $72.7 million annually.
       Another major gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, which 
     provides firearms to law-enforcement officers, told the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission that it is expecting its 
     sales to reach $124 million this year, 5 percent higher than 
     last year.
                                  ____


                  [From the Army Times, July 26, 2005]

                  Senate Delays Action on Defense Bill

                             (By Rick Maze)

       Senate Republican leaders decided Tuesday that a gun 
     manufacturers' liability bill is more important than next 
     year's $441.6 billion defense authorization bill.
       With Democrats expressing amazement that there could be any 
     higher legislative priority in a time of war than the annual 
     defense bill that includes money for pay and benefits, 
     operations and maintenance, and weapons purchases and 
     research, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senate Republican 
     leader, decided Tuesday that a bill protecting gun 
     manufacturers from lawsuits over the illegal use of firearms 
     was a higher priority.

[[Page 18930]]

       The decision came after Republican leaders failed to muster 
     the 60 votes needed to prevent amendments not strictly 
     related to the defense budget from being offered to the 
     defense bill.
       In a count of 50-48, seven Republicans joined Democrats in 
     voting not to restrict debate, a move that Democratic leaders 
     said would have prevented consideration of amendments to help 
     veterans and survivors of deceased service members, along 
     with other issues.
       With Congress planning to leave town Friday for one-month 
     break, debate on S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in 
     Arms Act, is expected to last two or three days, and then 
     Senate leaders plan to take up an energy bill, an estate tax 
     reform bill and an Interior Department funding bill that has 
     a $1.5 billion bailout attached for veterans' health care 
     programs, leaving no time until September to get back to the 
     defense bill.
       The House approved its version of the defense bill in May 
     and has been waiting for the Senate to catch up to begin 
     negotiations with the Bush administration on a final version.
       Delay in the Senate is partly a result of senators spending 
     three weeks this spring debating federal judicial nominations 
     before reaching a compromise on President Bush's nominees.
       It all points toward a difficult autumn. When the Senate 
     returns in September from its month long summer recess, it 
     will need to consider recommendations of the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Commission, due to finish its work by 
     Sept. 8, and begin deliberations on the John Roberts to the 
     Supreme Court vacancy left by retiring Justice Sandra Day 
     O'Connor.

  Mr. DURBIN. I will ask a question through the Chair. The Senator from 
Rhode Island, who has been speaking about the lack of emergency, the 
lack of crisis in the gun industry, and the fact that this is certainly 
not emergency legislation--I don't believe it is even wise legislation 
for us to consider--the Senator from Rhode Island is a graduate of West 
Point and a former officer in the U.S. Army. I would like to ask the 
Senator, who serves on the Armed Services Committee, as he has read 
these Army Times articles which raise questions about why the U.S. 
Senate would give up on the Department of Defense authorization bill 
for our troops, leave it behind and move to this bill, the special 
interest bill to protect the gun industry from their liability for 
their own wrongdoing, I would like to ask the Senator, what kind of 
impact can this have on the morale of the men and women who read about 
the Senate leaving this important legislation?
  Mr. REED. I think at a minimum it puzzles them why we would shift 
from their concerns, which are so central to our national security and 
so central to the families of America, to move to a bill that is so 
narrowly focused on a special interest group and does not help them one 
bit in terms of anything we might do on this bill.
  Perhaps it is summed up. I have located the cartoon. It is as I 
described before--a group of soldiers in a humvee, and the caption is:

       I move we adjourn for 5 weeks and take up this contentious 
     issue after the summer recess.

  Frankly, no one in our military has the option of adjourning for 5 
weeks to take up contentious issues after that time.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Rhode Island will further yield for a 
question to the Chair, I wish to make sure those following the debate 
understand what this bill does. I ask the Senator from Rhode Island, 
who has followed this issue more closely than any other Senator on our 
side of the aisle, is my understanding correct that if this is enacted 
into law, as a result of this legislation, if you are a gun dealer and 
you sell a gun to someone you knew or should have known was in a drug 
gang, a criminal, a drug trafficker, someone who is likely to misuse 
that gun, use it for criminal purposes, that this bill says that the 
victims of the violence from that purchaser cannot hold the gun dealer 
responsible for his negligence in selling this gun to someone they knew 
or should have known was going to misuse it and create victims, tragic 
victims, in their community?
  Mr. REED. The legislation generally bars all suits involving 
negligence and restricts the exemption to some categories of specific 
violations of Federal law which arguably, in your hypothetical, it 
would not reach. The only exception, to be fair to the legislation, 
that might allow someone to go to court under the concept of negligent 
entrustment, which as drafted in the legislation would say you have to 
suspect, know that the person would use the weapon illegally, and that 
person has to use the weapon. But most commonly what happens is there 
is a straw purchaser, so the negligent entrustment argument doesn't 
work because that weapon is not being used by that person; it is given 
to a third party.
  But I think the Senator's comment is exactly right. There are so many 
cases where this legislation has been carefully crafted to prevent 
people going to court, and the best examples are the ones of which we 
are already aware. The sniper case in Washington, DC, where a young 
teenager walked into a shop, shoplifted apparently a 3-foot assault 
weapon which was used to murder too many people here in the District of 
Columbia. That suit would be prevented by this legislation; in 
addition, the case of the straw purchaser and the police officer in New 
Jersey, prevented by this legislation. We have a case pending now where 
an individual, a young man, was killed by a weapon that was taken out 
of a factory, and the gun manufacturer would be exempt, immune from 
liability, even though he had no background checks on his workers who 
were criminals and drug addicts, he had no security devices and, in 
fact, missed any rudimentary standard of care that most reasonable 
people would say is associated with running a gun factory.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask the Senator from Rhode Island another 
question, through the Chair. If someone owned a daycare facility and 
hired, without any background check and without adequate investigation, 
an employee with a long criminal record of being a sexual predator, 
someone hired this person to work in a daycare center and that employee 
then harmed one of the children at the daycare center, I think the 
Senator from Rhode Island and I would agree that many would argue that 
daycare center was negligent, it had a responsibility it did not meet, 
and that this daycare center should be held responsible, even in court, 
for the harm that came to the child.
  The example that the Senator from Rhode Island used was a gun 
manufacturer, who hired employees with long criminal records, including 
felonies, that had guns stolen out of the manufacturing plant by some 
of these employees with criminal records, and the guns were then used 
on the street to harm innocent people.
  In the second example we have used--not the daycare center but the 
gun manufacturer--this bill would say you can sue the daycare center 
because they didn't do a background check on the employee who molested 
the children, but you can't hold the gun manufacturer liable for hiring 
employees with a criminal record, putting guns on the street and 
killing innocent children.
  Mr. REED. That is exactly right, in my reading of the legislation. 
There are certain jurisdictions that have specific laws with respect to 
background checks on daycare centers. The gun industry is virtually 
unregulated, which is a very important point here. There is very little 
regulation deliberately on the manufactured weapons, the standards. As 
you point out so often with respect to product safety, toy guns are 
regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, real guns are 
unregulated in terms of their safety. So there is no legal--very little 
legal statutory requirement. So it depends upon claims of negligence to 
get at this harm and to redress the harm caused, and this bill 
essentially wipes out that civil liability under our court system.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Rhode Island because I think it is 
a critical point, how many other businesses in America enjoy this 
exemption from liability, how many other businesses, producers of goods 
or services are held harmless for their own negligence and wrongdoing 
in courts of law across America? How many other businesses would have 
this special interest legislation that is being considered and may be 
passed by this Chamber?

[[Page 18931]]


  Mr. REED. Virtually no other. Comments were made on the floor with 
respect to legislation passed back in 1994 with respect to general 
aviation. I think it is important at this juncture to clarify that. 
There was very limited legislation that applied to general aviation 
aircraft, 18 years or older, in terms of liability because of the 
concern about the manufacturing base. But there is a distinct 
difference between this legislation and the General Aviation 
Revitalization Act of 1994, and it goes to the point we just discussed. 
There is no more highly regulated industry than the aviation industry. 
Every time an engine is worked on, there has to be a log entry made 
which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. It is the most detailed legislative scheme we have in 
place perhaps because the safety of the passengers, all of us, depends 
upon it. So giving a limited grant of immunity to an industry that is 
so highly regulated is quite different than telling an unregulated 
industry you have no liability. That is essentially what this bill 
does, with very minor exceptions; clearly, I think exceptions which 
were artfully crafted to avoid the cases that exist today.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask, through the Chair, if the Senator 
from Rhode Island would further yield for a question. We have talked 
about the gun manufacturer who did not do a background check on his 
employees and the employees stole guns without serial numbers on them--
the guns went onto the street and were used to kill innocent people--
that that gun manufacturer would escape liability under this bill that 
is before us. I would like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island about 
the example where someone who is a gun dealer, knows that under the law 
you cannot sell guns to felons, people convicted of a felony, sees 
someone who comes in with another person, we call them straw 
purchasers, someone else who is going to buy the guns, a girlfriend, 
some other person. We had a case I believe the Senator referred to, a 
10-year-old boy in Philadelphia on his way to school gets right to the 
gates to go into the schoolyard, a gang member comes up and shoots him 
in the face. He survived, was conscious for a few hours and then lapsed 
into a coma and died. It turns out that the gun was traced to a store 
where it was sold to one of these straw purchasers--the other 
purchaser, the real purchaser who wasn't eligible to buy it, standing 
next to them. So it was pretty clear what was going on. The store clerk 
charges extra because there is a straw purchaser involved, 
acknowledging they know that this gun is being bought by one person to 
be given to another.
  So what the Senator from Rhode Island is telling us is that this bill 
says the family of that 10-year-old boy shot in the face, who died by 
that gun, cannot even go to court to hold responsible the gun dealer 
who knowingly sold this gun to a straw purchaser to avoid the law.
  Is that my understanding of this as it is written?
  Mr. REED. I think the Senator is right. The only exception that could 
be argued would, I believe, be the exception with respect to negligent 
entrustment. As I pointed out, that has been defined to mean that the 
individual who receives the weapon--you have to have also the suspicion 
that that person is going to use the firearm. In the classic case of a 
straw purchaser, they are the conduit to someone else----
  Mr. DURBIN. Middleman.
  Mr. REED. Middleman. So that the argument made by lawyers would say 
negligent entrustment, saying they gave it to inflict harm. Therefore, 
this very narrowly defined exception would not apply. Generally, the 
case I believe would be thrown out of court.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the Senator from Rhode Island, when it comes 
to protecting gun dealers from civil liability, from being held 
responsible in court for their wrongdoing, I have read repeatedly that 
when you consider all of the licensed gun dealers across America, it is 
a very small percentage that repeatedly sells guns that, when traced, 
are used in the commission of crimes. It turns out, in my State of 
Illinois and in many other States, that the gun dealers who are the 
real wrongdoers, the ones who are abusing the system, are not the gun 
dealers selling in downstate Illinois, where I live, to the hunters and 
sportsmen and people who go to target ranges or want a gun for self-
defense, the real perpetrators of crime or wrongdoing who are protected 
by this turn out to be a handful of dealers in my State who again and 
again and again sell guns that end up involved in criminal activity.
  So I would ask the Senator from Rhode Island, who are we trying to 
protect here when it comes gun dealers?
  Mr. REED. The Senator asks an important question. According to 
Federal data from the year 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers accounted for 
57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations--1.2 
percent of dealers, 57 percent of the guns recovered from criminal 
investigation. In fact, the national crime tracing data from 1989 
through 1996 gathered by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms and Explosives has a virtual scorecard on these egregious 
offerings.
  Badger Outdoors, Inc., in West Milwaukee, WI, the dealer sold more 
than 554 guns traced to crimes, 475 of these guns had a ``short time to 
crime,'' as defined by ATF; that is, almost immediately they were in 
the hands of someone and had some type of criminal activity.
  I could go on.
  Well, for the benefit of the Senator, Realco Guns in Forestville, MD; 
Southern Police Equipment in Richmond, VA; Atlanta Gun and Tackle in 
Bedford Heights, OH; Colosimo's Inc, in Philadelphia, PA; Don's Guns & 
Galleries in Indianapolis, IN.
  Mr. DURBIN. These are the gun dealers.
  Mr. REED. Elmwood Park, IL; Breit & Johnson Sporting Goods in Elmwood 
Park, IL.
  Mr. DURBIN. These are the gun dealers that repeatedly sell guns that 
are traced to crimes. I ask the Senator from Rhode Island this 
question. The argument used for this gun legislation is, how can you 
hold a gun dealer responsible? For goodness sakes. How will they know 
what is going to happen to this gun? They sell the gun to a purchaser, 
the gun leaves the shop. Why in the world would you hold the gun dealer 
responsible? In the cases we have cited, in the examples which the 
Senator has used, you have gun dealers, 1.2 percent, who are 
responsible for more than half the guns traced to crimes. In these 
dealers you have repeated sales, and over and over again, hundreds of 
times, to those who will use them in crime. It obviously raises a 
question which the supporters of this legislation can't answer, and 
that is why you are trying to protect these miserable bums. Why are you 
trying to say they can't be held responsible for the devastation and 
killing and violence that goes on, on our streets when they are sitting 
there churning out firearms that are used day after day in the 
commission of a crime.
  I ask the Senator from Rhode Island, why do we not create an 
exception in this law for those who are repeat offenders as gun dealers 
who continue to sell these guns used in crime and we know it and we 
have the facts to prove it.
  Why in the world should we protect them in this legislation?
  Mr. REED. The Senator's point is extremely well taken. I think there 
should be at least that exception. I would argue, frankly, that the 
bill could be further modified to essentially allow individuals who 
have been harmed--move away from the issue of municipal suits but that 
is exactly the political implication--to let those suits survive. In 
fact, as Senator Levin urged, increase the standard from negligence to 
gross negligence, so further undercutting the argument about frivolous 
junk lawsuits.
  That would be a broader remedy, but your proposal is very wise.
  Let me give you an example of that store in Elmwood Park, IL, which I 
presume is close to Chicago.
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. REED. This dealer has sold more than 347 guns traced to crime; 
271 of those guns had a short time to crime as defined by ATF--again 
short transit

[[Page 18932]]

from the time it was sold to the crime scene. The guns were involved in 
at least 27 homicides, 46 assaults, 23 robberies, and 271 additional 
gun crimes. The dealer also sold at least 5,429 handguns in multiple 
sales. That is another possible important remedy, the issue of multiple 
sales.
  Anthony Garner was arrested for gunrunning after he bought 16 
handguns from Breit & Johnson that were then sold to Chicago gang 
members. At least one of those guns was used in a gang-related killing. 
Andrew Young, age 19, was killed by Mario Ramos, a gang member with a 
gun from Breit & Johnson.
  The list goes on and on. We have these statistics. These are 
collected by the ATF. We know what's going on.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the Senator from Rhode Island, I am a member 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we are considering two different 
bills to deal with criminal gang activity across America, which is a 
serious problem.
  We are coming down with a variety of different ways to deal with 
these criminal gangs, to investigate them, to break them up, to arrest 
them, to make certain they face serious sentences for intimidation of 
witnesses, for recruiting young people into their gangs.
  I ask the Senator from Rhode Island, how can a Member stand in the 
Senate and say they are dedicated to stopping criminal gang activity in 
America and vote for this bill which allows gun dealers who have clear 
histories of selling repeatedly to gang members firearms that are being 
used to kill innocent people? How can a Member say they are against 
criminal gangs but are in favor of the gun dealers who are providing 
them with their firearms?
  Mr. REED. The Senator raises an excellent point. I phrase it slightly 
differently, but I reach the same conclusion.
  If gun dealers--who now have the threat of a civil suit if there has 
been negligence--are so cavalier in their attitude about guns, selling 
them to criminals, to straw purchasers, what happens when they are 
fully immunized or virtually immunized from any type of liability? What 
happens when they know that no family is going to come in and say, My 
son or daughter died because of your negligence, and we are going to 
see if we can take you to court and get something back--we will never 
get the child back--but something back.
  What about the surviving spouse or children who need something to 
maintain the quality of their life because they have lost their 
breadwinner?
  There is the case of Conrad Johnson, killed by one of the DC snipers. 
Those cases would be barred by this legislation.
  It is not that the individuals, families, and the survivors are 
denied their day in court, but any incentive to be responsible, to be 
scrupulous, to look harder to determine whether that person is buying 
the weapon at the direction of another, as a straw purchaser, is 
virtually eliminated. The consequences are going to be much worse. 
These dealers will be more flagrant, more blatant, less restrained. It 
is hard to see how they could be more blatant than they are today.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask a final question. There has been a lot of 
discussion in the Senate about the fact there is no exception for gun 
dealers who sell their guns to people who turn out to be on the FBI's 
Most Wanted list or those who may be involved in terrorism.
  As the Senator from Rhode Island is undoubtedly aware, immediately 
after September 11, we raided one of the al-Qaida headquarters in 
Afghanistan and discovered one of their training manuals in which they 
gave advice to terrorists coming to the United States about buying 
their firearms in the United States because it was easy to buy a gun in 
this country.
  I ask the Senator from Rhode Island, when it comes to the exceptions 
in this bill, is there any exception such as the one suggested by 
Senator Kennedy that would put gun dealers on notice not to sell guns 
to people who are on the FBI's Most Wanted list so that we would say, 
you cannot get off the hook and be held, that you are not liable, not 
responsible for wrongdoing with a weapon if you did not take the time 
to check the FBI's Most Wanted list when you made that sale.
  Mr. REED. The Senator is again accurate. Unless Senator Kennedy's 
amendment is allowed to be voted upon, there is no prohibition against 
looking at the person's picture on the FBI's Most Wanted list, looking 
at the person and saying: Have a nice day. Take the gun.
  Again, one could argue that if that person actually uses the weapon, 
it might be negligence, but if he or she is a straw purchaser or buying 
lots of weapons to pass out, they would escape liability.
  Mr. DURBIN. I might just say, in closing, to the Senator from Rhode 
Island, when we traced criminal guns used in Illinois to kill people 
and commit serious crimes and tried to figure out where they were 
coming from, the largest supplier of guns to the State of Illinois of 
was Mississippi. In Mississippi, the enforcement of local gun laws is 
so relaxed and the enforcement of Federal laws is so relaxed that 
people could literally buy a van full of cheap ``Saturday night 
specials,'' get on the interstate highways and head north to Chicago, 
Springfield, and St. Louis, selling those guns on the street.
  I ask the Senator from Rhode Island, is there anything in this bill 
which will make it more difficult for those gun traffickers to buy 
these guns, turn them loose on the streets to kill innocent people in 
my State or any State in this country?
  Mr. REED. I don't see that. In fact, I don't see that as the purpose 
of this legislation. This is not about preventing criminals from 
getting weapons. It is preventing victims of gun violence from getting 
their day in court.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for his questions.
  The line of questioning that the Senator from Illinois has opened 
raises the issue: What are the exceptions? How can someone get to court 
if they have been harmed?
  Since we have had a robust discussion, and I see the Senator from 
Ohio in the Senate, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, when this bill was before the Senate in 
the last Congress, I came to the Senate to oppose it. I opposed it 
because it denied certain gun crime victims, certain individuals who 
were victims of crimes committed with guns, their day in court. It 
singled out a particular group of weapon victims that it treated 
differently than we treat any other victims in the whole country. It 
set them apart.
  Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate is no better than the one 
we had last year. In fact, it is worse. Not only does it grant immunity 
to the gun industry, the bill also prevents Federal, State, and local 
government agencies from shutting down gun dealers who violate the law. 
Local and State governments are responsible for ensuring that 
restaurants are clean, that doctors are properly licensed, stores do 
not sell alcohol and cigarettes to our children. Why can't they also 
ensure that gun dealers and manufacturers operate responsibly? Why do 
we want to take that right away from them? Yet the current language of 
the bill before the Senate would do that.
  I have great respect for the many firearms dealers and manufacturers 
around this country who are legitimate, honest and hard working. The 
vast majority of dealers have no tolerance for buyers who circumvent 
gun laws. These dealers are also responsible, ensuring that they have 
adequate inventory control systems in place so that guns do not get 
lost or become missing.
  This bill would not help them. The responsible dealers don't need 
this bill. Cases filed against responsible dealers and manufacturers 
who have done nothing wrong can already be tossed out if they have no 
merit, as any frivolous lawsuit will be tossed out in a court of law if 
they are filed against any manufacturer of any product or against any 
wholesaler or retailer of any product.

[[Page 18933]]

  Who, then, will benefit by the passage of this bill? The people who 
will benefit are the irresponsible dealers and the irresponsible 
manufacturers.
  Let me describe some cases. Everyone remembers all too well the 
tragedies of the DC sniper cases. Some of the victims of the DC snipers 
sued Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the gun dealer that negligently allowed 
a Bushmaster rifle to reach the hands of John Allen Mohammed and Lee 
Boyd Malvo. That suit was successful. In the settlement, the negligent 
dealer--we could have assumed he would have been found negligent in a 
court of law--agreed to pay the victim and their families $2.5 million.
  If this bill had been in effect a few years ago, these victims would 
have had no recourse in court.
  Or perhaps we remember Danny Guzman, from Worcester, MA. On December 
24, 1999, Danny Guzman was shot and killed by a gun that was taken from 
a factory run by Kahr Arms. Unfortunately, Kahr Arms hired Mark Cronin, 
an individual with a history of crack cocaine addiction and theft. 
Cronin was given unfettered access to the untraceable, unstamped guns 
in the factory. He bragged, in fact, that it was so easy to remove guns 
that he ``does it all the time and he could just walk out with them.''
  Cronin removed one of these guns from the factory. That gun ended up 
on the streets, and tragically it was used to kill Danny Guzman. Those 
are the essential facts.
  Danny Guzman's estate, on behalf of his widow and two young 
daughters, sued Kahr Arms, alleging that it operated its plant in a 
grossly negligent manner, and in the spring of 2003, a State judge 
allowed that case to proceed. If this bill passes, however, the widow 
and children of Danny Guzman would be out of court.
  As we can see, this bill cuts to the core of civil liability law and 
guts it. As my colleagues know, now, under current law throughout this 
country, the victim needs to prove the defendant acted in an 
unreasonable manner--basic negligence law, the law those who are 
lawyers learn about in the first and second year of law school. It is 
the law of negligence that prevails in courts of law in every type of 
civil case. It is not unusual. It is what it is.
  Under negligence law, if the defendant fails to meet his or her duty 
to act in a responsible fashion, they are liable for negligence as long 
as that failure leads to harm to the victim. That is what is required. 
It is negligence. It is as simple as that. That is the standard. It is 
a standard we have developed over 200 years in this country, a standard 
we inherited from the British system. So we have hundreds and hundreds 
of years of experience in how to apply the rules of law, the common law 
negligence.
  This bill says that those rules will no longer apply for one set of 
victims. These rules that we have taken hundreds of years to develop 
will no longer apply to one set of victims and to one set of 
defendants.
  When we study law, one of the first things we learn is the difference 
between civil and criminal law. Someone who did not commit a crime can 
still be held liable in civil law to someone else and have to pay 
monetary damages. That is a basic concept.
  This bill, however, changes that fundamental idea of civil law 
because under this bill a victim cannot sue a gun dealer for damages 
resulting from illegal actions of a third party without also showing 
that a dealer is guilty of a violation of the law, even--even--when the 
dealer has been negligent. Again, that is a fundamental change in our 
law with one group of civil defendants.
  If this bill were to become law, a plaintiff would not only have to 
demonstrate that a gun dealer acted negligently, but also that the gun 
dealer broke the law--broke the criminal law. In other words, the 
plaintiff would--with one lone exception that has already been talked 
about on the floor a few moments ago--have to prove the gun dealer 
violated a statute or is guilty of a crime.
  We do not require this in any other place in our law. Why do we want 
to do it in this case? If those who come to the floor in favor of this 
bill think it is such a great idea to do it in this case, if they think 
it is such a great idea to require that they have to violate a criminal 
law before you can sue them, then why not just pass that law for 
everybody? Why not make it the law of the land that in any civil suit 
in this country you have to have violated a criminal law? Why not 
change our civil law, turn it upside down, in all 50 States of the 
Union, if it is such a great idea?
  I do not see anybody coming to the floor who is in favor of this bill 
saying it is such a great idea to do that. I do not see anybody 
proposing to do that. Yet they want to do it for one set of victims. 
They want to single out one set of victims. If you are a victim of 
guns--and it could be that somebody, a manufacturer, a gun dealer, has 
been negligent--we are going to require, for you to get inside the 
courthouse door, for you to even enter the courthouse door, before you 
can get what every American has the right to have--and that is a trial 
by jury, a trial, the opportunity to have your case heard by a judge 
and a jury--we are going to require you to prove there has been a crime 
committed.
  We do not require that for any other group of people. So if they 
think it is such a great idea, let them come to the floor and propose 
that, to make it a universal law for every civil suit in the country.
  I would like to talk for a moment about the language in this bill 
that might well prevent the Government from enforcing our gun laws 
against irresponsible gun dealers. This provision goes well beyond 
barring civil suits by private citizens who have been wronged. This 
provision is a new provision. It was not in last year's bill. This 
provision potentially curtails the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms, the ATF, from enforcing the gun laws that are 
currently on the books.
  Two former ATF Directors recognize the potential harm that comes from 
this provision. According to Stephen Higgins, ATF Director from 1982 to 
1995, and Rex Davis, ATF Director from 1970 to 1978, this broad, new 
language contained in this legislation in front of us today would 
likely prohibit the ATF from initiating proceedings to revoke a gun 
dealer's license, even when that dealer supplies guns to criminals.
  Let me repeat that. According to both of these former ATF Directors, 
this broad, new language would likely prohibit the ATF from initiating 
proceedings to revoke a gun dealer's license, even when that dealer 
supplies guns to criminals.
  So not only are we shielding these bad apples, bad actors, people who 
ought to not be doing business, not only are we shielding them from 
civil liability, now we are coming along and saying the ATF cannot 
enforce the law against them. What in the world are we thinking?
  I think that everyone in this body can agree it is important for us 
to enforce gun laws that we have on the books. Why in the world is 
there attached a provision to this bill that would make it harder for 
ATF to enforce our laws and shut down wayward and dangerous gun 
dealers? Why in the world would we want to do this? I don't know.
  Why would we want to strip away the opportunity of a gun victim to 
get into court? Why do we want to do either one of those things? I 
guess the answer is pretty simple. This bill ties the ATF's hands, ties 
the hands of private citizens, ties the hands of State and local 
agencies. It shields a certain group of defendants--gun manufacturers 
and dealers--from liability. This bill grants immunity. It overturns 
well over 200 years of civil law, 200 years of tort law, 200 years of 
common law.
  If it passes, this bill would fundamentally change our justice 
system. It would do this by denying one group of citizens access to the 
court system in order to protect another group.
  Why in the world are we about to do this? The only reason I can think 
of is because there are the votes here to do it. There is the power to 
do it. It can be done. One group in the country can get it done.
  Now, Mr. President, I can count. I know how this vote is going to 
turn

[[Page 18934]]

out. But that still does not make it right. Just because there are 
votes to pass this legislation does not mean it is the right bill for 
our country, for the victims, or for the American people.
  I said this last year, and I will say it again. I will make a 
prediction about this bill. I will make a prediction about the effect 
it will have on this group of victims. Yes, the passage of this bill 
will get rid of some frivolous lawsuits. There is no doubt about that. 
We could get rid of a lot of frivolous lawsuits in this country by 
prohibiting access to the courthouse. There will be lawsuits that will 
never be filed because of this bill. That is true. There is no doubt 
about that.
  But, Mr. President and Members of the Senate, mark my words: If this 
bill passes, in the future there will be a case, or cases, that will be 
so egregious, so bad, that it will sicken your stomach, and Members of 
this Senate will read about it, and Members of this Senate will look up 
from their paper, or will look up from the evening news, and will say: 
I didn't intend to do that. I didn't intend for that victim not to be 
able to go into court. I didn't intend for that child, that man, that 
woman not to be able to sue that defendant. Oh, I never intended that.
  There will be that case, and that day will come. And whether it is a 
terrorist who is the defendant or whether it is some horrible criminal 
or whether it is some horribly negligent gun dealer--whoever it is--
there will be some case, and we will see it, and we will live to regret 
this day. You cannot arbitrarily close the door to the courthouse and 
say, ``You cannot come in, victim, if you are of a certain class,'' and 
not have injustice done. You cannot do it. That day will occur, and we 
will regret what we are about to do.
  There is an additional aspect of this bill that has not been talked a 
lot about; and that is the fact that it is retroactive. It would 
actually kick existing cases out of court. How dare we do that. How 
dare we have the audacity to do that. How dare we in this Congress come 
to the Senate floor and wipe out every lawsuit that has been filed in 
this country that would come within the parameters of this bill. How 
arrogant are we to do that? Did we really get elected to the Senate to 
tell crime victims that their case is frivolous, without ever even 
knowing the facts of that particular case?
  We will have in front of us, in a few weeks, a Supreme Court nominee. 
There will be a lot of talk, as there already has been, about the 
separation of powers. There will be a lot of talk about judicial 
restraint, as well there should be. I probably will be talking about it 
as well.
  What about legislative restraint? We do not talk much about that. We 
get mad here on Capitol Hill when we pass a bill and the Supreme Court 
says we did not have the power to pass that bill. I think we should 
remember what our role is. I do not think anyone elected us to the 
Senate to bar their ability to go into court--not to completely bar the 
door. I think it is one thing to set standards and parameters and maybe 
limits. You can talk about that. But to totally say, ``You can't go 
into court,'' I think we ought to think long and hard before we do 
this.
  If passed, this bill would kick people out of court retroactively. It 
would not just bar people from coming to the courthouse. Apparently, 
that is not enough. No. What this bill does is kick people out who are 
already in court. It kicks people out who have already survived motions 
to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. It likely even tosses out 
victims who have won at trial and are defending their cases on appeal. 
To me, that is just plain wrong.
  The courts are supposed to decide these cases. Juries are supposed to 
decide them. People are supposed to have their day in court. That is 
how our system is supposed to work. I do not think it is my job or the 
job of other Members of the Senate to judge these cases. It is not our 
job to determine whether these cases should or should not proceed. It 
is not my job to determine whether someone is negligent or is not 
negligent.
  I also think it is not my job to tell a victim that he or she does 
not have the right to go to court and present a case to a judge or a 
jury. People in this country are supposed to have their day in court. 
That is fundamentally the American way. This bill creates two classes 
of victims in this country. If you are injured by any industry in 
America, you can file a lawsuit in State court in an attempt to redress 
your injury. After the passage of this bill, however, if you are 
injured by the gun industry, you are likely out of luck.
  Other industries face legal challenges. Other industries, other 
defendants, have had lawsuits filed against them they do not like. 
Other defendants, every single day in this country, face suits that in 
their eyes, many times, are frivolous, that they cannot stand, that 
they do not think are fair. But they are not here petitioning us, 
telling us we should pass a law that blocks the ability of someone to 
sue them. Other industries are involved in cases where many people die. 
We understand that. We do not grant to them this kind of immunity from 
civil liability.
  I support the second amendment. I support individuals' rights to own 
guns. I support gun manufacturers. I support legitimate gun dealers. 
And I support responsible tort reform. I certainly understand there are 
some abuses in the system, and that sometimes Congress needs to act to 
prevent these abuses. For example, just recently, I voted in favor of 
class action reform, and we passed that legislation to modify certain 
class action procedures.
  But what we are about to do in this Congress, in this Senate, is 
wrong. This bill keeps victims out of court altogether. This bill is 
unfair to victims. But more important than that, it is a horrible 
precedent. If we do this, this time, what is to stop a future 
Congress--where there are the votes, maybe configured differently--from 
saying: ``Oh, there is another group of victims, and we need to protect 
them, another group of victims that we are not going to protect, 
another group of defendants that we are going to protect, another group 
of victims to whom we are going to say, you can't sue them, you can't 
get your day in court''?
  If we deny this group of victims in front of us today their rights, 
what is to stop a future Congress from denying another group of victims 
their rights?
  We need to think about this long and hard before we cast this vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           The Good Neighbor

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President,

     The roses red upon my neighbor's vine
     Are owned by him, but they are also mine.
     His was the cost, and his the labor, too,
     But mine as well as his the joy, their loveliness to view.

     They bloom for me and are for me as fair
     As for the man who gives them all his care.
     Thus I am rich because a good man grew
     A rose-clad vine for all his neighbors' view.

     I know from this that others plant for me,
     That what they own my joy may also be;
     So why be selfish when so much that's fine
     Is grown for me upon my neighbor's vine?

  The appreciation of a good neighbor is among the oldest, most 
cherished, and enduring of human values. It is a value that transcends 
both time and space.
  This value was vividly and eloquently expressed more than 2,000 years 
ago in the Bible which commands us in eight different passages to love 
our neighbors: Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39, Mark 
12:31, Luke 10:27, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8. In fact, 
this is one of the most repeated commands in the Scripture. In other 
passages, the Bible tells us how to treat our neighbors, Proverbs 25:17 
and Romans 15:2; and in others warns us against mistreating our 
neighbors, Deuteronomy 19:14, Exodus 20:16, Proverbs 3:29.
  The appreciation of a good neighbor is also a value that knows no 
cultural or geographical boundaries. An old Chinese proverb, for 
example, maintains that ``a good neighbor is a found treasure.''
  In the United States, towns and states celebrate Good Neighbor Days. 
Across the country, municipalities,

[[Page 18935]]

corporations, radio stations, and newspapers present Good Neighbor 
Awards. Stores and businesses proclaim ``Good Neighbor Days'' to 
promote sales. Since the early 1970s, the Federal Government has 
celebrated an annual Good Neighbor Day. This year Good Neighbor Day 
will be observed on September 25.
  The web site for the national Good Neighbor Day points out that 
``being good neighbors is an important part of the social fabric that 
makes ours a great country.'' Indeed it is. Good neighbors are always 
there when you need them, offering a helping hand, providing comfort.
  Seldom have I observed a stronger sense of neighborliness than among 
the coal miners in the West Virginia communities where I spent my 
boyhood years. Fred Mooney, a leading figure in organizing the West 
Virginia coal miners in the early Twentieth Century, in his 
autobiography, ``Struggle in the Coal Fields,'' recalled how his coal-
mining neighbors, although themselves quite poor, sacrificed to help 
him and his family with food and clothes after he had been fired from 
his job and blacklisted for his union activities. Mooney explained, 
``This is the spirit of fellowship, love, and devotion that permeates 
the life of a union coal miner. He will give until it hurts and then 
divide the rest.''
  That, Mr. President, is loving thy neighbor: ``giv[ing] until it 
hurts'' and expecting nothing in return.
  I have observed this sense of neighborliness following mine 
explosions, floods, and other disasters that have befallen on my state 
over the years. I will never forget how the people of Buffalo Creek, 
WV, came together following a disastrous flood in that community. How 
they worked together and shared together while caring for and 
comforting each other, thus enabling themselves and their neighbors to 
survive that horrible tragedy. Being a good neighbor involves most 
often small, simple acts of kindness. The former Speaker of the House 
of Representatives, Tip O'Neill, liked to point out that ``all politics 
is local.'' Being a good neighbor is also local. It begins right over 
the backyard fence. It involves small, simple acts of kindness, as well 
as dramatic gestures during catastrophic events.
  A good neighbor is the friendly face who shows up with a cake or a 
pie at the house of a family who has a member who is ill. A good 
neighbor is a person who mows the lawn of the widow down the street. He 
may be the handyman who is quick to pull out his tool belt when a 
neighbor has a busted pipe, or a mechanic who starts his neighbor's car 
on a cold winter morning so he can get to work. He is a neighbor who 
will cheerfully shovel your sidewalk when it snows, or rake leaves, 
just to make life easier for you.
  Such simple acts of kindness are part of the social fabric that makes 
for a better community, a better country, and a better world.
  I am thinking now of a neighbor who lives about 3 miles from where I 
live in McLean, VA. I have known him a good many years. His name is 
James Nobles. Jim Nobles is a neighbor who is always seeking ways to 
help my wife Erma and to help me. Many is the time that he has come to 
my home and sat and talked with my wife, who has gone through a long 
period of illness, an illness of going on 5 years. Many times Jim 
Nobles has come by and sat on the front porch with Erma and talked with 
her. So when Erma and I have been busy or tired, Jim Nobles somehow 
appears at our door with a basket of food or a cake from the local 
Giant store. He provides us with transportation if we need it.
  On cold winter days, often to my surprise and my delight, I have 
looked out the glass windows, and I have seen him out shoveling the 
snow from the walkway to the mailbox. I find he has already shoveled 
the snow off my sidewalk.
  When he is able, he makes sure that my newspaper is on my porch in 
the morning. There it is, the Washington Post. There it is, Roll Call. 
There it is, The Hill. Jim Nobles gets up, comes over to my house, 3 
miles from where he lives, and brings the papers off the sidewalk onto 
my porch. I can always tell that it is Jim Nobles because he also 
places the newspapers in the same fashion in the same place right there 
at my door. That is a good neighbor. He comes when my hedges have grown 
a little too long. He tops off the hedges. He shapes them up. When 
there are some dead limbs on the trees in my front yard, he cuts off 
those dead limbs and hauls them away. That is Jim Nobles.
  Sometimes Jim goes on a vacation. He is retired now. He goes on a 
vacation. He has a place somewhere down in Virginia, perhaps 100 miles 
away or more from where we live. Sometimes he goes and spends a few 
days there at that place. Then what am I to do but go out and get the 
paper. I have to get up, go out and get the newspaper. It is not a 
great chore, but it is something.
  But lo, to my surprise, the newspaper keeps on being delivered to my 
door. So for quite a while, I wondered, who is the other good neighbor 
who pinch-hits when Jim Nobles is away?
  On two or three occasions, I have sat up just to try to catch that 
other good neighbor delivering that newspaper. I remember on one 
occasion I got up early and I put a little chair beside the front door 
and I sat there and watched, waiting for that person to walk up and 
deliver my paper. Jim Nobles was away. But, you know, that neighbor on 
that particular occasion didn't come, didn't deliver that paper.
  So time has gone on, and this morning, I decided I am going to catch 
this neighbor this time--this good neighbor who delivers my newspaper 
when Jim Nobles is away on vacation. So there I sat. This time, luck 
was with me. I saw her come down the street, pick up the newspaper, 
pick up the Roll Call and The Hill. She came up to the door and put the 
papers in the spot there and away she darted. It was then that I turned 
the key in the door. I said, ``Lady, would you wait just a minute? I 
want to know more about you. What is your name? I want to thank you for 
delivering this to my door when Mr. Nobles is not here.''
  I came to find out that this was a lady from the Philippines. She 
worked in the area. She doesn't live in the immediate area, but she 
comes into the area on a bus, she gets off the bus, and on her way to 
the residence where she works during the day, she stops, picks up the 
newspaper out there on the sidewalk near my mailbox, walks up to my 
door, and puts that paper down. Finally, I found this caring, good 
neighbor whose name I had been wishing to learn. Her name is Ms. Mary 
Lucas, from the Philippines. I told her this morning that I was in the 
Philippines 50 years ago this year. I had breakfast at that time with 
the late President Magsaysay, who was later killed in a plane crash.
  So there she was, a good neighbor making her way to work, doing a 
special favor for someone like myself and then going on, not receiving 
my thanks. This could have gone on a long time, as it had already gone 
on a long time. I finally found her and found out her name.
  I must confess that at times I feel a little guilty because I am not 
a better neighbor. My work in the Senate, my family life, and my other 
responsibilities prevent me from performing the kind, neighborly acts 
that Mr. Nobles and Ms. Lucas have performed for me over the years. But 
they, in the truest neighborly ways, never expressed any complaint. 
They never want anything in return; they never expect anything in 
return. They just want to be good neighbors. And they are. Indeed, they 
are treasures.
  Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to 
say how fortunate I am to have such good neighbors. I thought it might 
encourage all of us to think a little more about being better 
neighbors. It is the human touch that makes a better community, a 
better country, a better world. And so on this day in July, in this 
year of our Lord, I want to thank God for good neighbors, for the 
inspiration they have given to me and to Erma, for the goodness they 
have shared with her and with me.
  I close with a bit of verse by Edgar Guest:

     I have a kindly neighbor, one who stands

[[Page 18936]]

     Beside my gate and chats with me awhile,
     Gives me the glory of his radiant smile
     And comes at times to help with willing hands.
     No station high or rank this man commands;
     He, too, must trudge, as I, the long day's mile;
     And yet, devoid of pomp or gaudy style,
     He has a worth exceeding stocks of lands.

     To him I go when sorrow's at my door;
     On him I lean when burdens come my way;
     Together oft we talked our trials o'er,
     And there is warmth in each good night we say.
     A kindly neighbor! Wars and strife shall end
     When man has made the man next door his friend.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for my fellow Senators, let me try to bring 
us up to speed on where we are. We now have all of the amendments filed 
and are looking at them and have studied a good number of them over the 
last hour and a half to determine how we might dispose of them. We are 
hoping we can put something together.
  Senator Warner from Virginia is here to talk a bit more about his 
legislation. I see my colleague, the floor manager from the Democrat 
side, also here. I do want Members to know we are working to see if we 
cannot bring some finality to this process in a precloture environment 
or resolve that issue so we can complete our work on not only this but 
clear the issue of an energy conference which is privileged, a CAFTA 
recognition of the House bill versus the Senate vehicle, which is 
privileged, and that can come before us so that we can complete our 
work in a timely fashion tomorrow and not spill ourselves into 
Saturday, as could be the case strictly under the rules of the Senate. 
We hope we may be able to avoid that.
  I hope that within a little while, we may be able to look at a 
package and offer it to our colleagues for their consideration.
  Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation and 
collaboration. I am pleased also that you are looking closely at these 
amendments. My position is simple. I believe the amendments are 
relevant. I hope we can have votes on all of them. I particularly think 
Senator Warner's amendment is relevant, pertinent, and important. I 
hope he can offer that. But it is my hope that we can bring all of the 
pertinent amendments up, with appropriate timing, and conclude.
  As we stand now, as the rules require, there will be a cloture vote 
sometime tomorrow. I think I understand also that after that cloture 
vote, moving from the gun liability bill to any of the other 
provisions--energy or the Transportation bill--would require unanimous 
consent. That is another factor that should be considered. So I hope we 
can resolve this this evening.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague for that concern. We will be diligent 
in it. As you know, in the current environment, these conference 
reports are privileged and they can take us off the floor by the action 
of leadership for that consideration. That might occur later in the 
evening tonight. I am not sure that is the case, but that could occur.
  Mr. REED. If I may say, my understanding is that once cloture is 
invoked, to move off the 30 hours of cloture cannot be done by a 
privileged motion, but by unanimous consent.
  Mr. CRAIG. I don't dispute that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for 
keeping the Senate advised. I have an amendment that has been filed. I 
think at this point I will make the motion and ask for the reaction of 
the managers.
  Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that we lay 
aside the pending amendment such that my amendment No. 1625, which is 
on file, could be given the status of the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Under the 
current environment, I will object.
  I do so with this concern in mind. I don't question the sincerity of 
the Senator from Virginia for the offering of his amendment. I will say 
that it is similar to but not exactly like the Levin amendment that we 
have just disposed of. It deals with the issue of negligence or 
reckless conduct.
  There are differences, and the Senator from Virginia may wish to 
point those out. But it is important for the Senate to know that in 
their similarities, the Senate rejected overwhelmingly, by the largest 
vote yet, the issue of negligence and reckless conduct, for it is 
clearly recognized now by a majority of the Senate that this would 
drive a major loophole through this legislation and deny the very 
legislation and its intent. I certainly would not want that to happen. 
For that purpose, I will object to laying aside the pending amendment 
and bringing the Warner amendment to the Senate floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend for being 
absolutely forthright. I am fully aware of the parliamentary situation. 
The distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader--to the 
extent that he has participated--are acting within the rules of the 
Senate. I do not ascribe any impropriety whatsoever to the exercise by 
any Senator at any time of the rules of the Senate. But it does put 
persons like myself who feel very strongly about amendments we have in 
a unique situation. I would like to support this bill, but I have grave 
reservations about those provisions relating to the dealers, and I'd 
like to have my amendment considered. I will express them momentarily. 
But the parliamentary situation, as the Senator has explained, does not 
allow me the opportunity at this juncture--although I may persist by 
other means--to get this amendment to be given the pending status.
  I inquire of the Presiding Officer if the Parliamentarian would 
examine amendment No. 1625 to determine whether it is germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that the 
amendment is germane to the bill.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. So I have here an amendment that is 
clearly germane. I regret deeply that I am not able to bring it up such 
that I and other Senators could debate it and have a rollcall vote, 
which I would ask for, and if granted, we could allow each Senator to 
express his or her views on this amendment.
  Now, the manager said that we had a debate on the Levin amendment, 
and I supported the goal of the Senator from Michigan. And I listened 
to my distinguished colleague from Ohio as he spoke on this general 
subject. But my amendment is quite different from the Levin amendment. 
The Levin amendment would cause the gun industry, as some said, to 
suffer a death by a thousand cuts because it would essentially gut the 
bill. The Warner amendment does not come anywhere near to gutting the 
bill.
  I feel very strongly that of the gun dealers across this country, if 
we were able to make an assessment and evaluation, 99 percent of them 
are law-abiding citizens. They not only want to stay within the law, 
but they also do not want to be a part in any way of the use of a 
firearm that might be involved in a crime.
  My amendment is to focus in on those dealers who have, over a period 
of time, experienced, again and again, the loss of firearms from their 
inventory. And if it can be factually established that a dealer has a 
record of practices that for one reason or another--probably due to 
negligence--enables weapons in that dealer's inventory to find their 
way illegally into the hands of criminals, then that dealer should not 
be granted the benefits afforded by this bill. Nor should such dealers 
be spared from a closer inquiry into why they have an established 
record of having guns go out of that dealership that they cannot 
account for.
  My amendment does not affect the protection from the frivolous 
lawsuits that exist under this bill. My amendment only addresses that 
narrow category of dealers who have a record of,

[[Page 18937]]

again and again, mismanaging their inventory in such a way that they 
cannot account for a large number of weapons.
  More specifically, my amendment does not take away the protections 
which 99 percent of the gun dealers should be able to avail themselves 
of, the honest ones, under this bill. I don't do that. My amendment is 
solely directed at those very few--I repeat, very few--dealers who have 
established a history of lost or stolen weapons as defined by the 
Attorney General of the United States pursuant to regulations that my 
amendment would call upon the Attorney General to promulgate for the 
industry. My amendment would enable the industry and, most 
particularly, the small gun dealers to know exactly what are the 
regulations that should be followed to maintain that inventory and 
conduct their business so that weapons cannot disappear and, by such 
disappearance, fall into the hands of criminals. That is what my 
amendment does. Maybe 1 percent of the dealers would be affected by 
this amendment. The other 99 percent are accorded the benefits of the 
underlying legislation.
  Why can't we in the Senate voice our opinions on this concept? 
Regrettably, the decision has been made that at this time the amendment 
cannot be, even though germane, brought up in such a way as the entire 
Senate can focus upon it.
  My amendment is not an attempt to gut the bill. Indeed, I recognize 
the gun industry, as I said last night, needs some reasonable, 
balanced, measure of tort reform. My amendment is offered in good 
faith, I say to the Senate. It is not just to protect the possible 
victims from criminal use of a weapon, but it is to protect the law-
abiding gun dealers.
  If this legislation remains as it is now, without some type of 
correction, such as mine, there will undoubtedly be unintended 
consequences.
  We need look no further than our own backyard, based on the 
experiences we had here in the Nation's Capital and in adjoining 
Maryland and in my State of Virginia, with snipers committing wanton 
murder. The snipers illegally obtained their gun out of a gun shop that 
the record shows lost over 200 weapons over a period of a year or two. 
If another such tragic incident were to occur with a gun dealer who had 
a similar record of irresponsibility, and that gun dealer was immune 
from lawsuit, that would cast a very negative feeling all across 
America toward the gun industry and the gun dealers. They would be 
called to task to explain why they supported a law, if this is to 
become law, that would allow that to happen.
  My words are one thing, but I want to bring to the attention of the 
Senate a document that I find very interesting. In my modest career in 
the Nation's Capital and in Virginia, I have met a number of lawyers in 
my time, but one whom recently passed on--I remember working with him 
on a number of cases, even when I was in private practice--I will never 
forget. I go that far back, knowing Lloyd N. Cutler of the prestigious 
law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering.
  Lloyd Cutler was asked by the Brady organization--Jim Brady, we all 
remember, was President Reagan's press secretary who suffered a 
frightful injury at the time there was an assassination attempt against 
our President. He and his courageous wife in the ensuing years have 
been unrelenting in their efforts to try and have a balance across 
America between the rights of those who acquire guns under the second 
amendment--and I strongly support the second amendment of the 
Constitution.
  But in any event, on January 15, 2004, Mr. Cutler wrote the 
organization which asked him to diagnose cases and the basic tenets and 
provisions of the legislation that is pending today.
  I ask unanimous consent to print portions of this opinion into the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering,

                                 Washington, DC, January 15, 2004.
     Re effect of S. 1805 (108th Cong.) on Johnson, et al. v. 
         Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, et al., No. 03-2-03932-8 
         (Wash. Super. Ct.)

     Mr. Michael Barnes,
     President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Barnes: As you have requested, I have reviewed the 
     likely effect on litigation brought against a firearms 
     manufacturer and dealer in Johnson, et al. v. Bull's Eye 
     Shooter Supply, et al., No. 03-2-03932-8 (Wash. Super. Ct.), 
     if S. 1805 (108th Cong., 1st Sess.) were enacted into law in 
     its current form. . . . The Johnson case is a suit for 
     damages brought by victims of the Washington, D.C., area 
     snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, against 
     Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., the manufacturer of the semi-
     automatic assault rifle used by Muhammad and Malvo, and 
     Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the firearms dealer from which 
     Malvo allegedly stole that rifle. S. 1805, also known as the 
     Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, would broadly 
     prohibit many kinds of civil actions against manufacturers 
     and dealers of firearms for damages resulting from the misuse 
     of firearms manufactured by or obtained from them.
       S. 1805 contains much of the language of an earlier bill, 
     S. 659 (108th Cong., 1st Sess.), which similarly would 
     broadly prohibit civil actions against firearms manufacturers 
     and dealers.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will read the last paragraph:

       Accordingly, I conclude that the Johnson case does not fall 
     within the saving provision of the Daschle amendment or any 
     other saving provision of S. 1805 would have to be dismissed 
     if S. 1805 were enacted into law.

  S. 1805 is legislation from the 108th Congress that is nearly exact 
to the bill before us today in the Senate. The Johnson case is a case 
brought by the victims of the DC snipers--I repeat, the DC snipers, the 
serious murders about which I spoke. Those victims could not have 
collected had this underlying legislation before the Senate been law at 
that time.
  Is that what this Senate wants? I don't think so. I think I, and 
possibly other Senators, deserve the opportunity to go into greater 
length with regard to that provision which does not by any reading give 
the protection that is needed to victims should a dealer again and 
again have lost or stolen weapons from its inventory utilized for 
purposes of a crime. The bill as drafted does not give the protection 
we need, and I simply ask, let us impose on the Attorney General of the 
United States, if this legislation were to pass and remain on the books 
for an indeterminate period, let that Attorney General of the United 
States decide how best to analyze the gun dealers to establish a 
framework of regulations that would guide them in the conduct of their 
business such that we hope a weapon would never escape the inventory 
and find its way into the hands of the criminal.
  I fear some day we are going to see another case. I hope not. But if 
we do, maybe somebody will come back and examine the record of this 
colloquy and this debate and reflect on the gun industry's desire to 
get legislation that does not protect the American public against the 
negligence and wrongful actions of a very small percentage of gun 
dealers, maybe at most 1 or 2 percent. That is all I ask.
  I see the manager. Does the manager wish to pose a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I do not. I was only going to respond briefly to the 
Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Please. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, again, I don't question the sincerity or 
how the Senator from Virginia feels about this issue and the amendment 
he has offered. But I think it is important to recognize how the 
current law works.
  It does not mean it is perfect, and it does not mean it is always 
effective. But the Bull's Eye arms dealership in the State of 
Washington, from which John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, the two snipers who 
terrorized Washington, Northern Virginia, and Maryland for a time, 
stole their firearm, had a record of repeated recordkeeping violations 
and, as a result of that, their license was pulled. The owner of that 
dealership no longer has his license.
  I don't know if the Bull's Eye is still in business, but if it is, it 
is under a new dealer. Why? Here is the reason why. If you are a 
licensed firearms manufacturer in the United States--and all are under 
the Federal firearms

[[Page 18938]]

licensing--whether you are a manufacturer or a licensed dealer, you 
must report within 48 hours missing weapons. If they have been stolen 
or misinventoried, they have to be reported. They have to be reported 
to the ATF, and they have to be reported to local law enforcement 
officers in the area as a possible theft, meaning that those guns are 
out there in the market. So there already is a Federal law and a 
mechanism that is at work to attempt to accomplish this.
  If, by that reporting, negligence can be demonstrated, this bill does 
not protect in any sense of the word negligent entrustment. That is 
very clear.
  It was argued by a variety of our colleagues earlier in the day as it 
related to the Levin amendment--and that is the connective thread I 
spoke about earlier--it is important to understand that we are not 
without very strict laws today as it relates to the control of 
inventories of firearms in federally licensed firearms dealers' 
business locations and manufacturers. If there is a demonstration of 
negligence, licenses can be pulled and those people can be taken out of 
business, and they are.
  Of course, in the case of the DC snipers--the tragedy we all lived 
through here--we know the end result tragically enough--people lost 
their lives. One of those men will be executed and the other is now in 
prison for life, and the dealership, or at least the owner of that 
dealership at the time, is out of business and will not get another 
license. That is the situation.
  It appeared at least that they made mistakes in their recordkeeping. 
As a result of that, they lost their license. If that is the case--I 
cannot argue, I am not an attorney--that is a clear case of negligent 
entrustment, but it appears it may have been--if that is the case, I am 
quite sure that prosecution will move forward. If it is not, so on. 
Now, in the case of the West Virginia incident that we all know well, 
the lemon jello case, a straw dealer or a straw purchaser, the firearms 
dealer was wise to it, and as a result reported it. So I think it is 
important to suggest that the law is out there and the law is clear and 
the ATF enforces the law. The law says firearms stolen, report it; 
inventory off, report it; 48 or you run the risk of losing your license 
and being put out of business, manufacturer or dealer.
  So I do not want any of our colleagues to assume that this is an open 
area of the law. It is not. By the level of enforcement that the 
Federal Government and the Justice Department can deliver, it is a 
clearly enforceable and an enforced section of firearms law in this 
country. I think that is important for the record to demonstrate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to reply to my good friend. 
The Senator is absolutely correct about the reporting requirements, but 
the reality is that some dealers ignore those requirements. They are 
totally unscrupulous, negligent, and ignore them. The recordkeeping 
requirements did not prevent Bull's Eye from losing 200 guns. They went 
ahead and ignored it. I strongly urge that we allow my amendment. It is 
but really one sentence. It simply says: On page 8, line 21, before the 
semicolon insert the following, or an action against a seller that has 
an established history of qualified products--that is the guns--being 
lost or stolen, under such criteria as shall be established by the 
Attorney General of the United States by regulation for an injury or 
death caused by a qualified product that was in the possession of the 
seller but subsequently lost or stolen.
  We have to have a stronger enforcement mechanism than is in the 
underlying bill. It has to be strengthened. I say to my good friend, I 
respectfully disagree, and I think the confirmation by this 
distinguished counsel, Lloyd Cutler, who concluded that had this 
statute that the Senator seeks been in effect at the time of the 
snipers, they could have gotten out from under it.
  Some sellers of guns repeatedly are losing firearms or having guns 
stolen and that is irresponsible behavior on its face. It has to be 
regulated, and it has to be regulated by the chief law enforcement 
officer of the United States, the Attorney General.
  So I thank the Senator for the opportunity to speak to this. I once 
again plead with the Senator to allow this amendment, which is germane. 
If it were not germane, I would say to myself I gave it a good try. I 
ask the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, is this amendment of 
mine involved in any discussions, might I inquire?
  Mr. REED. I say to the Senator from Virginia, we think his amendment 
is very commendable, and we would like to see it brought forward for 
debate and a vote. I have made that point privately, and I make it now 
publicly. We think it is, as the Senator says, germane and relevant. I 
think the Senator is owed a vote, and I would like to see it happen.
  Unfortunately, we are having difficulties clearing any amendments, 
including the Senator's, for voting on the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it was my understanding that the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and the distinguished Senator 
from Idaho were working on a possible package of amendments, and the 
Senator now advises me my amendment is in that package under 
consideration. Is that a fact?
  Mr. REED. I have asked that that amendment be considered. We are 
waiting. We were not impatient, but there is a limit to patience. I 
would point out, too, that there will be an attempt this evening to 
move to other matters such as CAFTA and the Energy bill which will take 
away time to debate a vote on the pending gun liability bill. I just 
think we have wasted too much time, that we should establish some rules 
with respect to the amendments, vote on those amendments and move 
forward towards a cloture vote.
  Mr. WARNER. If I may make a brief reply, I thank my colleague from 
Rhode Island. I think the managers are working on this situation. I am 
glad that my amendment is part of the consideration, and I just hope it 
is granted. As far as the business of the Senate, I entrust it to the 
majority leader and the Democratic leader as to what matters should be 
taken up at what time in relation to this bill. So I cannot make any 
comment on that and do not make one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. If I would not offend my distinguished friend from Rhode 
Island or my dear friend from Virginia, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________




                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the last 30 minutes or so, we have been 
putting together an orderly way to address several issues: the 
underlying bill, the gun liability bill; CAFTA; and the energy report, 
which we received from the House. I know a lot of our colleagues are 
wondering about voting both tonight--we will have one more vote 
tonight, and I will go through the request--and then we will have a 
very busy day tomorrow. We will be here late tonight as well.
  Mr. President, first of all, I will be addressing the issue on gun 
liability.

                          ____________________




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 397

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes the gun legislation tomorrow, immediately following 
morning business, the only remaining amendments other than pending 
amendments be the following: Reid amendment No. 1642, 30 minutes 
equally divided; Kennedy amendment No. 1615 and a first degree, 
relevant, to be offered by the majority leader or his designee, with 40 
minutes equally divided to be used concurrently on both amendments; 
Cor-
zine amendment No. 1619 and a first degree, relevant, to be offered by 
the majority leader or his designee, with the

[[Page 18939]]

same time limitation as above; Lautenberg amendment No. 1620 and a 
first degree, relevant, to be offered by the majority leader or his 
designee, again with the same time limitation.
  I further ask consent that the cloture vote be vitiated and that 
following the disposition of the above-listed amendments, the pending 
Craig and Frist amendments be agreed to and there then be 20 minutes 
for closing marks, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate 
proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or 
debate.
  Further, I ask consent that where there are two first degrees to be 
voted upon, the majority alternative is first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL AMERICA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 
                           IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3045, the House-passed 
CAFTA legislation. I further ask consent that the statutory debate time 
be reduced to 20 minutes, equally divided, and that following the use 
or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the measure 
without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I appreciate 
everyone's patience and courtesy this afternoon as we worked through 
this matter that led to our agreeing to this agreement just a minute 
ago. It has been very difficult. It is a very contentious issue. 
Feelings are high on both sides. Everyone acted like ladies and 
gentlemen. We worked it out, and I think it speaks well of the Senate.
  I would ask the distinguished majority leader, having reserved the 
right to object on his latest request, it is my understanding that 
immediately upon this request being adopted, we will go to S. 792; is 
that right?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is correct. I have two unanimous 
consent requests. One is on S. 792, and one is on the energy report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
majority leader, will that vote on CAFTA be a rollcall vote?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will go through the whole schedule 
shortly, if I can get through the unanimous consent request. Very 
briefly, we will have a rollcall vote on CAFTA in about 30 minutes, 25 
minutes. Whenever we finish that, it would be the last rollcall vote 
tonight. We will begin voting again tomorrow.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. I have two further unanimous consent requests, and then we 
can review everything.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________




       ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION DATABASE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 792 and that 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will please report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 792) to establish a National sex offender 
     registration database, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my agreement with the majority leader was 
that we would pass by consent S. 792 which the Senate passed by consent 
last year. We are now passing it once again to go to the House. This 
deals with sexual predators. This legislation is called ``Dru's Law.''
  My colleagues and I who have joined together to pass this legislation 
tonight do so in honor of this wonderful young woman who was tragically 
murdered in a parking lot in Grand Forks, ND. The man accused of 
murdering Dru Sjodin spent 23 years in prison. He was a violent sexual 
predator who was let of prison with a wave. So long. Check in now and 
then. Compare that, for example, to Martha Stewart, who was let out of 
prison but had to wear an electronic ankle bracelet.
  Violent sexual predators judged to be at high risk for committing 
another violent sexual act are let out of prison with a wave. As a 
result, this young woman, Dru Sjodin, was tragically murdered. This is 
the man who spent 23 years behind bars. The psychiatrists said before 
he was released that he was a high risk for committing another violent 
sexual act. Within 6 months, he is now accused of murdering this young 
woman.
  It is not only this man. It is Mr. Duncan. Remember the last couple 
of weeks, the two young children kidnapped, one murdered. The other is 
still alive, with her family dead. We know about this man. He raped a 
16-year-old boy at gunpoint, a violent sexual predator. Last April, he 
was put in the arms of law enforcement and let out on $15,000 bail. 
More Americans are dead because of it.
  This is not some mysterious illness for which we don't know the cure. 
We know what causes it and we know how to stop it. Again, if Martha 
Stewart has to wear an electronic ankle bracelet ordered by a judge, 
then surely violent sexual predators, when and if released, can be 
highly monitored by local governments. Surely, we ought to decide that 
if violent sexual predators are a high risk for reoffending, then the 
local State's attorney ought to be notified in case they want to seek a 
civil commitment to protect the public at large.
  This bill does three things: One, create a national sex offender 
registry; No. 2, if a violent offender judged to be at high-risk is to 
be released from prison, the local State's attorney must first be 
notified so they can seek additional civil commitment; No. 3, if a 
high-risk sexual predator is released, then there must be maintenance 
and monitoring of that sex offender. No more ``so long, see you at the 
prison door,'' for a violent sexual predator.
  We must stop this. How many more Americans will lose their lives? How 
many kids are going to be killed before we do the right thing?
  Tonight the Senate takes an important step in the right direction. 
Senator Specter and I and others who have authored this legislation--
Senators Dayton, Clinton, and others--have decided that enough is 
enough. It is long past time to do what is right with respect to 
dealing with sexual predators and protecting the American people. We do 
this in the name of and in honor of Dru Sjodin, a young woman who 
tragically lost her life.
  Perhaps in her name, with this legislation, we can save other lives. 
I feel good about what we do tonight in passing Dru's Law.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Dorgan 
substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be 
read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any 
statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1643) was agreed to, as follows:

                   (Purpose: To propose a substitute)

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Dru Sjodin National Sex 
     Offender Public Database Act of 2005'' or ``Dru's Law''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       In this Act:
       (1) Criminal offense against a victim who is a minor.--The 
     term ``criminal offense

[[Page 18940]]

     against a victim who is a minor'' has the same meaning as in 
     section 170101(a)(3) of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against 
     Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 
     U.S.C. 14071(a)(3)).
       (2) Minimally sufficient sexual offender registration 
     program.--The term ``minimally sufficient sexual offender 
     registration program'' has the same meaning as in section 
     170102(a) of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 
     Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 
     14072(a)).
       (3) Sexually violent offense.--The term ``sexually violent 
     offense'' has the same meaning as in section 170101(a)(3) of 
     the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)(3)).
       (4) Sexually violent predator.--The term ``sexually violent 
     predator'' has the same meaning as in section 170102(a) of 
     the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14072(a)).

     SEC. 3. AVAILABILITY OF THE NSOR DATABASE TO THE PUBLIC.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall--
       (1) make publicly available in a registry (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``public registry'') from information 
     contained in the National Sex Offender Registry or State sex 
     offender web sites, via the Internet, all information 
     described in subsection (b); and
       (2) allow for users of the public registry to determine 
     which registered sex offenders are currently residing within 
     a radius, as specified by the user of the public registry, of 
     the location indicated by the user of the public registry.
       (b) Information Available in Public Registry.--With respect 
     to any person convicted of a criminal offense against a 
     victim who is a minor or a sexually violent offense, or any 
     sexually violent predator, required to register with a 
     minimally sufficient sexual offender registration program 
     within a State, including a program established under section 
     170101 of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 
     Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 
     14071(b)), the public registry shall provide, to the extent 
     available in the National Sex Offender Registry--
       (1) the name and any known aliases of the person;
       (2) the date of birth of the person;
       (3) the current address of the person and any subsequent 
     changes of that address;
       (4) a physical description and current photograph of the 
     person;
       (5) the nature of and date of commission of the offense by 
     the person;
       (6) the date on which the person is released from prison, 
     or placed on parole, supervised release, or probation; and
       (7) any other information the Attorney General considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 4. RELEASE OF HIGH RISK INMATES.

       (a) Civil Commitment Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--Any State that provides for a civil 
     commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding, shall 
     issue timely notice to the attorney general of that State of 
     the impending release of any person incarcerated by the State 
     who--
       (A) is a sexually violent predator; or
       (B) has been deemed by the State to be at high risk for 
     recommitting any sexually violent offense or criminal offense 
     against a victim who is a minor.
       (2) Review.--Upon receiving notice under paragraph (1), the 
     State attorney general shall consider whether or not to 
     institute a civil commitment proceeding, or any equivalent 
     proceeding required under State law.
       (b) Monitoring of Released Persons.--
       (1) In general.--Each State shall intensively monitor, for 
     not less than 1 year, any person described under paragraph 
     (2) who--
       (A) has been unconditionally released from incarceration by 
     the State; and
       (B) has not been civilly committed pursuant to a civil 
     commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding under 
     State law.
       (2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to--
       (A) any sexually violent predator; or
       (B) any person who has been deemed by the State to be at 
     high risk for recommitting any sexually violent offense or 
     criminal offense against a victim who is a minor.
       (c) Compliance.--
       (1) Compliance date.--Each State shall have not more than 3 
     years from the date of enactment of this Act in which to 
     implement the requirements of this section.
       (2) Ineligibility for funds.--A State that fails to 
     implement the requirements of this section, shall not receive 
     25 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to 
     the State under section 20106(b) of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13706(b)).
       (3) Reallocation of funds.--Any funds that are not 
     allocated for failure to comply with this section shall be 
     reallocated to States that comply with this section.

  The bill (S. 792), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________




   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 6

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
CAFTA vote, the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 6, the energy legislation; provided further that there be 3 hours 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their 
designees. I further ask consent that following the use or yielding 
back of time, Senator Feingold be recognized in order to raise a Budget 
Act point of order and that Senator Domenici or his designee be 
immediately recognized in order to make a motion to waive the 
respective point of order. I further ask consent that if the point of 
order is waived, the Senate then proceed immediately to a vote on the 
adoption of the conference report with no intervening action or debate.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize for not raising this with the 
majority leader a second ago, but I would ask consent that this 
legislation be known as the Domenici Energy bill. I ask consent. I 
would ask that we do a correcting resolution, that it be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, a quick review of what we have just done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the purpose of clarification of the 
record----
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will supply forthwith the text for the 
correcting resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
majority leader's request is agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. All right, Mr. President.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just a second? I 
will be very brief. I know everybody is tired.
  Senator Domenici kept his word on the Energy bill. It was very 
difficult. The conference was a real conference. They met until 3 
o'clock in the morning. Senator Domenici has worked very hard on this 
bill. There are a lot of people who do not like the bill, but it is not 
because of him. He did everything he could to please Democrats and 
Republicans. So that is why the majority leader and I join in the 
request that has just been granted regarding Senator Domenici.
  Mr. FRIST. All right, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________




                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, within several minutes, we will start 20 
minutes of debate on CAFTA, equally divided. We will have a rollcall 
vote. We will go to energy after that. We will complete debate on 
energy tonight. We will not have a further rollcall vote tonight after 
the CAFTA vote.
  We will begin--and we will announce the time a little bit later as to 
the two votes on energy tomorrow, one on the point of order and one on 
the bill. Following that, we will be going to the amendments that have 
been outlined with the time agreements on guns. The highway bill we 
will expect at some point. I don't know when the House will finish with 
that, but we will deal appropriately with that after it arrives. Since 
energy arrived, we are going to energy first. That is the general 
outline. We have the unanimous consent agreements. I would recommend 
very soon we go to the CAFTA bill.
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished majority 
leader: We are going to finish the debate on energy tonight?
  Mr. FRIST. Right.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic 
time be allocated as follows: Senator Schumer, 10 minutes; Senator 
Kerry, 30 minutes; Senator Wyden, 15 minutes; Senator Bingaman, 20 
minutes; and whatever time is left over will be allocated to Senator 
Bingaman.

[[Page 18941]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my leader for yielding.
  So the two votes required on the energy conference report will occur 
after the leader's time tomorrow morning in morning business. 
Approximately at what time would those votes occur?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair, in response, let me work 
out with the Democratic leader what time those votes will be.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am assuming, then, immediately following 
those votes, we would be back on the gun liability bill, to complete 
the work under the UC of that legislation?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, or we could even be before. We could 
actually come on those amendments before as well.
  Mr. CRAIG. So that is yet to be determined?
  Mr. FRIST. That is correct. We will determine that before we close 
down tonight.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the leader.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of my 
constituents to oppose the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. 
It should be called the Special Interest Protection Act because it puts 
one industry's bottomline ahead of the families and victims of gun 
violence. It also slams closed the courthouse door to those seeking 
justice for victims of gun violence.
  Remember when--not to long ago--the citizens of Maryland, Virginia 
and the District of Columbia were terrorized by a sniper. Remember when 
10 innocent people were killed while they were going about their daily 
routines, mowing the lawn or getting gas, shopping, and getting ready 
to drive a bus. Their families have experienced tremendous loss and the 
Nation mourned with them.
  Now, Congress is considering legislation that inflict further pain on 
families like those of the sniper victims. This legislation will 
literally slam the courthouse door on the families of gun violence 
victims and on all Americans who believe they were harmed by negligent 
actions related to guns. It gives gun dealers and manufacturers a free 
pass. And it will prevent families and survivors from holding 
irresponsible gun stores accountable, if they are negligent. It 
actually would prohibit families from going to court, from letting a 
jury of their peers decide if the gun store or manufacturer was 
negligent.
  If this legislation passes you could still go to court over a toy gun 
but not a real gun. That is wrong.
  Let me tell you about one of these families who have been victimized 
by gun violence. Conrad Johnson was the sniper's last victim. Do you 
remember hearing the news that he was shot at a bus stop in Montgomery 
County? Killed by the sniper getting ready for his route.
  He was beloved by his family, friends and community. Two thousand 
people attended his funeral.
  He worked hard as a bus driver. He drove 35 miles before dawn every 
day for work. He was known for his friendly smile and can-do attitude.
  And he loved his family--his Jamaican immigrant parents, his wife 
Denise--his high school sweetheart, his two sons and his big extended 
family. Over 30 members gathered at the hospital after he was shot. He 
was full of life. He was always finding ways to take care of his family 
and help his community. He was a volunteer coach for the boys and girls 
clubs of Fort Washington. He loved being a DJ for functions thrown by 
family and friends, and he was always washing the family car on the 
weekends.
  Conrad Johnson was the snipers last victim. Conrad's family is one of 
many Maryland families still grieving because of the snipers' reign of 
terror. Five Maryland families lost loved ones in the sniper's first 24 
hours.
  Today, I stand here for the rights of families like those of the 
sniper victims to have their day in court, the rights of families like 
James Martin's. James was shot when he stopped to buy groceries for his 
church program. Or James ``Sonny'' Buchanan's family. Sonny, a 
landscape architect, who was engaged to be married, was shot with one 
bullet as he worked early one morning. Or the wife, son, and daughter 
of Premkumar Walekar. He was a taxicab driver, shot that same morning 
as he went about his normal fill up routine at a local gas station on 
Aspen Hill Road. Or the husband and 7 year old son of Sarah Ramos, who 
was shot just 25 minutes later, as she sat on a bench waiting for a 
ride to her babysitting job. And the family of Lori Ann Lewis Ramos, 
shot just a short time later, as she stopped at a gas station to clean 
her car.
  Today, I also stand here to protect all the victims who were and are 
severely injured by gun violence. They also deserve their day in court. 
There is the young boy who was a victim of the DC area sniper--Iran 
Brown, who was shot in the chest as he was dropped off at Benjamin 
Tasker Middle School in Bowie, Iran spent over a month in intensive 
care because of the gunshot to his chest or Rupinder ``Benny'' Oberoi, 
a young man who was shot in the back as he closed the store he worked 
at for the night. Benny needed 26 staples in his chest and extensive 
surgery to repair the damage caused by the bullet that pierced his 
back.
  These families have been through so much. They can never recover that 
tremendous loss. We owe it to them to make sure families all over 
American who are like them can have their day in court.
  That is why we need to oppose this legislation today.
  Now, there has been a lot of talk about language was added to S. 397 
to protect this case or that case. The U.S. Congress should not be in 
the business of deciding which negligence actions should be allowed 
into a court. That is up to the courts to decide. That is what our 
civil justice system is all about. It gives these families the right to 
offer evidence to prove the gun shop was negligent.
  We need to reject this legislation and protect that right.
  We need to ensure that the families of victims and the victims 
themselves, who have faced such unprecedented tragedy, are not 
victimized again by having the courthouse doors slammed on them.
  We stood with law enforcement during the dark and dangerous days of 
the snipe; now today they stand with us. People feared for their lives. 
Thanks to the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and local 
law enforcement they found the snipers. Thanks to brilliant forensic 
work they traced the weapon. This legislation makes a mockery of 
everything law enforcement tried to do.
  If this legislation passes, irresponsible dealers get off scot-free 
and victims of gun violence are left without the protection of our 
justice system. I believe families of victims of gun violence deserve 
their day in court, like the sniper victims' families had--like Conrad 
Johnson's family, and Sarah Ramos' family, and all the families.
  They may not win their case, but they have the right to make their 
case. The courts should decide based on the facts and the evidence.
  Let me be clear, I do not believe Congress should stand in the way by 
offering special protection, by offering blanket protections for the 
negligent actions of the gun dealers, sellers and manufacturers. It is 
my duty to my constituents to fight with them and to fight against 
passage of this bill. It would be irresponsible for the Congress not to 
allow these victims of terror to seek redress in the courts. Gun 
violence terrorizes our citizens and we owe them nothing less.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to express my support of S. 397, 
the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act introduced my colleague Senator 
Craig of Idaho.
  The number of frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers has 
significantly increased in recent years. Since 1998, dozens of 
municipalities and cities have filed suit against America's firearm 
industry, falsely alleging that

[[Page 18942]]

manufacturers are responsible for the unforeseen acts of criminals. 
Firearms manufacturers have already spent more than $200 million in 
legal fees yet have not been found liable by a single court for the 
criminal misuse of their highly regulated products. Unfortunately, 
these lawsuits appear to be designed to impose a political agenda that 
33 State legislatures have already rejected. Lawsuits against 
manufacturers who have nothing to do with the crime at hand thwart the 
will of the people by bypassing their elected representatives and 
attempting to impose novel legal theories by judicial fiat. Worse, 
these suits--even while unsuccessful--drain significant resources from 
these companies that are the backbone of supplying our military and 
police officers with the weapons to protect themselves on the job. We 
cannot allow this trend to continue.
  S. 397 is a narrowly crafted bill that stops the lawsuit abuse, while 
continuing to hold those individuals and companies that knowingly 
violate the law liable for their actions. Specifically, the bill 
provides that lawsuits may not be brought against manufacturers and 
sellers of firearms or ammunition if the suits are based on criminal or 
unlawful use of the product by a third party. This bill provides 
carefully tailored protections that continue to allow legitimate suits 
based on knowing violations of Federal or State law related to gun 
sales, or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment, such 
as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of 
contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual 
injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm, as opposed to 
cases of intentional misuse.
  Many of my constituents have raised concerns about frivolous lawsuits 
in the gun industry. Pennsylvania leads the Nation in the number of 
licensed deer hunters and ranks among the leaders in firearm hunters. 
There are nearly three million hunting licenses sold in Pennsylvania 
each year. Over one million hunters go out in the field each fall. 
These suits, by threatening the survival of firearms makers, threaten 
to end that outdoor tradition and the family time that often 
accompanies it.
  The hard-working men and women in Pennsylvania who make up our labor 
unions also support S. 397. This should be no surprise, however, as 
working men and women recognize a threat to their jobs and their way of 
life when they see one. The numbers are telling. Pennsylvania has 227 
companies involved in firearms manufacture. There are over 3,000 
federally licensed firearms dealers. According to the National Shooting 
Sports Foundation, there are approximately 34,000 jobs and $909 million 
in salaries and wages supported by those businesses and sportsmen in 
Pennsylvania. Additionally, these Pennsylvania sportsmen spend about $2 
billion in the State, generating approximately $119 million in 
Pennsylvania State tax revenue.
  Many families' lives are negatively impacted by these reckless 
lawsuits. While many of the personal tragedies behind these lawsuits 
are horrific, the individual responsible is--as it has always been in 
our system of justice--the criminal not the lawfully operating company. 
If a lawsuit is based on a defective firearm, a knowing violation of 
the law or the breach of a contract, that suit should proceed--and S. 
397 would allow it to proceed. However, the frivolous suits with novel 
legal theories and invented liability have already cost jobs, including 
here in Pennsylvania, and they will cost more jobs if they continue. 
They will force company closures and they will close family businesses. 
Suing law-abiding gun makers and dealers for the acts of criminals is 
like suing automobile makers for the damage caused by reckless drivers. 
It is wrong and goes against the entrepreneurial and industrial spirit 
of this country.
  I agree there is a need to reduce violent crime, and I share the 
concerns of gun control advocates with the number and severity of 
violent acts occurring within our Nation. During a June 13th field 
hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Philadelphia, we learned 
about the many factors that contribute to the problem of youth violence 
including poverty, broken families, a lack of mentors, and loose 
enforcement of current gun laws. I believe it is necessary to focus on 
the root causes of these problems rather than develop a policy that 
appears helpful on the surface. I have worked and continue to work on 
the issues of poverty, broken families and mentoring, however I believe 
that greater enforcement of existing gun laws is a key part of the 
solution to eradicating gun violence.
  The program ``Project Exile'' is an example of how stricter 
enforcement of current laws can make a difference. For this reason, I 
have been involved in implementing Project Exile in Philadelphia. This 
program began in Richmond, VA, and has proven to be extremely 
successful in reducing gun crime by simply enforcing existing Federal 
gun laws. The program adopts a zero-tolerance policy for Federal gun 
crimes. Federal, State and local law enforcement and prosecutors work 
hand-in-hand to expedite prosecution of each and every Federal firearms 
violation under Project Exile. Thanks to Project Safe Neighborhoods and 
Project Exile, Federal prosecutions of firearms offenses have gone up 
91 percent since 2000. Nationally, those prosecutions have jumped 76 
percent in the same time period. That means that more criminals are 
serving hard time for breaking Federal gun laws. More criminals off the 
street means our citizens are safer. That is a much more effective way 
to fight crime than punishing innocent manufacturers through frivolous 
lawsuits.
  I encourage my colleagues to support S. 397. Doing so will help an 
industry that is being unfairly targeted for violent crimes, and allow 
us to continue to focus on the real causes of violent crimes.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. 397, the 
protection of lawful commerce in arms bill, also known as the gun 
liability immunity bill. Regardless of whether you support this bill or 
oppose this bill, I can certainly understand that the issue of gun 
liability is an important one.
  But let me ask my colleagues: Is this really more important than all 
the other important issues before the Senate right now? With only a few 
days left before the August recess, is giving liability protection to 
gun manufacturers really more important than passing the Department of 
Defense authorization bill during a time of war? Even this bill's most 
vocal supporters could not make this argument with a straight face.
  As I travel around my State of Illinois talking to constituents, I 
hear many concerns from them. They tell me about the lack of affordable 
health care, the quality of our Nation's schools, the rising cost of 
gasoline, and the war in Iraq. Parents worry about how the budget 
deficit will affect their children's future. Veterans complain about 
the long delays in applying for and receiving disability benefits and 
about the amount of those benefits.
  My constituents have no shortage of suggestions and ideas for what 
Congress should be doing, but I can honestly say that none of them are 
saying, ``Senator, please go back to Washington and make sure that gun 
companies aren't being sued by victims of gun violence.'' I haven't 
heard that one yet.
  And that is why I have chosen to speak on the floor today to--
highlight the misplaced priorities of the Senate's leadership. Even 
though we have 139,000 troops fighting for our freedom in Iraq and a 
$440 billion Defense bill that could help these troops, we are here 
debating gun liability instead of talking about how to strengthen our 
national defense.
  That is regrettable, and that is one of the reasons why so many 
Americans are disillusioned with their Government. Because we are not 
focusing on the problems that truly matter to them. Because some are 
more interested in scoring political points, or catering to a special 
interest.
  I believe--as do my Democratic colleagues--that the first priority of 
the Senate should be to provide for our men and women who are in harm's 
way. And that means spending the necessary time to debate the Defense 
bill.

[[Page 18943]]

If that takes us the rest of the week--or even next week--then that is 
what we should do.
  How can we go home to our constituents in August and tell them that 
we left Washington, DC without finishing a bill to help our military 
because we spent too much time protecting gun manufacturers? That is 
shameful.
  I have talked to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and many 
of them were planning to offer good, commonsense, bipartisan amendments 
to the DOD bill--amendments that would have helped our military and 
strengthened our national defense. I also have filed several amendments 
that I would have offered, and I believe that many of my colleagues 
would have supported them as well.
  One of my amendments would have protected members of the National 
Guard and Reserve against employment discrimination. This amendment is 
supported by the Reserve Officers Association and is cosponsored by 
Senator Salazar.
  I have heard that there have been instances where prospective 
employers are reluctant to hire guard and reservists because of fears 
that these employees could be called up for extended tours of duty. 
These citizen-soldiers are getting through initial stages of interviews 
only to be summarily dropped from the process upon disclosing the fact 
that they are members of the Guard and Reserve.
  My amendment would have gotten to the heart of this problem by 
preventing employers from forcing members of the Guard and Reserve to 
disclose their military service during the interview process. However, 
my amendment would not have prohibited them from disclosing their 
military status if they thought it would be beneficial during an 
interview process.
  But instead of helping members of the Guard and Reserve, we are 
talking about gun manufacturer liability. That is wrong.
  Another amendment I would have offered relates to the medical records 
of our servicemembers.
  For years, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs have attempted to modernize their medical records to create a 
two-way exchange of patient health data to better care for our Nation's 
service members. This would decrease costs and improve the flow of 
information when active members of the military leave the DOD system 
and move to the VA system. Greater use of technology would also reduce 
medical errors, which kill up to 98,000 people a year.
  Unfortunately, the DOD has not managed to create a fully functional 
electronic medical records system. Last year, a GAO report found that 
one of the primary reasons for the delay in developing this system is 
the lack of congressional oversight.
  My amendment would have helped provide some of that oversight. I 
wanted to get some answers from DOD on why this project is being 
delayed and how the Department is proceeding with this important 
project.
  But debate over these amendments, and many others, is being silenced 
in favor of the one we are having now--about helping gun manufacturers.
  This is why the American people are tired of what goes on in this 
town. Because there are real issues they sent us here to debate--real 
problems they expect us to solve. But even when we have a chance to do 
this--even when we have a defense bill where we could add amendments 
that could help our troops and care for our veterans--the Senate passes 
on that chance and heads directly into another fight singed with more 
politics and more ideology.
  We can do better than that. We owe ourselves better--and we certainly 
owe the American people better.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article from Army Times, criticizing 
the Senate leadership's decision to stop consideration of the DOD bill, 
be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Army Times, July 26, 2005]

                  Senate Delays Action on Defense Bill

                             (By Rick Maze)

       Senate Republican leaders decided Tuesday that a gun 
     manufacturers' liability bill is more important than next 
     year's $441.6 billion defense authorization bill.
       With Democrats expressing amazement that there could be any 
     higher legislative priority in a time of war than the annual 
     defense bill that includes money for pay and benefits, 
     operations and maintenance, and weapons' purchases and 
     research, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senate Republican 
     leader, decided Tuesday that a bill protecting gun 
     manufacturers from lawsuits over the illegal use of firearms 
     was a higher priority.
       The decision came after Republican leaders failed to muster 
     the 60 votes needed to prevent amendments not strictly 
     related to the defense budget from being offered to the 
     defense bill.
       In a count of 50-48, seven Republicans joined Democrats in 
     voting not to restrict debate, a move that Democratic leaders 
     said would have prevented consideration of amendments to help 
     veterans and survivors of deceased service members, along 
     with other issues.
       With Congress planning to leave town Friday for one-month 
     break, debate on S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in 
     Arms Act, is expected to last two or three days, and then 
     Senate leaders plan to take up an energy bill, an estate tax 
     reform bill and an Interior Department funding bill that has 
     a $1.5 billion bailout attached for veterans' health care 
     programs, leaving no time until September to get back to the 
     defense bill.
       The House approved its version of the defense bill in May 
     and has been waiting for the Senate to catch up to begin 
     negotiations with the Bush administration on a final version.
       Delay in the Senate is partly a result of senators spending 
     three weeks this spring debating federal judicial nominations 
     before reaching a compromise on President Bush's nominees.
       It all points toward a difficult autumn. When the Senate 
     returns in September from its month-long summer recess, it 
     will need to consider recommendations of the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Commission, due to finish its work by 
     Sept. 8, and begin deliberations on the nomination of John 
     Roberts to the Supreme Court vacancy left by retiring Justice 
     Sandra Day O'Connor.

                          ____________________




 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL AMERICA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 
                     IMPLEMENTATION ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3045) to implement the Dominican Republic-
     Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 minutes evenly divided. Who yields 
time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement, is one more failed chapter in a book of trade failures. How 
deeper must the hole get before we understand we are in trouble? How 
many more Americans must lose their jobs, with manufacturing, 
engineering and, yes, more white-collar jobs going overseas, 
outsourced, before we understand we are in trouble?
  We have the largest trade deficit in the history of this country, $2 
billion a day every day, 7 days a week. This is unsustainable. 
Everybody in this room knows it.
  When will we understand that the next trade agreement is one in which 
we ought to stand up for the economic interests of our country, stand 
up for the interests of American workers? Let's not be ashamed of 
believing that our interest is in this country's economic opportunity, 
supporting our workers, our manufacturers, our farmers. This trade 
agreement pulls the rug out from under our sugar beet growers, from 
under our farmers, pulls the rug out from under American workers one 
more time.
  The House passed this bill by two votes last night. There is a 15-
minute vote in the House. This one lasted well over an hour, while they 
were trying to get the rest of the votes. Let me describe what they had 
to do to get the votes, because this trade agreement is awful. It is 
bad for the country. It is going to pile debt on top of debt and make 
more American jobs disappear overseas. Here is what they said, from 
today's paper: The last-minute negotiations for Republican votes 
resembled the wheeling and dealing on a car lot. Republicans who were 
opposed or undecided were courted during hurried meetings in Capitol 
hallways, on the House floor, and at the White House.

[[Page 18944]]

GOP leaders told their rank and file that if they wanted anything, now 
was the time to ask, lawmakers said, and members took advantage of the 
opportunity by requesting fundraising appearances by Cheney and the 
restoration of the money for their programs. Lawmakers said many of the 
favors bestowed in exchange for votes will be tucked into the huge 
energy and highway bills Congress is scheduled to pass this week before 
leaving for the August recess.
  Why do my colleagues think it was necessary to do what they did last 
night in the House to try to buy these votes with side deals and 
special deals and keeping the vote open for over an hour? Because this 
is a terrible agreement, and everybody knows it. When will we have the 
backbone to stand up for this country's economic interests? What will 
it take? How many more bad trade agreements? This isn't rocket science. 
This is our trade deficit. Year after year after year we are drowning 
in trade debt, and there is not one person on the floor of the Senate 
who wears a blue suit who is going to lose their job because of a bad 
trade agreement. It is working folks who lose their jobs, who find out 
their job left for China because they were making $11 an hour and the 
company can hire somebody for 30 cents an hour and work them 15 hours a 
day, 7 days a week. So the American people lose their jobs.
  No politicians are going to lose their jobs. That is why they keep 
writing bad trade agreements. That is why the country is deeper in 
debt, the largest trade deficit in the history of this country. NAFTA, 
CAFTA, ``SHAFTA,'' GATT, you name it. With every single step we have 
taken with this trade strategy, the country has gone deeper into debt, 
and more Americans have found their jobs in peril. When, oh when, will 
it stop? Apparently not tonight.
  Last night they bought CAFTA by two votes in the House. It passed by 
a slim margin in the Senate. But what this demonstrates to me is this 
Congress has not yet awakened to the reality of what it is doing to 
this country. Kids and grandkids wondering about their economic future 
will find they have less opportunity than their parents did. The one 
thing we all aspire to have happen always is that we want things better 
for our kids. We want to leave a place that is better for our children. 
That is not going to happen with these kinds of trade agreements in 
which we trade away American jobs, in which we decide that jobs that 
used to be performed by proud Americans to build products in this 
country are gone.
  There is no social program in this Congress we deal with that is as 
important as a good job that pays well, with good benefits. That is the 
way people are able to take care of their families and pursue a career 
and have the opportunity to expand this great country of ours. Yes, we 
live in a global economy, we are told. It is a global economy, all 
right. The global economy has galloped along for the major corporations 
so they can produce where it is cheap and sell into this marketplace. 
But it is unsustainable. This won't last. The global economy has 
galloped along but without rules.
  Now a corporation can decide to do business through a mailbox in the 
Bahamas. It can decide it wants to produce in China or Indonesia or Sri 
Lanka and hire people for 20 cents an hour and force them to work in 
unsafe plants. They can hire 12-year-olds to work 12 hours a day and 
pay them 12 cents an hour. All of that is just fine with this trade 
strategy.
  It is not fine with this Senator. It is not fine at all. Because I 
understand where it takes this country. We will not long remain a world 
economic power without a first-class manufacturing capability. And our 
manufacturing base is shrinking dramatically. Why? Because major 
corporations have decided they don't want to produce here. Is it 
because our workers don't do well? Not at all. That is not what it is 
about. It is about corporate profits by hiring people to work for 30 
cents an hour and then selling the product at 30-cents labor to the 
grocery stores or on the store shelves of Toledo and Fargo and 
Brainard, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, New York.
  I am telling my colleagues, this will not work much longer. Yet this 
Congress acts completely deaf and blind to the realities of what has 
come from our recent trade agreements. The North American Free Trade 
Agreement was one of the last agreements. We had all these economists 
tell us how many jobs it was going to create in our country. The fact 
is, our country has lost massive numbers of jobs as a result of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement. That bad agreement turned a modest 
trade surplus with Mexico into a huge deficit, and turned a modest 
deficit with Canada into an even larger deficit. Yet people still say 
that agreement worked. That is total rubbish.
  I hope the Senate will turn down this agreement. I know they have 
voted for it once before, but now is the time to have some backbone, 
some nerve, some will to turn down this bad trade agreement.
  I yield back my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past two decades, Congress has 
voted again and again to open markets to exports from Central America. 
In 1983, 392 Members of the House and 90 Members of the Senate voted 
unilaterally to reduce tariffs on exports from Central America and the 
Caribbean. In 2000, 309 Members of the House and 77 Senators voted in 
favor of the Trade and Development Act which further unilaterally 
opened our markets to products from Central America and the Caribbean.
  Today most imports from the region enter our market duty-free. In 
contrast--and the purpose of this legislation--our exports have faced 
and continue to face a myriad of tariffs and nontariff trade barriers 
into that region. Our products going that way, having tariffs and 
nontariff trade barriers, products coming this way to our country, no 
barriers. That is the status quo.
  In 2005, with the Central American Free Trade Agreement, Congress has 
the opportunity to reduce tariff barriers to our exports going to these 
countries. You can see it is a very unfair situation. If we maintain 
the status quo, it is unfair to American workers, American 
manufacturers, the economy of America, because their imports come into 
our country duty-free. Meanwhile, our exports that go to those 
countries face tariff barriers of from 3 to 16 percent, some tariffs 
ranging as high as even 150 percent.
  This agreement, finally, after about 20 years of our doing favors in 
that direction, levels the playing field for American workers, American 
farmers, and American manufacturers so we can sell our products in 
these countries.
  This agreement takes a one-way street of trade and makes it a two-way 
street. It tears down unfair barriers to our agricultural exports and 
gives our farmers a chance to compete in a growing and vibrant market 
of over 40 million consumers.
  A vote against CAFTA is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote to 
keep import duties duty free, but it also keeps tariff barriers to our 
export products high. If you vote that way, you are not voting for the 
American worker, you are not voting for the American farmer, you are 
not voting for the American manufacturer. You are voting for the status 
quo.
  Well, that status quo is that the United States has been giving and 
giving for 20 years. This is our opportunity to get, to benefit our 
workers, to have a level playing field for trade--a two-way street for 
trade.
  I don't see how anybody can justify not leveling the playing field 
for American exporters. That would end up creating jobs here in 
America.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Central American Free Trade 
Agreements ignores American workers, and ignores Central American 
workers, too. It ignores the labor injustices that still exist in those 
countries and it turns its back on American workers who continue to 
struggle to keep their jobs.

[[Page 18945]]

  It did not have to be this way. We know how to negotiate free trade 
agreements to improve conditions for workers in other nations and level 
the playing field for American workers. We have done it before and we 
can do it again.
  These Central American nations are important neighbors and partners 
to the United States. I have long supported their efforts towards 
progress since President Kennedy's Alliance for Progress. Continuing in 
that tradition, we owe it to our friends in Central America to ensure 
that proper labor protections are included and enforced.
  The President abused his power and presented Congress and the 
American people with this take-it-or-leave-it plan, ignoring a strong 
bipartisan recommendation to assist displaced American workers. 
Congress had the opportunity to ask the President to meet that 
responsibility. Instead, partisan back room deals were made and the 
Republican Congress approved the agreement by a narrow majority in the 
Senate and a razor-thin majority in the House.
  This Central American agreement is not free trade. It does not create 
a fair playing field for American workers. It fails to address the 
issues that we hear time and again are so important to them, and it 
does not deserve to pass.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank Chairman 
Grassley for the fine work he has done on a very difficult issue. I 
will start from a different perspective than others might have 
concerning this agreement.
  First of all, I have been leading the opposition to almost every 
multinational agreement that has come along. I have stood on the floor 
of the Senate for probably, collectively, 6 or 8 hours talking about 
how destructive the Kyoto agreement would be should we be a party to 
it. I have talked about the Law of the Sea Treaty. It was passed out of 
the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously and was ready for action 
when we found out what it was. I led the opposition, and we have not 
passed it yet. We would be losing our sovereignty to the U.N. on a lot 
of the areas of the sea and the air above it. This is something I have 
been active in for a long time.
  In 1994, I had a very interesting experience. I was in the House of 
Representatives. I led the opposition to NAFTA at that time. Then I was 
elected to the Senate in a special election, and it came up in the 
Senate, and I led the opposition to NAFTA at that time. In Oklahoma, my 
State, I was the only Member of the House or Senate who opposed NAFTA.
  I am here to say that this is not NAFTA. For those who use the 
argument that NAFTA was wrong and NAFTA should not have worked and, 
therefore, CAFTA is no good, they just don't know what they are talking 
about. CAFTA is totally different. I can recall standing on the Senate 
floor from this very desk saying if we support NAFTA and adopt it, we 
would have problems--transportation problems--where we would be 
allowing Mexican truckers to pick up a load in Brownsville, TX, and 
take it to Oklahoma City and not comply with our wage-an-hour 
requirements and environmental requirements, and all these things 
happened; they came true.
  That is not what CAFTA is. We have two reasons we need to support 
CAFTA. One is what the Senator from Iowa talked about--the tariffs. I 
talked to my farmers, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, and the Farmers Union, 
and showed them the tariffs they are paying right now, and what the 
other side is paying, and this is a win-win situation for our farmers. 
For example, for grains, we pay 10.6 percent; they pay nothing today; 
for vegetables, we pay 16.7 percent, they pay nothing; for wood 
products, we pay 10 percent, they pay nothing. There is a long list--I 
can go on and on--of commodities and products where we are penalized 
and they are not.
  Under this bill, we will level that playing field and allow farmers 
in Oklahoma to be on the same level as those other countries. The other 
reason--and I think this is very important--is the national security 
reason. I am ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. I can 
remember the days in Central America when President Reagan was our 
President, and then the first President Bush, when we gave freedoms and 
democracies to all those countries down in Central America.
  We remember Daniel Ortega and the activities of the Sandinistas. 
Right now, we are in a position where we can either punish or reward 
our friends. These countries with whom we will be in an alliance are 
our friends. They are supporting us in Iraq and supporting us in 
everything we do. Those other countries are not supporting us. The 
Chavezes, the Ortegas, and the Castros are the ones starting to emerge 
again. Can you imagine, after what we went through with the Sandinistas 
in the 1980s, and we have Ortega running for President again? I am not 
about to reward him and give him what he wants, keeping us from having 
that trade.
  If you want to know the kinds of people who are opposing CAFTA, I 
will read you a few: Earth Justice, Friends of the Earth, 
EnviroCitizen, Freedom Socialist Party, and the Social Welfare Action 
Alliance, and others like that.
  The conservative groups supporting CAFTA are the American 
Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the Heritage Foundation, 
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Club for Growth, and it goes on and 
on.
  This is an issue where we are on the right side not just for our 
farmers and for national security and our friends in Central America 
and South America, but also it is right for America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired but 25 seconds.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield that back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the third reading and 
passage of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 3045) was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
  The bill (H.R. 3045) was passed.

                          ____________________




              ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the conference report on H.R. 6, which the clerk will please 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to bill (H.R. 6), 
     to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and 
     reliable energy, have met, have agreed that the House recede 
     from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate,

[[Page 18946]]

     and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree 
     to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the 
     part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in 
the Record of July 27, 2005.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 3 hours of debate equally 
divided.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is obvious that I am two things 
tonight. First, I am very happy and I am very tired. I do not know 
which one I am more of, but I am both. I am sure there are many who 
think differently than I. I hope in the Senate there is an overwhelming 
number who think as I do. There will be some who do not. But after 6 
years of effort in the Senate, and for a time period going back about 
15 years, we have not had an energy policy program of any significance 
for the United States of America. When I say 6 years, we have been 
struggling for 6 years to get a current one, and 4 of those years we 
have produced them and they have failed. I have not been part of all of 
that, but I left the Budget Committee, the Senate might recall, after 
many years, with 2 years remaining to be there. That would have made my 
30th year on the Budget Committee, and I still would have been 
chairman. I left it because this would be a nice challenge, and I 
thought maybe during the 6 years, as chairman of this committee, I 
might be party to putting together a bill that might do something about 
America's energy future.
  Everybody should know that the Senator from New Mexico knew that we 
would not do anything for tomorrow, nothing much. We would not have any 
answers for people who said, what are you going to do tomorrow morning 
or next week on the gasoline prices? But I did know that we had a 
chance of doing something that we could come to the floor and say 
within 5 to 10 years this bill will create jobs, job security, and 
clean energy.
  Now, if that can be done in the complicated maze that we call the 
energy policy of the United States--and let me repeat, the reason that 
we can say to Americans that they have more jobs, they will have job 
security and have cleaner energy being produced, I almost asked, and I 
will, who could ask for anything more? I think that is a song or 
something, but who could ask for anything more?
  So I start by saying I was very lucky today. I got a call from a 
reporter for the Albuquerque Tribune. I do not know him very well, but 
I speak to him occasionally, and I say to my friend from Tennessee, he 
asked me a neat question. He asked: Senator, people are talking about 
and maybe nitpicking this bill, and I want to ask you, what do you 
think things will look like in America with reference to energy 5 to 10 
years from now?
  That was a terrific question because it permitted me to open my 
remarks tonight the way I should have over the last couple of months. 
For once, the Congress is going to do something important from which we 
as a Nation will benefit, not tomorrow but in the next 5 to 10 years. 
Certainly, we will begin to feel it in a big way within the next 5 to 
10 years. One might say therefore that we could have put most of it 
off, and we probably would have eked along and would have had some 
difficult times, but we could have said, it will work out. But what we 
have done is to make sure that where we have the power, we have done 
something to make it better.
  I repeat, energy is the reason we have jobs. Energy is the reason we 
have warm homes, electricity, automobiles, everything we look at, 
humankind-made movement and activity, based on energy use.
  That means it is pretty important that we do it somewhat right. Some 
may say it will all work out. This is a great, powerful nation, 
everybody will wiggle and do this and do that and it will come out. 
Well, believe me, after a year and a half of learning, I think it would 
have been a real risk for America to say it will all work out.
  What we have done is very complicated. It is a lot more than people 
speaking about gasoline prices tomorrow morning. It is a lot more than 
that.
  So 5 to 10 years from now, we ought to look back and ask: Did this 
legislation make a real difference?
  I am going to start by saying something nobody cares about when they 
lobby us, but I am going to say that we are going to use less energy 
per person, per adult, per unit of our economy, sometimes called GDP, 
because of the efficiency and conservation provisions here than we 
would have without it. That means simple things, believe it or not, in 
an energy bill, such as the appliances in our kitchens, the motors used 
in manufacturing plants, the buildings we live in, and the houses we 
live in will be far more efficient and use far less energy 5 to 10 
years from now than today. For everything we use less of, we need to 
burn less coal or produce less energy or electricity or import oil 
less.
  More of our electricity will come from renewable energy in 5 to 10 
years, such as solar, biomass, wind, landfill gas, waste. All kinds of 
things that can produce energy in that manner will be coming on board 
or be on board.
  We have streamlined the tax provisions. The licensing processes for 
clean technologies like geothermal have been streamlined so we will get 
whatever we have instead of letting it be tied up forever.
  Then we are going to be making great strides toward reducing the 
carbon intensity of our economy. It is the carbon intensity of our 
economy that causes significant pollution, and for many it is a source 
of global warming.
  My colleagues do not have to believe that to vote for this, but what 
I am saying is that for those who do--and I am one--this bill will move 
us forward so that 5 to 10 years from now we can be saying we may have 
technology that will go after that carbon. One will be new nuclear 
powerplants. I say to the Senator from Idaho, if a nuclear powerplant 
cannot be built in America after this bill is signed, then I think the 
Senator and I, who have been ardent, devoted fans, will say it cannot 
be done. I think the Senator will agree with that. Everything that can 
be done reasonably will be there. The uncertainties will be eliminated. 
That which frightens investors will be eliminated. The other things are 
all in place.
  With reference to coal, we will have provided incentives and tax 
relief so that new technology will be developed to take carbon out of 
the coal that is burned and, yes, if we use the outside of my years, in 
10 years we may, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, have found a way 
to sequester the carbon and indeed be on the way to being able to use 
our biggest resource, to wit, coal, without atmospheric damage, global 
damage, and with much cleaner effect. This bill might make that happen.
  As I say, when people think of the Energy bill, they think of cars, 
automobiles, but the electricity grid of the country--how many people 
on our committee thought we were going to learn about the electricity 
grid, such as when eastern America went black, but we found out. We 
have a great electricity system.
  When the blackout came, some people called this an ancient system. 
Some called it a one-horse system. No, it is the most refined. The 
problem is that the system was not tied together properly, and it did 
not have mandatory requirements for safety. So there were some good, 
some not so good. That transmission grid will be far more reliable 
because we have put on the grid owners mandatory standards for 
operating that grid. So I would say you will not have one of those 
after this bill gets implemented. That would have been good enough to 
pass a bill, but that is just a little part of the bill--one or two 
pages.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes. I ask 
Senator Bingaman, would that be all right?

[[Page 18947]]


  Mr. BINGAMAN. That is fine. Go ahead.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In addition, we will be building new transmission to 
move electricity around the Nation. When I say ``we,'' don't think the 
Government is going to do it. We are just going to make sure we give 
the incentive to get it done. Transmission to move electricity around 
the Nation, where it is needed the most--that is going to make our 
consumption more efficient.
  This bill repeals an ancient law. Some people wonder why it even 
mentioned it because it has a funny name and they would say what in the 
world does it have to do with energy, but it is called P-U-H-C-A, 
PUHCA. It is from the times when we had our Great Depression. It made 
it at least more difficult to get money invested in electricity and 
utility companies than it was in other enterprises. We have repealed 
that. We have made some provisions that mergers will not be damaged. 
But this should bring much more capital investment into the utility 
companies that make up this powerful institution, this entity called 
the grid of the United States.
  Most of us are aware of another thing, which the distinguished 
Senator, a new Member of the Senate and a new member of the committee, 
the Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, has put much in the public 
eye when he introduced a bill about natural gas. One of our biggest 
problems, and we surely ought to be as worried about it as we are about 
the price of gasoline tomorrow, is our dependence upon imported natural 
gas. It is such a terrific product, from the standpoint of our ambient 
air, and it used to be so cheap, as everybody here knows. But what 
happened is we used it for everything. Now, as we get in trouble with 
global warming, everybody who builds a plant uses natural gas. Not that 
it does not produce some carbon, but far less. And the price goes up.
  So it looks as if America, which is paying the highest price of any 
industrial nation in the world for natural gas, is about to put itself 
out of business. We could lose the fertilizer business, the plastics 
business, many manufacturing companies. They are already going 
overseas. People will come up here and blame free-trade agreements, or 
low pay overseas. That is not so. We do not have enough natural gas to 
keep the price steady or bring it down. We must have liquefied natural 
gas from overseas. It is terrible to admit it. I wish I were here 
saying we don't. We do. In the next 25 years we will have a crisis if 
that doesn't occur.
  We have modernized, streamlined, eliminated unnecessary delays in the 
ports we will be bringing to America that will be the source of 
distributing LNG. We have eliminated the unnecessary delays. That is 
terrifically important. Of the five most important things, one might 
say that would be one of them because we might hit 8, 10, 12, 15--one 
study says 23--new ports will be needed to use LNG in inland America. 
In other words, you locate them and then the gas can be put into 
pipelines and delivered to America's users. We permitted that to be 
done with more dispatch.
  For the first time, and we know this, since Americans began a love 
affair with the car, we are going to put in place an ethanol program.
  I ask for 5 additional minutes.
  People used to laugh at it. Let me put it this way. It is not too 
shabby, to put America's agricultural industry to work making fuel for 
vehicles. Some used to say that was foolish. It might have been when 
crude oil was $5 a barrel, or $10. But it certainly is a good 
investment when crude oil is this expensive because all you are doing 
is trading the investment in ethanol--plants, cement, steel, thousands 
of jobs, agricultural revitalization--every dollar you put in that is a 
dollar you didn't give to the Saudi Arabians or you didn't give to 
those who are selling us oil. You spent it here. We have a major new 
program, 7.5 million gallons mandated out here in the future. So that 
should be very helpful, in terms of jobs and helping with our 
importation.
  We also gave significant credits for hybrid automobiles. I think we 
all know we had that. We doubled it. We know people want them now. But 
we still put it in, the tax writers put it in, and we hope the 
manufacturers will see the demand and get more on board quickly. We 
think that was a contribution.
  I think overall we are going to try to produce as much of our energy 
domestically as possible. To do that we have streamlined the permitting 
processes where we can. For instance, the Senator from Colorado is on 
the Senate floor, and the Senators from Utah have been interested--we 
have a fantastic oil shale research and development program and provide 
leasing to see if we, one of these days, could implement the abundant 
oil resources from oil shale. Nobody knows if we could ever work that 
economically. If we could, we would not need any imported oil. We have 
more oil locked up in oil shale than America would use over 200 years. 
We just have to find a way to convert it. We are close. We are going to 
push that.
  We are deeply divided on global climate change. We have had a couple 
of votes. I will not go through them. But the legislation we are doing, 
while it does not address a global warming tax, will do more to develop 
and deploy a new generation of clean technology that will make our 
consumption cleaner and more environmentally friendly. If we ever do 
achieve a limit--say that, make the limit there--we may, indeed, have 
ready the technologies that could do it. Right now we are just saying, 
Do it. That is why Senator Craig gets up and says, How? Right? I am 
speaking for him--but how? Put everybody out of business?
  No. New technology we are going to try to get developed will clean 
the coal--take the carbon out of it, I should say. These are the kinds 
of things that are in this 1,200-page document.
  I want to close. I am a pretty experienced fellow around here. I want 
to say that I have never worked in the process on a difficult bill 
where there has been more openness and inclusiveness in my 32 years. 
Every step of this process this Senator has worked with the other 
Senator from New Mexico to ensure that we have a bipartisan bill.
  That doesn't mean that Senator Bingaman likes every provision. It 
doesn't mean that I like every provision. But nobody can say that 
anything was done in one closed back room, shoved down anybody's 
throat, or done without staff, excellent staff, on both sides working 
on it. I am thankful. Because of that, Senator Reid joined our leader 
and let us get this bill to the floor.
  We took 2 weeks. Heretofore we took 6 weeks, and still had 200 
amendments left. We didn't get a bill, a real bill.
  Believe it or not, Representatives Dingell and Barton met. Ourselves, 
we spent 20-plus hours as a foursome. Then we had 3 days, 5 open days 
of conference meetings with amendments being offered. Every conferee 
could offer amendments. They were voted on, some won, some lost--
honestly most lost, but that is the way it is. They voted.
  The last of those conferences ended a couple of nights ago at 2:30 in 
the morning. I probably was more tired then than now, obviously. Maybe 
not as happy because I didn't know the product. But I think I know the 
product now. It is finished. It is a good product. It should pass 
overwhelmingly.
  I urge Senators to consider that this bill, and the future that it 
envisions, far outstrips anyone's individual parochial concern. I hate 
to say that because nobody is going to say that is why they vote 
against it. Nobody is going to say I didn't get some project or some 
one theme. But I think if you are looking at what might be good down 
the line--which maybe we ought to do more of--you ought to vote for 
this.
  One last comment. There will be a point of order made, and tonight I 
am going to say while everybody is around, or a few are: You heard a 
lot of numbers about what this bill costs. Please understand the point 
of order has to do with none of that. The point of order has to do with 
a simple thing. This committee was given $2 billion to spend, in direct 
spending, nonappropriated money. When all the work

[[Page 18948]]

was done we estimated it was $2.2 billion--two billion two hundred 
million--not billion--$200 million. You know, the budget is hundreds of 
billions. This is $200 million. I don't even know why a point of order 
should be made.
  I am going to cheat and tell you, sometimes when I was budget 
chairman we rounded numbers to 100. I am confessing that belatedly. 
Maybe we would have rounded this one to 200. Anyway, that is what we 
are going to vote on. I hope, even if you are against the bill, you 
will let us vote whether or not the country should have this.
  With that, I thank the Senate, thank the Chair, and most important, 
thank the Senators here. For the Republican Senators, as soon as 
Senator Bingaman is through I will start allocating on our side 5, 7 
minutes, whatever you each would like. Senator Bingaman will use what 
he wants and allocate the rest. He has one Senator. We will stay as 
long as you like.
  Thank you all for listening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say how pleased I am that we are 
able to bring back to the Senate a conference report on energy policy 
that is truly a bipartisan consensus document. This bipartisan 
consensus had its beginnings earlier this year in our committee, the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where the chairman, 
Senator Domenici, my colleague from New Mexico, reached out to those of 
us on the Democratic side and pledged to work in good faith to bring to 
the Senate a comprehensive Energy bill.
  We readily accepted that invitation and we had a very open and 
bipartisan committee process. The result of that process was a bill 
that was recommended to the Senate by the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources by a vote of 21 to 1. On the floor of the Senate when 
this bill was first being considered, we continued to work together in 
that open and bipartisan process. The result was that the Senate as a 
whole passed the Energy bill by a margin of 85 to 12.
  In conference, my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, was 
adamant that we use an open and a bipartisan process there as well, and 
include House Democratic Members and staff who had not been included in 
the past in that same process.
  I congratulate Senator Domenici on the passage of the resolution that 
we adopted earlier this evening to designate this the Domenici Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. He successfully persuaded the chairman of our 
conference, Congressman Joe Barton, of the wisdom of proceeding in an 
open and bipartisan manner, and it proved to work very well. The 
bipartisan and bicameral conference committee staff was able, in short 
order, to resolve many of the technical issues that are so important to 
get right in this complex area of legislation. As they encountered 
issues that were unresolvable by the staff and needed guidance from 
members, Chairmen Barton and Domenici and Ranking Member Dingell and I 
were able to work together to forge compromises that we thought could 
be recommended to the entire conference. Those compromises, in fact, 
were embraced in almost all cases by our respective colleagues.
  The result was a conference report that was signed by 13 of the 14 
Senate conferees. That conference report is 1,724 pages in length. I do 
not think you can judge the quality of legislation by the size of it, 
but I do think the size of it indicates the comprehensiveness of this 
legislation and the complexity of it. The conference report was adopted 
earlier today in the House of Representatives with 75 House Democrats 
voting for the legislation, led by Congressman John Dingell.
  Most of us came away from the conference with many provisions that we 
were happy to have in the final conference report and some provisions 
that we reluctantly had to give up on. I, for example, am very sorry 
that the bill before us does not contain the renewable portfolio 
standard which would require utilities to produce a percentage of their 
electricity from renewable sources. I know Chairman Barton is 
disappointed that he was not able to get a number of his priorities 
agreed to in the conference. But the nature of a good conference is 
that it is a give and take and not everything ultimately can be agreed 
to. So compromise is the order of the day.
  The result of this conference is a bill that has many more bright 
spots than flaws and a bill that deserves passage by the Senate and the 
signature of the President. I will mention a number of the bright 
spots, and then I will acknowledge some of the flaws and gaps that are 
contained in the conference report.
  The conference report has strong provisions for increasing energy 
supplies from a number of sources. As I have often said, increased 
domestic energy production is one of the four key elements of sound 
energy policy. We have good provisions for producing oil and gas in an 
environmentally responsible way, for unlocking the untapped energy 
potential on Indian lands, for relicensing of hydroelectric dams, for 
improving geothermal leasing on Federal lands, and for opening a path 
to renewable resources in offshore environments. We are making a major 
push in the area of energy from coal toward new technologies that have 
better environmental characteristics and that will be adaptable to a 
future in which we may want to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.
  The conference report has strong provisions for increasing energy 
efficiency. Over a dozen new appliance efficiency standards are called 
for under this act. The Federal Government's own energy efficiency will 
be enhanced through the strengthening of the Federal Energy Management 
Program and through extension of authority to enter into energy-saving 
performance contracts.
  The conference report expands authorizations both for the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program and weatherization and State energy 
programs.
  The conference report has perhaps some of the strongest provisions in 
the area of protection of energy consumers. Both the electricity and 
natural gas provisions of the conference report contain broad new 
provisions to ensure market transparency and to prohibit market 
manipulation. In the area of electric utility mergers, we have expanded 
the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over 
mergers involving existing generation plants; that is, plants that are 
in existence at the time the merger takes place. We have also created 
new requirements in the Federal Power Act for special scrutiny for 
possible cross subsidization as a result of mergers. Before the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission can approve a merger, it must find that 
any possible cross subsidization is actually consistent with the public 
interest, which I think will prove to be both a flexible and a strong 
protection for ratepayers and for workers and for other persons who 
should be protected if we are being consistent with the public 
interest.
  The conference report authorizes a broad range of research and 
development and demonstration and deployment activities for new energy 
technologies that will help us toward our energy future. It couples 
them with energy tax incentives and a comprehensive new approach to 
loan guarantees at the Department that will help these technologies 
over the final threshold into commercialization. This latter part of 
the bill is a particular accomplishment of Chairman Domenici that I 
think will pay off in this country for years to come.
  The conference report also will result in major changes in our 
national slate of transportation fuels. It requires that we reach a 
target of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. It sets a 
path forward for the development and commercial introduction of ethanol 
made from cellulosic biomass which promises to have a profound impact 
on our ability to manufacture and use renewable fuels in the future. 
Our work on fuels and fuel additives in this conference report is not 
complicated by the issue of developing safe harbors for product 
liability claims for any fuel additive, whether ethanol or MTBE.

[[Page 18949]]

Resolving this dispute involved including a provision that, when it 
first appeared in the publicly released base text of the conference 
report, caused some confusion. I know that some Members may want to 
address this issue in this debate. The best explanation, though, of the 
intent of this provision was given by Chairman Barton himself in the 
course of the final public meeting of the Energy bill conference Monday 
night. He did it in the course of an exchange with Congressman Bart 
Stupak of Michigan, who was about to offer a clarifying amendment to 
this provision in the conference report. Based on the understanding 
conveyed in that exchange, Congressman Stupak decided that he did not 
need to offer his intended amendment.
  Since that exchange was crucial to how this provision was dealt with 
in conference, I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of that 
exchange be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there is much more that I could say on 
behalf of the energy conference report that is before us, but I want to 
allow time for others to speak as well. It is worth acknowledging that 
in the process of conferencing with the House, we had to yield to their 
strong demands and desires in a few areas. Some of those provisions, in 
my view, were misguided. They include some weakening of environmental 
laws and some additional subsidies to energy industries that are 
probably unnecessary. I am sure that some of my colleagues will explore 
those problems in more detail. But these flaws, serious as they are, do 
not, in my opinion, lead to a conclusion that this bill should not be 
enacted. On balance, this is a good bill for the country and the best 
Energy bill this Congress is going to produce. We should enact it into 
law.
  To the extent that there are gaps in the bill, that there are 
subjects that we should have covered and have not adequately covered, 
we need to look to the future. It has taken Congress over 4 years to 
craft this Energy bill. The Energy bill prior to that was the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992, passed 13 years ago. When we complete this bill, I 
don't believe we have the luxury of waiting another 13 years to pass 
the next Energy bill. The energy security needs of this country that 
are not addressed in this bill will not wait for another decade for 
attention. The threats posed by our dependence on oil imports or by 
global warming will continue to face us and will continue to grow as 
issues. This bill does maintain and increase our investment on a range 
of clean energy sources, but it does not contain a critical mechanism 
that was contained in the Senate Energy bill; that is, the renewable 
portfolio standard that I referred to earlier.
  This bill has positive and helpful measures to increase domestic 
refining, but consumers will still face burdens at the gas pump. There 
is critical work to be done on these issues, but I believe the positive 
message coming out of this bill is that we have developed a truly 
bipartisan way to move forward on those issues in the Senate and the 
House of Representatives. I think that I speak both for myself and for 
my colleague who is chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources in saying that we intend to work together both in the short 
term and in the long term to address the issues that need additional 
attention in this general legislation. He has my pledge to continue to 
work in this Congress to advance the ball and to get to a finish line 
on proposals that we could not achieve closure on in the context of 
this bill.
  Let me just mention three of those. First, flexible mandatory 
measures to address global warming. We had an excellent hearing which 
Chairman Domenici chaired in the Energy Committee. In fact, during the 
time that this bill was being considered in conference, time was taken 
out to have this hearing on the issue of global warming. I believe it 
was a very useful hearing. Chairman Domenici stated that it was the 
first of several that we may be able to have to better understand that 
issue and see if a consensus can be reached on a path forward in 
dealing with it.
  Second, doing more to tap the potential of renewable energy. Again, I 
believe that more can be done there, and I hope we can revisit that 
issue before this Congress adjourns.
  Third, we need to continue to focus on oil savings. The United States 
imports more than 65 percent of our oil, and the Energy bill will not 
reduce those imports significantly. Reducing oil consumption will make 
us less dependent on foreign oil and ultimately save Americans money at 
the gas pump. Although the oil savings approach that we took in the 
Senate bill did not win acceptance by the House of Representatives, 
that is a concept that continues to hold promise as a way of addressing 
the problem, and we need to revisit that issue in legislation, in my 
view, as soon as we possibly can.
  We worked hard to create the Energy bill compromise before us today. 
We should enact that compromise and move forward aggressively to ensure 
that it is implemented rapidly by the executive branch of our 
Government. If there are negative consequences to what we have enacted, 
then we can document those and work to correct those errors. If there 
are topics we need to address more effectively, then we certainly can 
do that.
  Again, I congratulate my friend and colleague on his accomplishment. 
But securing our energy future in some sense is a job that is never 
done. I look forward after we have had time to rest and reflect on what 
has been done to again begin the effort to address policies that will 
increase our energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, 
provide for more use of clean energy, lower gas prices, and deal with 
the emissions that are leading to global warming.
  Again, I congratulate my colleague and all members of the conference 
and all Members of the Senate for the constructive approach they have 
taken to the development of this legislation.
  At this point, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

       Chairman Barton. Are there other amendments from the House 
     conferees to Title XV? Mr. Stupak.
       Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
     the desk, but if I may, before I offer it, I would like to 
     ask you, as chairman, a couple questions on Section 1504, if 
     I may?
       Chairman Barton. The gentleman is recognized.
       Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for 
     your willingness to come to a consensus on the MTBE. I know 
     it has been a difficult couple days, and I am trying to get 
     this thing resolved and I----
       Chairman Barton. Well, I am not consenting, I am just 
     admitting that I don't have the votes in the Senate.
       Mr. Stupak. Well, your willingness to work with the 
     conference committee.
       Chairman Barton. I know when to fold them and this is one 
     time you got to fold them. So what was the question?
       Mr. Stupak. Well, in light of that, Mr. Chairman, I just 
     want to be clear about one of the compromise provisions 
     that's been inserted into the amendment and this is Section 
     1504, called Claims Filed After Enactment. Can the chairman 
     clarify for us what this language means and is intended to 
     do, this Section 1504?
       Chairman Barton. If you will suspend just briefly.
       Mr. Stupak. Yes, sir.
       Chairman Barton. The Section 1504 is a negotiated section 
     between the House and the Senate, that in lieu of the base 
     text language in the House bill on MTBE, we put in a section 
     that is permissive, that for prospective claims, defendants 
     may request that they be consolidated in a Federal court as 
     opposed to a State court. It is a permissive, not mandatory, 
     thing.
       Mr. Stupak. So in that case, then it can remain in the 
     State courts. So this provision does not in any way give the 
     Federal courts a new subject jurisdiction over MTBE cases?
       Chairman Barton. The base text that's before the conferees, 
     on existing MTBE lawsuits, changes nothing on prospective 
     MTBE lawsuits, that is, lawsuits that have not yet been 
     filed.
       Mr. Stupak. Correct.
       Chairman Barton. It gives the defendant in the lawsuit, the 
     prospective lawsuit, if it were to be filed, the right to 
     request that the lawsuit be sent to a Federal court.
       Mr. Stupak. Or it could remain the State court if----
       Chairman Barton. Well, it just gives them right to request 
     it. Now I am not an attorney, so I am not--but that's what 
     the section does.

[[Page 18950]]

       Mr. Stupak. I just want to make sure that the Federal 
     courts don't have an exclusive right to try these cases and 
     it is my understanding they would not, based upon----
       Chairman Barton. Well, of the existing cases that have 
     already been filed, they are in the hundreds, all but 12 are 
     in Federal court.
       Mr. Stupak. Correct.
       Chairman Barton. They are 12 that are in State court.
       Mr. Stupak. So it is really----
       Chairman Barton. I don't think this section is unduly 
     restrictive or adverse to the current situation.
       Mr. Stupak. So Section 1504, then, is it fair to say, gives 
     those involved in future MTBE litigation or disputes, the 
     discretionary ability to remove their case to Federal court?
       Chairman Barton. No, it gives them the right to request it.
       Mr. Stupak. Okay.
       Chairman Barton. That's all.
       Mr. Stupak. Discretionary. They don't have to. It is within 
     their discretion to go to Federal court, if the defendants so 
     choose.
       Chairman Barton. That's correct.
       Mr. Stupak. And then it is up to the judge whether or not 
     the case is properly there or remanded back to State court?
       Chairman Barton. That's my understanding.
       Mr. Stupak. So we are not conferring a new substantive or 
     subject matter jurisdiction over these cases?
       Chairman Barton. Not to my knowledge.
       Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I will not 
     offer my amendment.
       Chairman Barton. We appreciate the gentleman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I know Senator Kerry wants to speak, but I would like 
to ask that we may have time to arrange all of this right now. My next 
speaker is Senator Craig. I would like to yield 5 minutes to him and 
then we go to somebody on your side.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Senator Kerry will be the first Senator on this side, 
followed by Senator Wyden. So why don't we go back and forth, if that 
is acceptable.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I might ask the Democrat side, since we have two 
Senators with 5 minutes each, would it be fair to say we go back and 
forth with 5 minutes?
  Mr. KERRY. Under the order, I have 30, and I intend to use it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You have 30.
  Mr. WYDEN. I have 15 under the agreement.
  Mr. KERRY. I don't want to be limited to 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not going to limit you. You have an order. I am 
just talking about sequence.
  Mr. KERRY. I thought you said limited to 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did. I am wrong, so I am telling you you have 30; you 
are going to get 30. It is just a question of when.
  Mr. KERRY. I am happy to go back and forth. That is the way we have 
always done it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise under the previous order 
as the Chair recollects it, the Democratic side set up specific times 
for their members while on the Republican side 90 minutes was allocated 
but not allocated in any definitive way.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So what we are saying is the Senator from New Mexico 
can speak for 90 minutes. I don't want to do that. I want to let my 
Senators speak, so I would like to change that. If we don't change it, 
I will speak for 90 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator was to allocate 90.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I know I was. I would like to allocate if I could. If 
Senator Kerry is going to speak 30 minutes, I would like to have 
Senator Craig and Senator Thomas speak for 5 minutes each. That is 10 
minutes. And then we go to Senator Kerry for his 30. Then we come back 
to Senator Alexander for his 5, and then we go back to Senator Wyden 
for as long as he would like.
  Mr. WYDEN. That will be very adequate. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is that fair enough, Senators?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Fair enough. Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think all of us stand here tonight happy 
that a work product is before us, and it would be remiss of me not to 
congratulate both of the Senators from New Mexico but clearly to 
recognize Senator Domenici for his chairing of the Energy Committee 
here in the Senate and the work he and Senator Bingaman have done to 
operate in a bipartisan way to bring us to where we are tonight.
  You have heard from both of these Senators, and they have spoken 
clearly about the substance of the conference report that is before us. 
I will not go into the detail of that substance.
  At the outset, let me thank at least two of my staff members, George 
O'Connor and Corey McDaniel. Both of them have worked on these issues. 
George O'Connor has been with me literally all of these years as we 
have worked and struggled through the process. I thank them and thank 
the staff of the full committee for the tremendous effort at hand that 
has produced this important conference report.
  In the 5-year struggle that many Members have been engaged in 
developing a comprehensive energy policy for this country, at times we 
thought it was for naught. We would bring it to the Senate, we would 
spend weeks voting on it, we would work with the House, but we could 
not produce a final conference report.
  That work was not for naught. In that process of the last 5 years, 
not only did we learn there were issues we simply could not arrive at a 
solution on, but over that 5 years there was a learning process for all 
of us and for all Americans on a variety of issues.
  Senator Domenici spoke tonight of a new, comprehensive national 
policy to deal with nuclear energy and to bring it online. Five years 
ago we could not have accomplished what we accomplished in the last 
several months. Why? The public was not with us in general nor was 
there a growing realization that obviously did occur that the way to 
build new base load, to turn on the lights of America 10 years out, was 
with an existing technology while we worked on future technologies. And 
we wanted it to be clean. That new technology was an existing 
technology: It was nuclear.
  Once again I believe the world is increasingly excited that America 
has decided to take a leadership role in the area of nuclear instead of 
to hide behind the politics of the issue, as we have as we have lost 
that leadership role over the last two decades. In our action here, 
comprehensive work has been done of a bipartisan character.
  Senator Domenici also reminds me, as he should, he wrote a book on 
the issue, a book that is selling pretty well, but also a book that was 
part of that educational process that caused us, along with the critics 
of the issue, to begin to understand if we want clean energy, and we 
do, and we want abundant energy, and we must have it, under current 
technologies there is only one place to go to get it.
  Clearly, we have incentivized that. The Senator from New Mexico is 
right. If you cannot begin to design and ultimately build new nuclear 
production facilities in this country, new electrical productions in 
this country fueled by nuclear reactors, then we will not get it done. 
But we will, and not only will we go through a new generation, we will 
go into new technologies. That is laid out in this bill. It is 
critically important.
  So while we are working on the new, we also do something else. We 
realized the old must be renewed, and that was hydro. For the Pacific 
Northwest, it was critical. In the Energy Policy Act of the mid-1980s, 
we created a problem. We included everybody except the producer and 
said, You have a right to shape the new facility when it is relicensed, 
no matter what the cost and no matter what the demand, as long as it 
fits the environmental desire of the stakeholders involved. We could 
not get licensing completed.
  It went on for years and years and cost hundreds of thousands, if not 
millions of dollars, and nothing got done. When it did get done, the 
production plant usually produced less than it had before. That is 
unacceptable when we see so many of our hydro facilities needing to be 
relicensed in the next 20 years. I and many others worked and

[[Page 18951]]

we have what we believe is a new and better way to relicense our 
facilities with that clear recognition.
  There are many key components in this critical legislation that, as 
both the Senators from New Mexico have said, put us back into the 
business of producing energy, clean energy, appropriate for our 
national needs, meeting the demands, creating jobs, and saying to our 
young people, there is a variety of abundant energy future for our 
country.
  I applaud my colleagues for working with us in accomplishing what I 
believe to be a very comprehensive piece of work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield very soon to Senators.
  I make one observation and ask one question and then I will yield to 
my friend from Wyoming.
  First, fellow Senators, Senator Bingaman mentioned something about 
renewables. I failed to mention, while we did not accept the Bingaman 
amendment, the tax portion of this bill allocates the largest 
percentage, largest piece of the tax incentives to renewables, to wind. 
Some did not like that. Some think it is great. One of the Senators is 
here and smiling. He did not like that. But that means as much wind 
energy as you can throw for the next 3 years, as much as you can 
manufacture and use, will be manufactured and used. Hopefully during 
that period of time Senator Bingaman can return and speak more to the 
issue of longevity and continuity.
  I thank two people: Alex Flint, my staff director, and Bob Simon, the 
staff director of Senator Bingaman. It is fair to say they have become 
friends, too, just as my friend Senator Bingaman and I have.
  With that, we have the order for the next hour or so. I will leave 
for a while and leave it to one of my friends. Senator Murkowski is the 
last one, although we have not provided for her.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will be short. It is a real honor to be 
here this evening to talk about the introduction of this bill, a bill 
for which we have waited a very long time, and worked a very long time. 
I thank the chairman and the ranking member. We worked very hard on 
this bill to get it into conference and worked very hard through 
conference.
  Since we started formulating policy, we have worked on a number of 
issues. There have been changes. Many things have remained the same 
because the policies need to be the same. The issues are the same. We 
have had to move forward.
  We still need a comprehensive policy. That is an important issue 
because now, as we read in the paper, there are questions as to why we 
are not going to affect the gas prices tomorrow or the day after. We 
are talking about down the road. We are talking about where we will be 
over a period of time. This is a policy. It is very important to 
remember and to understand as we talk about the changes that will 
eventually take place in the kind of energy we will use, in terms of 
renewables, in terms of alternatives. We will be moving there, but we 
are not there. Alternative energy creates now about 3 percent of what 
we use. It will be much higher than that, but it won't be higher than 
that next year or next month.
  We have to make sure what we are using now for energy can continue to 
be maintained and that we will find new ways of dealing with the 
energy. For instance, that we can take coal, our largest fossil fuel 
resource, and find ways to use it in a more environmentally sound way, 
find ways to change the way it is moved, for hydrogen or synthetic 
diesel, and do that over time.
  It is important we understand that we have to do two things: We have 
to look to the future about alternatives. We have to find ways to use 
what is available now to keep up production in this country and to keep 
our economy strong. We ought not to forget that is what we need to do.
  This is a bill that is very balanced. That is important. It has 
already been talked about. I will not go into the details. We have 
talked about renewables. We have talked about ways we can renew--
whether it is gasoline, ethanol, or opportunities for electric 
generation, whether nuclear or whatever--areas we can move to. That is 
very important over time.
  We ought to talk about coal. We do here. We spend a good deal of 
money. By the way, we divide this total expenditure in about six equal 
ways between renewables, conservation, doing something to make coal 
more usable. There are six distinct areas spread in fairly equal 
amounts.
  I will talk a second on coal. It is our largest fossil fuel resource. 
We have more of it for the future than any other energy. We need to 
find better ways to use that. Much of it will be generating 
electricity. Sometimes we do not think about where electricity comes 
from; we just think it is automatically there. It is not. We have to 
continue to do that. Coal is in one place; the need for electricity is 
in another. We need transmission. We have to have new transmission 
ideas and do things that are more efficient than they have been in the 
past. We need to find a way to make sure it is safe and secure.
  The same thing is true with oil. We use oil a great deal. About 60 
percent of it now is imported. We will continue to do that. Certainly 
over time we will find ways to get better mileage in automobiles. It is 
not going to happen right away.
  Of course, there will be some arguments that we should put some 
defined times when you have to get CAFE standards. It is very difficult 
to do that. But it will happen. It will happen in the marketplace. It 
will happen as we can do it. And we can do it efficiently. We have to 
find better ways to get more oil out of the ground. We produce a lot of 
oil in Wyoming. The old oilfields are about exhausted, but below that 
is a great deal more oil if we find different ways of doing that, if we 
use renewed production or carbon sequestration. And much of that is in 
this bill.
  We do have conservation and efficiency, as we should have. We have 
opportunities to make the use of energy more clean and better 
environmentally. We have ideas for producing more production of our 
resources available now. And we need to do all of these things as 
quickly as possible, but we cannot do them overnight.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish the senior Senator from New Mexico 
were in the Senate because I wanted to say a few words to him 
personally as well as about him, but in his absence I will certainly 
say them.
  In the Senate, we all have an ability, thank Heaven, to be able to 
separate the policy from personality and from the personal. I know how 
hard Senator Domenici has worked through the years. I know how 
committed he is personally to developing an energy policy. That goes, 
also, for the junior Senator from New Mexico, my friend Senator 
Bingaman, who has worked closely and diligently under difficult 
circumstances to try to deal with these energy issues.
  On a personal level, I am genuinely happy for the Senator from New 
Mexico because I know this is a moment of completion for him, and on a 
personal level he is happy and he has worked hard to get there. All 
Members are gratified when a colleague has that kind of success. 
Nevertheless, on a policy level, I have enormous disagreements with 
where this bill has finally put the Senate and our country.
  Our Nation's energy crisis has reached historic levels. What we need 
today is not a policy that puts enough good stuff in it that enough 
Senators will grab onto it and say: OK, I can vote for that bill. What 
we need is an energy policy that is as bold and big as the challenge is 
significant to the country. That is not, under any analysis, what we 
are getting in this bill.
  This is, frankly, largely a lobbyist-driven bill. What underscores 
that is

[[Page 18952]]

when you measure what is happening in this bill--as you must in making 
any decent policy for our country--when you measure this bill against 
families who are struggling to balance their checkbooks, who cannot pay 
easily the additional cost of gasoline, when you measure this bill 
against small businesses, which have had an enormous rise in the cost 
of doing business--just the cost of getting to and from the business, 
let alone the cost of trucks delivering goods to that business. There 
has been something like a $25 billion to $30 billion energy gas tax 
increase on businesses over the course of the last couple years. They 
are paying those additional costs.
  We passed, in the Senate, an energy provision to be able to provide 
loans--not grants, not giveaways, but loans--to those businesses so 
that they might be able to adjust for the cash flow problems they have 
because of the increased cost of energy. The Senate passed it. The 
Senate passed it 3 years ago. But it was taken out in the conference.
  Gone from this bill is any kind of emergency lending assistance to 
the small businesses of our country that are hard-pressed because of 
energy costs. Why? What is the reason for that? When you see our 
children breathing air already that is dangerously polluted, and you 
know the levels of asthma among children are increasing, and the 
greatest cause for the hospitalization of children in the summertime in 
America is an asthma attack, which is air-induced, and the quality of 
our air is not being cleaned as much as it was, as rapidly as it could 
be, nevertheless, you see us going backward with respect to the new 
source performance standards in air quality, when you read about rival 
nations that are rapidly moving ahead of the United States of America 
with respect to alternative energy technologies--and they are creating 
high-paying jobs by moving in that direction--but the United States is 
only moving incrementally, without a genuine commitment--and I will 
come to that in a minute--when you recognize that our dependence on 
foreign oil sees us sending $25 billion a year just to the Gulf States 
alone--Mr. President, $200,000 a minute, $13 million an hour, we send 
to those countries; And how much of that money falls into the hands of 
Hamas, al-Qaida--when you see what the complication of oil dependency 
does to the foreign policy of the United States as well as the health, 
economy, and security of our Nation, you have to ask yourself why we 
are not moving more rapidly to deal with these issues.
  Senator Domenici said a moment ago this is the largest portion that 
has gone to renewables. Well, let me show my colleagues this pie chart, 
which simply contradicts that. That is not accurate. It may be a larger 
amount of money than it has been in the past, but of the money that is 
being put out in this bill, only 16 percent goes to renewables. And 10 
percent goes to efficiency. That is a total, between them, of 26 
percent going to renewables and efficiency. Mr. President, 37 percent 
alone, eclipsing renewables and eclipsing efficiency combined, is going 
to nuclear--going to nuclear.
  When you add the combination of oil and gas, you have an enormous 
proportion of this bill's tax benefits and funding that is going to the 
status quo--the status quo--``same old same old'' energy policy of the 
United States, not to the creation of the new high-paying jobs, to 
clean air and to renewables and the kind of technologies we need. There 
is no explanation for that.
  Mr. President, I voted for the Senate bill. I joined with colleagues, 
85 of us, in sending a bill to the conference that had about a 50-50 
split. I was not pleased with a 50-50 split. I thought we could have 
done better than that. Guess what. We are going backward in this bill. 
Why? What is the rationale? What is the policy rationale for having 
taken a Senate bill that had a larger amount of money going to 
renewables and alternatives, that passed with 85 votes, and here we are 
with a bill on the floor of the Senate that has a paltry 26 percent, 
only 16 percent going to renewables? If you ask the American people, 
the American people would overwhelmingly vote to do otherwise. But the 
Senate will not.
  The conference committee takes a huge step backward in other places--
for instance, the requirement that U.S. utilities generate 10 percent 
of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, 15 years from now. 
We are trying to set a goal that just 10 percent of America's 
electricity is going to be produced from alternatives and renewables. 
We could achieve it. Other nations are moving to a much higher level of 
alternatives and renewables. Not the United States of America. We are 
going to do the ``same old same old.'' We are going to do the nuclear 
and do the oil and gas.
  Well, most of our electricity actually is not oil-fired. It is either 
coal-fired or natural gas-fired. But the fact is that instead of 
setting a standard, which we had in the Senate--in the Senate bill, we 
said 10 percent of the electricity by 2020 will be from renewable 
sources--that is gone, taken out of the bill. Why? Because special 
interests on the House side demanded that happen.
  As to language that recognized global warming, I remember how many 
Senators came to the floor, and they all embraced the language of 
global warming in a nonbinding resolution. They just said: We are going 
to deal with it, and this is important. Guess what. Even the nonbinding 
language that acknowledged the problem of global warming has been taken 
out. There is nothing in this legislation to deal with one of the 
single greatest environmental challenges on the face of this planet--
nothing.
  And how do you explain this next one? The United States uses about 19 
million barrels of oil a day. We had a requirement in the Senate bill 
that we reduce oil consumption in America by 1 million barrels a day. 
Imagine that: We were going to try to get 1 million out of 19 million. 
We were going to require that the country set a goal of reducing that 
dependency on oil. Gone. It has been taken out. Why? Why would we not 
want, as a nation, to set a goal of trying to reduce our dependency?
  I guarantee you, Mr. President, we are going to be back here in the 
Senate facing real energy crises as we deal with the realities of what 
is going to happen in the world, with a China that is going to move to 
something like 13 million barrels of consumption on a daily basis from 
about 5 today. You have India that is going to go from about 2 million 
barrels up to 5 million barrels a day.
  You are going to have some trillions of dollars that are going to 
continue to be exported abroad, and you will see more efforts by China 
and other countries to take the fruits of their oil and buy American 
companies. Is America going to be stronger for that?
  I would like to know why, instead, billions of American tax dollars 
are not going to go to renewables and alternatives, but they are going 
to go into oil and gas. Let me make it clear. I support clean coal 
technology. I think it is important. It is one of the most vast 
resources of the United States, one of our biggest reserves. And it is 
absolutely technologically feasible for us to be able to burn coal more 
cleanly. We need to do that. I support our efforts to move in that 
direction.
  But why, at the last minute, is there a $1.5 billion deal that goes 
to Halliburton? Halliburton, which is making billions of dollars off of 
Iraq, Halliburton, which is a hugely profitable company, is going to 
get $1.5 billion out of this instead of some of these other nascent 
technologies that are screaming for assistance.
  Why is it that children are going to get weaker environmental 
protections, dirtier air and water? Is there any person in the Senate 
who has received mail from their constituents saying: Give me dirtier 
air for my kids. Give us dirtier water to drink. That is what you are 
getting. That is what this bill gives you.
  Americans get no relief at the pump. And we are left more dependent 
on foreign oil than we are today. Imagine that. Here is an energy 
policy that people are going to come and celebrate. I can see the 
President's signing ceremony now. And he will go out and tell America 
how terrific it is going to be.

[[Page 18953]]

But this does nothing to reduce American dependency on oil.
  Let me make it clear. Don't take my word for it. The President's own 
economists say that oil imports will increase 85 percent by 2025 under 
this proposal. The President's own economists found--and I quote them--

       [C]hanges to production, consumption, imports, and prices 
     are negligible [in this bill].

  In other words, the very things we want to affect--prices, 
consumption, imports, production--are going to be negligibly affected 
by this bill.
  You do not have to be an expert, you can be a kid in any classroom in 
America, in middle school or elementary, and know that if the United 
States of America only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves--that 
is all we have in all of Alaska, underneath all of our national 
monuments, in all of our waters that are accessible to the United 
States. We have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Saudi Arabia 
alone has 65 percent of it. As I have said many times, and as this bill 
ignores, there is no possible way for the United States of America to 
build its security in the long term by drilling our way out of this 
crisis. We have to invent our way out of it. This bill barely scratches 
the surface of the kind of invention America is capable of and the 
kinds of opportunities we know of.
  I heard the Senator a moment ago say we do not have the ability now 
to be able to do better in our automobiles. That is just not true. For 
a $200 expenditure, anybody could go out now and get their car 
converted to be able to go use ethanol fuel, biomass fuel. It is just 
that we do not do enough of it. Imagine what we could do for farmers 
across our Nation. Imagine what we could do with respect to the 
possibility of new jobs and new production facilities and delivery 
facilities and infrastructure. None of that is being adequately tapped 
with respect to this legislation.
  All you have to do is look at what this bill does for the 
environment. There is in this bill an amendment to the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. Do you know what it does? It allows unregulated underground 
injection of chemicals during oil and gas development so that we 
threaten clean water. Did anybody in America say, I think it is a good 
idea for us to have chemicals put into the underground water supply in 
order to bring out oil and gas? Why would we exempt it from the 
standards we have applied to our Nation over the course of the last 30 
years? The oil and gas industry is getting an exemption for their 
construction activities from compliance with the Clean Water Act. Why 
would you exempt construction activities from compliance with the Clean 
Water Act?
  The Energy bill also requires an inventory of offshore oil and 
natural gas resources. That is supposed to pave the way for offshore 
drilling along America's coastlines, including areas off Florida's 
coastline, which is banned.
  This Energy bill should have been a net plus for the environment. 
Instead, it goes backward.
  Are there some positive provisions in this bill? Of course there are. 
I could stand up here and talk about the importance of clean coal 
technology. There are other things. I am encouraged by the strong, new 
standards and consumer protections in electricity. I am encouraged we 
finally authorized Energy Star. But the bottom line is, we did better 
in the Senate bill that went to the conference committee. We did 
better. And there is no policy rationale, no common sense in going 
backward from the standards that were set in that Senate bill.
  The fact is, if we end our energy dependence on foreign oil, we 
strengthen our national security. If we lead the world in inventing new 
technologies, we create thousands of high-paying technology jobs. If we 
learn to tap clean energy sources, we preserve a clean environment for 
our families and for future generations. If we remove the burden of 
high gas prices, American consumers can spend elsewhere and give our 
economy the boost it needs.
  This Energy bill does not take anywhere near the advantage that we 
had in the Senate bill or that we could have had even beyond the Senate 
bill.
  I understand it is hard to get an Energy bill passed. We all 
understand the powers and the force of money in American politics and 
the lobbying that takes place. But we have a powerful opportunity to 
make a renewable electricity the standard in the United States. This 
bill ought to be increasing our electricity supply from renewables up 
to 20 percent of electricity from wind and solar and geothermal and 
biomass facilities by 2020. Instead there is nothing.
  The renewable portfolio standard is a simple mechanism to diversify 
energy sources, to stabilize electricity prices, to reduce air 
pollution and other harmful environmental impacts of electricity 
generation. The fact is, this administration has even let the big old 
powerplants off the hook by reneging on the new source performance 
standards so that they don't have to live up to the higher standards as 
they put new technologies in place. The result is, Americans will have 
dirtier air than they would have had otherwise.
  Second, we need to take serious steps to help the domestic auto 
manufacturers build the cars, trucks, and SUVs of the future. The 
market for hybrids is set to take off. Over the next 3 years, the 
number of hybrid models is going to increase to almost 20. By 2012, 
there could be possibly more than 50 models. These are representative 
of real potential volume and unbelievable value. If we don't build 
them, someone else is going to do it. The fact is, others are doing it 
more effectively and rapidly than we have. The global market for 
hybrids, by one estimate, could be as much as 4.5 million units by 
2013, perhaps $65 billion alone in the United States. I believe we 
ought to put American ingenuity back into our vehicles. We ought to be 
encouraging, to a greater degree, the ability to transform that 
marketplace. That is why any Energy bill that we consider ought to have 
both manufacturer and consumer incentives that are adequate to help 
accelerate that transition. This bill doesn't.
  Third, Congress can't responsibly continue to ignore the global 
climate change issue. Higher temperatures threaten serious 
consequences. I met the other day with our top experts from NASA. How 
many Senators realize that it is now not a question of whether; it is a 
certainty. Nothing we do today is going to stop this. To show you how 
far behind the curve we are, it is a certainty that the Arctic ice 
sheet is going to melt. If the Arctic ice sheet melts completely, that 
exposes the Greenland sheet. Nobody can tell you with certainty what is 
going to happen to Greenland. But any policymaker ought to stop and 
shiver at the prospect that it is a certainty the Arctic ice sheet will 
melt. The Greenland ice sheet will be exposed. And if it were to melt, 
with catastrophic consequences, say goodbye to Florida, goodbye to the 
port of Boston, and New York, and a bunch of other places. That would 
be a catastrophic event. There is nothing in this bill that tries 
adequately to deal with that reality.
  What is going to happen with respect to drought, disease, floods, 
lost ecosystems? And from sweltering heat to rising seas, global 
warming effects have already begun. Sit down with the top scientists. 
Sit down with Nobel Prize winners and listen to them tell you about the 
certainty of what is already happening, not a matter of scientific 
speculation. The seas are rising. It is getting warmer. They will tell 
you what is happening. This bill doesn't deal with it.
  We tried, on this bill, to pass an economywide cap-and-trade bill, a 
bill that uses the marketplace to be able to work effectively. Didn't 
get enough votes. The compromise was, they passed the language that 
didn't require anything, and they even took out of this bill the 
language that didn't require anything. This is the most obtuse, head-
in-the-sand ostrich policy I have ever seen in my life. A bunch of 
responsible people in the Senate and House of Representatives, ignoring 
scientists all across the globe, turning their backs on foreign 
ministers, trade ministers, environmental ministers, prime ministers, 
presidents of countries, all of whom have embraced, at

[[Page 18954]]

political risk, the reality of that science, and only the United States 
of America stands apart and alone, ignoring that reality. Where is the 
leadership?
  Fourth, to ensure that technologies capable of providing clean, 
secure, and affordable energy become available in the timeframe and on 
a scale needed, we need to dramatically increase our commitment to 
research and development. I am in favor of advancing the research on 
nuclear waste and on third-generation, fourth-generation nuclear 
capacity. A lot of people in my party are not, a lot of 
environmentalists aren't. I think it is responsible to do that. But it 
is not responsible to go rushing headlong with the greatest proportion 
of technology alternative here, without having dealt with those issues 
and dealt with the American public in a responsible way with respect to 
that.
  I think the bill ought to include provisions to dramatically increase 
Federal Government funding for new energy research and development, 
increased incentives for private sector energy research and 
development, and expanded investment in cooperative international R&D 
initiatives. It does not.
  Maybe most important of all, we need to attack our energy crisis with 
the same intensity that we showed under the leadership of Franklin 
Roosevelt and Harry Truman when we undertook the Manhattan Project or, 
subsequently, when we did the space program and the Apollo program. Our 
competitors are showing that kind of urgency. Prime Minister Blair has 
been fighting hard to get the G8 to come together. He had to back off 
because of American pressure. We pushed backward, not forward. Great 
Britain wants to do almost 100 percent of its electricity from wind 
power over the course of the next years. Other countries are moving to 
80 or 90 percent goals of biomass for fuels. Not the United States of 
America, despite so many farmers who are desperately waiting for that 
marketplace to exist.
  In Germany, where heating is a huge drain on energy, a new law sets 
the standard of a house designed to use just 7 liters of oil to heat 1 
square meter for a year. A new national campaign in Japan urges 
replacement of older appliances with new hybrid products as part of 
their nationwide effort to save energy and fight global warming. In 
Singapore, air-conditioning is a big drain on energy. So new codes 
encourage the use of heated blocking window films and hookups to 
neighborhood cooling systems which chill water overnight. Other 
countries are way ahead of the United States of America in exploring 
these possibilities.
  In Hong Kong, an intelligent elevator system uses computers to 
minimize unnecessary stops and minimize, therefore, unnecessary use of 
energy. If these nations can reduce their dependence on foreign oil and 
invest in advanced energy technology, surely the United States of 
America can do better than this paltry 16 percent renewables and 10 
percent efficiency.
  Their urgency is more than justified because, frankly, this goes way 
beyond our economy. Energy is a legitimate and central global security 
issue. The era when the United States and Japan comprised the bulk of 
the world's demand for oil is over. Oil consumption from developing 
Asian nations will more than double in the next 25 years, from 15 
million to 32 million barrels a day. We only have 3 percent, as I said 
earlier. There is no way the United States is going to be part of that 
bargain. The way the United States can be part of that future is by 
creating those alternative sources and gaining our independence.
  Chinese consumption is going to grow from 5 million to nearly 13 
million barrels a day. India is going from 2 to 5 million barrels per 
day. This global race for oil is potentially a devastating, 
destabilizing force, certainly a challenge to the security of our 
country.
  We are going to be back here on the floor of the Senate in a short 
period of time lamenting that we didn't do more now. Increased American 
energy dependence further entangles also our Nation in these areas of 
the world. You look at our troops now. This is not good for our troops. 
In recent years, U.S. forces had to help protect a pipeline in 
Colombia. Our military had to train indigenous forces to protect a 
pipeline in Georgia. We plan to spend $100 million on a special network 
of police officers and special forces to guard oil facilities around 
the Caspian Sea and continue to search for bases in Africa so we can 
protect oil facilities there. Our Navy patrolled tanker routes in the 
Indian Ocean, South China Sea, and the western Pacific. The reality is 
that we have to protect oil at risk to our troops and at cost to 
Americans to protect our way of life because we are not working the way 
we could to provide an alternative to that.
  This is a serious issue with real consequences. In the spring of 
2004, insurgents attacked an Iraqi oil platform. There was violence 
against oil workers in Nigeria. The result was depressed global oil 
output and record high gasoline prices. The United States is now on a 
course where we are opening a target to terrorists. The more you rely 
on oil, the more disruptive it becomes to your economy, the more it 
becomes a target to terror, rather than growing it here at home.
  If anyone needs an example of how energy dependence can shortchange 
national security, you can look at the war on terror. Let's assume that 
oil were to miraculously drop to $30 a barrel over the next 25 years. 
The United States will send over $3 trillion out of the country, much 
of it to regimes that don't share our values. Today, America spends 
these enormous amounts. About $25 billion a year goes to Persian Gulf 
imports alone. It is bad enough to think that those dollars aren't 
going to stay here and help grow our economy. But it is worse to 
consider that they empower, in many cases, some of the most extreme 
elements in the world to be able to take advantage of that richness. 
The fact is the madrassas in many of these countries and the deals that 
have been cut in regimes like Saudi Arabia between those extremists are 
part of what has provided the recruitment and destabilization with 
respect to the violent extremists of the world today.
  We know that al-Qaida has relied on prominent Saudi Arabians for 
financing. The fact is that the bottom line of this policy is, it works 
for Saudi Arabia. It works for oil and gas companies. But in the long 
run, this is not going to be what the American people need or want.
  Americans deserve better, and they also deserve the truth. We had a 
debate on the floor of the Senate on an Energy bill, during which we 
were debating efficiencies. This administration delayed an EPA report 
that slammed fuel economy. It didn't allow the report to come out until 
after the bill had passed.
  Washington failed the American people with respect to an opportunity 
to provide both the economic, health and security and energy policy 
that this Nation so desperately needs. My hope is that as much as there 
are some good things in this bill, the Senate at some point will come 
back and get the real job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the legislation that the Senator from 
Massachusetts described bears very little resemblance to the 
legislation I have been working on for the last couple of years with 
Senators Domenici and Bingaman and that 13 out of the 14 Senate 
conferees of both parties just approved.
  Let me say what I believe we did and then spend a minute, at the end 
of my 5 minutes, correcting a couple of things the Senator from 
Massachusetts said.
  Energy is not usually what we talk about at the dinner table, but it 
is today. For example, in Tennessee, if you are working at 
International Paper in Memphis or at Eastman Chemical in east 
Tennessee, you know that if the price of natural gas stays as high as 
it is today, the highest in the world, those jobs are going to move 
overseas. And those are thousands of jobs in Tennessee and millions of 
blue-collar jobs in America. If you are a farmer and

[[Page 18955]]

you know that the natural gas price stays as high as it is today, you 
know you are going to have a big pay cut because of the cost of 
fertilizer. And if you are a homeowner, you know the bills are up.
  The first thing this legislation does is to take significant steps to 
stabilize the price of natural gas and hopefully bring it down. That is 
worth talking about at the dinner table.
  The second thing it does is to change the way we produce electricity 
so that it is by low-carbon and no-carbon means. That is worth talking 
about at the dinner table because it helps deal with global warming, 
and it helps deal with clean air. The third thing it does is begin a 
long-term switch from a dependence on oil, especially foreign oil. That 
is worth talking about because of our national security. Does it really 
do that? I would submit that it does. To begin with, the conservation 
and efficiency provisions in this bill will save the building of 50 
major powerplants over the next 20 years. That is the first and most 
important thing we should do.
  The second thing it does is to focus on accelerated investment and 
research for the next generation of nuclear power.
  If you really care about global warming, you want to support nuclear 
power because 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity in America 
today comes from electricity generated by nuclear powerplants.
  The third thing it does is to adopt a strategy that the Natural 
Resources Defense Council and many others have urged on us, which is to 
explore seriously making gas from coal and turning that into 
electricity and taking the carbon out and putting it into the ground.
  The fourth thing it does is to create new supplies of natural gas to 
begin to lower the price of gas and further produce clean air.
  Mr. President, that is really the way to address global warming. That 
is really the way to reduce the price of natural gas. That is a serious 
policy to change the way we produce electricity so it is low carbon/no 
carbon--conservation and efficiency, nuclear power, coal gasification, 
carbon sequestration, and new supplies of natural gas. And then, for 
the long term, a focus on hydrogen fuel cell economy, but that is 
several years away.
  The Senator from Massachusetts talked passionately about renewable 
energy. We all hope we can expand renewable energy. I fought very hard 
and I am glad to see in this legislation, for the first time, a carve-
out for solar power, which was getting nothing from our renewable tax 
credit. But how much are we going to spend on energy that produces 2 
percent of the electricity we use?
  If you look at the figures in terms of the tax incentives in the 
bill, the Senator from Massachusetts didn't multiply very well because 
we spend 20 percent of the money on renewable. That is for 2 percent of 
the electricity. We spend 18.6 percent on energy efficiency and 
conservation. Most of us wish that were more. We spend 18 percent of 
the money on oil and gas production. That is 40 percent of our energy. 
Of the amount we spend on electric reliability, we spend $400 million 
of that for clean energy renewable bonds. That is renewable. We spend 
20 percent on clean coal.
  Mr. President, if anything, I think we are overspending on renewable. 
We have committed of taxpayers' money $3 billion over the next 5 years 
building giant windmills with flashing red lights. The Senator from 
Massachusetts may want a national windmill policy. That is for a desert 
island. For the United States, we need a serious clean energy policy, 
and that is this bill. So I congratulate Senator Domenici and Senator 
Bingaman. I am proud of this bill and I hope we adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, sometimes the test of legislation in the 
Senate is did we do less harm than good. Some might say, by that test, 
this Energy bill is worth voting for. I will tell you that test is not 
good enough when America is at war and our dependence upon foreign oil 
is putting our citizens at risk each and every day.
  The test in the Senate that, well, maybe this legislation has some 
good is unacceptable when there is a rare opportunity and a rare 
obligation to avoid the terrifying human costs of future wars. In those 
rare instances, the test in the Senate should be did Congress meet its 
obligations. I have concluded that in this energy bill we have not.
  Our dependence on foreign oil will not be reduced as a result of this 
legislation. As a result, we have not reduced the prospect of going to 
war once again in the Persian Gulf in the next decade. I do not 
understand how we will explain to every man and woman who fights so 
courageously in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how to explain to every 
veteran who fought in the Persian Gulf in the last decade, how we 
failed to meet our obligation to avoid future wars.
  For this reason, I want to express a deep regret to those soldiers 
and veterans because your children are now no less likely to be asked 
to fight a very similar war. I want to express a deep regret to the 
families of those soldiers and veterans because their children may 
someday face the very same burdens. I want to express a deep regret to 
the American public, which is spending hundreds of billions of dollars 
to prosecute the war in Iraq and may someday be asked to spend far more 
on the next war because the Senate is about to pass a pre-9/11 energy 
policy. After 9/11, it became clear that energy policy was a national 
security issue and that reducing our dependence on foreign oil had to 
be a national security priority. That hasn't been done.
  So today Americans continue to pay what I call a terror tax--the 
price we pay in insecurity for our dependence on foreign oil. I call it 
a terror tax because when each of us pulls up to the corner gasoline 
station and pays $2.40 a gallon, or so, for gasoline, a portion of that 
money goes to foreign governments that in turn send it out the back 
door to Islamist extremists who use the money to perpetuate hate and 
terrorist acts. But in this bill Congress has squandered a golden 
opportunity to dam that river of terrorist funding.
  It is not good enough to accept business as usual when our citizens 
pay record prices at the gas pump, only to see foreign governments wink 
and nod while terrorists make off with substantial amounts of the money 
and use the funds to target America. The recent bombings we have seen 
have been a sober reminder of just how vulnerable America, our allies, 
and our strategic partners remain to terrorism. In my view, there is an 
indisputable link, not only between the American dependence on foreign 
oil and the price our citizens pay at the pump but between our oil 
addiction and our vulnerability to attack here at home.
  What I have come to learn as a member of the Energy Committee, and as 
the one member of the conference who was unwilling to sign the report, 
is that any energy policy proposed in the future should have to contain 
a statement of how that bill will reduce the terror attacks. There 
ought to be a statement in the future with respect to energy 
legislation on how that legislation would actually reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil in the short term and in the long term.
  If that had been required for this legislation, there is no way this 
bill would get a passing grade. This legislation does virtually nothing 
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. You look at what was said in 
2003, not by partisans on one side or the other but by the Bush 
administration's Energy Information Agency. They said that bill would 
have increased our imports of foreign oil by 2025 by about 85 percent. 
This legislation, with respect to oil imports, would produce virtually 
the same result.
  Now, to give the country a sense of just what we were up against--
those of us who wanted to break our dependence on foreign oil--I would 
like to discuss an amendment I tried to offer in the conference. In the 
conference, I proposed that the automobile industry be required to 
increase auto efficiency by 1 mile per gallon for each of the next 5 
years. The reason I did that is a basic fact of energy policy. You 
cannot

[[Page 18956]]

transform this country's energy sector if you give the automobile 
industry a free pass. So when I made that proposal, I said to myself, 
what a modest step, just 1 mile per gallon for just 5 years. Yet it 
would have had a huge impact in terms of reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil. Unlike this legislation, which doesn't reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, that would have made a difference.
  In the 2001 report, the national academy found that the technology 
exists today to raise the average fuel economy nearly 40 miles per 
gallon by 2012 without sacrificing safety. My proposal was much more 
modest than what the leading scientific experts in this country found 
was both technologically feasible and affordable to consumers. Yet the 
conference rejected even this modest proposal out of hand.
  I particularly thank Senator Bingaman, who supported it and said we 
ought to at least, at the very minimum, not go to the American people 
and say, gosh, 5 miles a gallon over 5 years is too much. But even that 
modest advance could not make it into this legislation. So, as a 
result, Americans will get no relief from this terror tax brought about 
by our addiction to foreign oil. And at the same time, their hard-
earned dollars will flow out the back door straight to the entrenched 
energy interests.
  Now, even the President has said that when oil is trading at upwards 
of $55 a barrel, the oil companies are not in need of any more 
incentives. When the President says the oil companies don't need a deal 
from the Government, that ought to tell you something--you are going 
too far. But even so--even with the remarks of the President, who was 
dead right--this bill is now stuffed with a smorgasbord of subsidies 
for a whole host of energy special interests. The buffet of subsidies 
is so generously larded that, in many cases, it will allow second and 
even third helpings from the energy subsidy buffet table. Loan 
guarantees are letting these special interests double dip and even 
triple dip on some energy projects. Projects that would already be 
subsidized in other provisions of the Energy bill will also receive 
loan guarantees under the incentives title.
  They are also going to get tax credits in the finance title. That is 
dip 1. Then they are going to get loans under the incentives title. 
That is dip 2. Then there will be loan guarantees on top of that. That 
is dip 3. These guarantees are some of the largest subsidies in the 
Senate Energy bill, and they are risky ones.
  Mr. President, the subsidy title of this legislation, in my view, is 
a blank check for boondoggles that simply doesn't decrease our foreign 
oil dependence.
  In closing, the most patriotic thing this Congress could have done in 
the summer of 2005 was to write an energy bill that did three specific 
things: reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gasoline prices for 
working families and businesses, and end the energy subsidy smorgasbord 
that has offered these heaping helpings of taxpayer dollars to the 
energy industry for decades.
  I am sad to say, as one who was involved in this from the outset as a 
member of the committee and the conference committee, that the final 
product does not accomplish any of those three things. It doesn't 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nobody has to take my word for 
it. That has been on the front pages of the papers all this week. It 
doesn't lower gasoline prices. And, again, you don't have to take my 
word for it. The President has already stated that. It doesn't end the 
subsidy buffet for the big energy interests, and you won't have to take 
my word for that either. You are going to hear those special interests 
breaking out the champagne bottles all over town in the next few days.
  My constituents have been hit especially hard by high energy costs, 
and they and millions of Americans had hoped that the Congress would 
step up and take bold action, truly bold action, to shake us free of 
our dependence on foreign oil and these other concerns that I have 
addressed tonight.
  What I hope is that, as the country sees how little is actually 
accomplished here, there will be an opportunity--and an opportunity 
soon--to come back and address some of the shortcomings that have been 
discussed on the floor of the Senate tonight.
  I hope there will be a transformational policy put in place with 
respect to the automobile sector. That is the ball game in terms of 
energy conservation and reducing oil consumption. This legislation took 
a pass on it.
  With respect to reducing carbons, again, there was a marketplace 
approach--a bipartisan marketplace approach--that the Congress could 
have moved ahead on.
  The bottom line, the Congress could have done much better. I think 
our colleagues in the Senate know this bill is literally a series of 
missed opportunities. It is right to vote no on this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have waited my time in the queue this 
evening because I wanted to take a few minutes to speak not only about 
the importance of this Energy bill we are poised to vote on tomorrow, 
but to acknowledge those who did I think yeoman's work in getting us to 
where we are.
  As my friend from Oregon has pointed out, this is not a perfect piece 
of legislation. He and I would disagree on certain areas of it. But I 
think when we look at the work product of what we do in the Senate, the 
day that we come to complete agreement--complete agreement--on all 
aspects of legislation we move forward, I think we will have all lost 
our collective senses. We will always find room to improve our 
legislation. We will always find room to make something better. We need 
to look at where we are at this point in time with the Energy bill we 
have before us.
  As was pointed out earlier this evening, we have not had an energy 
policy updated or presented or worked through this Congress for 13 
years. Thirteen years is a long time to be floating without a specific 
policy, a specific policy direction, particularly in an area that is as 
important as energy.
  I had the opportunity yesterday to address a group of a couple 
hundred young people in a junior statesman-type forum. It was an 
opportunity for me to speak on the subject of my choosing. Since we 
have been so focused on energy these past couple weeks and we have been 
moving this bill through the conference process, I spent my time to 
talk about what we had been doing and the significance of energy to us 
as a nation, as a people, and particularly to these young people.
  As Senator Alexander, the Senator from Tennessee, mentioned earlier, 
energy is not typically something we talk about at the dinner table. We 
need to understand as a country how important energy is to our daily 
world.
  I have often described the way Americans think about energy--we have 
this kind of immaculate conception notion of energy: It just happens. 
You flip the switch and the lights go on; you adjust the thermostat and 
you are cooler or warmer, and it just happens. There is no connection 
between how we respond to the energy we have, whether it powers us, 
heats us, cools us, it moves us. We do not think about it. We do not 
connect the dots between what we are consuming and where from it comes.
  As I explained to this group of young people, we get most of our 
energy from the ground. It comes from underneath, whether it is oil or 
whether it is natural gas that is extracted off our shores, say, in 
Louisiana, or whether it is from our coal resources that we mine. 
Sometimes that is not a particularly visually appealing thought, to 
think that we have to dig it out, we have to drill it out, we have to 
extract. But the fact of the matter is, we are energy consumers. We are 
a nation that is dependent on our energy for what we do, for who we 
are, for the strength of this Nation. If we couldn't move, if we 
couldn't communicate the way we do, we would not be the Nation we are.
  So it is important for us as Americans to realize, to appreciate, to 
connect those dots and say, this is important to us. It is important to 
us to have

[[Page 18957]]

an energy policy that is comprehensive, that is sound, that is 
balanced, that not only looks to the production from the traditional 
sources, such as oil, gas, and coal, but looks to the production from 
the sources for the future in the renewables, in the alternative 
sources of energy. That also has as a component of our energy policy 
the conservation aspects, the efficiencies. This must be part of the 
plan.
  That is what this Energy bill we have before us is and does. It is 
comprehensive in those ways.
  The point has been made tonight that we have done nothing in this 
Energy bill that is going to bring down the price of gasoline at the 
pump tomorrow. I am not going to stand before you tonight and say that 
if we pass this legislation tomorrow and if the President signs off on 
this in the next couple of weeks the American consumer is all of a 
sudden going to see the price of gasoline drop at the pump. I cannot 
make that promise, and I would be foolish to do so. We know that is not 
going to happen just because we enact this bill.
  Here is the point: If we had done this 8 years, 10 years ago, 5 years 
ago when we had been working on energy policies over this period of 
time, perhaps we would not be at this point where we are paying $2.40 
at the pump, as we are paying in my hometown of Anchorage right now. 
Perhaps we would not be at this point if we had enacted an energy 
policy some years prior to this. But we did not, and we are here now.
  Now we have an opportunity to do something, to move forward with a 
policy that does make some sense. So we have to start somewhere. We 
have to put in place the procedures and the mechanisms that will work. 
We have to understand that we cannot expect an immediate fix. We did 
not get to $2.40 a gallon gasoline overnight. We are not going to 
remedy it overnight. So our expectations need to be realistic.
  As the Senator from Tennessee said when he was talking about natural 
gas, one of the things we will see through what we are putting in place 
with this legislation is a stabilizing effect, hopefully, with our 
natural gas prices as we are able to provide for those incentives and 
encourage more LNG facilities around our coasts so we can get more of 
the natural gas into this country. Those things have to all start 
somewhere, but the recognition is let's be realistic in terms of when 
we are going to see the results.
  People want to know, What does it mean to me today? We need to 
appreciate the fact that we have to look to what it is going to mean to 
us tomorrow. With the provisions we have put in place, hopefully we 
will not see the blackout we had a couple years back. We have enhanced 
the reliability standards of our electricity grids so that we are not 
going to see that.
  Points have been made on the floor tonight that what will come out of 
this Energy bill is not a cleaner America. I challenge that absolutely. 
The provisions that have been put in place, the incentives that have 
been put in place, whether it is the clean coal gasification that will 
work to reduce those emissions, to reduce the carbon, to make our air 
more clean, our waters more clean--these are things we are putting in 
place through the incentives. My colleague called them subsidies. The 
fact is, when you are changing technology, when you are making things 
different to make them better, to make them cleaner, to make them more 
efficient, it is going to cost some money. Should we not help to make 
it cleaner, to make it more efficient? That is what the incentives are 
for. So let's work to make those happen.
  Think about these processes. We have provisions in place for enhanced 
oil recovery, and in my State of Alaska, we have some aging oilfields 
out in the Cook Inlet. They have been producing and doing a darn fine 
job for a couple decades, but these fields are declining. With the 
technology and the processes now available, we can, through enhanced 
oil recovery, through injection of the carbon dioxide, inject into 
these aging wells, enhance the oil so that we get more oil from these 
aging wells while we are sequestering the carbon. We have a win-win 
situation. It is an environmentally more sophisticated and more helpful 
process, and we are getting more of the energy source we are seeking. 
It is through these types of technologies that we benefit, that we 
proceed to win in so many different ways.
  Again, I want to reinforce that what we will have an opportunity to 
accept tomorrow is a comprehensive policy, a policy that has balance to 
it, that is not totally loaded to the production side.
  I come from a State where, quite honestly, we want to see additional 
production coming out of the State of Alaska because we have the 
resource there and we want to be able to help meet the Nation's energy 
needs. But we know--I know--that is not necessarily the energy for the 
long-term future of this country; that the direction we take is in the 
area of renewables and the alternatives. We have to start. We are 
making a start with this legislation.
  It is not just a focus on production, it is the renewables, the 
biomass, the geothermal, the solar, the wind, ocean currents; we have 
ocean energy for the first time. Think about the possibility of 
harnessing the currents in our oceans, the temperature differentials in 
the ocean waters. There is so much potential out there.
  Again, when we are talking about new technology and new processes, it 
takes a little bit of money, it takes a little bit of help, and this is 
where we can step in to provide that.
  Senator Bingaman made a comment at the conclusion of his initial 
remarks that we do not want to wait another 13 years to take up an 
energy policy again. It is probably premature to be talking about the 
next energy policy when we have not even concluded this one, but I 
think we need to recognize that what is happening in this country now 
and as we collaborate with other nations in clean energy research, the 
technology changes so quickly--or we hope we can encourage the 
technology to change so quickly--that we have to keep on top of this. 
We have to have an energy policy that is current, that does look toward 
tomorrow. So we want to make sure this is not the end of the 
conversation, that once we conclude with the Energy bill, we close the 
books and don't start looking at it for another 10 years. I am not 
willing to do that, and I think most of my colleagues would be joining 
me in saying we need to be constantly on top of and involved with this.
  I want to comment before I conclude that there have been several of 
my colleagues on the other side who have mentioned there is absolutely 
nothing in this Energy bill that reduces our reliance on foreign 
sources of oil, that, in fact, we become more dependent on foreign oil. 
I do have to tell my colleagues, as one of the Senators from Alaska who 
has been very focused on ANWR and opening ANWR, I am sitting back in my 
chair here listening to this, scratching my head--scratching my head--
because they are saying to me we are not doing anything to reduce our 
reliance on foreign sources of oil, we must do more domestically.
  We have been saying we have a portion of the answer. Opening ANWR is 
not going to make us not rely on foreign sources of oil. We know that. 
But it can help us. Should we not be doing all that we can domestically 
to help us?
  I know the critics and that we are going to go into this argument in 
September all over again so I do not need to take the body's time 
tonight to dwell on these facts, but for those who say there is not 
enough there to make a difference, the mean estimate coming out of ANWR 
will be what we have been getting from the State of Texas for the past 
75 years. The mean estimate coming out of ANWR is what we have received 
from Saudi Arabia for 25 years. That is not insignificant amounts of 
oil. This can help us.
  ANWR is not contained in this Energy bill, much to my dismay. The 
House included it on their side. We know that in the Senate ANWR, when 
it was tried to be placed in the Energy bill, was subject to a 
filibuster. It was subject to a filibuster by some of the same 
individuals who tonight have stood and said this Energy bill does not

[[Page 18958]]

provide for any lessening of foreign dependence on oil. Well, I would 
like to suggest that this energy policy that we are about to vote on 
tomorrow is one piece of what we need to look to as a Nation. The piece 
tomorrow will be the piece that includes the focus on conservation, the 
focus on renewables, alternatives, the focus on efficiencies.
  Last year we were successful in moving forward the Natural Gas Act 
that provided incentives for construction of the natural gas pipeline 
coming out of Alaska, where we hope we will be able to provide to this 
Nation a good source of domestic natural gas. That is a huge piece for 
us. I would also like to think that before the end of the year we would 
also be able to put into place the rest of the comprehensive energy 
policy that would include oil coming out of a tiny sliver of the 
Coastal Plain of Alaska's North Slope.
  I publicly thank Chairman Domenici and the ranking member, Senator 
Bingaman, of the Energy Committee. Both Senators did an incredible task 
shepherding this legislation through the floor. Their staffs were 
excellent. There was a great deal of hard work. It was a pleasure to 
sit in my first conference and see the manner in which it was 
conducted. It was a very open, very respectful deliberation of some 
very difficult issues conducted by the Members on our side as well as 
Chairman Barton from the House side. It was a pleasure to be a part of 
it. I am proud of the product that has come out of this body, and I 
urge the Members' support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this Energy bill. 
Even though I am opposed to the bill, I first want to pay my 
compliments to both Senators from New Mexico, Mr. Dominici and Mr. 
Bingaman, for the work that they have done. While I am opposed to the 
Energy bill for a variety of reasons, which I will elucidate in a 
minute, it was Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici who worked very 
hard to make the bill better.
  The bill that left the Senate was considerably better. I thought the 
House bill could not have been much worse. The bill that comes back to 
us obviously is somewhere in between. Without the efforts of the two 
Senators from New Mexico, it would have been considerably worse.
  I want to say one other thing. It was of monumental strength that the 
odious MTBE provisions that the House had clung so steadfastly to, that 
brought the bill down last time it came around, are not in the bill. 
That is because the Senate, on the Democratic and Republican sides, 
hung tough. The MTBE provisions were a disaster. To reward polluters 
and stick taxpayers who had lost their supplies of drinking water with 
a bill for what had happened would have been a disgrace. To pay the 
MTBE companies over $2 billion because they could no longer sell as 
much of their product as before was doing what we do for very few 
businesspeople who produce far more worthy products.
  So I want to compliment my two colleagues for knocking out that 
provision. It is the reason we are sitting here with a conference 
report.
  Let me talk about one provision in the bill that bothers me greatly 
but then talk about what bothers me more than that because what bothers 
me most is not what is in the bill but what is not in the bill. What is 
in the bill is an ethanol provision that will force people on the 
coasts, States that do not grow much corn, to buy ethanol whether they 
need it or not. I understand the need to help agriculture. I have voted 
for many of those types of provisions myself. I know the dairy farmers, 
apple growers and cherry growers in New York State, and they do need 
some help. I am not adverse at all to the Government helping. But this 
``Gyro Gearloose'' way of helping the corn growers of the Middle West 
by foisting the costs upon drivers, particularly on the east and west 
coasts, at a time when gasoline is already $2.30, $2.40 or $2.50, makes 
no sense.
  We want to keep the air clean, and we need to make sure that gasoline 
burns, but there are many ways to do it, not only with ethanol or 
MTBEs. To require the refiners throughout the country to use MTBE or at 
least pay for MTBE, even when they are not going to use it, is a 
disgraceful subsidy. We already subsidize ethanol heavily, and it is 
very unfair to do it.
  If one wants to encourage ethanol, I have no problem with encouraging 
the creation of ethanol plants in places such as New York or maybe 
Nevada, where there is not much ethanol now. The real cost of ethanol 
is not in making it but in transporting it. While it is dubious, recent 
studies have shown that the energy cost into making ethanol exceeds the 
energy benefit into using it as a substitute for gasoline. Nonetheless, 
growing it near the source of use would make it far more efficient. I 
am very regretful that it is in here.
  New York drivers will pay 5, 6, 7 cents a gallon more than they have 
to because of this ethanol provision. It is unfair to make the 
salesperson in Rochester who drives 500 or 600 miles a day and has 
enough trouble earning a living pay a direct subsidy to a corn grower 
in Iowa, however much that corn grower needs help. It is not a way to 
do business, and yet that is what we have done here.
  So the ethanol provision is rotten. The ethanol provision is a 
boondoggle. The ethanol provision occurs only because of the political 
power of the ethanol makers and the growers of corn in the Middle West 
and some other parts of the country, not because it is right. It is 
indefensible on the merits. It should not be in the bill.
  Having said that, what bothers me even more is what is not in the 
bill. I love this country, and I try to think what could make this 
country decline, what has made other great powers decline, whether it 
is the Roman Empire or Great Britain in the 19th century. When one 
reads history, it is that they became so preoccupied with enjoying 
things day to day that they were unable to look beyond the horizon a 
little bit and try to solve problems that might be upon them 5 or 10 
years down the road. That is exactly what we are doing with energy.
  Our dependence on foreign oil, our lack of being able to solve our 
growing energy needs is a crisis in the making. It is not a crisis 
today, but it is going to be a crisis 5 and 10 years from now. Even 
now, energy costs are akin to a slit on the wrist. We slowly bleed and 
it weakens our economy.
  Yet, in this bill, we do some things but not close to enough, and 
nothing major and nothing of vision to reduce our dependence on fossil 
fuels in general and imported fossil fuels, in particular. 
Conservation--we know that we should do both things. I do not disagree 
with the far left or the far right. The far left, conserve only, get 
rid of fossil fuels; far right, produce more oil, forget about 
conservation. We should be doing both. I am not adverse to better 
utilizing fossil fuels, to figuring out coal gasification, even to 
looking at oil and gas reserves off our coasts, if it is done in a 
careful and pro-environmental way, as it was done when we sold some 
tract in the east Gulf several years ago.
  Conservation has to be part of any plan to reduce our energy 
dependence. CAFE standards, not in the bill; major incentives for 
conservation, not in the bill, even mild provisions, such as the 
Senator from Oregon offered to raise CAFE standards a mile per gallon a 
year were rejected. That is because of the cloud of the big three auto 
companies in America and, frankly, I regret to say, the unions that 
serve them. They have been arguing for the status quo for years. For 
that reason now, I hate to say it but foreign automakers are again 
overtaking them.
  We have to look to the future. I am happy to help our auto industry 
with new incentives to figure out ways to burn less fossil fuel and 
have alternative sources, but we are not doing it. It is no good for 
the auto companies, it is no good for the autoworkers, and it is no 
good for America.
  So conservation is not in the bill, nor is a dramatic program to 
reduce our energy independence. There are some subsidies here and there 
for wind power, solar power and biomass. There are subsidies for coal, 
gas and oil. But

[[Page 18959]]

the emergency that we face to really engage in crash programs, to use 
hydrogen better, to use fuel cells better, to find other alternatives, 
is virtually a necessity or will be a necessity 5 years or 8 years from 
now, lest our economic vitality continue to be sapped.
  It is amazing to me that China, a country not regarded for its fealty 
to the environment, has stronger CAFE standards, stronger incentives 
for alternatives to gas and oil than we do. That is a sign that this 
great American experiment, this noble experiment, as the Founding 
Fathers called it, may be at least in this area losing its bearings. If 
we are more interested in providing immediate subsidies to the powerful 
few in the energy industry who are around us than figuring out a grand 
plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and on fossil fuels in 
general, we are not serving the people of America.
  The amazing thing is I think the people of America are ready for a 
vision, if we look at all the surveys, finding a way to be independent 
of imported oil.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Dependence on foreign oil gets our foreign policy 
twisted in a knot, which, of course, saps our country of wealth every 
minute, every second, 365 days a year, and the American people want 
some change. They are willing to make some sacrifice and tighten their 
belts. As China is ahead of America in this area, the American people 
are ahead of this Congress. Again, we seem more concerned with feeding 
particular special interests, some good, some bad, than we do with 
coming up with a vision as to how we are going to reduce our energy 
independence.
  So is this bill an evil, horrible bill? No. The ethanol provision is 
odious, but the bill on balance may take a small, few steps forward, 
but not close to what is needed. I cannot think of an area, in a large 
policy way, where the needs and the political possibilities are not far 
ahead of what we have done tonight.
  I regret to say I am going to vote against this bill, not only 
because of the ethanol provisions in it, but because at a time 
demanding vision, at a time demanding foresight, at a time demanding an 
effort to solve problems that are only problems today but could become 
crises 5 years from now, we have done mostly the prosaic, the mundane, 
the expected. That is not what a great power does. That is not what 
true leaders do. That is what this bill does.
  So despite my respect for the leaders of the bill and the wonderful, 
harmonious way in which they worked, I have to say, to me, this bill is 
a serious disappointment and I have no choice but to vote against it 
tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the 
energy conference report. I thank the managers of the bill, the two 
Senators from New Mexico, for their diligent effort in putting together 
an energy bill. While I cannot support the final product, I respect 
that they have made every effort to make this a bipartisan process and 
I thank them for their leadership.
  I voted against the Senate energy bill last month because it 
inadequately addresses several major priorities that should be included 
in a sound energy policy--reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, 
implementing CAFE standards, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions that 
cause global warming, and protecting the coastline from offshore energy 
drilling.
  Unfortunately, the bill has only become worse in conference and 
amounts to a missed opportunity to create an effective comprehensive 
energy policy. This bill does not do enough to lead this Nation toward 
energy independence and energy security.
  The bill also does not address an issue that faces Americans daily--
soaring gas prices. A a time when gas prices are skyrocketing and our 
dependency on oil is steadily increasing, we are voting on a bill that 
the President himself has said will do nothing to address those prices. 
The people of New Jersey, and in fact this Nation, deserve a bill that 
tackles this problem. I'm sure all Americans will be disappointed to 
know that instead of helping them at the gas pump, the bill provides 
giveaways to the Nation's fossil fuel industries.
  To truly make a dent in our energy independence, we need at least a 
savings of three to five million barrels of oil per day, yet this bill 
does not include any oil savings provision. Furthermore, this bill 
misses an opportunity to effectively reduce this Nation's oil use by 
increasing the fuel economy of passenger vehicles. Indeed, improving 
fuel efficiency, or CAFE, standards is not only a cost effective way to 
improve our energy security, but it would be instrumental in reducing 
soaring greenhouse gas emissions. During the debate on the Senate 
energy bill, Senator Durbin proposed an amendment that would have 
raised CAFE standards and closed the SUV loophole, both of which would 
save this country over 101 billion gallons of oil by the year 2016.
  In addition, the bill does not do enough to encourage the use of 
renewable energy sources. One of the few good provisions of the Senate 
energy bill was the ten percent renewable portfolio standard. My home 
State of New Jersey has been a leader in the area of renewable 
portfolio standards as it already has a 20 percent RPS. It is about 
time that the rest of the Nation follow suit. A Federal RPS is a 
crucial step in weaning this country from its dependence on foreign oil 
sources and I am disappointed that this conference report excludes this 
provision.
  The bill also includes a seven and a half billion gallon ethanol 
mandate. Those in favor of an ethanol mandate claim that it will 
enhance U.S. energy security. In fact, increasing the renewable fuel 
standard would not significantly reduce U.S. oil imports because each 
gallon of gasoline blended with ethanol to make gasohol has less energy 
in it than regular gasoline. Therefore, we need increased petroleum 
product imports to make up that energy loss. In addition, producing 
ethanol requires a significant amount of fossil fuel. Worst of all, the 
ethanol mandate amounts to a new gas tax for my constituents. With the 
cost of living in New Jersey being one of the highest in the Nation and 
gas prices at an all-time high, an ethanol mandate is not acceptable 
for New Jerseyans.
  I am also extremely disappointed that energy conferees voted down an 
amendment in conference that would have stricken the seismic inventory 
of the Outer Continental Shelf. This seismic inventory is paramount to 
opening the door to drilling off the coast of New Jersey. This is a 
crucial issue for the state of New Jersey.
  My State is the East Coast hub for oil refining and with three 
nuclear power plants, many traditional power plants, and hopefully an 
LNG terminal in the near future. We have made these contributions to 
energy production and we have made them without offshore drilling.
  A seismic inventory threatens New Jersey's way of life. It is a 
slippery slope toward drilling that threatens not only New Jersey's 
environment, but also its economy. Drilling endangers New Jersey's 
pristine beaches as well as jeopardizes the tourist industry, which 
generates $5.5 billion in revenue for my State and supports 800,000 
jobs. Furthermore, the seismic explosions put our marine life and 
fisheries at risk. I made my opposition to undermining the moratoria on 
drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf when I spent hours on the floor 
during the Senate energy debate to defend against amendments that would 
weaken the moratoria in any way. That effort was successful, but this 
inventory that remains in the bill will weaken the current moratoria on 
drilling, and I am very concerned about the potential consequences.
  Another major issue that the energy conference report fails to 
address is climate change--one of the most pressing issues facing our 
planet today. The science makes it increasingly clear that that 
greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity are changing the 
earth's climate. The rest of the industrialized world understands the 
danger of this problem and the United States must catch up.

[[Page 18960]]

  I have long been a proponent of legislation that would counter this 
problem and encourage reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. My 
advocacy on behalf of climate change legislation is not limited to the 
current Congress. Senator Brownback and I led the way to passing a 
greenhouse gas registry and reporting amendment to the Energy Bills in 
the 107th and 108th Congresses. The current voluntary programs 
encourage reductions from only a small group of industry leaders, and 
have little to no effect on most of the economy. Despite these well-
intended programs, greenhouse gas emissions have risen on average one 
percent per year for the last several years. Our Nation can do better.
  The potential effects of global warming are dire for my State. If we 
do not control climate change, New Jersey could face a receding 
coastline along the shore, loss of habitat in our beautiful beach towns 
like Cape May, and more extreme weather events such as storms and 
flooding. Similar to the effects of the seismic inventory, this 
devastation would directly affect New Jersey's economy. If our beaches 
are threatened, and our coastline damaged, New Jersey will see an 
economic impact of catastrophic proportions. Our second largest 
industry, tourism, will be devastated.
  This is an issue for New Jersey and the rest of the United States, 
but it is also an issue for the world. Unless Congress acts, the 
effects of global warming may be devastating to the worldwide economy 
and environment.
  Finally, while the bill does not include the MTBE liability provision 
that has stalled past energy bills, it does include a provision that 
moves MTBE claims from State court to Federal court when the claims are 
based on State tort law, nuisance law, or consumer law. This provision 
amounts to backdoor immunity for MTBE producers by unfairly depriving 
injured parties and their representatives of their right to have their 
claims heard in their State forum. This language could even derail many 
legal claims entirely, effectively shielding those companies 
responsible for MTBE contamination from their full financial liability 
for the damages they have caused. This is unacceptable.
  I voted against this bill when it was in the Senate with the hope 
that it would have been improved in conference. Unfortunately, the bill 
has only been made worse. A sound energy bill must move this country 
toward energy security and independence. This bill does not come close. 
I must, therefore, vote against this conference report and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rose earlier to discuss my general 
thoughts regarding the Energy bill conference report. I now want to 
take an additional moment to provide my thoughts regarding a specific 
provision in this conference report.
  I am pleased the conference report includes provisions that will help 
some of our most vulnerable citizens, low-income energy consumers. 
While we need to protect against energy price volatility to protect our 
economy, industries and households, nobody is harder hit by high-energy 
prices than low-income energy consumers.
  The conference report increases the authorization for the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, from $2.0 billion to $5.1 
billion to reflect the increased demand for energy assistance due to 
high energy prices. At current funding levels, LIHEAP serves less than 
15 percent of the eligible population. The increased funding 
authorization is much needed. I hope we can also increase 
appropriations to meet this increased demand for energy assistance.
  The conference report also contains a provision originating in the 
House bill that authorizes the Secretary of Interior to begin a new 
program to assist low-income energy consumers. Section 342 of the 
report authorizes the Secretary to grant a ``preference'' to low-income 
energy consumers when disposing of royalty in kind gas.
  This provision originated from a constituent of mine, John Harpole, 
who is the president of a natural gas production company and also an 
advocate for low-income energy consumers. Pursuant to this 
authorization the Secretary of Interior may begin a demonstration 
program that would provide royalty in kind natural gas to low-income 
energy consumers at below market cost. In order to do so, the Secretary 
could enter into agreements with natural gas distribution companies to 
provide them natural gas at below market value as long as they 
guarantee such gas will be delivered to low-income energy consumers. In 
practice, the transfer would occur through accounting mechanisms, not 
the actual exchange of natural gas molecules.
  The specific details of the demonstration project will be worked out 
through a public and transparent process that will include the public 
and all interested parties. The benefits provided under this section 
are intended to supplement and not supplant funds otherwise provided 
under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Finally, the 
Secretary would be required to issue a report to Congress on the 
effectiveness of the program, with specific recommendations for 
modification. I look forward to working with you and the Department of 
Interior to implement this program.
  Mr. President, America has an energy problem. We waste tremendous 
amounts of energy, and that keeps prices high. We continue to consume 
more energy than we produce, and that means our oil imports keep going 
up. And the more we are held hostage to foreign oil, the more our 
national security is impacted.
  I recognize that the energy conference report represents a compromise 
between competing House and Senate approaches to addressing our 
Nation's energy needs. As with all compromises, the report is not 
perfect. Much remains to be done to promote energy independence and 
increase our national security. But even so, this Energy bill is an 
important first step forward, and I support its final passage.
  I am very pleased with many aspects of the Energy bill. The bill 
retained incentives for new, cleaner coal technologies, and incentives 
for energy efficiency and conservation. It improves electric 
reliability standards and provides much needed regulatory reform. It 
contains incentives for the production of wind and other renewable 
energy, and it contains a strong renewable fuels standard to promote 
the production and use of American-grown renewable energy sources such 
as ethanol and biodiesel.
  By beginning to address our Nation's need to develop additional 
sources of energy and to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, the 
Senate's bipartisan work on the Energy bill was more comprehensive and 
more forward-thinking than the final version agreed to in conference. I 
am disappointed, for example, that the House and Senate conferees did 
not retain the Senate's national renewable energy standard, and that 
other strategies for reducing our dependence on foreign oil are not 
included in the final bill. Conferees also decided to take a more 
aggressive stance on oil shale development than I and my Senate 
colleagues had advocated, and they rolled back certain environmental 
protections. These changes could significantly impact Colorado's 
Western Slope, and I will monitor the implementation of both provisions 
closely.
  Because there is so much more that we must do in this country to 
ensure greater independence from foreign oil, I am going right back to 
work. I believe strongly that we must reduce America's dependence on 
foreign sources of energy, particularly our dependence on foreign oil, 
and that we must do more to protect the environment. Greater energy 
independence is vital to protect our national security. Energy 
independence is also good for Colorado's economy--we are home to the 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, and to countless companies 
and entrepreneurs working on developing alternative fuels, including 
wind, biofuels, solar, and many, many other clean energy technologies. 
In the Senate, I will continue to work hard to establish a viable 
national renewable energy standard, to promote oil savings, to adopt a 
responsible climate

[[Page 18961]]

change policy, and for increased production of renewable fuels. I will 
also continue to work on cost-effective measures that will help us 
achieve greater energy efficiency and conservation. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the Senate on these and other priorities 
for Colorado.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the conferees who have 
been meeting over the last few weeks to complete this comprehensive 
energy legislation. In particular, I want to thank the chairmen and 
ranking members of the House and Senate committees for their leadership 
in guiding this highly complex and important legislation through the 
process. Congress has tried several times to approve a comprehensive 
energy bill. Under their wise guidance and counsel, I believe that we 
will be successful this time. It is critical that we provide the 
country with the resources and tools to meet our growing energy needs 
and this bill will go a long way in accomplishing that goal.
  There are many good and worthy provisions in this legislation. In 
broad terms, having a national energy policy will enable the country to 
more effectively utilize our resources to reduce our dependency on 
imported oil. It will enable us to diversify our sources of energy with 
renewable fuels, develop resources like nuclear power in the future and 
conduct research into hydrogen fuel cells. The bill recognizes that we 
need to develop ways to utilize one of our country's largest resources, 
centuries worth of coal deposits, and develop ways through research to 
burn it cleanly so it doesn't contribute to pollution and harm our 
environment.
  However, I must express my disappointment that many of the provisions 
dealing with MTBE were not ultimately included in the final bill. As a 
lawyer and a former judge, the issue of liability is an issue that is 
near and dear to my heart. That we are denying liability protection to 
MTBE producers is disturbing to me. When Congress set out to encourage 
clean air by passing the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and passed a 
particular fuel standard, Congress knew that MTBE would be widely used 
to satisfy the standard. As a result, manufacturers produced and 
marketed MTBE to satisfy the Congressional standard. Now, manufacturers 
face significant lawsuits solely because they produced a product that 
Congress encouraged them to produce.
  Manufacturers did not make mistakes in production, they did not cut 
comers in an attempt to increase profits, and they did not try to trick 
consumers. All they did was exactly what Congress wanted them to do. It 
is only fair that any fuel producer who responds to a congressional 
mandate should be protected against legal action based upon the use of 
that mandated product. No one should be penalized for obeying the law. 
I am disappointed that there was a failure to address this issue.
  Texas is proud of its heritage as an energy producing State. Texas 
will continue to play a vital role in providing for the Nation's energy 
needs. Even in light of my disappointments with the bill, I believe 
that this legislation provides strong leadership and guidance to 
address the critical energy needs of our country.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have before us today an opportunity to 
chart a new course for the Nation's energy future.
  The energy bill includes vitally important measures to boost 
renewable energy and energy efficiency, to improve our electricity 
grid, and to protect consumers from bad corporate actors like Enron.
  I am very pleased that it includes the lion's share of the renewable 
fuels standard bill I introduced earlier this year with Dick Lugar and 
many of my colleagues. This is an accomplishment of historic 
proportions. Oil refiners will be required to blend 7.5 billion gallons 
of ethanol and biodiesel annually by the year 2012--more than twice the 
current rate. This RFS is 2.5 billion gallons higher than what was in 
the House bill. Obviously, this is great news for farmers, biofuels 
producers, and the rural economy in Iowa and throughout the country. It 
is the single most important provision in the bill, certainly in the 
near term, to displace ever increasing amounts of foreign oil that we 
import into this country. The RFS is a big step in the right direction 
and I am very proud to have helped get it done.
  I am also excited that the ``bioeconomy'' amendment I authored with 
Senators Lugar, Obama, Coleman, and Bayh was included in the bill. It 
gives a real boost to biomass R&D to expand the production and use of 
biobased fuels, chemicals and power. It provides grants to small 
biobased businesses to get their products into the marketplace. It will 
increase purchases of biobased products by the Federal Government by 
extending the farm bill's biobased purchasing preference to Federal 
contractors and the Capitol complex. In short, with appropriate 
funding, it will make it possible to convert much more biomass--corn, 
soybeans, wheat, and other crops--into petroleum substitutes for 
everyday use in our homes, businesses and vehicles. And we will do it 
without negatively impacting our abundant food supply.
  The RFS, complemented by these biobased initiatives, will be a heck 
of a one-two punch for our farmers, small businesses and rural 
communities.
  I am also very pleased that the final bill extends the wind 
production tax credit, and that it includes my amendment to allow 
farmer-owned co-ops to pass on this tax credit to individual members of 
the co-op. The biodiesel tax credit extension is also a valuable asset 
in the bill. So is the tax credit for the installation of new E-85 
pumps. I have pushed for all of these provisions for some time. The tax 
incentives for renewable energy and conservation, while less than 
needed, still represent a major boost for clean energy.
  The energy bill we will soon vote on is by no means perfect. It drops 
several of the Senate's best bipartisan provisions to reduce our 
dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil--the Renewable Portfolio 
Standard, and the oil savings amendment, in particular. These were 
common sense provisions that should have been included. It is a 
terrible mistake not to have done so.
  The bill also does too little to improve fuel economy and address 
climate change. It lavishes tax breaks to oil companies reaping record 
profits from $2+ a gallon gas, and spends more reviving a nuclear 
industry that has never proven cost-effective and has not solved the 
problem of nuclear waste. It also includes some very questionable 
environmental provisions to aid oil and gas companies.
  Like I said, not a perfect bill, but it is a start, and we can thank 
the bipartisan process that was taken in the Senate for that. The 
challenge now will be to take the next steps toward a truly sustainable 
energy future--one that our farmers, who are increasingly at the 
forefront of the country's clean energy strategy, can help lead. I will 
continue to work to make this a reality.
  When we draw our energy from the corn and soybean fields of rural 
America rather than the oil fields of the Persian Gulf, we do four 
things: We increase America's energy security; we boost our rural 
economy; we create a cleaner environment; and we put downward pressure 
on prices at the pump. That's why I intend to vote for this bill, and I 
hope many of my colleagues will follow.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Senators 
Bingaman and Domenici for their hard work to develop a bipartisan 
energy bill over the last several months.
  When the energy bill came to the Senate floor, Democrats had one goal 
in mind: enhance our national security by moving America toward energy 
independence.
  Together, we were able to achieve some our goals: a renewable 
electricity standard, the 3-year tax credit for renewables, oil 
savings, global warming, and a Federal ban on MTBE. That's why I voted 
for the Senate energy bill.
  Unfortunately, despite our best efforts of our Senate negotiators, 
the conference rejected all these provisions. I sincerely hoped to have 
been able to vote for the energy bill conference report. I cannot 
support the bill.

[[Page 18962]]

  I truly believe we have missed an incredible opportunity to establish 
a renewable electricity standard, provide help to consumers facing 
record prices at the gas pump and, most importantly, to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  For these reasons, I will vote against the energy bill conference 
report.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to comment on two specific 
provisions of the conference report. I am pleased that the provisions 
contained in the conference report on hydroelectric relicensing, 
section 241--Alternative Conditions and Fishways, have been improved 
over the provisions contained in both the House and Senate bills. I 
continue to have concerns that the new process for alternative 
mandatory conditions and fishway prescriptions will add complexity and 
delay to the process. The requirement that the resource agencies afford 
all parties an opportunity for an on the record trial-type hearing on 
material issues of fact could prolong these proceedings. However, I 
understand that the intent behind the provision is that these not be 
lengthy hearings. Rather they are to afford an opportunity for a review 
of narrow issues of fact, and not a review of the application of the 
facts or the decisions based upon them.
  I am pleased that the provisions allow all parties to the 
proceedings, including States, tribes and third parties, to participate 
equally. I understand the conference language ensures that the heads of 
the resource agencies retain discretion to employ scientific data and 
other information submitted by any of the parties to licensing or 
relicensing proceedings in determining what conditions will provide for 
adequate protection and use of tribal lands and what fishways are 
needed for the protection of fishery resources for which the United 
States has a legal or trust responsibility to preserve and protect on 
behalf of Indian tribes. I also am satisfied that the conference 
language preserves the principle that Indian lands and fishery 
resources held in trust by the United States, or for which the United 
States has legal responsibility, will continue to be protected and 
preserved in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Federal 
Power Act of 1920 and subsequent rulings of the Federal courts that 
reaffirm these protections for tribal lands and fishery resources.
  Finally, I understand the motivation behind these provisions to be an 
effort to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of conditions 
and fishways--and not to be an opportunity to undermine the conditions 
and fishways that resource agencies determine are necessary for the 
adequate protection of federal reservations and fish resources. I 
expect that the resource agencies will carry out these provisions with 
this intent in mind.
  Mr. President, section 354, Enhanced Oil and Natural Gas Production 
Through Carbon Dioxide Injection grants the Secretary authority to 
provide royalty relief in order to achieve the dual purposes of the 
section, which are both to promote the capturing, transporting, and 
injection of produced carbon dioxide, natural carbon dioxide and 
``other appropriate gases or other matter'' for sequestration, and to 
promote oil and gas production by providing incentives to undertake 
enhanced recovery techniques using injection of these substances. It is 
my understanding that the provision is intended to encourage the 
sequestration of greenhouse gases, and the ``other gases or matter'' 
referred to are gases and matter that fall within that definition. I 
understand the intent to be that any royalty relief under this section 
be made available only where doing so achieves the dual purposes of 
benefitting the environment through sequestration of greenhouse gases 
while also bringing about enhanced recovery.


                           BLM Cost Recovery

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Domenici, 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Senator 
Bingaman, the ranking Democrat, and all the Senate conferees for their 
excellent work on a number of areas in the conference report agreement 
on H.R. 6, especially those relating to processing of energy permits. I 
would like to point out one particular provision that will provide a 
basis for future work to ensure more energy supplies from Federal 
lands.
  Section 365 of the H.R. 6 conference agreement outlines a multistate 
pilot program to improve coordination of energy permit processing in a 
number of Western States. That section includes a provision to allow a 
share of the money from Federal oil and gas lease rentals to be used by 
the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and 
other agencies to ensure adequate resources for processing and 
considering applications for permits necessary for natural gas and oil 
drilling and other operations.
  As the conference on H.R. 6 was getting underway, the BLM released a 
proposal that, if implemented, would begin charging fees for permit 
processing. Called a ``cost sharing'' proposal, it was really a ``cost 
shifting'' one. And it came at a time when Federal revenues from 
leasing and production of Federal oil and gas as a result of such 
permits being issued total approximately $1.8 billion each year.
  In one Wyoming office alone the proposed fee which could be as high 
as $4,000 for a single application would generate $11 million, far in 
excess of the office's total oil and gas program budget. I would prefer 
that producers put this money back into the communities where they are 
doing business and expand their investment to produce more energy.
  In the strong belief that the Federal Government has a responsibility 
to budget and pay for advance environmental work and consideration of 
the permits necessary to explore and produce on its leased acreage, 
Senator Hatch and I filed an amendment to prevent the BLM from 
instituting fees during the period of the permitting pilot program. I 
was pleased that the House conferees joined my Senate colleagues in 
approving that amendment.
  Now that the Energy bill conference agreement is before us, I hope 
that my colleagues will agree that in the future we need to provide 
adequate Federal funding for energy permitting, and that we should 
continue to prohibit attempts to shift Government costs to the private 
sector as was attempted by the BLM.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, I would like to associate 
myself with his remarks and make an additional point. As a sponsor of 
the Energy bill amendment, I want to make clear that even though we 
were able to stop the specific proposal on fees for processing of 
applications for permits to drill during the pilot program relating to 
such permitting, the BLM should understand that our concern is with the 
broader issue of cost shifting. We would be as concerned if BLM 
proposed to shift the permitting burden for any fluid or solid mineral 
leasing or permitting to those who are already required to pay for 
their Federal mineral rights through bonuses, rents and royalties. I do 
not want to see additional attempts to shift costs in this manner.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield? In listening to this discussion 
and the points being made by my colleagues, I agree that we should not 
be shifting costs as BLM apparently proposed. Nor should other charges 
and fees for other energy and mineral permitting be put forward. We 
want our companies to put that money in the ground, not in the Federal 
Treasury with no guarantee that any of it will be spent on better 
energy permitting.
  Surely out of the $1.8 billion already being received from industry's 
exploration and development of Federal oil and gas resources alone we 
can fund the planning, environmental, permit processing and other 
responsibilities of the Federal Government.
  I am pleased that my colleagues were successful in amending the 
energy conference agreement to stop the cost sharing proposal and 
commend them for doing so.
  I would also like to point out that as chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, I plan to 
hold hearings this Congress on Federal lands energy and mineral access. 
As part of that hearing, I intend to find out more about the ability of 
our Federal agencies to process leasing, drilling and

[[Page 18963]]

other applications in a timely manner. Delaying permits is the same as 
delaying energy and mineral supplies to those who need them.
  In addition, shifting costs to those who need the permits for any of 
these activities is also a way of discouraging what needs to be done to 
find and produce the supplies we need. As a result, I will be glad to 
consider including this subject in our hearings.


                        seawater cooling systems

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend from Iowa, 
the chairman of the Finance Committee, as well as my friend, Senator 
Baucus, the ranking member of the committee in a brief colloquy.
  There is an important project under consideration in Hawaii that 
would use deep seawater to cool buildings in downtown Honolulu. This 
project may be funded, in part, by private activity bonds. I would like 
to ask whether piping used to bring cold water from the ocean to the 
distributional facility would be considered part of the local system 
consisting of a pipeline or network, which may be connected to a 
cooling source, providing chilled water to two or more users for 
residential, commercial or industrial cooling as provided in section 
142(g) of the Internal Revenue Code.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It is my understanding that if a traditional plant were 
constructed several miles from its customers, the network to deliver 
cooling would qualify. It seems to me that piping used to draw cold 
water from the ocean is analogous to piping used with respect to a 
traditional cooling system and also should qualify.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I concur with the chairman. The piping in this case is 
integral to the delivery of cold water from the ocean to be used in the 
chilling of residential, commercial and other buildings and therefore 
should qualify for tax-exempt financing.


                      Energy Efficient Appliances

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, with respect to the credit for energy 
efficient appliances, section 1334 of the Energy Policy Act, I 
understand that the dishwasher credit amount is based on a comparison 
of changes to the Department of Energy's Energy Star specification for 
its 2007 qualifying level as compared to the existing Energy Star 
qualifying level for this product. In particular, the amount of the 
credit for these products to be provided is determined, in that 
section, by calculating the percentage increase in efficiency--measured 
as an ``Energy Factor'' or ``EF''--from the 2005 Energy Star level to 
the 2007 Energy Star level. The current Energy Star specification for 
dishwashers is measured by EF. There is the possibility that the Energy 
Star Program might change the metric for measuring efficiencies of 
these products from EF to another measurement and this might create 
confusion in the calculation and implementation of the credit. I would 
like to ask the bill's manager if it is his understanding that the IRS 
has the authority, in consultation with DOE, to establish an equivalent 
level of efficiency for dishwashers in case the Energy Star Program 
establishes an efficiency metric for these products that is different 
than the current EF metric.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with the Senator's understanding of the IRS's 
authority to consult with DOE in this regard, and to establish an 
equivalent level of efficiency for dishwashers for determining the 
amount of the credit.


                              section 1503

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to engage my friend, the 
Senator from New Mexico, who serves as the ranking member of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee and who acted as the ranking Senate 
conferee, in a colloquy regarding the conference report on the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. I thank my friend for his service in this body and 
hard work on this bill, and particularly his efforts in resolving the 
contentious issues surrounding MTBE remediation litigation. It is my 
understanding that the language contained in section 1503 of the 
conference report addresses this issue in a matter consistent with 
current law on three vital fronts. First, it would in no way preclude 
or abrogate the right of citizens and local governments to pursue all 
available State and Federal remedies where there is environmental harm 
and other injury that results from contamination of MTBE into 
groundwater and public water supplies. Second, nothing in the language 
will alter the substantive law that courts currently apply in these 
cases and that they will apply to future claims. And finally, it is not 
intended to provide Federal courts with exclusive or subject matter 
jurisdiction or grant Federal courts jurisdiction over nonproduct 
liability cases, such as environmental cleanup and cost recovery cases 
involving general petroleum spills initiated by State governments and 
private citizens. Rather, it is intended that under section 1503, cases 
involving general spills will remain in State court, where many of 
these cases are currently handled. Does the Senator from New Mexico 
share my understanding of this language and its intent?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I share the understanding of the 
language expressed by my friend from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for sharing his 
understanding of section 1503.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the joint explanatory statement 
accompanying the conference report on the energy bill is noteworthy for 
its brevity, but somewhat short on explanations. The managers simply 
did not have time to say more than we did if we were to file the 
conference report in time for both the House and Senate to act on it 
before the August recess.
  As a result, the statement of managers omits explanations of several 
important provisions that many of us believe are key to understanding 
the agreements we reached on these issues and the meaning of these 
provisions. In some cases, specific text had already been negotiated 
and agreed upon for inclusion in the managers' statement, and the 
assurance that the agreed upon text would be included in the managers' 
statement was a critical component of the compromise reached on the 
legislative text.
  Would the senior Senator from New Mexico, as the chairman of the 
Senate conferees, be willing to put these explanations on the record 
for the information of all Senators?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would be happy to. Senator Bingaman is 
correct. We had agreed upon text for insertion into the managers' 
statement on a number of provisions, but it was left out in order to 
file the conference report in time for us to complete our work this 
week. I agree that those explanations should be placed on the record 
for the information of all Senators.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The first of these explanations relates to section 210, 
which establishes two grant programs to improve the use of forest 
biomass for energy production. Section 210 was included in response to 
Federal land managers and other experts that have recommended removing 
some of the slash, brush, pre-commercial thinnings, and other non-
merchantable wood and plant material from many of our forests to 
improve forest health and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic 
wildfire.
  One hurdle that must be overcome is that in many regions of the 
country there currently are few economically viable enterprises using 
this type of biomass. If a viable market for these materials existed, 
the ultimate cost of forest restoration treatments would decrease as 
landowners who currently pay to have this biomass removed could sell it 
at a profit.
  During the conference, we deliberated about the potential for the 
grants authorized by these programs to adversely affect current and 
future markets for using such material for other value-added products 
that are not provided grants through these programs. Along with biomass 
energy, alternative markets are a critical element of the effort to 
make forest health treatments cost-effective. This was a significant 
concern, was it not?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman is correct. Section 210 was 
specifically drafted to address the concern he identified by focusing 
on nonmerchantable biomass that would not otherwise be

[[Page 18964]]

used. It was our intent that the Secretaries implement the grant 
programs with sensitivity to alternative uses--both current and 
future--for the byproducts of preventive treatments, to the affects of 
other grants or support for encouraging the use of forest biomass that 
are provided pursuant to any other authority, and to the potential for 
alternative uses to provide a greater return to the taxpayer in the 
long run.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the second of these issues relates to 
oil and gas leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The 
Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 established the 
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Four years later, the Department 
of the Interior Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1981, Public Law 96-
514, directed the Secretary of the Interior to open the Reserve to 
competitive oil and gas leasing, subject to specific terms and 
conditions.
  Both the House bill and the Senate amendment transferred the 
competitive leasing program in the appropriations act into the Naval 
Petroleum Reserves Production Act. The Senate amendment went further, 
however, by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to prevent, to the 
maximum extent practicable, and to mitigate, adverse effects from 
leasing and development activities. The conference report omits this 
additional Senate language.
  It is my understanding, however, that the Senate language was omitted 
because the Department of the Interior is already interpreting the 
standard in existing law in the manner set forth in the Senate 
language. For that reason, the conferees decided that the language was 
unnecessary. Is that the case?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct. It is my understanding that the 
transfer of the matter under section 347(a)(2) does not affect or 
otherwise modify the standard for activities undertaken pursuant to 
Public Law 96-514. The Senate included language in section 107(b) of 
the Senate bill relating to mitigation of adverse effects that the 
managers have not adopted as unnecessary. It is the understanding of 
the managers that the Department of the Interior is interpreting the 
current standard in the manner set forth in the Senate language.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Finally, the conference report contains an entire title 
designed to help Native Americans promote the development of tribal 
energy resources, including an innovative program of tribal energy 
resource agreements. Would the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
conferees comment on this title?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be happy to, Mr. President. The managers 
recognized the large supply of energy resources existing on Indian 
lands, as well as the desire of many Tribes to increase access to those 
resources. The Indian Energy title is designed to provide economic 
development opportunities to Indian tribes by assisting and empowering 
them to develop and utilize tribal energy resources in a manner that 
meets the needs of Indian country and the Nation as a whole.
  The title will also continue and strengthen efforts to improve access 
to electricity for native people who are ten times more likely to be 
without such access than their counterparts residing outside of Indian 
reservations. Of particular note, is the creation of a new Office of 
Indian Energy Policy and Programs within the Department of Energy that 
is dedicated to working with Indian tribes on energy development 
matters.
  The Title also creates a new program in section 503 related to energy 
leases, agreements, and rights-of-way on tribal lands that continues a 
policy of promoting tribal self-determination while preserving the 
trust relationship between Tribes and the Federal Government. The 
leases, agreements, and rights-of-way section preserves the full 
application of Federal environmental laws while authorizing eligible 
Tribes to approve individual energy projects without duplicative 
Federal approvals.
  The title contains several other provisions, all of which the 
managers believe will provide significant benefits to Indian country.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank Senator Domenici for placing these explanations 
in the Record.
  Mr. President, before I yield back the remaining time, since I see 
there are no additional Senators waiting to speak, unless there are 
some who appear, I want to take a few minutes to thank committee staff 
for the excellent work that went into the development of this bill. We 
have had superb staff work here in the Senate on the Democratic side 
and the Republican side. I particularly want to single out the staff 
members on the Democratic side who have worked so hard, over many 
weeks, months, and even years in the development of this legislation. 
To the extent this work product is a step forward, it is a result of 
their hard work and their commitment, and clearly this is an 
accomplishment which could not have been achieved without that 
excellent work.
  Bob Simon is the staff director on the Democratic side. He has done a 
superb job. Sam Fowler is the chief counsel and also has done yeoman 
work. Vicky Thorne; Bill Wicker; Patty Beneke; Deborah Estes; Mike 
Connor; Jennifer Michael; Leon Lowery; Jonathan Black; Al Stayman; 
Scott Miller; David Brooks; Michael Carr; Sreela Nandi, who is an AAAS 
fellow sponsored by the American Chemical Society who works with our 
committee staff; Tara Billingsley, who is a Department of Energy 
detailee who worked with the committee in May and June of this year; 
Amanda Goldman; Mark Wilson; Jonathan Epstein, who is a fellow in my 
personal office who also worked hard on various aspects of this 
legislation; and James Dennis in my office, who worked on the tax 
provisions of the bill.
  In addition, I want to acknowledge the extremely capable staff on the 
Republican side, in particular Alex Flint, who was mentioned by Senator 
Domenici earlier, the staff director; Judy Pensabene, who is the chief 
counsel on the Republican side; and the other many staff members who I 
am sure will be recognized by Senator Domenici before action on this 
legislation is complete.
  Let me also acknowledge key House staff who worked so hard during 
this conference committee that we concluded: Mark Menezes, who is 
counsel for Chairman Joe Barton; Sue Sheridan and Bruce Harris, who are 
counsels for the ranking member on the House side, Congressman John 
Dingell. 
  All of these individuals whom I named made a tremendous contribution 
to this legislation and all of them deserve our great thanks. No 
constructive work is done here in the Congress without this kind of 
excellent staff work and we are very fortunate in the case of this 
legislation.
  I am informed there are no other Senators wishing to speak at this 
point. I am also informed we will have additional time tomorrow for 
statements before any actual votes occur on or in relation to the 
conference report.
  I yield the floor at this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a 
period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                       IN MEMORY OF BRETT KARLIN

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a young man from 
Illinois whose future was full of promise and hope. Last summer, 18-
year-old Brett Karlin of Buffalo Grove, IL, was anticipating a summer 
of youthful fun. Just weeks after his graduation from Adlai E. 
Stevenson High School, on July 30, 2004, Brett and his best friend Andy 
set out on a fateful drive through

[[Page 18965]]

the outskirts of a neighboring suburban town. Neither Andy nor Brett 
was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and Brett's seatbelt was 
fastened, but it was little help as they raced over the posted 30-mile-
per-hour speed limit. As they pushed the speedometer of the Honda 
Accord they were driving to 112 miles per hour, the car skidded out of 
control and collided with a tree. The crash left twisted metal, 
protruding shards of shattered glass, and a head trauma that cost Brett 
his life 6 days later. A reckless pastime gone awry had cut a promising 
life short and left a grieving family in its wake.
  Unfortunately, tragedies like Brett's occur each day. According to a 
2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more 
than 4,700 U.S. teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19 died of 
injuries caused by motor vehicle crashes in 2001. In my home State, 
teenagers make up only 6 percent of all Illinois drivers, but they 
account for 16 percent of all crash fatalities. We must work to prevent 
these tragic losses, and one of the ways we can do that is by 
encouraging legislators, teachers, and parents to educate America's 
teenage drivers about driver safety.
  To memorialize Brett's life, Brett's father, Michael Karlin, founded 
the Brakes for Brett nonprofit organization. Through peer presentations 
to high schools and religious and community groups, and by maintaining 
an informational Web site, Mr. Karlin, Andy, and other friends of Brett 
educate young adults about the dangers associated with reckless 
driving. I commend Mr. Karlin and those who collaborate with the Brakes 
for Brett organization for their work to save the lives of young 
drivers.
  Together, we can work to alert teens to the hazards associated with 
speeding and joyriding, including its social, emotional, psychological, 
and financial effects.
  In 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated 
that the economic costs of both fatal and nonfatal police-reported 
crashes involving drivers age 15 to 20 were approximately $40.8 
billion. Our Nation bears nearly three-fourths of these costs, 
primarily through medical expenses, increased insurance premiums, 
taxes, and lost worker productivity.
  Yet these costs pale in comparison to the agony endured by parents, 
families, and friends of a teen driver whose life ends tragically and 
prematurely.
  Brett Karlin's family, despite their immense pain and grief, made the 
generous decision to donate Brett's organs, providing the opportunity 
for others to live. That opportunity to give the gift of life often 
comes in the wake of sudden tragedy. When families embrace that 
opportunity, organ donation often provides renewed hope for the donor's 
family as well as for the recipients whose lives are saved by the 
donation.
  A new person is added to the national organ donation waiting list in 
America every 13 minutes, and sadly, 17 people each day die waiting for 
transplants that cannot take place because of the shortage of donated 
organs. Illinois is fortunate to have the country's largest donor 
registry with more than 6 million participants. Although tremendous 
strides in promoting organ donation have been made, more than 320 
Illinois residents died in 2004 while waiting for an organ transplant.
  I commend Brakes for Brett for its valuable educational efforts. 
Today we remember Brett Karlin's life and honor him by recommitting 
ourselves to teen driver safety education and organ donation. Through 
these and similar efforts, we can make great strides to preserve young 
lives that might otherwise be lost.

                          ____________________




                       BUDGET SCOREKEEPING REPORT

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget 
scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under 
Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate 
scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for 1986.
  This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2005 
budget through July 26, 2005. The estimates of budget authority, 
outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic 
assumptions of the 2006 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, H. Con. 
Res. 95.
  The estimates show that current level spending is under the budget 
resolution by $4.986 billion in budget authority and by $27 million in 
outlays in 2005. Current level for revenues is $407 million above the 
budget resolution in 2005.
  Since my last report dated June 30, 2005, the Congress has cleared 
and the President has signed the TANF Extension Act of 2005, P.L. 109-
19, the Surface Transportation Act of 2005, Part II, P.L. 109-20, the 
Surface Transportation Act of 2005, Part III, P.L. 109-35, and the 
Surface Transportation Act of 2005, Part IV, P.L. 109-37 which changed 
budget authority and outlays.
  I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 2005.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed tables show the effects of 
     Congressional action on the 2005 budget and are current 
     through July 26, 2005. This report is submitted under section 
     308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act, as amended.
       The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues 
     are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions 
     for fiscal year 2005 that underlie H. Con. Res. 95, the 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006.
       Since my last letter, dated June 29, 2005, the Congress has 
     cleared and the President has signed the following acts that 
     changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues:
       TANF Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-19); Surface 
     Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part II (Public Law 
     109-20); Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part 
     III (Public Law 109-35); and Surface Transportation Extension 
     Act of 2005, Part IV (Public Law 109-37).
       In addition, a correction was made to the final scoring of 
     the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
     14). The estimate of budget authority was reduced by $28 
     million for fiscal year 2005.
           Sincerely,
                                             Elizabeth M. Robinson
                              (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).

   TABLE 1.--SENATE CURRENT-LEVEL REPORT FOR SPENDING AND REVENUES FOR
                  FISCAL YEAR 2005, AS OF JULY 26, 2005
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Current
                                     Budget       Current    level over/
                                 resolution\1\    level\2\    under (-)
                                                              resolution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           ON-BUDGET
 
  Budget Authority.............       1,996.6       1,991.6         -5.0
  Outlays......................       2,023.9       2,023.9            *
  Revenues.....................       1,483.7       1,484.1          0.4
 
           OFF-BUDGET
 
  Social Security Outlays......         398.1         398.1            0
  Social Security Revenues.....         573.5         573.5            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal
  Year 2006, assumed the enactment of emergency supplemental
  appropriations for fiscal year 2005, in the amount of $81,811 million
  in budget authority and $32,121 million in outlays, which would be
  exempt from the enforcement of the budget resolution. Since current
  level excludes the emergency appropriations in P.L. 109-13 (see
  footnote 2 of Table 2), the amounts specified in the budget resolution
  have also been reduced for purposes of comparison.
\2\Current level is the estimated effect on revenue and spending of all
  legislation that the Congress has enacted or sent to the President for
  his approval. In addition, full-year funding estimates under current
  law are included for entitlement and mandatory programs requiring
  annual appropriations even if the appropriations have not been made.
 
Note: * = less than $50 million.
 
Source: Congressional Budget Office.


 TABLE 2.--SUPPORTING DETAIL FOR THE SENATE CURRENT-LEVEL REPORT FOR ON-BUDGET SPENDING AND REVENUES FOR FISCAL
                                         YEAR 2005, AS OF JULY 26, 2005
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Budget
                                                                     authority        Outlays        Revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacted in Previous Sessions:\1\
  Revenues......................................................            n.a.            n.a.       1,484,024
  Permanents and other spending legislation.....................       1,109,476       1,070,500            n.a.
  Appropriation legislation.....................................       1,298,963       1,369,221            n.a.
  Offsetting receipts...........................................        -415,912        -415,912            n.a.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total, enacted in previous sessions:........................       1,992,527       2,023,809       1,484,024
Enacted This Session:
  Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the              -1,058               4              41
   Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (P.L. 109-
   13)\2\.......................................................
  Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-14)....              16               0               0

[[Page 18966]]

 
  TANF Extension Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-19)......................              81              45               0
  Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part II (P.L.                 15               0               0
   109-20)......................................................
  Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part III (P.L.                 3               0               0
   109-35)......................................................
  Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part IV (P.L.                  5               0               0
   109-37)......................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total, enacted this session:................................            -938              49              41
Total Current Level2,3..........................................       1,991,589       2,023,858       1,484,065
Total Budget Resolution.........................................       2,078,456       2,056,006       1,483,658
    Adjustment to budget resolution for emergency                        -81,881         -32,121            n.a.
     requirements\4\............................................
Adjusted Budget Resolution......................................       1,996,575       2,023,885       1,483,658
Current Level Over Adjusted Budget Resolution...................            n.a.            n.a.             407
Current Level Under Adjusted Budget Resolution..................           4,986              27            n.a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The effects of an act to provide for the proper tax treatment of certain disaster mitigation payments (P.L.
  109-7) and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-8) are included in
  this section of the table, consistent with the budget resolution assumptions.
\2\Pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006,
  provisions designated as emergency requirements are exempt from enforcement of the budget resolution. As a
  result, the current level excludes $83,140 million in budget authority and $33,034 million in outlays from the
  Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005
  (P.L. 109-13).
\3\Excludes administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration, which are off-budget.
\4\H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, assumed the enactment of
  emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005, in the amount of $81,811 million in budget
  authority and $32,121 million in outlays, which would be exempt from the enforcement of the budget resolution.
  Since current level excludes the emergency appropriations in P.L. 109-13 (see footnote 2), the amounts
  specified in the budget resolution have also been reduced for purposes of comparison.
 
Notes: n.a. = not applicable; P.L. = Public Law; * = less than $500,000.
 
Source: Congressional Budget Office.



                          ____________________


           CHANGES TO 302(a) ALLOCATIONS AND SPENDING LIMITS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the President's fiscal year 2006 budget 
request includes four cap adjustments to encourage adequate funding for 
program integrity efforts. In each of the four programs, continuing 
disability reviews, IRS tax enforcement, health care fraud and abuse 
control, and unemployment insurance, additional funding dedicated to 
program integrity can reduce improper payments and return money to the 
treasury. For example, the administration estimates that each $1 
expended on continuing disability reviews returns $10 to taxpayers.
  Consistent with the President's request, section 404b of H. Con. Res. 
95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, 
permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make adjustments 
to the 302a allocations to the Appropriations Committee and 
discretionary spending limits when certain conditions are met relating 
to appropriations levels for these four program integrity initiatives. 
I note that our distinguished ranking member, Senator Conrad, is a real 
leader in the area of tax enforcement and worked to ensure that our 
congressional budget included $446 million to address the tax gap.
  These conditions having been met in the reported Labor, HHS, 
Education, and Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, HUD appropriations 
bills, I ask consent to insert a table into the Record which reflects 
the revised discretionary spending limits and 302a allocations to the 
Senate Appropriations Committee. The revised allocations for 
discretionary budget authority and outlays are the appropriate levels 
to be used for enforcement during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 
appropriations bills.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the following chart printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  ADJUSTMENTS TO FY 2006 302(a) ALLOCATIONS TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
          APPROPRIATIONS AND 2006 DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS
                             [$ in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Initial                     New
                                   allocation/   Adjustment  allocation/
                                       cap                       cap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary BA.................      842,265          755      843,020
OT...............................      916,081          755      916,836
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                             

                          ____________________


                      THE UNITED STATES AND NEPAL

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the situation in 
Nepal, which has received too little attention by the Congress.
  I will not take the time to discuss in detail the history of this 
tiny country wedged between China and India. Suffice it to say that not 
only is Nepal among the world's least developed countries, it is also 
facing a ruthless Maoist insurgency and a political crisis instigated 
by King Gyanendra which together threaten to turn Nepal into a failed 
state.
  Last year, after receiving disturbing reports of widespread human 
rights violations by the Royal Nepalese Army, including arrests, 
disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings of civilians, the 
Congress imposed a number of conditions on our military aid to Nepal. 
Those conditions required the Nepalese Government to (1) comply with 
habeas corpus orders issued by the Supreme Court of Nepal; (2) 
cooperate with the National Human Rights Commission to identify and 
resolve all security related cases of individuals in government 
custody; (3) grant the National Human Rights Commission unimpeded 
access to all places of detention; and (4) take effective steps to end 
torture by security forces and prosecute members of such forces who are 
responsible for gross violations of human rights.
  Unfortunately, not only have those conditions not been met, the 
situation was made significantly worse on February 1 when King 
Gyanendra, with the backing of the security forces, dissolved the 
multiparty government, arrested and jailed political opponents, human 
rights activists and journalists, and declared a state of emergency. 
The state of emergency has since been lifted, but civil liberties, 
including freedom of the press and association, remain restricted, the 
former Prime Minister has been jailed for corruption by an 
extrajudicial, politically motivated anticorruption commission, and 
arrests of journalists and democracy activists continue.
  Speaking with one voice, the United States, Great Britain, and India 
condemned the King's actions as a setback for democracy. They said it 
would make it more difficult to resolve the Maoist problem, and each 
country imposed varying types of restrictions on military aid. Since 
then, however, the American Embassy has adopted a more nuanced 
approach, sending mixed messages that have been widely interpreted as 
giving equal consideration and validity to the views and actions of the 
King and the political parties. Unfortunately, the impression today of 
Nepalese pro-democracy and human rights activists is that the United 
States is not fully behind them.
  The army insists it is complying with habeas corpus orders of the 
supreme court. This is deceiving, however, because the security forces, 
often in plain clothes, have been re-arresting people who the court has 
ordered released. In some instances they have waited at the courthouse 
steps to take people back into custody immediately after they are set 
free by the court. Since these arrests are often made without charges, 
the whereabouts and treatment of these people is often unknown.
  In April, the term of the National Human Rights Commission expired 
and the Government reconstituted the Commission in a manner that was 
incompatible with the 1990 Nepalese Constitution. The membership of the 
Commission has also changed, with the exception of the chairman. Not 
surprisingly, none of the current members, appointed by the palace, 
expressed publicly any disagreement with the King's February 1 actions, 
including the arrests and curtailing of civil liberties. The chairman 
of the Commission even expressed support for the King's actions. This 
has caused legitimate concerns about the Commission's independence.
  There is conflicting information about the Government's cooperation 
with the National Human Rights Commission in resolving security related 
cases of persons in custody. According to human rights groups, the 
situation has not improved. The Commission has said it is getting 
better access to places

[[Page 18967]]

of detention, but it is not clear how meaningful this access is. We 
know there are large numbers of people who have disappeared, yet we are 
informed that when members of the Commission visit army barracks they 
have seen few detainees, are led around by army escorts, and that some 
barracks where detainees were reported to be held were completely 
empty. There is a concern that the army is summarily executing 
prisoners. Meanwhile, the International Red Cross has suspended its 
visits to prisoners because of the army's failure to provide the access 
it requires.
  The issue of ending torture and prosecuting members of the security 
forces who commit gross violations of human rights is also difficult to 
assess. According to human rights groups, torture is routinely 
practiced and impunity remains the norm. The army claims it disciplines 
its members who violate human rights, but many of the cases it cites do 
not involve human rights violations. According to the army officer who 
heads the army's human rights cell, complaints about human rights 
violations by the army are ``much ado about nothing.'' Those words 
speak volumes.
  Under our law, the Secretary of State is to determine whether the 
conditions have been met. As a sponsor of the law, I would expect that 
prior to making any determination she would consult with 
representatives of reputable human rights groups, including the U.N. 
High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as with the British and 
Indian Governments. It is important that we and they be seen as united 
on these issues. In that regard, I would hope that she would consider 
the implications of such a determination in the context of the larger 
political crisis. We do not want to do anything that could be seen as 
further evidence that the United States supports the King when he is 
using the army and police to crush the forces of democracy.
  Last week, the Senate revisited the conditions on our military aid 
for Nepal. Since those conditions were enacted prior to February 1, 
they have in large measure been eclipsed by subsequent events. The 
Senate determined that modifications were needed, and those changes 
were adopted unanimously on July 20, 2005, in an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2006 State-Foreign Operations-appropriations bill.
  Nepal is a breathtakingly beautiful country facing immense 
challenges. The majority of its people are illiterate, subsistence 
farmers who are caught between the Maoists, who extort money and food, 
forcibly recruit their children, and commit atrocities, and the army 
which mistreats and often shoots those suspected of sympathizing with 
the Maoists.
  The King, while professing to support democracy, seems determined to 
take the country back to the pre-1990 feudal days. This is not the 
first time he has dismissed the Prime Minister, and since February 1 he 
has surrounded himself with elderly advisers from the Panchayat era. He 
has ignored repeated urgings by our ambassador, and other governments, 
to sit down with representatives of the political parties to develop a 
plan for the prompt restoration of multiparty democracy.
  As in any country where multiparty democracy has existed for only a 
decade and a half, Nepal's fledgling political parties suffer from 
internal divisions and are struggling to establish their credibility 
with the Nepalese people. This should surprise no one. Democracy is 
never perfect, and that is particularly true in an impoverished, 
isolated kingdom whose people have been ruled by a monarchy that 
ignored their needs for centuries. Yet, despite these obstacles, 
Nepalese journalists, political activists and civil society continue to 
speak out.
  What is the alternative? A Maoist ``people's republic'' that could 
plunge Nepal into darkness? A return to an active monarchy that is 
accountable to no one?
  Nepal is at an historic juncture. The Maoists have made steady gains 
over the past decade. Once a minor irritant, today they are a national 
menace. Even since 2001, when King Gyanendra ascended the throne and 
became commander in chief of the army, the Maoists have grown stronger. 
Although they are unable to hold territory or to seize power in 
Katmandu, they pose an increasing threat to the security and 
livelihoods of Nepal's people.
  The King has made a tragic blunder, and the Nepalese people are 
paying a heavy price.
  Former Prime Minister Deuba is in prison, which the State Department 
has rightly called a setback for democracy. This week there were new 
arrests. On July 25, several dozen journalists and civil society 
leaders were arrested and detained for over 24 hours during a peaceful 
protest. On July 27, a pro-democracy student leader, Gagan Thapa, was 
arrested while attempting to visit fellow detained student leaders. Mr. 
Thapa is reportedly being held on suspicion of sedition. His arrest is 
a threat to all democracy activists and should be strongly condemned by 
the State Department.
  The King's strongest card is the army, but it lacks an effective 
counterinsurgency capability, it cannot defeat the Maoists in territory 
as rugged and isolated as parts of Afghanistan, and it has abused and 
alienated the very people it is supposed to protect. The army needs to 
demonstrate that it is worthy, if it wants U.S. support.
  Earlier this year, in order to avoid criticism at the U.N. Human 
Rights Commission, the King agreed to permit the U.N. High Commissioner 
for Human Rights to open an office in Nepal and deploy human rights 
monitors. This is a welcome development, which the U.S. should strongly 
support. If the UN monitors are provided with unimpeded access, they 
should be able to determine if the Maoists are prepared to stop 
attacking civilians and recruiting children, and if the army is serious 
about respecting international humanitarian law.
  Recently, the U.N. Secretary General's Special Adviser traveled to 
Nepal to assess the situation. He concluded that a solution to the 
crisis rests on three elements: ``a return to constitutional order and 
multiparty democracy, an end to hostilities, and inclusive national 
dialogue towards a negotiated solution to the underlying causes of 
conflict.'' The U.N. has a long history in Nepal, and it could play a 
key facilitating role on each of these elements. I would hope that the 
State Department would publicly support this.
  No one should minimize the challenges. The Maoists have yet to 
demonstrate that they are ready to abide by a ceasefire, which should 
be a prerequisite for negotiations on their political demands. But our 
policy should be unambiguous. Democracy is the only viable alternative, 
and we should make clear that we unequivocally reject the King's 
imperial ambitions, that the days of an active monarchy are over, and 
that we support the political parties. Whether that means the 
restoration of the 1999 Parliament or the formation of a new 
constituent assembly, is for the Nepalese people to decide, but there 
should be no doubt that we support a political process that is open, 
transparent, inclusive and accountable to the people.
  Democracy and dialogue are the key to peace in Nepal, and we should 
do everything possible to reaffirm our willingness to work with the 
political parties, with Nepalese civil society, the Indian Government, 
the British Government, other key countries, and with the United 
Nations, towards that end.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, which if agreed to by the 
Senate-House conference committee will apply to U.S. military aid for 
Nepal for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2005, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Nepal.--
       (1) The Congress condemns the Maoist insurgency's 
     atrocities against civilians, including torture, 
     extrajudicial killings, and forced recruitment of children.
       (2) The Congress recognizes the difficulties the Royal 
     Nepalese Army (RNA) faces in countering the Maoist threat, 
     but deplores the violations of human rights by the RNA.
       (3) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Foreign Military 
     Financing Program'' may be made available for assistance for 
     Nepal only if the Secretary of State certifies to the

[[Page 18968]]

     Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Nepal, 
     including its security forces:
       (A) has released all political detainees, including those 
     detained before February 1, 2005;
       (B) has restored civil liberties, including due process 
     under law, freedoms of speech, the press and association, and 
     the right of movement;
       (C) has demonstrated, through dialogue with Nepal's 
     political parties, a commitment to a clear timetable for the 
     return to multi-party, democratic government consistent with 
     the 1990 Nepalese Constitution;
       (D) is ensuring that the Commission for Investigation of 
     Abuse of Authority is receiving adequate support to 
     effectively implement its anti-corruption mandate and that no 
     other anti-corruption body is functioning in violation of the 
     1990 Nepalese Constitution on international standards of due 
     process;
       (E) has determined the number of and is complying with 
     habeas corpus orders issued by Nepal's Supreme Court and 
     appellate courts, including all outstanding orders, and the 
     security forces are respecting these orders;
       (F) is restoring the independence of the National Human 
     Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRC) in accordance with 
     constitutional provisions, including providing adequate 
     funding and staff;
       (G) is granting civilian prosecutors and judicial 
     authorities, the NHRC, the Office of the United Nations High 
     Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal, and international 
     humanitarian organizations, unannounced and unimpeded access 
     to all detainees, witnesses, relevant documents, and other 
     requested information, and is cooperating with these entities 
     to identify and resolve all security related cases involving 
     persons in government custody; and
       (H) is taking effective steps to (i) ensure that Nepalese 
     security forces comply with the Geneva Convention on Law of 
     Land Warfare; (ii) end torture, extrajudicial killings, and 
     other gross violations of human rights; and (iii) prosecute 
     and punish, in a manner proportional to the crime, members of 
     such forces who are responsible for such violations.
       (4) The Secretary of State may waive the requirements of 
     paragraph (3) if the Secretary certifies to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that to do so is in the national security 
     interests of the United States.

                          ____________________




             IN MEMORIAM: POLICE OFFICER NELS DANIEL NIEMI

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor the 
memory of the late Nels Daniel Niemi, an officer with the city of San 
Leandro Police Department. Officer Niemi was a 3-year veteran of the 
San Leandro Police Department who dedicated his life to his family, 
community, and Nation. He was tragically killed in the line of duty on 
July 25, 2005.
  Officer Niemi was born 42 years ago in Guam. A graduate of De La 
Salle High School in Concord, CA, Officer Niemi first worked as a 
network administrator in the computer industry. Officer Niemi also 
taught self-defense and gun-awareness classes, which raised his 
longtime interest in law enforcement. Four years ago, he decided to 
switch careers, and enrolled in the Police Academy. An officer with the 
San Leandro Police Department for the last 3 years, he excelled at his 
job. He was a dedicated and caring officer, who often used his computer 
expertise in investigations. Through his hard work and dedication to 
public safety, Officer Niemi earned the respect and admiration of those 
with whom he worked.
  Officer Niemi will long be remembered for his courage, service, and 
bravery. He will be missed by all who knew him. Officer Niemi is 
survived by his parents Rudie and Mildred Niemi; brother Jim; wife 
Dionne; daughter Gabrielle; and stepson Josh Hewitt. I extend my 
deepest sympathies to his family.

                          ____________________




                      HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN NIGER

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concern about 
the unnecessary suffering that is occurring in the African country of 
Niger. Last year's severe drought and locust infestation destroyed most 
of Niger's harvest and the fodder necessary for keeping livestock. As a 
result, an estimated 3.6 million people including 800,000 children 
under the age of 5--are now facing starvation. Aid workers in the field 
describe the situation as desperate, and report that children are dying 
daily and families have turned to a diet of acacia leaves and grass.
  I urge the administration to continue to respond and to work with 
other donors to ensure Niger's humanitarian needs are met. In 
particular, it is crucial that USAID make certain the recently 
announced $7 million in additional emergency funds go immediately 
towards alleviating the hunger in the hardest hit areas: the agro-
pastoral regions of Maradi and Tillaberi and the pastoral regions of 
Tahoua and Zinder. Reportedly, there is a shortage of therapeutic 
feeding centers and clinics, and weakened villagers cannot manage the 
travel required to reach them.
  We also need to address long-term food security issues in the Sahel, 
where drought and famine regularly afflict these poorest nations. 
Earlier this year I traveled to three of Niger's neighbors--Algeria, 
Mali, and Chad. I heard firsthand accounts of how devastating the 
locust crisis was, and I heard a consensus regarding the need for 
permanent mechanisms to facilitate crisis response and to prevent 
emergencies in the future. As the tragedy in Niger demonstrates, even 
when governments, international organizations, and NGOs are able to 
anticipate food insecurity almost a year in advance and implement their 
assistance programs, we can still have a crisis. Unfortunately, it 
sometimes takes media coverage of already emaciated children to jolt 
donor countries into emergency action. We need to remain alert and 
responsive to World Food Program appeals for extra funding before the 
starvation begins, and we need to stay committed to long-term efforts 
to improve food security throughout the region.

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HONORING GUS FLOROS

 Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today I would like to honor a 
wonderful Virginian and American, Mr. Gus Floros, who this year is 
celebrating his 50th Anniversary of immigrating to America.
  Born on May 25, 1928, in Greece, Gus Floros immigrated to the United 
States in 1955 settling in Harrisonburg, VA. He quickly went to work in 
his aunt and uncle's restaurant, Jess' Lunch, on Main Street in 
Harrisonburg. By 1967 he had purchased the restaurant and with a hands 
on approach and a commitment to excellence, he made Jess' Lunch one of 
Harrison-
burg's finest eating establishments. Gus has expanded Jess' Lunch 
dramatically and in 2003 even built a sister location called Jess' 
Lunch 2.
  Gus Floros is a fine example of the great American dream coming true. 
He is an inspiration to many. Upon his arrival in America, Gus had just 
one dollar in his pocket. Today he owns two successful restaurants in 
Harrisonburg that attract both local residents and those who are 
passing by on interstate 81. Through his entrepreneurial spirit, Gus 
Floros has made Jess' Lunch an eatery known across the Commonwealth. I 
often stop in to see Gus and have one of his tasty hotdogs or 
hamburgers whenever I am in Harrisonburg. You can always find quick, 
friendly service and a satisfying meal at Jess' Lunch and Gus is always 
there working just as hard as he did back in 1955.
  I congratulate Gus Floros on 50 years of prosperity and good fortune, 
and I wish him continued success as he continues to serve the residents 
of Harrisonburg with a warm smile and a hearty meal.

                          ____________________




                        TRIBUTE TO JIM BERNSTEIN

 Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a North 
Carolinian who passed away on June 12, 2005, but will always be dear to 
our hearts. Jim Bernstein's work ended as it began--in selfless service 
to underserved communities in need. A career arc that began with 
volunteer service with the U.S. Peace Corps in Morocco ended with post-
retirement volunteer service to the North Carolina Department of Health 
& Human Services' rural health initiatives. In between, Jim provided 
the Nation and the State of North Carolina with more than 30 years of 
distinguished leadership in a variety of

[[Page 18969]]

health and social policy arenas, including rural health, health care 
finance, public health, social service delivery, medicaid, nonprofit 
management and health care system innovation.
  After earning a bachelor of arts degree in political economy from 
John Hopkins University in 1964 and a masters of hospital 
administration from the University of Michigan in 1968, Jim began his 
lifelong health care service as the director of Indian Health Services 
for Northern New Mexico. In 1970, he was awarded a 3-year fellowship in 
the U.S. Public Health Service, and relocated to North Carolina to 
concentrate his studies on rural health and fuel a passion that would 
serve as the basis for the next 35 years of his career.
  In 1973, while still in his 20's, Jim became the director of the 
Nation's first Office of Rural Health, located in North Carolina. In 
that role--which he held for nearly 30 years--Jim spearheaded the 
development and implementation of a medical recruitment service 
designed to help rural and medically underserved communities recruit 
physicians and other health care providers. Since then, more than 2,500 
physicians, nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants, dentists and 
other health care professionals have been recruited to North Carolina. 
He also directed the development of 83 community-owned health centers, 
and led the creation of Community Care of North Carolina, a care 
management program that today provides access to high-quality, cost-
effective care to more than 643,000 North Carolinians. Those efforts--
and countless others--have positioned the State's rural health function 
as a nationally recognized model of excellence.
  Throughout his career, Jim served as a director, chairman or 
consultant to more than two dozen professional organizations, 
including: National Rural Health Association, where he was president 
from May 1994 to May 1995; National Advisory Committee on Rural 
Health--U.S. Public Health Service, Office of Rural Health Policy, 1994 
to 1995; Institute of Medicine--Committee for Guidance in Designing a 
National Health Care Disparities Report, Washington, DC 2001 to 2005; 
Commissioner, Prospective Payment Assessment Commission, where he was 
selected by the U.S. Congress to advise the body on Medicare finance; 
1990 to 1996; chairman, Advisory Panel to the Office of Technology 
Assessment's Study on Rural Health Care, U.S. Congress; 1988; Delegate, 
National Medical Tour to the People's Republic of China, 1978; 
Consultant, National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine--Task 
Force on Study of Health Needs in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt; 1978. His 
extraordinary commitment to lifelong community service to these and 
dozens of other organizations garnered him the North Carolina Order of 
the Long Leaf Pine in 2005.
  In 1982, upon the recommendation of a State legislative study 
commission, Jim helped establish the North Carolina Foundation for 
Advanced Health Programs, Inc, NCFAHP. From 1982 to 2005, he served as 
the foundation's president, helping it spearhead projects targeting the 
health care needs of low-income underserved communities. Under Jim's 
leadership, NCFAHP secured more than 40 grants totaling more than $17 
million, allowing it to implement dozens of programs for enhancing 
health care delivery across the State. He also served as national 
director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Practice Sights 
Program through NCFAHP.
  Before retiring in 2005, Jim had, since 2001, served as assistant 
secretary for Health at the N.C. Department of Health and Human 
Services. In that role, he oversaw the North Carolina Departments of 
Facility Services, Medical Assistance, Mental Health, Minority Health, 
Public Health and Rural Health. He also served as an adjunct professor 
at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, 
Department of Social and Administrative Medicine; 1979 to 2005 and as 
an adjunct assistant professor at the School of Medicine at Duke 
University in Durham, NC, Department of Community and Family Medicine; 
1978 to 2005.
  Jim's impact on North Carolina will never be forgotten. He was a 
champion for rural health car and the belief that every individual 
should have access to high-quality health care.

                          ____________________




                      RECOGNITION OF BENNIE COOLEY

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize an outstanding 
marksman and employee at Idaho National Laboratory: Bennie Cooley, who 
with teammate Todd Salmon has recently won the 2005 World Sniper 
Championship.
  Bennie Cooley is no stranger to such competitions, as he currently 
holds three world titles and seven national titles within the shooting 
disciplines, but this competition was particularly special to him 
because many of the participants were some of the finest members of our 
Armed Forces and the national law enforcement community. Like him, I 
believe that all these competitors are world champions in their own 
right.
  Bennie has made a career at the Idaho National Laboratory, beginning 
as a security police officer for the Laboratory before moving to the 
Laboratory's special response team where he became a team leader. He is 
now a firearms safety engineer, ``part of a team that makes security 
successful, especially in the safety realm . . . able to articulate 
anything that's necessary to help keep us safe,'' according to one of 
his superiors, because of his knowledge of firearms.
  Respect for firearms and marksmanship have been important qualities 
throughout our Nation's history and it is rewarding to see those values 
preserved and practiced by people like Bennie Cooley.
  As Mr. Cooley continues to assure the safety of Idaho National 
Laboratory and to demonstrate his excellence in the art of 
marksmanship, I wish him good luck and offer congratulations and thanks 
for his dedication to public service.

                          ____________________




                  350 YEARS OF JEWISH LIFE IN AMERICA

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the 
Jewish community on 350 years of Jewish life in America. In September 
of 1654, 23 Jews founded the first Jewish community in America when 
they sailed to what was then New Amsterdam. The Jewish community in 
this country has a rich and fascinating history, surmounting numerous 
obstacles and working diligently to make great contributions to our 
Nation. I offer my sincerest congratulations to the Jewish community on 
reaching this important milestone and express my endorsement of the 
350th Rabbinical Resolution and ask that it be printed in the Record.
  The resolution follows:
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
  Let it be known that in Elul 5764 (September 2004) the Jewish 
community of the United States began a year long commemoration marking 
the 350th Anniversary of Jewish settlement in this country.
  With the help of God and under the protection of the Constitution of 
the United States, we have lived and prospered in this land. We have 
been an integral part of American life. We have worked with all other 
Americans in the never-ending effort to keep secure the democratic way 
of life. Our ancient prophetic ideals and the teachings of our sages 
serve as cornerstones of this Nation's values. Our work, our hopes, and 
above all, our living religion have been among our proudest offerings 
to the American community.
  In some lands across the seas the Jewish people have felt the searing 
flame of prejudice, persecution and death. The American Jew has had the 
sad, yet inspiring opportunity to bring comfort to the oppressed, the 
joyous opportunity to participate in the reconstitution of the Jewish 
state on the ancient soil of Israel, and the inescapable and ennobling 
responsibility to mend the broken places in our world.
  Even as we have worked for the well-being of our people abroad, the 
Jewish people in America have struggled to preserve our noble heritage, 
our historic traditions, our ancient teachings, our ethics, and our 
spiritual ideals in the free climate of our Nation.

[[Page 18970]]

  Mindful of our manifold blessings and with deep gratitude in our 
hearts to the God of Israel, who, in 1654, led our forebears to the 
shores of this great new land,
  We have proclaimed the period from Elul 5764 (September 2004) through 
Elul 5765 (September 2005) to be one of special thanksgiving, prayer, 
study, reflection and celebration to mark the 350th Anniversary of 
Jewish Communal Life in America. We call on all American Jewry to 
participate in the observance of this anniversary; to thank God for the 
bountiful blessings that have been bestowed on us in this remarkable 
land. Let us express our collective hope that peace, security, and 
prosperity will reign in our Nation for all.
  May the principles of freedom and liberty that have been the lodestar 
values of this great Republic continue to radiate their blessings on 
our Nation.
  Central Conference of American Rabbis
  Rabbi Harry Danziger, President
  Rabbinical Assembly
  Rabbi Perry Raphael Rank, President
  Rabbinical Council of America
  Rabbi Dale Polakoff, President
  Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association
  Rabbi Brant Rosen, President.

                          ____________________




                   RETIREMENT OF DR. BRUCE HALVERSON

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and 
honor Dr. Bruce Halverson on the occasion of his retirement as 
president of Augustana College in Sioux Falls, SD.
  Dr. Halverson, a native of Sioux Falls, is the first alumnus to ever 
serve as Augustana's president. As a member of the class of 1966, he 
majored in speech and drama, earning cum laude distinctions. He 
continued his education at the University of Washington where he 
secured his Ph.D. in theater history in 1971.
  Following graduation, Dr. Halverson compiled an impressive resume, 
including an array of educational and theatrical credits. As a theater 
director throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, he worked with award-
winning actors, producing and directing pieces he occasionally even co-
authored. In addition to his professional stage work, Dr. Halverson 
served as dean of the School of Theatre at Florida State University, as 
well as artistic director and chairman of theater departments at 
various universities, including the University of Illinois, Grinnell 
College, and Ithaca College. Moreover, he was director of education at 
the National Institute for the Deaf, where he displayed his skills and 
dedication as an educator and advocate of equal opportunity. Most 
recently, Dr. Halverson has shown his commitment to South Dakota by 
returning to his alma mater in 2000 as the 22nd president of Augustana 
College.
  During his presidency, Augustana implemented $13 million in projects 
to expand the campus, including constructing the Fantle Building for 
the Center for Western Studies, enhancing the Elmen Center, and 
creating the Center for the Visual Arts. A new football training 
facility is also in progress. Under Dr. Halverson's leadership, 
Augustana's $50 million Sunrise Capital Campaign is expected to 
successfully conclude around the time of his retirement. Further, he 
has been praised for his work in securing a record number of State 
scholarships for Augustana students. In recognition of his dedication 
to the college, Augustana's board of trustees asked Dr. Halverson to 
continue his work with the school following his retirement. As the 
school newspaper, Augustana Today, notes: Halverson has laid the 
groundwork for his successor by enhancing Augustana's financial 
viability, encouraging faculty research, undertaking strategic 
planning, and strengthening alumni support.
  Additionally, Dr. Halverson is a steadfast proponent of eliminating 
barriers for people with disabilities, particularly concerning theater 
and the arts. His compassion and outspoken commitment have moved him to 
write extensively on the topic, as well as travel all over our country, 
speaking and presenting at various conferences. As Augustana's first 
president proficient in sign language, it is clear that Dr. Halverson 
personifies his values and takes to heart his role as an educator.
  Mr. President, it is an honor for me to share the impressive 
accomplishments of Dr. Bruce Halverson with my colleagues. I commend 
him for his tireless dedication to theatre, education, and enhancing 
the arts, especially in the State of South Dakota. The lives of 
countless people have been enormously enhanced by Dr. Halverson's 
talent and leadership as president of Augustana College. I wish the 
very best for him, his wife Nancy, and their three sons Tait, Jeffry 
and Cole, as Dr. Halverson continues to contribute to and improve 
education throughout South Dakota. 

                          ____________________




             HONORING THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, SOUTH DAKOTA

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor and publicly 
recognize the city of Alexandria, SD. This year marks the 125th 
anniversary of the founding of Alexandria, and from August 14 through 
August 18, its citizens will gather to celebrate their proud past as 
well as their hope for a promising future.
  Located three miles from the banks of the James River in southeast 
South Dakota, Alexandria was originally named Clarksville after 
Dearborn Clark, who donated the land upon which the town was built. It 
was renamed Alexander in 1879, and later changed to Alexandria, to 
honor Alexander Mitchell, the president of the Chicago, Milwaukee 
Railway. The first buildings were built in 1880, and the city was 
officially incorporated in 1883. Later that decade, Alexandria was 
named county seat of Hanson County, a title it still maintains.
  The frontier town grew quickly in the following years, and by 1893, 
the population exceeded 1,000 people. Enjoying a robust agricultural 
economy, Alexandria shipped more than 1,000 boxcars of grain annually. 
In 1914, the city purchased an electric generator, and local 
businessmen financed a $1,200 project to make Alexandria one of the 
first communities in South Dakota with electric streetlights. In 1885, 
the city applied to become the State capital, but came in fourth in the 
voting.
  Since the boom years of the early 1900s, economic circumstances have, 
of course, changed. Still, Alexandria continues to provide essential 
services and support to local farmers and ranchers. The rugged days of 
pioneer life have ended, but the residents of this extraordinary 
community continue to exemplify the bold and enterprising pioneer 
spirit.
  In her book, Hanson Heritage, Mildred Soladay celebrates the courage 
of the settlers who founded Alexandria: ``They had no past,'' she 
writes, ``but the infinite future lay before them.'' Today, the 
citizens of Alexandria do indeed have a past worthy of celebration, yet 
as they commemorate their city's 125th anniversary, the promise of 
their future remains infinite.

                          ____________________




                            MAYOR HARRY MIMS

 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I wish to say a few words 
about one of Louisiana's finest public servants, Mayor Harry Mims of 
East Hodge. Mayor Mims recently celebrated his 91st birthday and has 
dedicated the past 37 years to the people of East Hodge as their mayor. 
First elected in 1968, he has the distinction of being the first and so 
far only mayor of this community, population of 366. In fact, some say 
that if it I were not for Harry Mims, there would not be an East Hodge 
as he was instrumental in the city's founding.
  Mayor Mims' motto that has made East Hodge thrive is one many small 
town politicians understand, when there is work to be done, ``You have 
to do it yourself.'' One of the best examples of his drive to bring to 
East Hodge some of the amenities and services enjoyed by their 
neighbors is his unyielding efforts to pave the streets of East Hodge. 
At one point in recent history, the streets were too narrow for cars to 
pass. The mayor wrote grant after grant to find the money he needed to 
manage this small community

[[Page 18971]]

and as a result of his tenacity, they now have a new town hall, a large 
water system, two apartment buildings, a fire station, two trucks and a 
community center.
  Last Saturday, the Louisiana Chapter of the National Conference of 
Black Mayors honored Mayor Mims for his years of service to the people 
of East Hodge and the State of Louisiana. Mayor Mims told them he plans 
to run for 8 more years, if the Lord will allow him to. It is my 
fervent prayer that the good Lord allows Mayor Mims to continue to 
serve the people of East Hodge as he has so diligently for the past 37 
years and that he does so in the best of health. As the daughter of a 
Mayor, I know that the people of East Hodge join me in this prayer. 
Thank you Mayor Mims, for all that you have done and continue to do for 
the people you serve.

                          ____________________




                      MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

  Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to 
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.

                          ____________________




                      EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

  As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate 
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry 
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
  (The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate 
proceedings.)

                          ____________________




               MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE DURING ADJOURNMENT

  Under authority of the order of the Senate of January 4, 2005, the 
Secretary of the Senate, on July 27, 2005, during the adjournment of 
the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives 
announcing that the House has agreed to the following bill, in which it 
requests the concurrence of the Senate:

       H.R. 3453. An act to provide an extension of highway, 
     highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other 
     programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending 
     enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity 
     Act of the 21st Century.

                          ____________________




                          ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

  Under authority of the order of the Senate of January 4, 2005, the 
Secretary of the Senate, on July 27, 2005, during the adjournment of 
the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives 
announcing that the Speaker had signed the following enrolled bill:

       H.R. 3453. An act to provide an extension of highway, 
     highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other 
     programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending 
     enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century.

  Under authority of the order of July 27, 2005, the enrolled bill was 
signed on July 27, 2005, during the adjournment of the Senate, by the 
Acting President pro tempore (Mr. McConnell).

                          ____________________




                        MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

  At 9:32 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has 
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the 
Senate:

       H.R. 3045. An act to implement the Dominican Republic-
     Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement.
                                  ____

  At 12:17 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has 
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the 
Senate:

       H.R. 1132. An act to provide for the establishment of a 
     controlled substance monitoring program in each State.
       H.R. 3204. An act to amend title XXVII of the Public Health 
     Service Act to extend Federal funding for the establishment 
     and operation of State high risk health insurance pools.
       H.R. 3283. An act to enhance resources to enforce United 
     States trade rights.

  The message also announced that pursuant to section 306(k) of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), and the order of the House 
of Representatives to the National Committee on Vital and Health 
Statistics for a term of 4 years: Mr. Jeffrey S. Blair of Albuquerque, 
NM.

                          ____________________




                         ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

  The President pro tempore (Mr. Stevens) announced that on yesterday, 
July 27, 2005, he had signed the following enrolled bills:

       H.R. 38. An act to designate a portion of the White Salmon 
     River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
     System.
       H.R. 481. An act to further the purposes of the Sand Creek 
     Massacre National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000.
       H.R. 541. An act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     convey certain land to Lander County, NV, and the Secretary 
     of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, NV 
     for continued use as cemeteries.
       H.R. 794. An act to correct the south boundary of the 
     Colorado River Indian Reservation in Arizona, and for other 
     purposes.
       H.R. 1046. An act to authorize the Secretary of the 
     Interior to contract with the city of Cheyenne, WY, for the 
     storage of the city's water in the Kendrick Project, WY.

  The President pro tempore (Mr. Stevens) announced that on yesterday, 
July 27, 2005, he had signed the following enrolled bill:

       S. 544. An act to amend title IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act to provide for the improvement of patient safety 
     and to reduce the incidence of events that adversely affect 
     patient safety.
                                  ____

  At 1:34 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Mr. Croatt, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House 
agrees to the report of the committee on conference on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 
6 to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable 
energy.

                          ____________________




                        ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED

  The Secretary of the Senate reported that on July 28, 2005, she had 
presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled 
bill:

       S. 544. An act to amend title IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act to provide for the improvement of patient safety 
     and to reduce the incidence of events that adversely affect 
     patient safety.
                                  ____

  At 6:18 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House 
agree to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill H.R. 
2361 making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, 
environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2006, and for other purposes.
  The message also announced that the House agree to the report of the 
committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 2985 making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
  The message further announced that the House has agreed to the 
following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence 
of the Senate:

       H. Con. Res. 225. Concurrent resolution providing for a 
     conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a 
     conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

                          ____________________




                           MEASURES REFERRED

  The following bill was read the first and the second times by 
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

       H.R. 3283. An act to enhance resources to enforce United 
     States trade rights; to the Committee on Finance.

                          ____________________




                    MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

  The following bills were read the first and second times by unanimous 
consent, and placed on the calendar:

       H.R. 3045. An act to implement the Dominican Republic-
     Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement.
       H.R. 3204. An act to amend title XXVII of the Public Health 
     Service Act to extend Federal funding for the establishment 
     and operation of State high risk health insurance pools.

[[Page 18972]]



                          ____________________




                   EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

  The following communications were laid before the Senate, together 
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as 
indicated:

       EC-3268. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Coldfoot, AK'' 
     ((RIN2120-AA66) (2005-0144)) received on July 25, 2005; to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3269. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Kaltag, AK'' ((RIN2120-
     AA66) (2005-0146)) received on July 25, 2005; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3270. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Sutton, WV'' ((RIN2120-
     AA66) (2005-0149)) received on July 25, 2005; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3271. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Perryville, AK'' 
     ((RIN2120-AA66) (2005-0153)) received on July 25, 2005; to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3272. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Establishment of Class E2 Airspace; and Modification of 
     Class E5 Airspace; Monett, MO'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (2005-0160)) 
     received on July 25, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3273. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 727 Airplanes, 
     Equipped with an Auxiliary Fuel Tank Having a Fuel Pump 
     Installed'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0310)) received on July 25, 
     2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3274. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Kelly Aerospace Power Systems 
     Part Number 14D11, A14D11, B14D11, C14D11, 23D04, A23D04, 
     B23D04, C23D04, or P23D04 Fuel Regulator Shutoff Valves, 
     ElectoSystems, JanAero Devices, Janitrol, C&D Airmotive 
     Products, FL Aerospace, and Midland-Ross Corporation'' 
     ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0315)) received on July 25, 2005; to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3275. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica 
     S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes and Model EMB-145, 
     145ER, 145MR 145LR, 145XR, 145MP, and 145EP Airplanes'' 
     ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0318)) received on July 25, 2005; to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3276. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Rockwell International Models AT-
     6 (SNJ-2), AT-6A (SNJ-3), AT-6B, AT-6C (SNJ-4), AT-6D (SNJ-
     5), AT-6F (SNJ-6), BC-1A, SNJ-7, and T-6G Airplanes; and 
     Autair Ltd., Model Harvard'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0320)) 
     received on July 25, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3277. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: GROB-WERKE Model G120A 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0309)) received on July 25, 
     2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3278. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier Model DHC-8-400 Series 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0307)) received on July 25, 
     2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3279. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Boeing Model 757 Series 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0308)) received on July 25, 
     2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3280. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Eurocopter France Model EC 155B, 
     EC155B1, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS-365N3 
     Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0323)) received on July 
     25, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3281. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B 
     Turboshaft Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0322)) received on 
     July 25, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3282. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: General Electric Company CT64-
     820-4 Turboprop Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0321)) 
     received on July 25, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3283. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation 
     Model S-92A Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0319)) 
     received on July 25, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3284. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Hoffman Propeller GmbH and Co KG 
     Models HO-V343 and HO-V343K Propellers'' ((RIN2120-AA64) 
     (2005-0317)) received on July 25, 2005; to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-3285. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 Series 
     Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0316)) received on July 
     25, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3286. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Dornier Model 328-300 Series 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0314)) received on July 25, 
     2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3287. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0313)) received on July 25, 
     2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3288. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 
     Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0312)) received on 
     July 25, 2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3289. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal 
     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives: Dornier Model 328-300 Series 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (2005-0311)) received on July 25, 
     2005; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-3290. A communication from the Acting Administrator, 
     Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Increase in Fees and Charges for Egg, Poultry, and Rabbit 
     Grading'' ((RIN0581-AC44) (Docket No. PY-05-001)) received on 
     July 25, 2005; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry.
       EC-3291. A communication from the Acting Administrator, 
     Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Pistachios Grown in California; Establishment of Procedures 
     for Exempting Handlers from Minimum Quality Testing'' (Docket 
     No. FV05-983-4 IFR) received on July 25, 2005; to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-3292. A communication from the Acting Administrator, 
     Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Pistachios Grown in California; Establishment of Reporting 
     Requirements'' (Docket No. FV05-983-1 FR) received on July 
     25, 2005; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry.
       EC-3293. A communication from the Administrator, Food and 
     Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``For-Profit 
     Center Participation in the Child and Adult Care Food 
     Program'' (RIN0584-AD66) received on July 25, 2005; to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-3294. A communication from the Congressional Review 
     Coordinator, Animal and

[[Page 18973]]

     Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; State and Zone 
     Designations; New Mexico'' (APHIS Docket No. 04-068-1) 
     received on July 27, 2005; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-3295. A communication from the Director, Office of 
     Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report 
     relative to the addition of benefits coverage for dependent 
     children up to 25 years of age under the Federal Employees 
     Health Benefits (FEHB) Program; to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3296. A communication from the Director, Division for 
     Strategic Human Resources Policy, Office of Personnel 
     Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a 
     rule entitled ``Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation'' (RIN3206-AI65) received on 
     July 27, 2005; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3297. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 16-131, ``Summer Youth Employment Act of 
     2005'' received on July 27, 2005; to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3298. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 16-132, ``Nuisance Properties Abatement 
     Reform Amendment Act of 2005'' received on July 27, 2005; to 
     the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3299. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 16-133, ``Abatement of Nuisance 
     Construction Projects Amendment Act of 2005'' received on 
     July 27, 2005; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3300. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 16-134, ``Uniform Real Property Electronic 
     Recording Act of 2005'' received on July 27, 2005; to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3301. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 16-135, ``Removal from the Permanent 
     System of Highways, Savannah Street, S.E., and the Dedication 
     of Land for Street Purposes (S.O. 04-8736) Act of 2005'' 
     received on July 27, 2005; to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3302. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 16-136, ``Closing of Patricia Roberts 
     Harris Drive, N. E., in Square 4325, S.O. 03-5187, Act of 
     2005'' received on July 27, 2005; to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3303. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 16-137, ``Qualified Zone Academy Revenue 
     Bond Project Forward Commitment Approval Act of 2005'' 
     received on July 27, 2005; to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-3304. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 16-138, ``Utility Taxes Technical 
     Corrections Temporary Act of 2005'' received on July 27, 
     2005; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs.
       EC-3305. A communication from the Chairman of the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a 
     report on D.C. Act 16-139, ``Tobacco Settlement Model 
     Amendment Act of 2005'' received on July 27, 2005; to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

                          ____________________




                         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following reports of committees were submitted:

       By Mr. McCAIN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
     without amendment:
       S. 449. A bill to facilitate shareholder consideration of 
     proposals to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska 
     Native Claims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees, 
     eligible elders, and eligible persons born after December 18, 
     1971, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 109-112).
       By Mr. McCAIN, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
     without amendment and with a preamble:
       S.J. Res. 15. A joint resolution to acknowledge a long 
     history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies 
     by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and 
     offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the 
     United States (Rept. No. 109-113).
       By Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation, with amendments:
       S. 1280. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     years 2006 and 2007 for the United States Coast Guard, and 
     for other purposes (Rept. No. 109-114).
       By Mr. COCHRAN, from the Committee on Appropriations:
       Special Report entitled ``Further Revised Allocation to 
     Subcommittees of Budget Totals from the Concurrent Resolution 
     for Fiscal Year 2006'' (Rept. No. 109-115).
       By Mr. SPECTER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
       S. 103. A bill to respond to the illegal production, 
     distribution, and use of methamphetamine in the United 
     States, and for other purposes. 

                          ____________________




                     EXECUTIVE REPORT OF COMMITTEE

  The following executive report of committee was submitted:

       By Mr. LUGAR, from the Committee on Foreign Relations:
       Treaty Doc. 108-6--Protocol of Amendment to International 
     Convention on Simplification and Harmonization of Customs 
     Procedures (Exec. Rept. No. 109-2)
       Text of Resolution of Ratification as recommended by the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations: Resolved (two-thirds of the 
     Senators present concurring therein), The Senate advises and 
     consents to the accession to the Protocol of Amendment to the 
     International Convention on the Simplification and 
     Harmonization of Customs Procedures (the ``Protocol'') done 
     at Brussels on June 26, 1999 (Treaty Doc. 108-6), including 
     Specific Annexes A, B, C, D, E, and G; Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of 
     Specific Annex F; and Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of Specific Annex 
     J; subject to the reservations to certain Recommended 
     Practices (as set forth in the enclosure to the report of the 
     Secretary of State in Treaty Doc. 108-6) in Specific Annex A, 
     Chapters 1 and 2; Specific Annex B, Chapters 2 and 3; 
     Specific Annex D, Chapters 1 and 2; Specific Annex E, 
     Chapters 1 and 2; Specific Annex F, Chapters 1, 2 and 3; 
     Specific Annex G, Chapter 1; and Specific Annex J, Chapter 4. 
     

                          ____________________




                    EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following executive reports of committees were submitted:

       By Mr. WARNER for the Committee on Armed Services.
       *Peter Cyril Wyche Flory, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense.
       *Phillip Jackson Bell, of Georgia, to be Deputy Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness.
       *Keith E. Eastin, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
     the Army.
       Air Force nomination of Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz to be 
     General.
       Air Force nomination of Lt. Gen. John D. W. Corley to be 
     General.
       Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. Kevin P. Chilton to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. Donald J. Hoffman to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. David A. Deptula to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Air Force nomination of Lt. Gen. Victor E. Renuart, Jr. to 
     be Lieutenant General.
       Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. John L. Hudson to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Air Force nomination of Brig. Gen. Melissa A. Rank to be 
     Major General.
       Air Force nominations beginning with Brigadier General Ted 
     F. Bowlds and ending with Brigadier General Roy M. Worden, 
     which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in 
     the Congressional Record on May 9, 2005.
       Air Force nominations beginning with Brigadier General 
     Charles W. Collier, Jr. and ending with Colonel Jannette 
     Young, which nominations were received by the Senate and 
     appeared in the Congressional Record on June 8, 2005.
       Army nomination of Lt. Gen. William E. Ward to be General.
       Army nomination of Lt. Gen. Robert W. Wagner to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Army nomination of Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Army nomination of Maj. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess, Jr. to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Army nomination of Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Army nomination of Maj. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Army nomination of Maj. Gen. William E. Mortensen to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Army nomination of Lt. Gen. Claude V. Christianson to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Army nomination of Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black to be Major 
     General and the Judge Advocate General of the United States 
     Army.
       Army nomination of Maj. Gen. Daniel V. Wright to be Major 
     General and the Assistant Judge Advocate General of the 
     United States Army.
       Army nomination of Brigadier General Jay W. Hood to be 
     Major General.
       Army nomination of Col. Douglas L. Carver to be Brigadier 
     General.
       Marine Corps nomination of Lt. Gen. Robert Magnus to be 
     General.
       Marine Corps nomination of Maj. Gen. John G. Castellaw to 
     be Lieutenant General.
       Marine Corps nomination of Maj. Gen. Emerson N. Gardner, 
     Jr. to be Lieutenant General.

[[Page 18974]]

       Marine Corps nomination of Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Weber to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Marine Corps nomination of Maj. Gen. Richard S. Kramlich to 
     be Lieutenant General.
       Marine Corps nomination of Maj. Gen. John F. Goodman to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. Ann E. Rondeau to be Vice 
     Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Vice Adm. David C. Nichols, Jr. to be 
     Vice Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Henry Balam Tomlin III to 
     be Rear Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Craig O. McDonald to be 
     Rear Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Ben F. Gaumer to be Rear 
     Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Raymond K. Alexander to 
     be Rear Admiral.
       Navy nominations beginning with Rear Adm. (lh) David O. 
     Anderson and ending with Rear Adm. (lh) Dirk J. Debbink, 
     which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in 
     the Congressional Record on April 4, 2005.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Thomas K. Burkhard to be 
     Rear Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Donna L. Crisp to be Rear 
     Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Michael S. Roesner to be 
     Rear Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Capt. Donald R. Gintzig to be Rear 
     Admiral (lower half).
       Navy nomination of Capt. Raymond P. English to be Rear 
     Admiral (lower half).
       Navy nominations beginning with Capt. Richard R. Jeffries 
     and ending with Capt. David J. Smith, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on February 28, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Capt. Mark F. Heinrich and 
     ending with Capt. Charles M. Lilli, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on February 28, 2005.
       Navy nomination of Capt. Michael D. Hardee to be Rear 
     Admiral (lower half).
       Navy nominations beginning with Capt. Timothy V. Flynn III 
     and ending with Capt. John C. Orzalli, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 4, 2005.
       Navy nomination of Capt. Tony L. Cothron to be Rear Admiral 
     (lower half).
       Navy nomination of Capt. Moira N. Flanders to be Rear 
     Admiral (lower half).
       Navy nomination of Capt. Michael A. Brown to be Rear 
     Admiral (lower half).
       Navy nominations beginning with Capt. Julius S. Caeser and 
     ending with Capt. Garland P. Wright, Jr., which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 4, 2005.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I 
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in 
the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save 
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these 
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of 
Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

       Air Force nominations beginning with Thomas L. Blase and 
     ending with Gregory L. Tate, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     March 14, 2005.
       Air Force nominations beginning with David J. Luther and 
     ending with Meridith A. Warner, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on July 19, 2005.
       Army nominations beginning with John M. Balas, Jr. and 
     ending with Paul J. Warden, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     February 15, 2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Edward D. Arrington and 
     ending with Clifton E. Yu, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on March 
     4, 2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Barry D. Bowden and ending 
     with Craig N. Wiley, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on March 14, 
     2005
       Army nominations beginning with William P. Adelman and 
     ending with Joseph J. Zubak, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 9, 2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Terry W. Austin and ending 
     with Paul J. Yacovone, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 9, 
     2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Scott W. Burgan and ending 
     with Julie A. Smith, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 9, 
     2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Monroe N. Farmer, Jr. and 
     ending with Wendy C. Spriggs, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     July 12, 2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Jerry R. Acton, Jr. and 
     ending with Steven R. Mount, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     July 12, 2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Maria E. Bovill and ending 
     with Michael J. Walker, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 
     12, 2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Thelda J. Atkin and ending 
     with Tami Zalewski, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 12, 
     2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Christopher Amaker and 
     ending with Stephen C. Wooldridge, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on July 12, 2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Denise D. Adamsmann and 
     ending with Robin A. Villiard, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on July 12, 2005.
       Army nominations beginning with Thomas H. Aarsen and ending 
     with X3541, which nominations were received by the Senate and 
     appeared in the Congressional Record on July 12, 2005.
       Marine Corps nomination of Daniel J. Peterlick to be 
     Lieutenant Colonel.
       Marine Corps nominations beginning with Danny A. Hurd and 
     ending with George C. Mclain, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     February 8, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with James W. Caldwell, Jr. and 
     ending with Richard J. Papesca, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with David K. Chapman and ending 
     with William V. Weinman, Jr., which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 6, 2005.
       Navy nomination of Robert W. Worringer to be Captain.
       Navy nomination of Melissa J. MacKay to be Captain.
       Navy nominations beginning with Thomas J. Cuff and ending 
     with Carven A. Scott, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 6, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Steven F. Momano and ending 
     with Agustin L. Otero, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 6, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Larry Thomas and ending 
     with David J. Wray, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 6, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Keri A. Buck and ending 
     with William J. Wilson III, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Nicholas A. Filippone and 
     ending with Nancy S. Vegel, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Edward Y. Andrus and ending 
     with Thomas E. Stowell, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Rebekah R. Barrish and 
     ending with Samuel G. Sumwalt, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Charles E. Adams and ending 
     with Katherine A. Walter, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Walter J. Adelmann, Jr. and 
     ending with Clayton G. Tettelbach, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Russell E. Allen and ending 
     with Stephen E. Zini, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 6, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Anthony Cooper and ending 
     with William S. Gureck, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 
     25, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Annie B. Andrews and ending 
     with Susan L. Sherman, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 25, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Robert G. Bergman and 
     ending with Philip G. Strozzo, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on May 25, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Scott D. Katz and ending 
     with Paul C. Stewart, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 25, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with William T. Ainsworth and 
     ending with George D. Seaton, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 
     25, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Katherine M. Donovan and 
     ending with Martha M. Warner, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 
     25, 2005.

[[Page 18975]]

       Navy nominations beginning with Terry W. Auberry and ending 
     with David B. Wilkie, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 25, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Nicholas V. Buck and ending 
     with Mathias W. Winter, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 
     25, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Michael E. Devine and 
     ending with Alvin C. Wilson III, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on May 25, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Raymond M. Alfaro and 
     ending with Joseph Yusician, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 
     25, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Alan J. Abramson and ending 
     with Douglas E. Wright, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 
     25, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Carl J. Cwiklinski and 
     ending with Robert P. Mcclanahan, Jr., which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Joseph A. Clements and 
     ending with Garold G. Ulmer, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Jeffrey T. Borowy and 
     ending with Julius C. Washington, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Dianne A. Archer and ending 
     with Jeffery S. Wolfe, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 6, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Robert B. Blazewick and 
     ending with Eric C. Price, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with William J. Adams, Jr. and 
     ending with Steven J. Winter, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Gregory S. Blaschke and 
     ending with David G. Wright, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Ioana Bettios and ending 
     with Michael J. Wolfgang, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Linnea M. Axman and ending 
     with Laurie L. Williamson, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with John G. Dillender and 
     ending with Diane L. Snyder, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Jane D. Bingham and ending 
     with Steven R. Morgan, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 6, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Gregory F. Becht and ending 
     with Michael L. Zabel, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 6, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Deana L. Abernathey and 
     ending with Linda J. Tieaskie, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Maureen E. Carroll and 
     ending with Jacob R. Walker, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Thomas L. Amerson and 
     ending with Kenneth E. Wavell, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Brian D. Hodgson and ending 
     with Pomay Tsoi, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 6, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Gregory L. Belcher and 
     ending with Wayne M. Weiss, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 6, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Richard W. Haupt and ending 
     with Alvin A. Plexico, Jr., which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Ronald M. Bishop, Jr. and 
     ending with Anthony S. Vivona, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Cheryl J. Cotton and ending 
     with Tracy D. Whiteley, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Albert R. Costa and ending 
     with Christopher S. Wirth, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with David J. Byers and ending 
     with Marc T. Steiner, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 14, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Jason W. Carter and ending 
     with Laura G. Yambrick, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Clifford W. Bean III and 
     ending with Donna M. Young, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Thomas J. Anderson and 
     ending with Michael Ziv, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Jason L. Ansley and ending 
     with Tracy A. Vincent, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 14, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Daniel A. Abrams and ending 
     with John W. Wood, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 14, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with John C. Absetz and ending 
     with John J. Zerr II, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 14, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with James R. Martin and ending 
     with Glen Wood, which nominations were received by the Senate 
     and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 12, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Marjorie Alexander and 
     ending with Maria A. Young, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     July 12, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Eric M. Aaby and ending 
     with Charles S. Willmore, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 
     12, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with William D. Bryan and ending 
     with Billy W. Sloan, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 14, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Bruce H. Boyle and ending 
     with Bradley E. Telleen, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 
     14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Jeffrey G. Ant and ending 
     with Benjamin W. Young, Jr., which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     July 14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Syed N. Ahmad and ending 
     with Barbara H. Zeliff, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 
     14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Anthony A. Arita and ending 
     with Linda D. Youberg, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 14, 
     2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with James T. Albritton and 
     ending with Todd E. Yanik, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on July 
     14, 2005.
       Navy nominations beginning with Thomas C. Alewine and 
     ending with Tara J. Zieber, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     July 14, 2005.
       By Mr. SHELBY for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.
       *John C. Dugan, of Maryland, to be Comptroller of the 
     Currency for a term of five years.
       *John M. Reich, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office 
     of Thrift Supervision for a term of five years.
       *Christopher Cox, of California, to be a Member of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission for the term expiring June 
     5, 2009.
       *Roel C. Campos, of Texas, to be a Member of the Securities 
     and Exchange Commission for a term expiring June 5, 2010.
       *Annette L. Nazareth, of the District of Columbia, to be a 
     Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the 
     remainder of the term expiring June 5, 2007.
       *Martin J. Gruenberg, of Maryland, to be Vice Chairperson 
     of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation.
       *Martin J. Gruenberg, of Maryland, to be a Member of the 
     Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation for the remainder of the term expiring December 
     27, 2006.
       *Martin J. Gruenberg, of Maryland, to be a Member of the 
     Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation for a term expiring December 27, 2012.
       By Mr. SPECTER for the Committee on the Judiciary.
       Michael J. Garcia, of New York, to be United States 
     Attorney for the Southern District of New York for the term 
     of four years.
       Peter Manson Swaim, of Indiana, to be United States Marshal 
     for the Southern District of Indiana for the term of four 
     years.

[[Page 18976]]

       By Mr. CRAIG for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
       Charles S. Ciccolella, of Virginia, to be Assistant 
     Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training.
       *James Philip Terry, of Virginia, to be Chairman of the 
     Board of Veterans' Appeals for a term of six years.

  *Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed 
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear 
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
  (Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the 
recommendation that they be confirmed.)

                          ____________________




              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. AKAKA:
       S. 1521. A bill to provide for teacher acculturation, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burr, 
             and Ms. Murkowski):
       S. 1522. A bill to recognize the heritage of hunting and 
     provide opportunities for continued hunting on Federal public 
     land to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Ms. SNOWE:
       S. 1523. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to make permanent increased expensing for small businesses; 
     to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
             Bunning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
             Vitter, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Burr, Mr. Talent, Mr. DeMint, 
             and Mr. Santorum):
       S. 1524. A bill to repeal the sunset on the reduction of 
     capital gains rates for individuals and on the taxation of 
     dividends of individuals at capital gain rates; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
             Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Corzine, 
             Mr. Salazar, Mr. Obama, and Ms. Mikulski):
       S. 1525. A bill to ensure that commercial insurers cannot 
     engage in price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations to 
     the detriment of competition and consumers; to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
       S. 1526. A bill to provide education to students in grades 
     7 through 12 about the importance of higher education; to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Reed):
       S. 1527. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with 
     respect to immunizations against vaccine-preventable 
     diseases, including influenza, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. 
             Bunning):
       S. 1528. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to provide for the tax treatment of horses, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
       S. 1529. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain 
     Federal land in the city of Yuma, Arizona; to the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
       S. 1530. A bill to provide a Federal tax exemption for 
     forest conservation bonds, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cochran, 
             Mr. Baucus, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. 
             Dole):
       S. 1531. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to expand and intensify programs with respect to 
     research and related activities concerning elder falls; to 
     the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
       S. 1532. A bill to amend title 18 of the United States Code 
     to criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to enhance the 
     protection of the United States agricultural industry and 
     food security through the increased prevention, detection, 
     response and recovery planning; to the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
           By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
       S. 1533. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to provide a tax incentive to individuals teaching in 
     elementary and secondary schools located in rural or high 
     unemployment areas and to individuals who achieve 
     certification from the National Board of Professional 
     Teaching Standards, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Finance.
           By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
       S. 1534. A bill to reduce the risk to the food supply from 
     intentional contamination, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
           By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Thune):
       S. 1535. A bill to amend the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
     Equitable Compensation Act to provide compensation to members 
     of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for damage resulting from 
     the Oahe Dam and Reservoir Project, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
           By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. 
             Clinton):
       S. 1536. A bill to provide certain members of the Armed 
     Forces with a deferment of all loan payments under title IV 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and to provide such 
     members with the option to reenroll in institutions of higher 
     education after completion of their service; to the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. AKAKA:
       S. 1537. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
     provide for the establishment of Parkinson's Disease Research 
     Education and Clinical Centers in the Veterans Health 
     Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
     Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence; to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs.
           By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
       S. 1538. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to expand the incentives for the construction and renovation 
     of public schools; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
       S. 1539. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act to promote the adoption of children with special 
     needs; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
       S. 1540. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army and 
     the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to 
     improve water management and contribute to the recovery of 
     endangered species in the Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works.
           By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, 
             and Mr. Levin):
       S. 1541. A bill to protect, conserve, and restore public 
     land administered by the Department of the Interior or the 
     Forest Service and adjacent land through cooperative cost-
     shared grants to control and mitigate the spread of invasive 
     species, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
     and Natural Resources.
           By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
             Baucus, and Mr. Levin):
       S. 1542. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to create a 
     Chief Trade Prosecutor to ensure compliance with trade 
     agreements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
           By Mr. SANTORUM:
       S. 1543. A bill to provide for clinical research support 
     grants, clinical research infrastructure grants, and a 
     demonstration program on partnerships in clinical research, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. DORGAN:
       S. 1544. A bill to establish the Northern Plains National 
     Heritage Area in the State of North Dakota, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
       S. 1545. A bill to withdraw the Los Padres National Forest 
     in California from location, entry, and patent under mining 
     laws, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources.
           By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
       S. 1546. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to 
     permit participating households to use food stamp benefits to 
     purchase nutritional supplements providing vitamins or 
     minerals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
           By Mr. SANTORUM:
       S. 1547. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain 
     vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymers; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
           By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
       S. 1548. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain 
     Forest Service land to the city of Coffman Cove, Alaska; to 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Mr. SMITH:
       S. 1549. A bill to improve the conservation and management 
     of Pacific whiting, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
           By Mr. DURBIN:
       S. 1550. A bill to extend until September 30, 2008, changes 
     to requirements for admission of nonimmigrant nurses in 
     health professional shortage areas made by the Nursing Relief 
     for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999,

[[Page 18977]]

     and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. VITTER (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. 
             McCain):
       S. 1551. A bill to clarify that the overall trade 
     negotiating objectives of the United States include avoiding 
     provisions in trade agreements that restrict the access of 
     consumers in the United States to pharmaceutical imports, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Ms. CANTWELL:
       S. 1552. A bill to amend Public Law 97-435 to extend the 
     authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to release 
     certain conditions contained in a patent concerning certain 
     land conveyed by the United States to Eastern Washington 
     University until December 31, 2009; to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Ms. 
             Murkowski):
       S.J. Res. 22. A joint resolution proclaiming Casimir 
     Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States 
     posthumously; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________




            SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

  The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were 
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

           By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
             Corzine, Mr. Bunning, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Hatch, Ms. 
             Cantwell, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lott, and 
             Mr. Durbin):
       S. Res. 218. A resolution designating September 2005 as 
     ``National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month''; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. 
             Clinton, and Mr. Crapo):
       S. Res. 219. A resolution designating March 8, 2006, as 
     ``Endangered Species Day'', and encouraging the people of the 
     United States to become educated about, and aware of, threats 
     to species, success stories in species recovery, and the 
     opportunity to promote species conservation worldwide; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
             Biden, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Bond, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
             Rockefeller, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Bingaman):
       S. Res. 220. A resolution to express the concern of the 
     Senate regarding the passage of the anti-secession law by the 
     National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China 
     and Taiwan on an equal footing without preconditions; to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations.
           By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Specter):
       S. Res. 221. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals 
     of ``National Campus Safety Awareness Month''; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Cornyn, 
             Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Leahy):
       S. Res. 222. A resolution honoring the victories of Team 
     Discovery and American cyclists Lance Armstrong and George 
     Hincapie in the 2005 Tour de France; considered and agreed 
     to.
           By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, 
             Ms. Collins, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
             Johnson, and Mr. Allen):
       S. Res. 223. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals 
     of ``National Life Insurance Awareness Month''; considered 
     and agreed to.

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 103

  At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 103, a bill to 
respond to the illegal production, distribution, and use of 
methamphetamine in the United States, and for other purposes.
  At the request of Mr. Talent, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Coburn) was added as a cosponsor of S. 103, supra.


                                 S. 246

  At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
DeWine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 246, a bill to repeal the sunset 
of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with 
respect to the expansion of the adoption credit and adoption assistance 
programs.


                                 S. 392

  At the request of Mr. Levin, the names of the Senator from Colorado 
(Mr. Allard) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 392, a bill to authorize the President to award a gold 
medal on behalf of Congress, collectively, to the Tuskegee Airmen in 
recognition of their unique military record, which inspired 
revolutionary reform in the Armed Forces.


                                 S. 441

  At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Virginia 
(Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 441, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the classification of a 
motorsports entertainment complex.


                                 S. 467

  At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 467, a bill 
to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 
2002.


                                 S. 627

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 627, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the research 
credit, to increase the rates of the alternative incremental credit, 
and to provide an alternative simplified credit for qualified research 
expenses.


                                 S. 662

  At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Hagel) was added as a cosponsor of S. 662, a bill to reform the 
postal laws of the United States.


                                 S. 705

  At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, the name of the Senator from Maryland 
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 705, a bill to establish 
the Interagency Council on Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of 
Seniors, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 792

  At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. 
Crapo) was added as a cosponsor of S. 792, a bill to establish a 
National sex offender registration database, and for other purposes.
  At the request of Mrs. Clinton, her name was added as a cosponsor of 
S. 792, supra.


                                 S. 802

  At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from Wyoming 
(Mr. Enzi) was added as a cosponsor of S. 802, a bill to establish a 
National Drought Council within the Department of Agriculture, to 
improve national drought preparedness, mitigation, and response 
efforts, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 859

  At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 859, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an income tax credit for the 
provision of homeownership and community development, and for other 
purposes.


                                 S. 974

  At the request of Mr. Allard, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 974, a bill to amend the 
National Trails System Act to clarify Federal authority relating to 
land acquisition from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in 
the System, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 985

  At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 985, a bill to 
establish kinship navigator programs, to establish kinship guardianship 
assistance payments for children, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1002

  At the request of Mr. Hagel, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 
1002, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to make 
improvements in payments to hospitals under the medicare program, and 
for other purposes.
  At the request of Mr. Grassley, the names of the Senator from 
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham) were added as cosponsors of S. 1002, supra.


                                S. 1064

  At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1064, a bill 
to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve stroke prevention, 
diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation.

[[Page 18978]]




                                S. 1112

  At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Ohio 
(Mr. DeWine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1112, a bill to make 
permanent the enhanced educational savings provisions for qualified 
tuition programs enacted as part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001.


                                S. 1151

  At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1151, a bill to provide for 
a program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in 
the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse 
gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the 
United States and reduce dependence upon foreign oil, to support the 
deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and ensure 
benefits to consumers.


                                S. 1197

  At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from Arkansas 
(Mr. Pryor) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 1197, a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women 
Act of 1994.


                                S. 1249

  At the request of Mr. Corzine, the name of the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1249, a bill 
to require the Secretary of Education to rebate the amount of Federal 
Pell Grant aid lost as a result of the update to the tables for State 
and other taxes used in the Federal student aid need analysis for award 
year 2005-2006.


                                S. 1309

  At the request of Mr. Baucus, the names of the Senator from Minnesota 
(Mr. Dayton) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 1309, a bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 
to extend the trade adjustment assistance program to the services 
sector, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1350

  At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1350, a bill 
to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to protect the privacy rights 
of subscribers to wireless communications services.


                                S. 1353

  At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1353, a bill to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to provide for the establishment of an 
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry.


                                S. 1423

  At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1423, a bill 
to provide for a medal of appropriate design to be awarded by the 
President to the next of kin or other representatives of those 
individuals killed as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001.


                                S. 1516

  At the request of Mr. Lott, the names of the Senator from Montana 
(Mr. Burns) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 1516, a bill to reauthorize Amtrak, and for 
other purposes.


                                S. 1520

  At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the names of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold), the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine) were added as cosponsors of S. 1520, a bill to prohibit human 
cloning.


                               S. RES. 33

  At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 33, a resolution 
urging the Government of Canada to end the commercial seal hunt.


                              S. RES. 182

  At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 182, a resolution 
supporting efforts to increase childhood cancer awareness, treatment, 
and research.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1623

  At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1623 proposed to 
S. 397, a bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought 
or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers 
of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief 
resulting from the misuse of their products by others.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1626

  At the request of Mr. Kohl, the names of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator 
from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) and the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1626 
proposed to S. 397, a bill to prohibit civil liability actions from 
being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, 
dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive 
or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

                          ____________________




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1521. A bill to provide for teacher acculturation, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am introducing the Teacher Acculturation 
Act of 2005 as a means to address an issue that impedes effective 
learning in our Nation's classrooms, and that is cultural incongruence. 
Such a lack of congruence exists in a wide range of situations, from 
rural and underserved communities in remote areas to well-populated 
urban centers, from my State of Hawaii to areas on the Eastern 
seaboard. The dynamic I am describing exists along lines of race and 
ethnicity, socioeconomic strata, age, and many other vectors, which can 
muddy the stuff of learning that needs to be transmitted between 
students aiming to learn and teachers seeking to teach.
  As many of my colleagues and I have said many times, our children are 
our future. Furthermore, our great Nation is dependent on the success 
of our educational system and what it is delivering to our children. An 
essential part of our educational system is a highly qualified teacher 
with knowledge of the subject area, and the ability to teach that 
subject to students. This is the most important factor in the academic 
success of the student. My bill will address one attribute of that 
success: the ability of the teacher to present the lesson in a way that 
students are ready to learn it.
  I started my professional life as a teacher, so improvement of the 
field of education is never far from my thoughts. Even after all of my 
teacher training, I remember walking into a classroom and thinking, 
``What do I do now?'' and, ``Will I be able to connect with my 
students?'' I have never forgotten those thoughts. Through my bill, I 
hope to work to help teachers answer these and similar questions, 
particularly for those teachers who are placed in States that are new 
to them, or in parts of their home States with which they have little 
or no familiarity. In my State of Hawaii, according to an article 
published Monday in the Honolulu Advertiser, Hawaii's 258 public 
schools need 1,400 to 1,600 new teachers every year to replace those 
who retire or leave the system, particularly in the areas of special 
education, speech pathology, autism, and hearing impairment. However, 
only about 500 Hawaii teachers are graduating and earning their 
licenses every year from both public and private colleges, and many of 
them are being drawn away from the State to schools on the mainland. 
Recruiting trips by the Hawaii Department of Education are seeking 
hires in cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San 
Francisco. I would like to help to ensure the success of these and 
other teachers in similar situations across the country, to help smooth 
their adjustment to their new homes, and thus, make a fluid transition 
to their new classrooms.

[[Page 18979]]

  The Teacher Acculturation Act seeks to address cultural incongruence 
between the teacher and the student population in the classroom. To be 
successful, the teacher must be prepared to teach in a way that 
students are ready to learn. And with a increasingly diverse student 
population, that becomes harder and harder as time goes by. To achieve 
these ends, the bill proposes programs in three parts.
  The first two parts recognize the success of ongoing and sustained 
professional development to affect positive change in teaching 
pedagogy. The bill authorizes demonstration programs that aim to assist 
teachers in learning, developing, and implementing pedagogies that help 
all students learn. I have modeled the programs on the Lesson Study 
theory of change, which is a model that uses a cohort of professionals 
for lesson development, presentation of the developed lesson by a 
member of the cohort to a class, observation of the presentation by 
other members of the cohort, and post-presentation analysis and 
reflection by the entire cohort, along with coaches, mentors, and 
supervising practitioners. A group of teachers working together to 
improve their pedagogy has been shown to be very effective, and this 
model is becoming more popular at every level in teacher education and 
professional development, from classroom work in colleges of education, 
to cohort work by candidates for National Board Certification--the 
highest performance achievement available to a teacher in the United 
States.
  The first demonstration program would take place during the time the 
prospective teacher is in a college or school of education, and 
introduces a multicultural awareness component into the pre-service 
teaching activities. In this program, prospective teachers would work 
with members of the community, trained academics, and practicing 
teachers to learn about cultural characteristics of the student 
population, to develop pedagogies and curriculum to fit those cultures, 
and to study how to deliver the new lessons in a culturally relevant 
style. Prospective teachers would then deliver these lessons to the 
students in a real classroom setting while student teaching. Post-
teaching analysis, reflection, and discussion would then allow the 
student teacher to analyze and reflect upon the performance.
  The second demonstration program is structured similarly to the first 
program, but conducts a professional development activity during the 
time the teacher is new to the profession--generally the first three 
years--recognizing that many teachers develop teaching styles in these 
initial years that they may use for the duration of their teaching 
careers. Through this program, a cohort of teachers would undertake a 
year-long program, which includes two summers, under the direction of a 
coach trained in multicultural education. Participating teachers would 
already be placed in teaching positions and have a defined learning 
community to work with. If done right, such a program has the potential 
to involve the whole school community and, eventually, contribute to 
whole school change.
  These two programs taken together have the potential to develop a 
cadre of teachers adept at teaching in ways that are culturally-
relevant, ways that address the needs of the students, and ways in 
which the students are ready to learn. I truly feel that such programs 
working with new and prospective teachers can make a difference in 
addressing the current achievement gap, particularly impacting the 
groups most at risk of being on the losing end of the achievement gap.
  The third section of the Teacher Acculturation Act of 2005 would set 
up Centers of Excellence in Multicultural Education. These centers 
would support the professional development activities from the first 
two parts of the bill by providing trained mentors, coaches, and 
academics, as well as undertaking research into the areas of 
multicultural education. The centers would also develop activities for 
use by schools and districts to provide ongoing professional 
development opportunities to all faculty or teachers.
  We must never forget that a solid education is the cornerstone of our 
future. And a highly qualified teacher is needed to provide that 
education. The teacher not only needs to be knowledgeable about the 
subject being taught, but needs to know how to teach the subject to the 
students. This bill would help address the question of how. It seeks to 
prepare the teacher to deal with groups of students with different 
learning styles, as well as to identify the needs of divergent groups 
of students and how to vary teaching to support the learning of these 
students. My bill seeks to improve learning among those groups who are 
underserved today. Although my bill alone would not eliminate the 
achievement gap, it seeks to provide a good start.
  This bill is supported by leading experts and organizations in the 
field of multicultural education, including Ms. Joyce Harris, Executive 
director of the National Academy for Multicultural Education, Dr. James 
Banks of the Center for Multicultural Education at the University of 
Washington, and Dr. Randy Hitz, Dean of the College of Education at the 
University of Hawaii. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of 
support be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of 
legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          National Association for


                                      Multicultural Education,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 2005.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: It is my understanding that you will 
     soon present legislation dealing with teacher acculturation. 
     On behalf of the National Association for Multicultural 
     Education (NAME), I am extending our support for you and the 
     legislation. What you are proposing is not only admirable but 
     very necessary. Today's school populations are more diverse 
     than they've ever been, and this diversity will only 
     increase. Further, while the student body is becoming 
     ethnically and racially more diverse, the teaching force is 
     not.
       Some will argue that the 3 R's are all teachers need to 
     focus on, and students will be all right; but others of us 
     know that this is not the case for a growing number of 
     today's youth. What was fine decades ago will not necessarily 
     work in today's schools.
       NAME thanks you for your foresight and courage. I'm sure 
     that you know you may have a Herculean task before you, but 
     please keep the faith. This is so important to make sure that 
     ALL of our children succeed. With the No Child Left Behind 
     Act and the cuts in some educational programs (for example, 
     The Dropout Prevention Program--who is more than likely to 
     drop out? The lower SES students and students of color!), is 
     it especially important that we have people of your stature 
     working to ensure that all of our children receive an 
     equitable education.
       I have seen your website. I've read about your many 
     accomplishments on behalf of your Hawaiian constituency and 
     for the American people at large. Again, please know that 
     NAME stands behind you. Please contact me if there is 
     anything that the organization or I may do for you as you go 
     forward with. this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Joyce E. Harris,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               University of Hawai`i at Manoa,

                                       Honolulu, HI, June 23, 2005
     Sen. Daniel Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: I am writing to support the Teacher 
     Acculturation bill you are introducing in the Senate. I have 
     carefully reviewed the bill with faculty in the University of 
     Hawai`i, college of Education, and we think it has great 
     potential to improve education throughout the United States.
       The relationship between the teacher and the student is the 
     key to success in education. The Teacher Acculturation bill 
     seeks to improve student achievement by ameliorating the 
     cultural mismatch between teachers and the students they 
     teach, thus improving the teacher's ability to address 
     educational needs of individual students.
       The University of Hawai`i, College of Education is heavily 
     involved in indigenous education multicultural initiatives, 
     and other efforts to ensure that teachers are well prepared 
     to work with diverse populations of students. As one of the 
     nation's most diverse states, Hawai`i has significant 
     challenges in bridging cultural gaps between teachers and 
     students. But, nearly every school in every state in the 
     nation faces the challenge of

[[Page 18980]]

     bridging cultural differences between teachers and students. 
     Your bill will create models for better preparing teachers to 
     understand and address the learning needs of the diverse 
     student populations they serve, thus improving their academic 
     achievement.
       Thank you for your leadership in preparing this innovative 
     and important bill, and thank you for the opportunity to 
     comment on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Randy Hitz,
     Dean.
                                  ____


                                S. 1521

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

     SECTION 1. TEACHER ACCULTURATION.

       Title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1021 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                    ``PART C--TEACHER ACCULTURATION

     ``SEC. 231. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `Teacher Acculturation Act 
     of 2005'.

     ``SEC. 232. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) Every person (child, adolescent, or adult) has her or 
     his own cluster of learning modalities.
       ``(2) These individual learning modalities are the result 
     of many factors, including the person's cultural heritage, 
     language, and socioeconomic background.
       ``(3) Research has shown that learning occurs best within a 
     learning environment that closely matches a person's 
     individual learning modalities.
       ``(4) There is a strong correlation between--
       ``(A) the lack of academic achievement of a student; and
       ``(B) a lack of congruence between--
       ``(i) the learning modalities of the student; and
       ``(ii) the teaching pedagogy of the teacher.
       ``(5) One of the factors that significantly impacts 
     learning modalities is a student's culture.
       ``(6) A congruence between the cultural norms embedded in 
     the teaching environment and the culture of a student has 
     been shown to significantly improve the academic achievement 
     of the student.
       ``(7) The teacher has the most control in setting the 
     cultural environment of the classroom.

     ``SEC. 233. PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this part to develop a core group of 
     teachers who are able to provide instruction in a way that is 
     culturally congruent with the learning modalities of the 
     students they are teaching, in order to--
       ``(1) ameliorate the lack of cultural congruence between 
     teachers and the students they teach; and
       ``(2) improve student achievement.

     ``SEC. 234. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Induction phase.--The term `induction phase' means 
     the period when a teacher is new to the profession, the 
     classroom, or a school.
       ``(2) In-service phase.--The term `in-service phase' means 
     the period during and throughout the professional life of a 
     teacher.
       ``(3) Practicum phase.--The term `practicum phase' means 
     the period beginning with the last year of a teacher 
     preparation program at an institution of higher education 
     when the student is spending time in a prekindergarten 
     through grade 12 classroom, and culminating at the end of the 
     student teaching portion of the student's teacher preparation 
     program.
       ``(4) Supervising academic.--The term `supervising 
     academic' means a member of the faculty of an institution of 
     higher education who--
       ``(A) is designated to oversee, coordinate, and participate 
     in the field placement or student teaching experience of a 
     preservice teacher; and
       ``(B) works in conjunction with a supervising practitioner.
       ``(5) Supervising practitioner.--The term `supervising 
     practitioner' means a prekindergarten through grade 12 
     teacher in a school who--
       ``(A) is designated to coach, observe, and evaluate a 
     preservice teacher at the school during the preservice 
     teacher's field placement or student teaching experience in 
     the classroom; and
       ``(B) works in conjunction with the supervising academic.

     ``SEC. 235. MEASURE OF CULTURAL MISMATCH.

       ``The Secretary, in consultation with relevant educational 
     and cultural governmental and nongovernmental entities and 
     not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Teacher Acculturation Act of 2005, shall develop a measure of 
     cultural mismatch for purposes of--
       ``(1) the demonstration program under section 236; and
       ``(2) the composition of partnerships described in sections 
     242 and 263.

     ``SEC. 236. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     a demonstration program to investigate, develop, and test 
     methods to attempt to ameliorate the cultural mismatch 
     between teachers and the students they teach.
       ``(b) Components.--The demonstration program shall consist 
     of--
       ``(1) professional development activities occurring during 
     3 different phases of a teacher's professional life, 
     including the practicum phase, induction phase, and in-
     service phase; and
       ``(2) the development of centers of excellence in 
     multicultural education.

                 ``Subpart 1--Induction Phase Component

     ``SEC. 241. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

       ``In carrying out the demonstration program under this 
     part, the Secretary is authorized to award grants to eligible 
     partnerships to enable the eligible partnerships to carry out 
     the induction phase component of the teacher preparation 
     assisted under this subpart.

     ``SEC. 242. ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIPS.

       ``In this subpart, the term `eligible partnership' means a 
     partnership consisting of--
       ``(1) a local educational agency, with a high percentage of 
     students who have a cultural mismatch with the majority of 
     the teaching staff at the schools served by the local 
     educational agency, collaborating with--
       ``(A) a cohort of induction phase teachers from the local 
     educational agency; and
       ``(B) members of a school community who are--
       ``(i) from the cultural background of the students to be 
     taught by the teachers assisted under the grant; and
       ``(ii) knowledgeable about the cultural norms of the 
     community; and
       ``(2) an institution of higher education or organization 
     with expertise in multicultural education, collaborating with 
     a mentor, coach, or facilitator who will work with the cohort 
     described in paragraph (1)(A).

     ``SEC. 243. INDUCTION PHASE COMPONENT.

       ``An eligible partnership that receives a grant under this 
     subpart shall use the grant funds to carry an induction phase 
     component of the demonstration program that may include the 
     following:
       ``(1) A summer workshop held during the summer prior to a 
     program year (as described in paragraph (2)), in which 
     participant teachers study the basics of the following:
       ``(A) Multicultural education.
       ``(B) The cultural norms of the students served by the 
     local educational agency where the participant teachers will 
     be teaching.
       ``(C) The history of the municipality and the cultural 
     groups where the participant teachers will be teaching.
       ``(2) A program year during the school year designed to 
     include--
       ``(A) a series of classroom-based teaching activities and 
     observations, including pre- and post-activity discussion 
     under the coaching of a person experienced in leading such a 
     program and trained in the principles of multicultural 
     education;
       ``(B) individual one-on-one mentoring by a mentor, coach, 
     or facilitator participating in the eligible partnership;
       ``(C) classroom visits including possible videotaping of 
     the lessons; and
       ``(D) group meetings to reflect on--
       ``(i) a classroom visit described in subparagraph (C); or
       ``(ii) the progress of the program.
       ``(3) A workshop or institute during the summer immediately 
     after a program year (as described in paragraph (2)) that may 
     include the following:
       ``(A) Analysis of lessons developed and taught during the 
     program year.
       ``(B) Practice lessons presented to the cohort described in 
     section 242(1)(A).
       ``(C) Analysis of participant teacher growth over the 
     duration of the program.
       ``(D) Development of a reflective portfolio, for each 
     member of the cohort described in section 242(1)(A), of the 
     member's experience in the program.

     ``SEC. 244. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``Grant funds provided under this subpart may be used for--
       ``(1) stipends and release time for participant teachers;
       ``(2) compensation for mentors, coaches, facilitators, or 
     substitutes;
       ``(3) reimbursement for normal expenses incurred by the 
     eligible partnership during the grant period; and
       ``(4) equipment, supplies, and travel necessary for the 
     program.

     ``SEC. 245. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out this subpart for fiscal year 2006 
     and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

                 ``Subpart 2--Practicum Phase Component

     ``SEC. 251. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

       ``In carrying out the demonstration program under this 
     part, the Secretary is authorized to award grants to eligible 
     partnerships to enable the eligible partnerships to carry out 
     the practicum phase component of the teacher preparation 
     assisted under this subpart.

     ``SEC. 252. ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIPS.

       ``In this subpart, the term `eligible partnership' means a 
     partnership consisting of--

[[Page 18981]]

       ``(1) a teacher preparation program approved by a State 
     educational agency and accredited by the National Council for 
     Accreditation of Teacher Education, collaborating with--
       ``(A) a cohort of practicum phase students; and
       ``(B) a faculty member who serves as a supervising 
     practitioner;
       ``(2) a local educational agency--
       ``(A) serving a student population whose cultural norms--
       ``(i) are different from the cultural norms of the 
     participating teacher preparation program students; and
       ``(ii) are similar to the cultural norms of the students or 
     community served by a local educational agency where the 
     participating teacher preparation program students will be 
     looking for employment; and
       ``(B) collaborating with a group of supervising 
     practitioners; and
       ``(3) a support committee for the practicum program, that 
     provides cultural norms to the practicum participants, which 
     may include--
       ``(A) a center of excellence described in subpart 3;
       ``(B) faculty or staff of a school, local educational 
     agency, or State educational agency;
       ``(C) parents or family members of a student taught by the 
     student teachers assisted under the grant;
       ``(D) community stakeholders; or
       ``(E) organizations with expertise in multicultural 
     education.

     ``SEC. 253. PRACTICUM PHASE COMPONENT.

       ``An eligible partnership that receives a grant under this 
     subpart shall use the grant funds to carry out a practicum 
     phase component of the demonstration program that may include 
     the following:
       ``(1) A course for the practicum students covering 
     multicultural education, including specifics pertaining to 
     the cultural norms of the students served by the local 
     educational agency where the students will be participating 
     in the practicum.
       ``(2) A program running contemporaneous to the practicum 
     that includes--
       ``(A) a program under the coaching of a supervising 
     academic where the practicum students interact with each 
     other to discuss their experiences;
       ``(B) individual one-on-one coaching by a supervising 
     academic;
       ``(C) classroom visits to the locations of other student 
     teachers in the cohort described in section 252(1)(A), 
     including possible videotaping of the lessons; and
       ``(D) periodic cohort meetings during the practicum to 
     reflect on the progress of the program.
       ``(3) A followup program at the conclusion of the practicum 
     carried out by the teacher preparation program participating 
     in the eligible partnership.

     ``SEC. 254. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``Grant funds provided under this subpart may be used for--
       ``(1) compensation for a supervising academic or a 
     supervising practitioner;
       ``(2) scholarships for participants; and
       ``(3) equipment, supplies, travel, and other expenses 
     appropriate to the program.

     ``SEC. 255. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out this subpart for fiscal year 2006 
     and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

     ``Subpart 3--Centers of Excellence in Multicultural Education

     ``SEC. 261. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to establish 
     not more than 10 centers to support excellence in 
     multicultural education.
       ``(b) Duties.--Such centers shall--
       ``(1) support participants during the practicum phases and 
     induction phases of their teacher preparation;
       ``(2) develop and implement an in-service phase program;
       ``(3) develop or expand the theory and practice of 
     multicultural education; and
       ``(4) collect appropriate data to allow for the evaluation 
     of the activities implemented under this part.

     ``SEC. 262. LOCATION OF CENTERS.

       ``The centers shall--
       ``(1) be located within universities, colleges or schools 
     with teacher education programs approved by the appropriate 
     State educational agency and accredited by the National 
     Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education;
       ``(2) be located in geographically diverse areas of the 
     United States; and
       ``(3) be distributed among institutions of higher education 
     serving various cultural communities.

     ``SEC. 263. PARTNERSHIPS.

       ``The centers may form partnerships, for the purpose of 
     carrying out the duties described in section 261(b), with--
       ``(1) a college or school of teacher education;
       ``(2) at least 1 local educational agency with a high 
     degree of cultural mismatch between the local educational 
     agency's teachers and the students they teach;
       ``(3) an academic department, center, or program that 
     focuses on the study of cultural mismatches, such as cultural 
     mismatches related to gender, race, national origin, or other 
     similar areas; or
       ``(4) such additional entities as the centers determine 
     appropriate.

     ``SEC. 264. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``Funds made available under this subpart may be used for 
     the following:
       ``(1) Financial support for researchers, such as doctoral 
     and post-doctoral fellowships.
       ``(2) In-service multicultural education workshops for 
     teachers.
       ``(3) Supporting the programs assisted under subpart 1 or 
     2.
       ``(4) Supporting research into best practices in 
     multicultural education, performing evaluation of the best 
     practices, and carrying out a dissemination program for the 
     best practices that improve student academic achievement.
       ``(5) Evaluation of--
       ``(A) the activities of the centers; and
       ``(B) the impact of the activities of the centers on 
     teaching practices and student achievement.

     ``SEC. 265. ANNUAL MEETING OF THE CENTERS.

       ``The Secretary is authorized to convene an annual meeting 
     of all centers assisted under this subpart for the purpose of 
     enabling the centers to share information, research, and best 
     practices.

     ``SEC. 266. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out this subpart for fiscal year 2006 
     and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.

                    ``Subpart 4--General Provisions

     ``SEC. 271. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       (a) Report.--Each eligible partnership that receives a 
     grant, and each center that receives assistance, under this 
     part shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives, a report on the activities of the eligible 
     partnership or center, respectively, that are supported under 
     this part.
       (b) Date.--The report described in subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted 2 years after the date of enactment of the Teacher 
     Acculturation Act of 2005, and annually thereafter for the 
     duration of the grant or assistance, as the case may be.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burr, and Ms. 
        Murkowski):
  S. 1522. A bill to recognize the heritage of hunting and provide 
opportunities for continued hunting on Federal public land; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Hunting Heritage 
Protection Act of 2005. With the introduction of this important 
legislation, we are able to acknowledge our Nation's rich heritage of 
hunting. The purpose of this bill is to pass that legacy on to future 
generations by protecting and preserving the rights of our Nation's 
sportsmen and women.
  In 2001, over 13 million Americans contributed over $20.6 billion to 
the U.S. economy while hunting--a true recreational activity. Many 
believe that in order to hunt you must own land, but that is not true. 
I believe that hunting should be available as a recreational activity 
for everyone.
  I have been an avid outdoor sportsman since my adulthood. I am also 
an avid conservationist, like most other hunters. Recreational hunting 
provides many opportunities to spend valuable time with children, just 
as I do with my son. He has been hunting since he was a young boy where 
he discovered and learned to appreciate one of the Earth's greatest 
treasures, nature.
  Over the years, hunters have contributed billions of dollars to 
wildlife conservation, by purchasing licenses, permits, and stamps, as 
well as paying excise taxes on goods used by hunters. Since the time of 
President Teddy Roosevelt, father of the conservation movement, 
sportsmen and women have been and will continue to be some of the 
greatest supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation 
practices in the U.S.
  Hunters need to be recognized for the vital role they play in 
conservation in this country. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act will 
do just that. This bill formalizes a policy by which the Federal 
Government will support, promote, and enhance recreational hunting 
opportunities, as permitted under State and Federal law. Further, the 
bill mandates that Federal public land and water are to be open to 
access and use for recreational hunting where and when appropriate. I 
should clarify and stress that this bill does not suggest

[[Page 18982]]

that we open all national parks to hunting. As I mentioned, the goal is 
simple--I want recreational hunting on our public land to be available 
to the citizens of this country where and when appropriate.
  It is crucial that the tradition of hunting is protected and that the 
valuable contributions that hunters have made to conservation in this 
country are recognized. And, we want to ensure that Federal land 
management decisions and their actions result in a ``no net loss of 
hunting opportunities'' on our public lands. This bill allows Congress 
to address this issue and to honor our Nation's sportsmen and women.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 1523. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
permanent increased expensing for small businesses; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on 
behalf of the Nation's millions of small businesses and self-employed 
individuals. I am pleased to join with my colleague in the House, 
Congressman Wally Herger, in reforming the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to permanently extend the amount of new investment a business can 
expense.
  This bill is a critical incentive for the small business sector of 
our economy to invest in new technology, expand their operations, and 
most important, create jobs.
  We can never minimize the role that small businesses play in our 
economy. They represent 99 percent of all employers, employ 51 percent 
of the private-sector workforce, provide nearly 75 percent of the net 
new jobs, contribute 51 percent of the private-sector output, and 
represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods. In short, size is the 
only ``small'' aspect of small business.
  The bill I introduce today recognizes the vitality and uniquely 
American innovation of the small business owners and entrepreneurs 
throughout our country. It will make permanent the provisions in 
Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, which enables small 
businesses to write off the cost of new equipment, rather than 
depreciate it over a period of years.
  As the chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I am responding today to the repeated requests from 
small businesses in my State of Maine and from across the Nation for 
greater expensing of new equipment.
  By making permanent the current expensing limit of $100,000 and 
indexing these amounts for inflation, this bill will achieve two 
important objectives.
  First, qualifying businesses will be able to write off more equipment 
purchases today, instead of waiting 5, 6, 7 or more years to recover 
their costs through depreciation.
  That represents substantial savings both in dollars and in the time 
small businesses would otherwise be forced to spend complying with 
complex depreciation rules. Moreover, new equipment contributes to 
continued productivity growth in the business community, which Federal 
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly stressed is essential to 
long-term economic growth and job creation.
  Second, more businesses will qualify for this benefit because the 
phase-out limit will be made permanent at $400,000 in new equipment 
purchases. This will occur at the same time small business capital 
investment pumps more money into the many sectors of the economy. My 
bill is a win-win for small business and the economy as a whole.
  Small businesses are always at the forefront of our national economic 
recoveries and our national economic booms. This bill strengthens their 
ability to lead the way. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this important legislation as we work with the President to enact this 
bill into law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1523

       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 ``Small Business Expensing 
     Permanency Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASED EXPENSING FOR SMALL BUSINESS MADE 
                   PERMANENT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation) 
     is amended by striking ``$25,000 ($100,000 in the case of 
     taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2008)'' and 
     inserting ``$100,000''.
       (b) Increase in Qualifying Investment at Which Phaseout 
     Begins.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(b) of such Code 
     (relating to reduction in limitation) is amended by striking 
     ``$200,000 ($400,000 in the case of taxable years beginning 
     after 2002 and before 2008)'' and inserting ``$400,000''.
       (c) Inflation Adjustments.--Section 179(b)(5)(A) of such 
     Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is amended by 
     striking ``and before 2008''.
       (d) Revocation of Election.--Section 179(c)(2) of such Code 
     (relating to election irrevocable) is amended by striking 
     ``and before 2008''.
       (e) Off-the-shelf Computer Software.--Section 
     179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code (relating to section 179 
     property) is amended by striking ``and before 2008''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
        Salazar, Mr. Obama, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 1525. A bill to ensure that commercial insurers cannot engage in 
price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of 
competition and consumers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Medical 
Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.'' In the ongoing debate 
about health care costs, this legislation is a targeted and responsible 
move toward fixing one significant part of the system that is broken 
the skyrocketing insurance premiums for medical malpractice.
  For too long, doctors and hospitals have endured dramatic increases 
in the cost of their malpractice insurance. I doubt there is a single 
Senator who has not heard repeatedly from beleaguered physicians back 
home. Rising insurance rates are reportedly forcing some doctors to 
abandon their practices.
  Some of my colleagues in the other body seem content to echo the 
refrains of the insurance industry and heap blame for the problem of 
rising insurance premiums rates on trial lawyers and the victims of 
medical malpractice themselves. I have opposed arbitrary caps on 
damages because they will inflict additional harm on the most 
vulnerable victims of medical malpractice.
  Many of us have questioned the insurance industry's claim that 
lawsuits are causing the rise in premium costs since doctors in States 
that have imposed damages caps have not seen a reduction in their 
medical malpractice insurance premiums.
  A newly released report provides shows that our questions were well-
founded. This report provides real evidence rather than anecdotal 
stories routinely trotted out by the insurance industry advocates. This 
study was prepared by a former State Insurance Commissioner and uses 
the insurance industry's own numbers to debunk the myths being advanced 
by the insurance industry.
  The study entitled, ``Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the 
Medical Malpractice Insurance Industry,'' suggests that malpractice 
insurers have been overcharging, even gouging, physicians 
unconscionably. I expect a number of Senators will be surprised to 
learn that the malpractice claims payments actually went down, in real 
terms, over the past five years. In addition, even the insurers' own 
projections of future losses are declining. Despite these downward 
trends, year in and year out, these insurers are burdening doctors with 
increased premium costs and shifting the blame for their increases on 
to lawyers and victims.
  In the past five years, premiums have more than doubled even though 
claims payments have been stable. In 2004, malpractice insurers' total 
premiums were three times higher than their payouts. During the years 
2000 to 2004, net

[[Page 18983]]

premiums increased by 120 percent, while net claims payments increased 
by less than 6 percent.
  I urge Senators to read this report. It is based entirely on data 
from annual statements filed under oath with State insurance 
departments by the Nation's 15 largest malpractice insurers. The 
statements contain each insurer's estimate of how much it will pay out 
in malpractice claims, as well as data showing how much it actually 
paid out in claims and took in premiums. Claims and projected losses 
are down. It is only premiums that are rising, not claims.
  What this boils down to is an insurance industry problem, not a 
problem with the legal system. No wonder that the State attorneys 
general of Connecticut and Missouri have reacted to the study by 
attacking industry practices and calling for an aggressive regulatory 
response.
  As this study makes clear, high malpractice insurance premiums are 
not the result of malpractice lawsuit verdicts. They are the result of 
investment decisions by the insurance companies and of business models 
geared toward ever-increasing profits. I hope that this study once and 
for all shines light on the real culprit in rising malpractice 
insurance rates and informs the Senate with solid evidence of the best 
way to assist the good doctors who commit their professional lives to 
caring for others. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary 
of the study be printed in the Record.
  To be sure, different States have different experiences with medical 
malpractice insurance, and insurance remains a largely State-regulated 
industry. Each State should endeavor to develop its own solution to 
rising medical malpractice rates because each state has its own unique 
problems. Some States--such as my own, Vermont--while experiencing 
problems, do not face as great a crisis as others.
  But another fact of the insurance industry's business model requires 
a Federal legislative correction its blanket exemption from federal 
anti-trust laws. Insurers have for years enjoyed a special benefit in 
our marketplace. The McCarran-Ferguson Act permits insurance companies 
to operate without being subject to most of the Federal antitrust laws, 
and our Nation's physicians and their patients are suffering from this 
special treatment. Using their exemption, insurers can collude to set 
rates, resulting in higher premiums than true competition would achieve 
and because of this exemption, enforcement officials cannot investigate 
any such collusion. If Congress is serious about controlling rising 
premiums, we must revoke this blanket exemption created in the 
McCarran-Ferguson Act.
  That is why today I introduce the ``Medical Malpractice Insurance 
Antitrust Act of 2005.'' I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Boxer, 
Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski, Obama, Rockefeller, and Salazar 
for cosponsoring this essential legislation. Our bill modifies the 
McCarran-Ferguson Act for the most pernicious anti-trust offenses: 
price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. I am hard-pressed to 
imagine that anyone could object to a prohibition on insurance 
carriers' fixing prices or dividing territories for anticompetitive 
purposes. After all, the rest of our Nation's industries manage either 
to abide by these laws or pay the consequences.
  Many State insurance commissioners police the industry well within 
the power they are accorded in their own laws, and some States have 
antitrust laws of their own that could cover some anticompetitive 
activities in the insurance industry. Our legislation would not affect 
regulation of insurance by State insurance commissioners and other 
State regulators. There is no reason to continue a system in which the 
Federal enforcers are precluded from prosecuting the most harmful 
antitrust violations just because they are committed by insurance 
companies.
  This legislation is a carefully tailored solution to one critical 
aspect of the problem of excessive medical malpractice insurance 
premiums. I hope that quick action by the Judiciary Committee and then 
by the full Senate, will ensure that this real solution is adopted 
before more damage is done to the physicians of this country and to the 
patients that they serve.
  Only professional baseball has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption 
comparable to that created for the insurance industry by the McCarran-
Ferguson Act. Senator Hatch and I have joined forces several times in 
recent years to scale back that exemption for baseball, and in the Curt 
Flood Act of 1998 we successfully eliminated the exemption as it 
applied to employment relations. I hope we can work together again to 
create more competition in the insurance industry, just as we did with 
baseball.
  If Congress is serious about helping to control rising medical 
malpractice insurance premiums, then we must limit the insurance 
industry's broad exemption to Federal antitrust law and promote real 
competition in the insurance marketplace.
  There being no objection, the executive summary was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

Falling Claims and Rising Premiums in the Medical Malpractice Insurance 
                                Industry

                            (By Jay Angoff)


                           Executive Summary

       This Report analyzes the 2000-2004 performance of each of 
     the 15 largest medical malpractice insurers in the United 
     States rated by A.M. Best, the principal rating service for 
     the insurance industry. The Report is based primarily on data 
     from the carriers' 2004 Annual Statements filed with state 
     insurance departments.
       The Report finds the following:
       Over the last five years the amount the major medical 
     malpractice insurers have collected in premiums has more than 
     doubled, while their claims payouts have remained essentially 
     flat.
       Some malpractice insurers substantially increased their 
     premiums while both their claims payments and their projected 
     future claims payments were decreasing.
       Malpractice insurers accumulated record amounts of surplus 
     over the last three years.
       Taken together, the malpractice carriers analyzed increased 
     their net premiums by 120.2% during the period 2000-2004, 
     although their net claims payments rose by only 5.7%. Thus, 
     they increased their premiums by 21 times (120.2/5.7 = 21.09) 
     the increase in their claims payments.
       As a result of these two dramatically different trends, the 
     ratio between these insurers' claims payments and premiums 
     fell by more than half between 2000 and 2004: it declined 
     from 69.9% to 33.6% on a net basis, and from 68.8% to 32.1% 
     on a gross basis. Put another way, in 2004 the leading 
     medical malpractice insurers took in approximately three 
     times as much in premiums as they paid out in claims.
       Moreover, several insurers substantially increased their 
     premiums even though their claims payments actually fell--and 
     fell substantially. For example:
       Healthcare Indemnity, Inc. (HCI), an affiliate of HCA 
     corporation, increased its premiums by $173 million, or 88%, 
     while its claims payments fell by $74 million, or 32%. As a 
     result, in 2004 it paid out only 43 cents in claims for each 
     premium dollar it collected.
       ProNational, an affiliate of ProAssurance Corporation, 
     increased its premiums by $87 million, or 79%, while its 
     claims payments fell by $43 million, or 63%. As a result, in 
     2004 it paid out only 13 cents in claims for each premium 
     dollar it collected.
       Medical Assurance, another ProAssurance affiliate, 
     increased its premiums by $151 million, or 89%, while its 
     claims payments fell by a third. As a result, in 2004 it paid 
     out only 10 cents in claims for each premium dollar it 
     collected.
       In addition, Lexington Insurance Company, an affiliate of 
     AIG, reported that its net written premiums increased from 
     $21.1 million in 2000 to 483.0 million in 2004--an increase 
     of $461.9 million, or 2200%--while its net paid losses 
     increased by only $52.9 million. As a result, in 2004 it paid 
     out only 14 cents in claims for each premium dollar it 
     collected.
       Finally, even the ratio between the amount the leading 
     malpractice insurers estimated they would pay out in the 
     future and the premiums they earn--what insurers somewhat 
     counter-intuitively call their ``incurred loss'' ratio--
     declined by almost 25% between 2000 and 2004. Due to this 
     decline--which is in addition to the decline in the amounts 
     these insurers have actually been paying out--they estimated 
     in 2004 that they would ultimately pay out in claims only 
     51.4 cents of each premium dollar they earned. Perhaps most 
     striking, in 2004 these 15 insurers taken together increased 
     their earned premium by 9.3%, even though their incurred 
     losses--the amount they estimated they would pay out in the 
     future--declined by 21.1%.
       Because of the overall surge in malpractice premiums with 
     no corresponding surge in

[[Page 18984]]

     claims payments during the last five years, the leading 
     malpractice insurers have increased their surplus by more 
     than a third in only three years, and they are now charging 
     more for malpractice insurance than * * *
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 1526. A bill to provide education to students in grades 7 through 
12 about the importance of higher education; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce the Roads to Success Act of 2005, which is legislation 
designed to expand higher educational and career opportunities for 
American students. There is no doubt as to the benefit of receiving a 
post-secondary education. The level of education that individuals 
accumulate has an important influence on their experience in the labor 
market. According to 2002 U.S. Census Bureau statistics on educational 
attainment and earnings, the mean earnings of men with a bachelor's 
degree is $63,354, while the mean earnings of men with a high school 
degree is $32,363. This is a difference of more than $30,000 or 97 
percent.
  In recent years, there have been clear signs that more Americans are 
pursuing higher education opportunities. In June 2002, USA Today 
reported that 63 percent of high school graduates go to college 
immediately after graduation, the highest percentage in U.S. history. 
Yet not all of the news on college graduation rates has been good. Only 
18 percent of African Americans and 11 percent of Hispanic high school 
graduates earn a bachelor's degree by their late twenties, compared to 
33 percent of whites according to the National Center for Education 
Statistics, NCES, in 2001. Further, in 2000, NCES reported that 22 
percent of low-income, college qualified high school graduates do not 
pursue post-secondary education, compared to 4 percent of high-income 
graduates.
  As I travel through Pennsylvania, I still hear from too many middle 
school and high school students that they do not have the preparation 
necessary to enroll in higher education institutions. On a trip to the 
Commonwealth, I joined Andrew McKelvey--the founder of the McKelvey 
Foundation--to announce Federal funding for entrepreneurial 
scholarships to rural, low-income Pennsylvania high school graduates. 
During that trip, I had a frank discussion with Mr. McKelvey regarding 
the need to not only ensure access to funding for students to pursue 
higher education, but the need to inform students about the importance 
of higher education, as well as prepare students for the application 
process.
  The bill I am introducing today, the ``Roads to Success Act of 
2005'', will help to educate middle school and high school students in 
grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, about higher education and career 
opportunities. This bill will create a program which will provide 
students with access to information on higher education and career 
development, and prepare students with the skills necessary to plan for 
higher education. The availability of information on higher education 
opportunities makes an enormous difference to students contemplating 
continuing their education at the undergraduate level.
  My legislation will authorize a grant to Roads to Success, a 
nonprofit educational organization, to develop a core curriculum to be 
taught in the classroom to equip middle and high school students with 
the appropriate skills and knowledge to pursue post-secondary education 
and their career goals. Given the importance of higher education, it 
makes sense to prepare students for the undergraduate process as part 
of their class instruction to ensure that all students have access to 
the necessary information to attain their objectives. To this end, 
middle schools and high schools participating in the program will 
dedicate one hour each week of their classroom activity to higher 
education and career preparation of students utilizing the core 
curriculum.
  Additionally, I seek to create a network of intensive academic 
support for students by encouraging public-private partnerships to 
emphasize the importance of higher education and career development. 
Partnerships with private entities create a unique opportunity for 
middle schools and high schools to supplement and enhance the core 
curriculum by offering appropriate enrichments, including guest 
speakers, videos and web-based services. For example, through these 
partnerships, middle school and high school students will gain first-
hand knowledge of the skills that businesses are seeking by having the 
opportunity to speak with business leaders, as well as perhaps tour 
local facilities. This will underscore the significance and importance 
of higher education for students as they embark on their future career 
paths.
  To implement this initiative, my bill will authorize $10 million 
annually for fiscal years 2006 through 2011, for Roads to Success to 
develop a core curriculum which has as its cornerstone increasing 
awareness of the importance of higher education, developing career 
awareness, building life skills, and providing education planning to 
students. Under this legislation, Roads to Success will award subgrants 
to five State educational agencies to offer higher education 
preparation programs using the core curriculum in middle and high 
schools with historically low rates of student application and 
admission to post-secondary institutions.
  It is my sincere hope that this act will ensure that students who 
wish to enroll in a higher education institution will have access to 
the tools and resources necessary to help them plan for undergraduate 
study. We must take this step to encourage students to pursue their 
educational and career goals--especially those who might not otherwise 
have this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring 
this act, and urge its swift adoption.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Reed):
  S. 527. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 
immunizations against vaccine-preventable diseases, including 
influenza, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senator Reed and I are introducing 
the ``Vaccine Administration and Supply Act.'' Congressman Waxman is 
introducing a companion bill in the House. Our goal is to improve 
vaccine accessibility and administration across the country, by 
guaranteeing that every American has access to recommended vaccines, 
and strengthening our public health infrastructure.
  Vaccines are one of the Nation's most significant success stories in 
public health. They have wiped out mass killers such as polio and 
smallpox, and protected millions of Americans from other life-
threatening or debilitating infectious diseases. They save lives, and 
save costs too, in needless treatment and hospitalization for illnesses 
that could have been prevented.
  Today, the threat of infectious disease is ever present. Deadly 
strains of naturally occurring viruses, such as avian flu, are moving 
from animals to humans. The possibility of bioterrorism is looming. 
Accessibility to vaccines and improving our public health 
infrastructure are essential to protect the health of our communities 
and our Nation--and efforts to do so are long overdue.
  We have made remarkable progress in protecting children from vaccine-
preventable diseases by making vaccines available to uninsured and 
underinsured children at no cost through the Vaccines for Children and 
Immunization Grant programs. As a result, childhood immunization rates 
and disease reductions are near all-time highs.
  On the other hand, there is a huge gap in adult and adolescent 
vaccination. Each year, 46,000 to 48,000 adults die from diseases that 
could be cheaply and effectively prevented by vaccination. Many of 
these persons miss the opportunity to protect themselves against 
vaccine-preventable diseases because they don't have adequate insurance 
coverage.
  Our legislation will close this gap in public health by mandating 
that the Secretary of HHS establish an immunization program for adults. 
Uninsured

[[Page 18985]]

and underinsured adolescents and adults will be vaccinated at no charge 
in any Federally qualified health center, or local or State public 
health department.
  Participating States will also receive increased funding for the 
Immunization Grant Program, so that Program Managers can administer 
vaccinations to uninsured and underinsured citizens, as well as conduct 
education and awareness campaigns on the importance of vaccination and 
carry out strategies to increase vaccination rates throughout the 
States.
  In addition to increasing vaccine accessibility through State 
programs, this bill will also improve the national immunization 
infrastructure. Last year's shortage of influenza vaccine was a wake up 
call for greater national coordination of vaccine allocation and 
delivery. Our bill requires the Secretary of HHS to purchase and 
stockpile needed vaccines, and develop an emergency response plan, 
within one-year of enactment, to guide States in administering vaccines 
in the case of a shortage or emergency.
  As our Health Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health 
Preparedness continues to discuss provisions to encourage the 
development of vaccines and other countermeasures to bioterrorism, this 
legislation will establish the infrastructure needed to ensure the 
efficient administration of such countermeasures in a time of crisis.
  The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials said it 
well when stating, ``Immunization is a vital public health tool and an 
essential element in protecting the nation's health.'' In light of the 
obvious dangers, it is urgent for Congress to increase immunization 
rates and ensure the efficient allocation of vaccines in an emergency. 
I commend Congressman Waxman for his leadership on this important 
health issue in the House, and Senator Reed and I urge our colleagues 
in the Senate to join in this important effort to improve our public 
health preparedness.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Bun-
        ning):
  S. 1528. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the tax treatment of horses, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equine 
Equity Act of 2005 with my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and 
my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning.
  Each spring on the first Saturday of May, the sporting world turns 
its attention to my hometown of Louisville for the annual running of 
the Kentucky Derby. It has been appropriately called ``the most 
exciting two minutes in sports,'' and has given us such great champions 
as Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Smarty Jones.
  The activities surrounding the Derby also allow Kentucky to show off 
one of its signature industries, the horse industry. Long after the 
pageantry and festivities of Derby day, the horse industry remains a 
vital part of Kentucky's economy and cultural heritage. Horses are 
Kentucky's largest agricultural product. The horse industry contributes 
$3.5 billion to Kentucky's economy, and directly employs more than 
50,000 Kentuckians.
  While many Americans appropriately identify the horse industry as one 
of Kentucky's signature industries, the industry's economic impact 
extends well beyond the borders of the Commonwealth. A recent economic 
impact study by the firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu found that the 
horse industry contributes approximately $39 billion in direct economic 
impacts to the U.S. economy each year. The industry sustains 1.4 
million full-time equivalent jobs each year, with over 460,000 of those 
jobs created from direct spending within the industry.
  Nearly 2 million Americans own horses, either for racing, showing, or 
recreational purposes. While the popular image of horse owners might 
focus on Millionaire's Row at Churchill Downs on Derby Day, the facts 
tell a different story. Only about one-quarter, 28 percent, of U.S. 
horse owners have incomes greater than $100,000. More than one in every 
three, 34 percent, horse owners has an income of less than $50,000.
  Like many businesses, outside investments are essential to the 
operation and growth of the horse industry. Without investors willing 
to buy and breed horses, it is impossible for the industry to thrive. 
Unfortunately, there are several unfair, unwise provisions in Federal 
law that discourage investment in the horse industry.
  In an effort to address these concerns, today I introduce the Equine 
Equity Act with my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and my good 
friend from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning. The Equine Equity Act includes three 
key provisions.
  First, it will provide capital gains treatment for horses that is 
equal to other investments. Nearly all capital assets are eligible to 
receive more favorable capital gains tax treatment once they are held 
for 12 months. However, horses and cattle must be held for 2 years to 
receive capital gains treatment. This legislation would reduce the 
capital gains holding period for horses from 24 months to 12 months.
  Second, it will apply equal depreciation standards for all 
racehorses. Current law states that racehorses that begin training when 
older than 24 months of age are depreciated over 3 years, while those 
horses that begin training before reaching 24 months of age are 
depreciated over 7 years.
  Most horses begin training before they reach 24 months, but their 
racing careers do not last 7 years. This legislation would reduce the 
depreciation period for racehorses to 3 years to more accurately 
reflect the racing life of horses.
  Finally, the Equine Equity Act would establish equity in eligibility 
for disaster assistance between horses and other livestock. Most 
livestock, beef, dairy, sheep, and goats, are eligible for Federal 
disaster assistance during a drought, but horses are not. This 
legislation would make horses eligible for disaster-assistance programs 
offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues from Arkansas and 
Kentucky to join me in introducing this legislation of tremendous 
importance to our States. I look forward to working with them and our 
colleagues in the Senate to enact this bipartisan bill into law.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1528

       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 ``Equine Equity Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. 3-YEAR DEPRECIATION FOR ALL RACE HORSES.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 168(e)(3)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 3-year property) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) any race horse,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF HOLDING PERIOD TO 12 MONTHS FOR PURPOSES 
                   OF DETERMINING WHETHER HORSES ARE SECTION 1231 
                   ASSETS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1231(b)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definition of 
     property used in the trade or business) is amended by 
     striking ``and horses''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2005.

     SEC. 4. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out a livestock assistance, 
     compensation, or feed program, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall include horses within the definition of ``livestock'' 
     covered by the program.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 602(2) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 
     U.S.C. 1471(2)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``horses,'' after ``bison,''; and
       (B) by striking ``equine animals used for food or in the 
     production of food,''.
       (2) Section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51) is amended 
     by inserting ``(including losses to elk, reindeer, bison, and 
     horses)'' after ``livestock losses''.

[[Page 18986]]

       (3) Section 10104(a) of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1472(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``and bison'' and inserting ``bison, and horses''.
       (4) Section 203(d)(2) of the Agricultural Assistance Act of 
     2003 (Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 541) is amended by striking 
     ``and bison'' and inserting ``bison, and horses''.
       (c) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section apply to losses resulting from a disaster that 
     occurs on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Prior losses.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section do not apply to losses resulting from a disaster 
     that occurred before the date of enactment of this Act.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today: I am pleased to join with Senator 
McCain to introduce the City of Yuma Improvement Act of 2005. This bill 
authorizes the conveyance to the city of Yuma of six small parcels of 
Federal land currently held by the Bureau of Reclamation in exchange 
for three railroad parcels owned by the city on which the Bureau of 
Reclamation rail line exists. A companion bill has already been 
introduced in the House by Congressmen Grijalva and Franks.
  These land conveyances will enable the city to complete the 
redevelopment of the riverfront in downtown Yuma. The Riverfront Master 
Redevelopment Plan was approved by the City Council in November, 2001. 
The plan was developed through a joint planning process with the city 
and the developer. The city's responsibility is to amass the property 
along the riverfront. The developer must raise the needed capital. The 
redevelopment includes the development of a welcome center, a new 
hotel, a conference center, and mixed-use retail stores. This 
redevelopment is designed to connect Main Street with the Heritage Area 
and the river to enhance the quality of life of Yuma's citizens and one 
of the primary economic assets of the area--tourism.
  Most of the land in this 22 acre area is already city-owned. However, 
the Bureau of Reclamation does own several parcels within the 
redevelopment area that the city seeks to acquire. Since 2001, when the 
redevelopment plan was approved, the city and the Bureau have been 
working together to effectuate this acquisition for this public 
purpose. These efforts include: relocating, at the city's expense, the 
Bureau facilities that were within the redevelopment area and 
completing the necessary environmental analyses of the project area, 
including historic resource studies, site assessments, and asbestos and 
lead-based paint inspections.
  Essentially, the deal is complete with one exception: the authority 
to accomplish the conveyances. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation 
does not have the authority to exchange the lands it possesses for the 
railroad parcels it seeks--it must be done legislatively. There is 
broad support in Yuma for this legislated land swap given its public 
purpose objectives, thorough planning, and the economic opportunity it 
brings. I hope my colleagues agree and will work with me to pass this 
legislation this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Baucus, 
        Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. Dole):
  S. 1531. A bill to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to expand and intensify programs with respect to research and related 
activities concerning elder falls; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, these people all have something in common: 
the former Queen Mother of Britain; diet guru Dr. Robert Atkins; former 
Tonight Show co-host Ed McMahon; former first lady Nancy Reagan; and 
former Senator Bob Dole. What is it? They are all famous seniors who 
have suffered a fall during the past three years that had serious 
repercussions on their lives.
  Queen Elizabeth's mother had a history of falling. She underwent a 
major operation in 1995 to replace her right hip and had a second hip 
replacement in 1998 when she broke her left hip. In 2000, she tripped 
and fell in her sitting room and fractured the left-hand side of her 
collarbone. Then, in 2002 at 101-years-old, she stumbled again in her 
sitting room while getting up from a chair and cut her arm.
  Dr. Robert Atkins, the creator of the high-protein, low-carbohydrate 
Atkins diet, suffered a severe head trauma in 2003 when an accidental 
fall outside his New York office left him comatose. Although surgeons 
removed a blood clot to relieve the pressure on his brain, the 72-year-
old died eight days later.
  In March of this year, former Tonight Show co-host Ed McMahon spent 
his 82nd birthday in the hospital after a fall in his Beverly Hills 
home left him with a mild concussion and a gash in his head that 
required stitches.
  Just last month, former first lady Nancy Reagan slipped and fell in 
her London hotel room. Fortunately, she was not seriously injured, but 
was told by doctors to limit her activities for two weeks until the 
pain subsided and full mobility returned.
  The final story hits even closer to home. In January of this year, 
81-year-old former Senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole felt 
light-headed and suffered a near fatal fall while putting away a 
suitcase. After a quick trip to the hospital to stitch up a cut from 
his eyeglasses, he was taken back home. Later, he felt ill and had to 
be taken back to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Doctors worked fast 
to save his life. In the fall he had severely damaged his left ``good'' 
arm, and he suffered bleeding in his head which was worsened by the 
blood thinners he was given a month earlier after a hip replacement 
operation. After spending 22 days at Walter Reed, he told a reporter 
that he was ``getting better slowly'' and that the recovery was 
``humiliating'' at times.
  As evidenced, falling is a very common and serious problem for older 
persons. These stories demonstrate the fact that falls can happen to 
anyone--even the rich and famous. A new report finds that although the 
life expectancy for Americans has reached an all-time high and senior 
citizens are more active than previous generations were, they are also 
reporting to emergency rooms in greater numbers for fall-related 
injuries. Falls can result in decreased physical function and mobility, 
disability, reduced independence, and a diminished quality of life. 
Loss of confidence and fear of falling can lead to further functional 
decline, depression, feelings of helplessness, and social isolation.
  The statistics are overwhelming. More than one-third of adults age 65 
years and older fall each year. Falls are the leading cause of injury 
deaths among individuals in that age group. In 2002, falls among older 
adults accounted for 12,800 deaths and 1,640,000 emergency department 
visits.
  Hospital admissions for hip fractures among the elderly have 
increased from 231,000 in 1988 to 327,000 in 2001. One in 5 older 
Americans who suffer a hip fracture die within a year, and 1 in 5 
people with a hip fracture end up in a nursing home within a year. 
Among people 75 years and older, those who fall are four to five times 
more likely to be admitted to a long-term care facility for a year or 
longer.
  Annually, more than 80,000 individuals who are over 65 years of age 
sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of a fall.
  A recent study of people age 72 and older found that the average 
health care cost of a fall injury was $19,440. This figure does not 
include physician services. The total medical cost of all fall injuries 
for people age 65 and older was calculated in 2000 to be $19.5 billion. 
By 2020, the cost of fall injuries is expected to reach $43.8 billion, 
in current dollars.
  Given our aging population, by the year 2040, the number of hip 
fractures is expected to exceed 500,000--the annual cost of which is 
projected to be a shocking $240 billion.
  To make matters worse, given the aging baby boomers, more and more 
elderly will be susceptible to falls. By the year 2040, the 65 and 
older population will more than double to about 77.2 million, and the 
relative growth rate is even faster for people over 85.
  It seems that we've come to expect that a fall by an older relative 
is just a natural part of aging, when it is not. As the old adage says 
so well: ``An

[[Page 18987]]

ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' Almost without 
exception, these falls are preventable. Older adults who have fallen 
previously or who stumble frequently are two to three times more likely 
to fall within the next year. We need to take action to ensure that 
doesn't happen.
  Last year, Senator Mikulski and I introduced the ``Keeping Seniors 
Safe From Falls Act of 2004,'' which passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent. Today, we are reintroducing this legislation, and we look 
forward to working with our colleagues so that it not only passes the 
Senate, but is signed into law.
  Our bill will direct the Department of Health and Human Services to 
oversee and support national and local education campaigns focusing on 
reducing falls among older adults and preventing repeat falls. It also 
calls for research in areas such as identifying older adults at high 
risk for falling; designing, implementing and evaluating the most 
effective fall prevention interventions; improving diagnosis, 
treatment, and rehabilitation of older adults who have fallen; 
tailoring effective strategies to specific populations; and eliminating 
barriers to adopting proven fall prevention strategies. In addition, 
the bill supports demonstration and research projects to improve the 
science behind preventing falls. It also requires the Secretary to 
evaluate the effect of falls on health care costs, the potential for 
reducing falls, and the most effective strategies for reducing fall-
related health care costs. Finally, the bill authorizes the 
appropriation of funds for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009 in 
order to carry out its provisions.
  I look forward to working again with Senator Mikulski, my colleagues 
on the HELP Committee, and the wide variety of groups who support this 
bill. I urge you to support this legislation that will help to keep our 
nation's seniors--ourselves, our family members, and our friends--safe 
from falls so that they may have a chance to fully enjoy and savor 
their ``golden years'' in a safer and healthier fashion.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1531

       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 ``Keeping Seniors Safe From 
     Falls Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among 
     individuals who are over 65 years of age.
       (2) In 2002, falls among older adults accounted for 12,800 
     deaths and 1,640,000 emergency department visits.
       (3) Hospital admissions for hip fractures among the elderly 
     have increased from 231,000 admissions in 1988 to 327,000 in 
     2001.
       (4) Annually, more than 80,000 individuals who are over 65 
     years of age sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of 
     a fall.
       (5) The total medical cost of all fall injuries for people 
     age 65 and older was calculated in 2000 to be 
     $19,500,000,000.
       (6) A national approach to reducing falls among older 
     adults, which focuses on the daily life of senior citizens in 
     residential, institutional, and community settings, is 
     needed.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

       Part J of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 393B (as added by section 1401 
     of Public Law 106-386) as section 393C and transferring such 
     section so that it appears after section 393B (as added by 
     section 1301 of Public Law 106-310); and
       (2) by inserting after section 393C (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:

     ``SEC. 393D. PREVENTION OF FALLS AMONG OLDER ADULTS.

       ``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       ``(1) to develop effective public education strategies in a 
     national initiative to reduce falls among older adults in 
     order to educate older adults, family members, employers, 
     caregivers, and others;
       ``(2) to intensify services and conduct research to 
     determine the most effective approaches to preventing and 
     treating falls among older adults; and
       ``(3) to require the Secretary to evaluate the effect of 
     falls on health care costs, the potential for reducing falls, 
     and the most effective strategies for reducing health care 
     costs associated with falls.
       ``(b) Public Education.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) oversee and support a national education campaign to 
     be carried out by a nonprofit organization with experience in 
     designing and implementing national injury prevention 
     programs, that is directed principally to older adults, their 
     families, and health care providers, and that focuses on 
     reducing falls among older adults and preventing repeat 
     falls; and
       ``(2) award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to 
     qualified organizations, institutions, or consortia of 
     qualified organizations and institutions, for the purpose of 
     organizing State-level coalitions of appropriate State and 
     local agencies, safety, health, senior citizen, and other 
     organizations to design and carry out local education 
     campaigns, focusing on reducing falls among older adults and 
     preventing repeat falls.
       ``(c) Research.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) conduct and support research to--
       ``(i) improve the identification of older adults who have a 
     high risk of falling;
       ``(ii) improve data collection and analysis to identify 
     fall risk and protective factors;
       ``(iii) design, implement, and evaluate the most effective 
     fall prevention interventions;
       ``(iv) improve strategies that are proven to be effective 
     in reducing falls by tailoring these strategies to specific 
     populations of older adults;
       ``(v) conduct research in order to maximize the 
     dissemination of proven, effective fall prevention 
     interventions;
       ``(vi) intensify proven interventions to prevent falls 
     among older adults;
       ``(vii) improve the diagnosis, treatment, and 
     rehabilitation of elderly fall victims and those at high risk 
     for falls; and
       ``(viii) assess the risk of falls occurring in various 
     settings;
       ``(B) conduct research concerning barriers to the adoption 
     of proven interventions with respect to the prevention of 
     falls among older adults;
       ``(C) conduct research to develop, implement, and evaluate 
     the most effective approaches to reducing falls among high-
     risk older adults living in communities and long-term care 
     and assisted living facilities; and
       ``(D) evaluate the effectiveness of community programs 
     designed to prevent falls among older adults.
       ``(2) Educational support.--The Secretary, either directly 
     or through awarding grants, contracts, or cooperative 
     agreements to qualified organizations, institutions, or 
     consortia of qualified organizations and institutions, shall 
     provide professional education for physicians and allied 
     health professionals, and aging service providers in fall 
     prevention, evaluation, and management.
       ``(d) Demonstration Projects.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out the following:
       ``(1) Oversee and support demonstration and research 
     projects to be carried out by qualified organizations, 
     institutions, or consortia of qualified organizations and 
     institutions, in the following areas:
       ``(A) A multistate demonstration project assessing the 
     utility of targeted fall risk screening and referral 
     programs.
       ``(B) Programs designed for community-dwelling older adults 
     that utilize multicomponent fall intervention approaches, 
     including physical activity, medication assessment and 
     reduction when possible, vision enhancement, and home 
     modification strategies.
       ``(C) Programs that are targeted to new fall victims who 
     are at a high risk for second falls and which are designed to 
     maximize independence and quality of life for older adults, 
     particularly those older adults with functional limitations.
       ``(D) Private sector and public-private partnerships to 
     develop technologies to prevent falls among older adults and 
     prevent or reduce injuries if falls occur.
       ``(2)(A) Award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements 
     to qualified organizations, institutions, or consortia of 
     qualified organizations and institutions, to design, 
     implement, and evaluate fall prevention programs using proven 
     intervention strategies in residential and institutional 
     settings.
       ``(B) Award 1 or more grants, contracts, or cooperative 
     agreements to 1 or more qualified organizations, 
     institutions, or consortia of qualified organizations and 
     institutions, in order to carry out a multistate 
     demonstration project to implement and evaluate fall 
     prevention programs using proven intervention strategies 
     designed for single and multifamily residential settings with 
     high concentrations of older adults, including--
       ``(i) identifying high-risk populations;
       ``(ii) evaluating residential facilities;
       ``(iii) conducting screening to identify high-risk 
     individuals;
       ``(iv) providing fall assessment and risk reduction 
     interventions and counseling;
       ``(v) coordinating services with health care and social 
     service providers; and
       ``(vi) coordinating post-fall treatment and rehabilitation.

[[Page 18988]]

       ``(3) Award 1 or more grants, contracts, or cooperative 
     agreements to qualified organizations, institutions, or 
     consortia of qualified organizations and institutions, to 
     conduct evaluations of the effectiveness of the demonstration 
     projects described in this subsection.
       ``(e) Study of Effects of Falls on Health Care Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of 
     the effects of falls on health care costs, the potential for 
     reducing falls, and the most effective strategies for 
     reducing health care costs associated with falls.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 36 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Keeping Seniors Safe From Falls Act of 2005, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing 
     the findings of the Secretary in conducting the review under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--In order to carry 
     out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(1) to carry out the national public education provisions 
     described in subsection (b)(1), $3,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2009;
       ``(2) to carry out the State public education campaign 
     provisions of subsection (b)(2), $5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2009;
       ``(3) to carry out research projects described in 
     subsection (c), $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2009;
       ``(4) to carry out the demonstration projects described in 
     subsection (d)(1), $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2009; and
       ``(5) to carry out the demonstration and research projects 
     described in subsection (d)(2), $5,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2009.''.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Enzi in 
introducing the Keeping Seniors Safe from Falls Act of 2005. Falls are 
a serious public health problem that affects millions of seniors each 
year. This bill expands research and education on elder falls to help 
keep seniors safe and in their own homes longer.
  The facts are staggering. One out of every three Americans over age 
65 falls every year. In 2002, over 12,800 seniors died and 
approximately 1.6 million seniors visited an emergency department as a 
result of a fall. Falls are the leading cause of injury deaths among 
seniors. It is estimated that annually more than 80,000 individuals 
over 65 years of age sustain a traumatic brain injury as a result of a 
fall. Falls can be financially disastrous for families, and falls place 
a serious financial strain on our health care system. By 2020, senior 
falls are estimated to cost the health care system more than $32 
billion.
  These facts do not begin to tell the story of what falls can mean for 
seniors and their loved ones. Falls don't discriminate. Many of us have 
friends or relatives who have fallen. A fall can have a devastating 
impact on a person's physical, emotional, and mental health. If an 
older woman loses her footing on her front porch steps, falls, and 
suffers a hip fracture, she would likely spend about two weeks in the 
hospital, and there is a 50 percent chance that she would not return 
home or live independently as a result of her injuries.
  With some help, there are simple ways that seniors can improve the 
safety of their homes and make a fall far less likely. Home 
modifications like hand rails in the bathroom, rubber mats on slippery 
tile floors, and cordless telephones that seniors can keep nearby can 
make a big difference. Well trained pharmacists can review medications 
to make sure that two drugs do not interact to cause dizziness and 
throw a senior off balance.
  That is why I teamed up with Senator Enzi to introduce this important 
bill. This legislation is about getting behind our Nation's seniors and 
giving help to those who practice self-help. This bill creates public 
education campaigns for seniors, their families, and health care 
providers about how to prevent falls. It expands research on elder 
falls to develop better ways to prevent falls and to improve the 
treatment and rehabilitation of elder falls victims. This legislation 
also requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on health care 
costs, ways we can reduce falls, and effective solutions that can be 
adopted that can help reduce health care costs associated with falls.
  Reducing the number of falls will help seniors live longer, 
healthier, more independent lives. This bill has the strong support of 
the National Safety Council, the Home Safety Council and the National 
Council on Aging, and has been supported in the past by over 30 
national and local aging and safety organizations. I look forward to 
working with Senator Enzi and my colleagues on the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill signed into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 1532. A bill to amend title 18 of the United States Code to 
criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to enhance the protection of the 
United States agricultural industry and food security through the 
increased prevention, detection, response and recovery planning; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the 
Agroterrorism Prevention Act of 2005, which would amend Title 18 of the 
United States Code to criminalize acts of agroterrorism, and to enhance 
the protection of the United States agricultural industry and food 
security through increased prevention, detection, response and recovery 
planning.
  Since the events of September 11, 2001, Congress has taken 
substantive actions to protect America and indeed, the world from the 
threat of terrorism. Yet, there is a significant component of the 
United States that is at risk from terrorist attacks, and that is 
American agriculture. The United States agriculture industry accounts 
for 13 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, makes up 8 
percent of our foreign trade, and accounts for over $192 billion in 
cash receipts. More specifically in Pennsylvania, agriculture is the 
number one industry with over 59,000 farms and ranches producing cash 
receipts exceeding $4 billion annually. Less than 2 percent of the 
American people are considered farmers or ranchers; however, they are 
responsible for feeding 100 percent of the American population. It is 
incumbent upon us in Congress to do everything in our power to ensure 
that the American farmer and rancher, and our Nation's food supply, are 
protected from any act of terrorism.
  During the 108th Congress, I held four forums on the issue of 
agroterrorism and food security at the Pennsylvania Department of 
Agriculture working in conjunction with the PA Secretary of Agriculture 
to address the needs and concerns of Pennsylvania's producers, 
processors, commodity representatives, veterinarians, public health 
officials, university administrators, and local government 
representatives. Collectively, the comments and issues raised at these 
forums provided the impetus to craft this necessary and timely 
legislation.
  This legislation would afford the American farmer, rancher, and the 
United States agriculture industry the protection it deserves. My bill 
would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to criminalize the act 
of agroterrorism, ensuring that we have a legal recourse against 
individuals seeking to disrupt our interstate commerce and foreign 
trade, or who try to coerce our civilian population or government. An 
agroterrist act would be defined as a criminal act that consists of 
causing, financing, or attempting to cause damage or harm to, or 
destruction of, a crop, livestock, raw agricultural commodity, food 
product, farm or ranch equipment, a material, or any other property 
associated with agriculture, or a person engaged in an agricultural 
activity, that is committed to intimidate or coerce a civilian 
population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or 
coercion; or to disrupt interstate commerce or foreign commerce of the 
United States agricultural industry. Further, I have included the death 
penalty provision in this legislation to be consistent with existing 
laws concerning acts of terrorism.
  Beyond criminalizing the act of agroterrorism, this legislation would 
provide farmers and ranchers with on-farm bio-security resources; tools 
that reduce the potential for disease outbreaks. Through these 
resources, our farmers and ranchers would be able develop preparedness, 
response and recovery planning techniques. These techniques would 
enable farmers and ranchers to control access to their farms,

[[Page 18989]]

separate animal shipping vehicles from animal feed facilities, and know 
what risks visitors present. Ultimately, the intent of this provision 
is to ensure that our first responders have the information, training, 
and critical infrastructure they need to react aggressively to an 
incident of agroterrorism.
  The impact of globalization affects agriculture in ways that many 
would be unaware. For example, livestock and crop diseases can be 
obtained and disseminated with ever increasing ease. These diseases are 
endemic to other parts of the world and can be extracted from common 
materials, such as soil. Additionally, agricultural inspections at 
ports of entry, the first line of defense against the entry of foreign 
animal and plant diseases, have declined over the last two years at a 
time when imports have increased. Therefore, I have called for the 
Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Interior, Health and 
Human Services, the Attorney General, and the Director of National 
Intelligence to coordinate and enhance monitoring, surveillance, and 
intelligence capabilities concerning threats, delivery systems, border 
controls, and actions that could be directed against the agriculture 
sector.
  This legislation would authorize significant grant funding for States 
to establish state and local emergency response plans, information 
management, and to provide training for first responders, in the event 
of an animal or plant disease outbreak. The 2001 foot and mouth disease 
outbreak in England required extensive intervention to eradicate and 
control the spread of disease. Therefore, the question remains if our 
Nation is ready to respond to such an outbreak, whether caused by a 
natural event or an act of terrorism.
  Additionally, this legislation would authorize funding for pilot 
grant demonstrations concerning on-farm bio-security. The majority of 
our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and processors are family owned or 
small businesses, and they need our assistance in strengthening and 
changing their practices to meet the challenges they are facing in this 
war on terror. It is our duty as their representatives to provide the 
tools they need to preserve the American farm and ranch.
  This legislation would ensure that our National Veterinary Stockpile 
contains sufficient amounts of animal vaccine, antiviral, or 
therapeutic products to appropriately respond to the most damaging 
animal diseases affecting human health and the economy. Additionally, 
let us not think that agroterrorism pertains only to animals. A plant 
disease event can impact our agricultural economy as well. Therefore, I 
have included provisions to ensure that our U.S. National Germplasm 
system can respond to such an event with the use of disease-resistant 
seed varieties.
  Compounding the threat of agroterrorism is the fact that the United 
States is currently experiencing a shortage of veterinarians in rural 
agricultural areas. This results in an inability to respond to a 
disease outbreak whether natural or an act of terrorism. In response to 
this decline, this legislation would provide both educational debt 
repayment for veterinarians serving American agriculture during a 
disease outbreak and capacity building grants for colleges and schools 
of veterinary medicine to design higher education training programs in 
exotic animal diseases, epidemiology, and public health.
  The last provision of this legislation would require the Secretaries 
of Homeland Security, Agriculture, HHS, Interior, and the Administrator 
of EPA to submit a report to Congress that describes the feasibility 
and need for modernizing or replacing current federal Biological Level 
3 and Biological Level 4 laboratories responsible for research, 
technology development, diagnostic, and forensic activities on plant 
and animal diseases, including zoonotic diseases. As a nation we cannot 
adequately fight a modern war on terrorism using technology and 
laboratories that have exceeded their capability and useful life span.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation, which 
would secure our Nation's most critical infrastructure, our food 
supply. As a nation, we cannot take for granted that our food supply 
will not be susceptible to terrorist activities. The measures called 
for in this legislation would not impose any new regulations on our 
farmers, ranchers, or processors but rather would provide them with the 
tools necessary to counteract agroterrorism. Without question, the time 
has come for concerted action to ensure the protection of American 
agriculture.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 1533. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a tax incentive to individuals teaching in elementary and secondary 
schools located in rural or high unemployment areas and to individuals 
who achieve certification from the National Board of Professional 
Teaching Standards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I rise, along with my 
cosponsor, Senator DeWine, to reintroduce legislation called I TEACH, 
Incentives to Educate America's Children Act of 2005. This legislation 
is an investment to support teachers in rural areas, and high poverty 
areas. It provides a $1,000 refundable tax credit for those teachers 
willing to serve in challenging schools. The bill also gives every 
teacher the chance to earn a refundable tax credit by offering a $1,000 
refundable tax credit for every teacher who earns accreditation by the 
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. A National Board 
Teacher in a rural school or high poverty school would receive a $2,000 
credit which hopefully would promote retention of our best teachers.
  According to the most recent survey by the American Federation of 
Teachers, the average teacher salary is $45,771. While teacher salaries 
rose an average of 3.3 percent, the health insurance benefits spiked an 
average 13 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 
starting salary for a new teacher is estimated to be $30,496. Given the 
costs of college, the average student graduates with a debt of $19,400 
and face loan payments of $210 a month, it is difficult for young, 
eager graduates to pursue careers in teaching and pay off their student 
debt and other living expenses.
  It is sad when a dedicated young person decides that they simply 
cannot ``afford'' to be a teacher, but this happens. The I TEACH Act 
will help by providing meaningful tax credits to teachers willing to 
serve in rural areas or high poverty schools, and it will provide a 
strong financial incentive to keep quality teachers in the classrooms 
by rewarding teachers who earn National Board certification. Thirty 
States provide some type of financial incentive to National Board 
teachers, and this refundable tax credit will support such efforts. For 
example, West Virginia offers a $2,500 bonus for National Board 
teachers. If I TEACH is enacted, a National Board teacher in my State 
would receive a 9 percent bonus which is a meaningful incentive.
  Our teachers are essential professionals that inspire and educate our 
children, who represent the next generation. Our teachers deserve our 
respect and real support. I urge my colleagues to work with me to enact 
I TEACH and reward our teachers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 1537. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
the establishment of Parkinson's Disease Research Education and 
Clinical Centers in the Veterans Health Administration of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and Multiple Sclerosis Centers of 
Excellence; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to introduce 
legislation that would establish Parkinson's Disease Research Education 
and Clinical Centers and Multiple Sclerosis, MS, Centers of Excellence 
in the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, VA. The need for research and care is extremely pressing at a 
time when VA is dealing with meeting the demands of veterans suffering 
from debilitating neurological diseases.

[[Page 18990]]

  VA has been a leader in the advancement of medicine and should be 
applauded for its progressive and innovative research endeavors. Yet, 
continued strides in specialized research are necessary to address the 
specific health care needs of our veterans. Through the establishment 
of the Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis Centers, VA 
clinicians and educators will be able to gain a better understanding of 
these diseases that affect not just our veterans, but Americans across 
the nation. It is through this understanding that clinicians will be 
able to provide more effective patient care, treatment, and education.
  The establishment of the Parkinson's Disease Research Education and 
Clinical Centers stems from the same spirit that inspired the 
conception of a great alliance formed between VA and the National 
Parkinson Foundation, Inc., NPF, in June of 1999. This alliance created 
an opportunity for the two entities to come together to develop 
research and treatment symposiums, provide information concerning 
Parkinson's disease, and also provide VA physicians that treat at least 
20,000 Parkinson's patients with continuing education.
  Those affected with Parkinson's Disease not only suffer from symptoms 
that manifest themselves physically, such as through tremors, muffled 
speech, slowness and impaired mobility. There are also psychological 
effects characterized in the form of depression for those suffering 
from this diseases. Through these centers, clinicians and educators can 
determine better ways to manage symptoms associated with Parkinson's 
Disease, as well as those symptoms such as fatigue and spasticity 
associated with MS that will give veterans suffering from these 
diseases a better quality of life.
  Since the time of its inception, the VA health care system was tasked 
with meeting the special needs of its veteran patients. Though VA is 
providing the necessary care to those currently affected by the 
disease, more can be done to develop new treatments to reduce the 
symptoms and slow down the progression of the disease.
  This legislation will provide VA with the opportunity to establish 
these centers and mark a new phase in the pursuit of enhanced treatment 
for those that struggle with the daily challenges imposed by these 
diseases, which includes not only the veteran patients but their 
families as well. The Parkinson's Disease Research Education and 
Clinical Centers and Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence will also 
be beacons of hope towards finding a cure for degenerative neurological 
diseases.
  I ask my colleagues for their support of this bill as a commitment to 
advancing research and education for veterans battling Parkinson's 
Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. I also wish to thank Congressman Lane 
Evans, who serves as the ranking member of the House Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, for his leadership on this issue.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1537

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

     SECTION 1. PARKINSON'S DISEASE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, CLINICAL 
                   CENTERS, AND MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS CENTERS OF 
                   EXCELLENCE.

       (a) Requirement for Establishment of Centers.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 7329. Parkinson's disease research, education, and 
       clinical centers and multiple sclerosis centers of 
       excellence

       ``(a) Designation.--The Secretary, upon the recommendation 
     of the Under Secretary for Health and pursuant to the 
     provisions of this section, shall--
       ``(1) designate--
       ``(A) at least 6 Department health care facilities as the 
     locations for centers of Parkinson's disease research, 
     education, and clinical activities and (subject to the 
     appropriation of sufficient funds for such purpose); and
       ``(B) at least 2 Department health care facilities as the 
     locations for Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence 
     (subject to the appropriation of sufficient funds for such 
     purpose); and
       ``(2) establish and operate such centers at such locations 
     in accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Existing Facilities; Geographic Distribution.--In 
     designating locations for centers under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary, upon the recommendation of the Under Secretary for 
     Health, shall--
       ``(1) designate each Department health care facility that, 
     as of January 1, 2005, was operating a Parkinson's Disease 
     Research, Education, and Clinical Center or a Multiple 
     Sclerosis Center of Excellence unless the Secretary, on the 
     recommendation of the Under Secretary for Health, determines 
     that such facility--
       ``(A) does not meet the requirements of subsection (c);
       ``(B) has not demonstrated effectiveness in carrying out 
     the established purposes of such center; or
       ``(C) has not demonstrated the potential to carry out such 
     purposes effectively in the reasonably foreseeable future; 
     and
       ``(2) assure appropriate geographic distribution of such 
     facilities.
       ``(c) Minimum Requirements.--The Secretary may not 
     designate a health care facility as a location for a center 
     under subsection (a) unless--
       ``(1) the peer review panel established under subsection 
     (d) determines that the proposal submitted by such facility 
     is among those proposals which meet the highest competitive 
     standards of scientific and clinical merit; and
       ``(2) the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the Under 
     Secretary for Health, determines that the facility has (or 
     may reasonably be anticipated to develop)--
       ``(A) an arrangement with an accredited medical school 
     which provides education and training in neurology and with 
     which such facility is affiliated under which residents 
     receive education and training in innovative diagnosis and 
     treatment of chronic neurodegenerative diseases and movement 
     disorders, including Parkinson's disease, or in the case of 
     Multiple Sclerosis Centers, multiple sclerosis disease;
       ``(B) the ability to attract the participation of 
     scientists who are capable of ingenuity and creativity in 
     health-care research efforts;
       ``(C) a policymaking advisory committee composed of 
     consumers and appropriate health care and research 
     representatives of the facility and of the affiliated school 
     or schools to advise the directors of such facility and such 
     center on policy matters pertaining to the activities of such 
     center during the period of the operation of such center;
       ``(D) the capability to conduct effectively evaluations of 
     the activities of such center;
       ``(E) the capability to coordinate, as part of an 
     integrated national system, education, clinical, and research 
     activities within all facilities with such centers;
       ``(F) the capability to jointly develop a consortium of 
     providers with interest in treating neurodegenerative 
     diseases, including Parkinson's disease, and other movement 
     disorders, or multiple sclerosis in the case of Multiple 
     Sclerosis Centers, at facilities without such centers in 
     order to ensure better access to state of the art diagnosis, 
     care, and education for neurodegenerative disorders, or in 
     the case of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, autoimmune disease 
     affecting the cental nervous system throughout the health 
     care system; and
       ``(G) the capability to develop a national repository in 
     the health care system for the collection of data on health 
     services delivered to veterans seeking care for 
     neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's disease, 
     and other movement disorders, or in the case of Multiple 
     Sclerosis Centers, autoimmune disease affecting the central 
     nervous system.
       ``(d) Panel.--(1) The Under Secretary for Health shall 
     establish a panel to assess the scientific and clinical merit 
     of proposals that are submitted to the Secretary for the 
     establishment of new centers under this section.
       ``(2)(A) The membership of the panel shall consist of 
     experts in neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's 
     disease and other movement disorders, and, in the case of 
     Multiple Sclerosis Centers, experts in autoimmune disease 
     affecting the central nervous system.
       ``(B) Members of the panel shall serve as consultants to 
     the Department for a period of no longer than 2 years except 
     in the case of panelists asked to serve on the initial panel 
     as specified in subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) In order to ensure panel continuity, half of the 
     members of the first panel shall be appointed for a period of 
     3 years and half for a period of 2 years.
       ``(3) The panel shall review each proposal submitted to the 
     panel by the Under Secretary and shall submit its views on 
     the relative scientific and clinical merit of each such 
     proposal to the Under Secretary.
       ``(4) The panel shall not be subject to the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act.
       ``(e) Adequate Funding.--Before providing funds for the 
     operation of any such center at a health care facility other 
     than a health care facility designated under subsection 
     (b)(1), the Secretary shall ensure that--

[[Page 18991]]

       ``(1) the Parkinson's disease center at each facility 
     designated under subsection (b)(1) is receiving adequate 
     funding to enable such center to function effectively in the 
     areas of Parkinson's disease research, education, and 
     clinical activities; and
       ``(2) in the case of a new Multiple Sclerosis Center, that 
     existing centers are receiving adequate funding to enable 
     such centers to function effectively in the areas of multiple 
     sclerosis research, education, and clinical activities.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for the support of the research and education activities of 
     the centers established under subsection (a).
       ``(2) The Under Secretary for Health shall allocate to such 
     centers from other funds appropriated generally for the 
     Department medical services account and medical and 
     prosthetics research account, as appropriate, such amounts as 
     the Under Secretary for Health determines appropriate.
       ``(g) Funding Eligibility and Priority for Parkinson's 
     Disease Research.--Activities of clinical and scientific 
     investigation at each center established under subsection (a) 
     for Parkinson's disease shall--
       ``(1) be eligible to compete for the award of funding from 
     funds appropriated for the Department medical and prosthetics 
     research account; and
       ``(2) receive priority in the award of funding from such 
     account to the extent funds are awarded to projects for 
     research in Parkinson's disease and other movement disorders.
       ``(h) Funding Eligibility and Priority for Multiple 
     Sclerosis Research.--Activities of clinical and scientific 
     investigation at each center established under subsection (a) 
     for multiple sclerosis shall--
       ``(1) be eligible to compete for the award of funding from 
     funds appropriated for the Department medical and prosthetics 
     research account; and
       ``(2) receive priority in the award of funding from such 
     account to the extent funds are awarded to projects for 
     research in multiple sclerosis and other movement 
     disorders.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7328 
     the following:

``Sec. 7329. Parkinson's disease research, education, and clinical 
              centers and multiple sclerosis centers of excellence''.

       (b) Effective Date.--Section 7329 of title 38, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on 
     October 1, 2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1538. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the incentives for the construction and renovation of public schools; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing America's 
Better Classroom Act, an important incentive to support school 
construction and renovations. I believe that this bill is a wise 
investment in education and economic development. It creates jobs as we 
build and renovate our schools.
  America's Better Classroom Act of 2005 is designed to respond to the 
overwhelming need for school construction. The Department of Education 
reports that the average public school building is 42 years old. In 
1995, GAO estimated that we needed $112 billion for school construction 
and renovations. A more recent survey in 2001 in the Journal of 
Education Finance indicates that the need is increasing, and the unmet 
need for school infrastructure over the next decade is over $200 
billion. My State, West Virginia, will need as much as $2 billion for 
school construction and renovations, and the cost of construction 
increases as the cost of building materials continues to escalate.
  America's Better Classroom Act provides the financial tools to help 
build and renovate our schools. It will continue the Qualified Zone 
Academy Bonding, (QZAB) Program that has helped economically 
disadvantaged communities. This provision would provide $2.8 billion to 
continue and expand the successful QZAB Program. In recent years, this 
program has provided $4.2 million for support school construction and 
renovations in disadvantaged communities. Effective programs deserve 
continued support.
  But we should more broadly expand investment in school construction 
because so many school districts need help with school construction and 
renovations but cannot qualify for the QZAB program. This is why the 
America's Better Classroom Act creates a $22 billion Qualified School 
Bonding Program. Funding will be allocated to states based on the Title 
1 formula so it is targeted, but the states will have flexibility in 
allocating support among school districts.
  When I visit schools in West Virginia, I am often stunned by the 
aging buildings and compelling needs. In our fast-growing Eastern 
Panhandle, we need new schools to deal with a growing population. In 
other parts of the State, older school building need renovations to be 
safe and conducive learning environments for our students. Also as 
technology plays an increasingly important role in education, 
classrooms need to be updated.
  States and communities need the America's Better Classroom Act so 
that we can make needed investments. Also, school construction can play 
a positive role in helping to stimulate our economy and create needed 
jobs. School construction is a reliable economic stimulus, and an 
important investment in our children's education.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 1539. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to promote the adoption of children with special needs; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate, I 
have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable 
children children who are at-risk of abuse and neglect in their own 
homes. The foster care system is the basic safety net for such 
children, but common sense tells us that a safe permanent home is the 
best place for a child. As Congress clearly stated in the 1997 Adoption 
and Safe Families Act, every child deserves a safe, permanent home. Now 
the challenge is to reform our program to deliver on this promise.
  To truly fulfill that goal, we need to improve the Federal adoption 
assistance program, which is why I am introducing the Adoption Equality 
Act today. Current law only provides adoption assistance to special 
needs children whose parents would have been eligible for the old Aid 
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as of July 1996. It is 
ridiculous to base a child's eligibility for assistance on the income 
of the abusive parents from whom they will have been taken for their 
own health and safety. Because of this Federal regulation, only half of 
special needs children get Federal assistance under current law. I 
firmly believe that every child with special needs who will not be 
adopted without assistance deserves Federal support. It is a basic 
investment to delivering on our commitment to help provide a safe, 
permanent home.
  As we talk about the importance of families, shouldn't we invest in 
helping to create and maintain such families, especially for our most 
vulnerable children?
  By supporting the Adoption Equality Act, we send a clear signal that 
every child deserves a safe, permanent home.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1540. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army and the 
Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to improve water 
management and contribute to the recovery of endangered species in the 
Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in the American West, we are frequently 
faced with the challenge of how best to allocate our scarce water 
resources among numerous competing interests. There is no better 
example of this challenge than the one that has developed in the past 
six years in the Middle Rio Grande Valley in my home State of New 
Mexico. However, how this challenge was addressed is illustrative of 
what can be accomplished when people are willing to put adversity and 
divergent interests aside and work together to solve common problems.
  In 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed as endangered the Rio 
Grande Silvery Minnow, a fish native to the waters of the Rio Grande in 
New Mexico. The listing was followed by a five-year drought which began 
in 1999. The

[[Page 18992]]

drought resulted in an insufficient amount of water to meet the needs 
of the Silvery Minnow and led several environmental groups to file the 
lawsuit Minnow v. Keys in Federal district court. After the district 
court issued a decision, the case was appealed to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which held that the Endangered 
Species Act required that water should be taken away from 
municipalities, farmers and industry in order to meet the needs of the 
Silvery Minnow. In a water-scarce State like New Mexico, the ruling 
rang out like a gun shot and created acrimony amongst those who are 
entirely dependant on water from the Rio Grande.
  In response, I established the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative 
Program in 2000. The program is based on the premise that it is better 
to work in the spirit of cooperation to develop solutions to shared 
problems regarding resource management including how best to meet the 
needs of our endangered species. When left up to the courts, there are 
always losers. Since 2000, the collaborative program has been a 
remarkable success, bringing together various stakeholders including 
Federal and State agencies, cities, Pueblos, environmental groups, 
farmers and business interests in an effort to protect our biological 
heritage and ecological diversity while meeting the needs of those who 
are dependant on the waters of the Rio Grande. Often, the process has 
been difficult. However, I'm sure all would agree that it is far 
preferable to the alternative of continued litigation. The success of 
the program is especially marked when one considers that the program 
has lacked specific goals, an organizational structure, a decision 
making hierarchy, and formal authorization.
  I rise today to introduce the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species 
Collaborative Program Act, a bill to provide the program with the 
authority it needs to continue its important mission. This bill would 
streamline the decision making process of the program, delegate 
responsibilities among federal agencies, and provide adequate authority 
for Federal participation. I have no doubt that this program will 
continue to serve as a model of how to deal with the West's resource 
management challenges.
  I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague Senator Bingaman, 
who I have had the pleasure of serving with in the United States Senate 
for the past 22 years for being an original co-sponsor of this 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1540

       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 ``Middle Rio Grande Endangered 
     Species Collaborative Program Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Collaborative program.--The term ``Collaborative 
     Program'' means the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species 
     Collaborative Program established under section 3(a).
       (2) Executive committee.--The term ``Executive Committee'' 
     means the Executive Committee established under section 4(c).
       (3) Interests in land and water.--The term ``interests in 
     land and water'' includes purchases, leases, easements, and 
     agreements to provide water storage, land, or water that are 
     obtained from willing sellers, lessors, or contributors in 
     compliance with applicable Federal, State, or tribal laws.
       (4) Middle rio grande.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Middle Rio Grande'' means the 
     headwaters of the Rio Chama and the Rio Grande, including all 
     tributaries, from the State line between Colorado and New 
     Mexico downstream to the elevation corresponding with the 
     spillway crest of Elephant Butte Dam at 4,457.3 feet mean sea 
     level.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``Middle Rio Grande'' excludes the 
     land area reserved for the full pool of the Elephant Butte 
     Reservoir.
       (5) Middle rio grande conservancy district.--The term 
     ``Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District'' means the 
     political subdivision of the State of that name, created in 
     1925.
       (6) Project.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``project'' means a scientific or 
     management study, a planning, design, permitting, 
     construction, operations, maintenance, or replacement 
     activity, or the acquisition of interests in land or water.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``project'' includes--
       (i) a project begun but not completed by the Endangered 
     Species Collaborative Program before the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (ii) a project recommended by the Executive Committee after 
     the date of enactment of this Act that carries out the 
     purposes described in section 3(b).
       (7) Rio grande compact.--The term ``Rio Grande Compact'' 
     means the Rio Grande Compact--
       (A) for which Congress provided consent under the Act of 
     May 31, 1939 (53 Stat. 785, chapter 155); and
       (B) that was ratified by the States of Colorado, New 
     Mexico, and Texas.
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
       (9) Signatory member.--The term ``signatory member'' means 
     any Federal, State, or municipal agency, tribe, or public or 
     private organization that has signed the memorandum of 
     agreement described in section 4(c)(1)(C).
       (10) Silvery minnow.--The term ``silvery minnow'' means the 
     species Hybognathus amarus, commonly known as the Rio Grande 
     silvery minnow, a fish listed as an endangered species, as 
     described in the notice entitled ``Final Rule to List the Rio 
     Grande Silvery Minnow as an Endangered Species'' (59 Fed. 
     Reg. 36988 (July 20, 1994)).
       (11) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New 
     Mexico.
       (12) Tribe.--The term ``tribe'' means an Indian pueblo or 
     tribe that--
       (A) occupies land in the Middle Rio Grande; and
       (B) is included on the list of federally recognized tribes 
     published by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with 
     section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act 
     of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a-1).
       (13) Willow flycatcher.--The term ``willow flycatcher'' 
     means the species Empidonax traillii extimus, commonly known 
     as the southwestern willow flycatcher, a migratory bird 
     listed as an endangered species, as described in the notice 
     entitled ``Final Rule Determining Endangered Status for the 
     Southwestern Willow Flycatcher'' (60 Fed. Reg. 10694 
     (February 27, 1995)).

     SEC. 3. COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary, in collaboration with 
     the Secretary of the Interior, shall establish the Middle Rio 
     Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program in accordance 
     with section 4.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Collaborative Program 
     shall be--
       (1) to carry out a long-term plan, including projects to 
     protect, and promote recovery of, the silvery minnow and 
     willow flycatcher in the Middle Rio Grande;
       (2) to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) while maintaining water use in 
     the Middle Rio Grande in compliance with applicable law;
       (3) to support improved water management;
       (4) to allow continued water development;
       (5) to benefit overall ecological integrity;
       (6) to promote cooperation and collaboration in 
     implementation of protection and recovery activities between 
     Federal and non-Federal entities;
       (7) to coordinate Federal actions that promote protection 
     and recovery of the silvery minnow and willow flycatcher; and
       (8) to establish a scientific basis for implementation of 
     activities through recovery plans to ensure protection and 
     recovery of the silvery minnow and willow flycatcher.

     SEC. 4. COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM STRUCTURE.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 209 of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-137; 117 
     Stat. 1850) is repealed.
       (b) Establishment.--The Collaborative Program shall consist 
     of an Executive Committee, a Program Implementation Team, and 
     working groups.
       (c) Executive Committee.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in collaboration with the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (A) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, establish an Executive Committee consisting of 
     Federal and non-Federal entities described in paragraph (2) 
     to--
       (i) provide guidance to the Program Implementation Team to 
     develop and approve a long-term plan to carry out the 
     purposes of the Collaborative Program;
       (ii) coordinate Collaborative Program projects for the 
     recovery of the silvery minnow and the willow flycatcher with 
     other Federal and non-Federal activities in the Middle Rio 
     Grande to achieve the greatest effect and limit unnecessary 
     duplication of efforts to the maximum extent practicable;
       (iii) create, assign, and oversee tasks of the Program 
     Implementation Team and working

[[Page 18993]]

     groups as necessary to implement a long-term plan and 
     otherwise accomplish the purposes of the Collaborative 
     Program;
       (iv) develop multiyear budget priorities and present 
     funding requests to the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     other Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities; and
       (v) review work products undertaken by the Collaborative 
     Program, including development of plans, budgets, reports, 
     and requests for proposals;
       (B) consider decisions made by \3/4\ of a quorum as the 
     recommendation to be carried out under the Collaborative 
     Program;
       (C) develop, consistent with this Act, a memorandum of 
     agreement describing--
       (i) the goals of the Collaborative Program;
       (ii) the responsibilities of the participants to contribute 
     to the success of the Collaborative Program; and
       (iii) the administrative rules, bylaws, and agreements 
     governing Collaborative Program participation; and
       (D) in cooperation with the members of the Executive 
     Committee, develop bylaws governing the operations of the 
     Executive Committee.
       (2) Membership.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Executive 
     Committee shall be composed of--
       (i) 1 permanent voting member representing the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior;
       (ii) 1 permanent voting member representing the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, appointed by the Secretary 
     of the Interior;
       (iii) 1 permanent voting member representing the Corps of 
     Engineers, appointed by the Secretary;
       (iv) upon invitation by the Secretary, other voting members 
     who have signed the memorandum of agreement described in 
     paragraph (1)(C), representing any of--

       (I) the State of New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission;
       (II) the State of New Mexico Department of Game and Fish;
       (III) the New Mexico Attorney General;
       (IV) the Pueblo of Santo Domingo;
       (V) the Pueblo of Sandia;
       (VI) the Pueblo of Isleta;
       (VII) the Pueblo of Santa Ana;
       (VIII) the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District;
       (IX) the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Authority;
       (X) an organization that represents a significant portion 
     of the environmental community; and
       (XI) an organization that represents a significant portion 
     of the farming community; and

       (v) the non-Federal cochairperson elected under paragraph 
     (4); and
       (vi) upon unanimous recommendation of the existing members, 
     members representing any additional organizations that sign 
     the memorandum of agreement described in paragraph (1)(C).
       (B) Membership cap.--The total membership of the Executive 
     Committee shall not exceed 20 members.
       (C) Quorum.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), \2/3\ 
     of the members of the Executive Committee shall constitute a 
     quorum.
       (ii) Exception.--For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (C) 
     of paragraph (4), \2/3\ of the non-Federal members of the 
     Executive Committee shall constitute a quorum.
       (3) Federal cochairperson.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall select 
     a Federal Cochairperson from the Department of the Interior 
     who shall--
       (i) be a nonvoting member of the Executive Committee;
       (ii) convene the Executive Committee;
       (iii) develop committee agendas;
       (iv) call meetings;
       (v) schedule votes and other decisionmaking processes; and
       (vi) hold the Program Implementation Team accountable for 
     assignments received from the Executive Committee.
       (B) Removal.--The Federal Cochairperson may be replaced by 
     the Secretary on a vote of no-confidence by \3/4\ of a 
     quorum.
       (4) Non-federal cochairperson.--
       (A) In general.--A non-Federal Chairperson of the Executive 
     Committee shall be elected on approval by \3/4\ of a quorum.
       (B) Duties.--The non-Federal Chairperson shall--
       (i) be a voting member of the Executive Committee;
       (ii) establish the Executive Committee agenda jointly with 
     the Federal Cochairperson; and
       (iii) lead meetings in the absence of the Federal 
     Cochairperson.
       (C) Removal.--
       (i) In general.--The non-Federal Cochairperson may be 
     removed by the Secretary on a vote of no-confidence by \3/4\ 
     of a quorum.
       (ii) Vacancy.--If the non-Federal Chairperson is removed 
     under clause (i), the vacancy shall be filled in accordance 
     with subparagraph (A).
       (d) Program Implementation Team.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Program 
     Implementation Team--
       (A) administered by a program manager from the Corps of 
     Engineers; and
       (B) supported by 1 representative of each entity with 
     membership on the Executive Committee that elects to provide 
     a representative.
       (2) Additional staff.--To support the goals of the 
     Collaborative Program, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     provide staff for the Program Implementation Team from--
       (A) the Bureau of Reclamation;
       (B) the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
       (C) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; or
       (D) any other appropriate agency of the Department of the 
     Interior.
       (3) Duties.--Under the direction of the Executive 
     Committee, the Program Implementation Team shall--
       (A) provide administrative support for all Collaborative 
     Program operations;
       (B) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, prepare a long-term plan to carry out the purposes 
     of the Collaborative Program;
       (C) consistent with the long-term plan, prepare annual 
     revisions, annual work plans, budget requests, and activity 
     and fiscal reports;
       (D) provide information to the public concerning activities 
     of the Collaborative Program and undertake community 
     outreach;
       (E) collaborate with other efforts relating to the 
     protection and recovery of the silvery minnow and willow 
     flycatcher carried out under other Federal programs and non-
     Federal programs, including--
       (i) silvery minnow and willow flycatcher recovery teams 
     under the direction of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service;
       (ii) Bosque and ecosystem recovery programs under the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Corps of 
     Engineers; and
       (iii) other related programs;
       (F) administer project proposal processes;
       (G) administer contracts and grants, except for those 
     contracts and grants assigned to the Bureau of Reclamation;
       (H) ensure that all activities undertaken by the 
     Collaborative Program comply with applicable laws; and
       (I) undertake such other duties as are assigned by the 
     Executive Committee and necessary to carry out the 
     Collaborative Program.
       (e) Working Groups.--
       (1) In general.--The Executive Committee may create working 
     groups to--
       (A) provide advice to the Executive Committee and the 
     Program Implementation Team; and
       (B) implement tasks consistent with the purposes described 
     in section 3(b).
       (2) Membership.--Working groups established under paragraph 
     (1) may consist of--
       (A) members of the Program Implementation Team; and
       (B) individuals appointed by, and under the direction of, 
     the Program Implementation Team, including--
       (i) representatives appointed by the Executive Committee;
       (ii) signatory members; or
       (iii) individuals contracted by the Program Implementation 
     Team.

     SEC. 5. COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     Interior may--
       (1) enter into any grants, contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, interagency agreements, or other agreements that 
     the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior determine to 
     be necessary to carry out the Collaborative Program, 
     including interagency agreements to transfer funds between 
     agencies within the jurisdiction of the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of the Interior; and
       (2) accept or provide grants to carry out the Collaborative 
     Program.
       (b) Responsibilities.--In carrying out the purposes of the 
     Collaborative Program--
       (1) the Commissioner of Reclamation may--
       (A) carry out flow requirements to comply with the 
     Biological Opinion described in section 205(b) of the Energy 
     and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 
     108-447; 118 Stat. 2949) or any modifications to the 
     Biological Opinion and other projects relating to water 
     management, including--
       (i) acquiring interests in land and water to meet minimum 
     flow requirements;
       (ii) monitoring and gaging flows;
       (iii) pumping from the Low Flow Conveyance Channel and 
     other drains and channels to support silvery minnow and 
     willow flycatcher habitat; and
       (iv) improving monitoring and gaging;
       (B) consult with the signatory members regarding 
     opportunities and methods to accomplish the responsibilities;
       (C) coordinate implementation of all other activities 
     carried out within the Middle Rio Grande under the 
     jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation with the activities 
     of the Collaborative Program to achieve the purposes of the 
     Collaborative Program; and
       (D) construct fish passages at San Acacia Diversion Dam and 
     at Isleta Diversion Dam;
       (2) the Secretary of the Army--
       (A) may carry out and fund additional projects not 
     designated to the Commissioner of Reclamation under paragraph 
     (1), including--
       (i) actions to induce overbank flooding and creation of 
     backwaters;
       (ii) salvaging eggs;

[[Page 18994]]

       (iii) improving monitoring and gaging;
       (iv) performing habitat and ecosystem restoration;
       (v) regeneration of native vegetation and monitoring of 
     associated water depletions;
       (vi) reconstructing a new San Marcial Railroad bridge and 
     realignment of the river channel;
       (vii) developing ways to--

       (I) increase sediment transport through Jemez Canyon Dam, 
     Galisteo Dam, and Cochiti Lake; and
       (II) address issues of contaminated sediment;

       (viii) preventing salt cedar encroachment in Angostura, 
     Isleta and San Acacia reaches;
       (ix) implementing captive propagation of silvery minnow, 
     including expansion of facilities;
       (x) creating at least 2 new naturalized refugia, 1 of which 
     shall be carried out in partnership with the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
     Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District without direct 
     oversight by the Collaborative Program, under the Silvery 
     Minnow Off-Channel Sanctuaries Program as authorized under 
     section 6014 of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
     for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 
     2005 (Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 283);
       (xi) monitoring silvery minnow protection and recovery 
     efforts by conducting surveys of populations and habitat 
     above Cochiti Lake;
       (xii) developing comprehensive water quality assessments 
     and managing changes in water quality;
       (xiii) conducting studies and research necessary to define 
     the needs of listed species; and
       (xiv) monitoring the effects of activities on listed 
     species;
       (B) shall implement the decisions of the Executive 
     Committee in performing the activities described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (C) shall coordinate implementation of all other activities 
     carried out within the Middle Rio Grande by the Corps of 
     Engineers with the activities of the Collaborative Program in 
     order to achieve the purposes of the Collaborative Program.
       (c) Limitations.--
       (1) Acquisition of land or water.--In carrying out this 
     Act, the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior may only 
     acquire interests in land and water.
       (2) Water rights.--Nothing in this Act preempts or affects 
     State water law or an interstate compact governing water.
       (3) Compliance.--All actions carried out in accordance with 
     this Act shall be in compliance with applicable State, 
     Federal, or tribal law.
       (4) Rio grande compact.--No action carried out under this 
     Act shall impair the ability of the State to meet the 
     obligations of the State under the Rio Grande compact.
       (5) State law.--The Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall carry out activities under the Collaborative 
     Program consistent with State law.
       (6) Consultation.--
       (A) In general.--Consultations between governments under 
     this Act shall be carried out between the Secretary or the 
     Secretary of the Interior and tribes prior to initiating 
     actions that would impact tribal land or water rights.
       (B) Consent requirement.--No action involving access to, or 
     use of, pueblo or tribal land may be carried out without 
     prior written consent of the affected pueblo or Indian tribe.
       (7) Collaboration.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary 
     and the Secretary of Interior may collaborate with or enter 
     into contracts, cooperative agreements, interagency 
     agreements, or other agreements with, or accept or provide 
     grants to, tribes that--
       (A) are signatory members; but
       (B) are not represented on the Executive Committee.
       (8) No effect on certain authority.--Nothing in this Act 
     diminishes the authority, sovereignty, or rights of any 
     person, organization, tribe, or other governmental entity.
       (9) No effect on certain duties.--
       (A) In general.--Nothing in this Act diminishes or 
     impairs--
       (i) the trust relationship or responsibility of the Federal 
     Government to any tribe;
       (ii) the obligation of the Federal Government to consult 
     with the tribes on a government-to-government basis; or
       (iii) the ability of the Federal Government to fund 
     activities for the benefit of the tribes.
       (B) Funding.--Nothing in this Act restricts the Secretary 
     or the Secretary of the Interior from funding activities in 
     accordance with the Indian trust responsibility of the 
     Federal Government.
       (10) No effect on reservoir operations.--While this Act 
     provides additional authorization for the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of the Interior, nothing expands the discretion of 
     the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior with respect 
     to operating reservoir facilities under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary or the Secretary of the Interior in the Middle 
     Rio Grande.

     SEC. 6. REPORTING.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives a report that--
       (1) describes expenditure of appropriated funds and cost-
     share contributions;
       (2) describes activities carried out under this Act; and
       (3) describes compliance with the purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior such sums as 
     are necessary to carry out this Act for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2015.
       (2) Nonreiumbursable.--Amounts made available pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be considered nonreimbursable Federal 
     expenditures.
       (b) Cost Allocation.--
       (1) Activities at full federal expense.--
       (A) Water acquisition.--Water acquisition and the cost of 
     administration for water acquisition and water management by 
     the Bureau of Reclamation described in section 5(b)(1) shall 
     be carried out at full Federal expense.
       (B) Administration.--Administration of the Collaborative 
     Program, as described in section 4(d), including the 
     participation of Federal agencies in the Program 
     Implementation Team, shall be carried out at full Federal 
     expense.
       (2) Cost-share.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), all projects 
     or activities of the Collaborative Program not described in 
     paragraph (1) that are carried out by the Secretary or the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall require a non-Federal cost-
     share of 25 percent.
       (B) Limitation.--
       (i) In general.--The total non-Federal share required under 
     subparagraph (A) for all projects during the period of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2015 shall be not more than $30,000,000.
       (ii) Federal expense.--On satisfaction of the total non-
     Federal share described in clause (i)--

       (I) no further non-Federal share shall be required; and
       (II) all projects and activities shall be carried out at 
     full Federal expense.

       (C) Contributions.--The cost-share under subparagraph (A) 
     may be provided as--
       (i) in-kind contributions, including participation on the 
     Program Implementation Team or in working groups, the value 
     of which shall be determined by Secretary; or
       (ii) direct cash contributions.
       (D) Programmatic basis.--The amount of the Federal and non-
     Federal cost-shares shall be determined on--
       (i) a programmatic, rather than project-by-project, basis; 
     and
       (ii) a 3-year interval with excess non-Federal cost-share 
     being credited to subsequent accounting periods.
       (c) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 15 percent of 
     amounts made available under subsection (a) shall be used to 
     pay the administrative costs of carrying out the Program 
     Implementation Team established under section 4(d).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. 
        Levin):
  S. 1541. A bill to protect, conserve, and restore public land 
administered by the Department of the Interior or the Forest Service 
and adjacent land through cooperative cost-shared grants to control and 
mitigate the spread of invasive species, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public Land 
Protection and Conservation Act of 2005. I am pleased to have Senators 
Inouye, Lautenberg and Levin join me in cosponsoring the bill. My 
legislation encourages Federal, State, and local agencies, nonprofit 
organizations, Indian tribes and private entities to work together 
through a cost-shared, cooperative grant program to control and 
mitigate the spread of invasive species.
  Invasive species are defined as harmful, nonnative plants, animals, 
or organisms likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm, or harm 
to human health. They are widespread throughout the United States and 
cause billions of dollars of damage annually to crops, rangelands, and 
waterways. The globalization of trade, the massive volume of cargo 
shipments, and rising tourism have combined to increase the chance of 
introductions of nonnative species into the United States. They are 
responsible for damage to native ecosystems and vital industries such 
as agriculture, fisheries, and ranching. The economic, social,

[[Page 18995]]

recreational, and ecological losses attributable to invasive species 
are huge. A recent Cornell University study estimated that invasive 
plants and animals cost the U.S. economy $137 billion annually. The 
costs are predicted to increase substantially as more invasive species 
enter the country.
  The implications of the nationwide invasive species problem are 
enormous. The Ecological Society of America notes that invasive species 
contribute to the listing of 35 to 46 percent of all threatened and 
endangered species. Nowhere, however, are the impacts greater than in 
my home State of Hawaii. Hawaii is known for its biodiversity. Hawaii 
has more than 10,000 species found nowhere else on Earth. 
Unfortunately, invasive species are the number one cause of the decline 
of Hawaii's threatened and endangered species. This is a serious 
concern because of the 114 endangered species that have become extinct 
during the first 20 years of the Endangered Species Act, almost half 
were in Hawaii. Recently, gall wasps were found laying eggs in wiliwili 
trees. These trees were once a dominant species in dry Hawaiian 
forests. Now they are nearly 90 percent gone with the remnants of the 
remaining trees, primarily found on Maui and the Big Island, threatened 
by the invasive gall wasp. The fragility of our native species is 
compounded by the fact that most introduced species have no natural 
predators in the State, and such predators cannot simply cross a State 
border to enter Hawaii. Hawaii's Invasive Species Partnerships, a group 
comprised of a state council and island-based committees stated in its 
2004 report that ``the silent invasion of Hawaii by alien invasive 
species is the single greatest threat to Hawaii's economy, natural 
environment, and the health and lifestyle of Hawaii's people and 
visitors.'' Hawaii is plagued with pest invasions to a greater extent 
than almost any other location in the world. The invasion has limited 
our agricultural export market, decreased bio-diversity in the forests, 
and decimated native bird populations. It is imperative that this 
serious issue receive our full attention.
  Let me give you just a few examples of invasive species problems in 
Hawaii. Control efforts for the Formosan ground termite are estimated 
to cost residents in Hawaii more than $150 million per year. Damage to 
our agricultural industry and the related control costs of the 
Mediterranean fruit fly are more than $450 million annually. Miconia, 
an invasive tree infesting more than 15,000 acres of rainforest in 
Hawaii, eliminates the habitat of endangered plants and animals and 
causes serious erosion problems that threaten our water supply. Bush 
Beardgrass is a drought-tolerant grass that increases the risk of 
brushfires. Wildlife authorities say the grass is beyond control on 
Kauai and the Big Island. Native birds in our rainforests are 
succumbing to malaria spread through introduced mosquitos. Coqui frogs 
can reach densities of 8,000 frogs per acre and threaten Hawaii's real 
estate, export floriculture, and nursery industries. The brown tree 
snake has invaded Guam and devastated native bird populations there. If 
the snakes become established in Hawaii, economic costs have been 
estimated to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars. Red fire ants 
threaten the agriculture industry in Hawaii and in 14 Southern States, 
causing more than $2 billion in annual damage. As you can see, the list 
of problems is long and the time to address the issue of invasive 
species is now, before even more serious problems crop up.
  With 73 percent of land in the continental U.S. held privately, our 
Federal lands will not be adequately protected without public-private 
partnerships. My bill requires coordination between the National 
Invasive Species Council, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and State invasive species councils and 
plans. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
grants to promote the development of voluntary State assessments to 
establish inventories and priorities for controlling invasive species. 
This is a critical step in establishing an invasives program, but many 
States do not have the resources to carry out this critical assessment. 
The legislation also provides additional grants to public or private 
entities, or Indian tribes, to carry out in partnership with a Federal 
agency an eradication, containment, or management project on Federal 
land or adjacent land. Control grants are cost-shared with partners. 
The criteria for ranking control projects include shared priorities in 
State and Federal plans, the severity of the invasive species impact on 
a State, and whether the project fosters results through public-private 
partnerships. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill provides 
rapid response funds for States facing new outbreaks of invasive 
species, to eradicate serious new outbreaks. Rapid response funds are 
critical to States in order to combat newly identified invasives.
  I was pleased to see that Federal departments would receive an 
overall increase for the seven invasive species general categories in 
the President's fiscal year 2006 proposed budget. I appreciate the 
consideration that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have 
given this important issue. However, I was dismayed to see that the 
budget for the category of control of invasive species declined by $25 
million from its fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Control is an 
essential element in combating invasive species and requires additional 
funding.
  I would like to acknowledge the fine work being accomplished by the 
National Park Service in establishing its Exotic Plant Management 
Teams. These Teams are designed to provide a highly trained, mobile 
strike force of plant management specialists to assist parks in the 
control of exotic plants. Approximately 2.6 million acres in the 
national parks are infected and 234 parks have invasive animals in need 
of management. To date, 17 Teams have been deployed throughout the 
country. I am grateful to the Pacific Island Team for its efforts to 
protect increasingly rare native communities in the Hawaiian Islands 
from invasion. Control of exotic species is one of the most significant 
land management issues facing national parks. Although I applaud the 
current efforts of the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest 
Service, a more coordinated and forceful attack on invasive species is 
needed. The attack must have robust funding and work in partnership 
with the States.
  I am particularly pleased that the State of Hawaii is taking a 
leadership role in addressing its invasive species problems. Two years 
ago the Hawaii State Legislature established the Hawaii Invasive 
Species Council to coordinate the State's fight against animal and 
plant invaders, with the Department of Agriculture and the Department 
of Land and Natural Resources in leading roles. The Hawaii State 
Legislature has directed approximately $8 million to the invasives 
campaign so far. The Hawaii Invasive Species Council and each county 
council are committed to a proactive approach to preserve the 
environmental heritage and economic security of our communities for 
generations to come. In addition, many public and private partnerships 
have been formed to protect our common natural resources. For example, 
the East Maui Watershed Partnership brings together multiple public and 
private landowners and the County of Maui to control invasive species 
and protect 100,000 acres of our prime watershed areas. This is just 
one example of many highly successful and dedicated partnerships in 
Hawaii working to preserve our invaluable resources.
  The National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, a coalition 
of representatives from major environmental organizations, has extended 
its full support for this legislation. Its letter of support calls this 
bill ``one of the best legislative proposals to date to deal with the 
growing threat that invasive species pose to our nation's ecological 
and economic health.'' The State of Hawaii, Department of Land and 
Natural Resources, also supports the bill. The Department acknowledges 
that success in invasive species projects in Hawaii have come largely

[[Page 18996]]

from the formation of strong partnerships between State, County and 
Federal agencies and private groups -exactly what my legislation 
endorses. My bill is also supported by the Conservation Council of 
Hawaii, the National Wildlife Federation affiliate in Hawaii. I greatly 
appreciate these endorsements.
  As Federal efforts to combat the growing tide of invasive species 
increase, some landowners and private property advocates are concerned 
that increased efforts to combat invasives and support native plants 
and animals could lead to the next big government invasion of private 
lands. Let me assure you this is not a property rights issue. Any 
action taken by governments or nonprofits through this bill can occur 
only with the participation and willingness of the property owner.
  There are increasingly severe problems and economic burdens 
associated with invasive species in our Nation that are borne at the 
State and local levels. If ever there was a time to commit to defending 
the security of our domestic resources for the future, it is now. My 
legislation provides the support necessary for agencies, organizations, 
and individuals to implement cooperative projects to address new 
threats and long-standing invasive species problems. This is an issue 
that must be confronted.
  I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the 
Record, as well as the letters of support from Hawaii and national 
groups, and urge my colleagues to support my legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1541

       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 ``Public Land Protection and 
     Conservation Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to encourage partnerships among 
     Federal, State, and local agencies, nongovernmental entities, 
     and Indian tribes to protect, enhance, restore, and manage 
     public land and adjacent land through the control of invasive 
     species by--
       (1) promoting the development of voluntary State 
     assessments to establish priorities for controlling invasive 
     species;
       (2) promoting greater cooperation among Federal, State, and 
     local land and water managers and owners of private land or 
     other interests to implement strategies to control and 
     mitigate the spread of invasive species through a voluntary 
     and incentive-based financial assistance grant program;
       (3) establishing a rapid response capability to combat 
     incipient invasive species invasions; and
       (4) modifying the requirements applicable to the National 
     Invasive Species Council.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Control.--The term ``control'' means--
       (A) eradicating, suppressing, reducing, or managing 
     invasive species in areas in which the species are present;
       (B) taking steps to detect early infestations of invasive 
     species on Public land and adjacent land that is at risk of 
     being infested; and
       (C) restoring native ecosystems to reverse or reduce the 
     impacts of invasive species.
       (2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the National 
     Invasive Species Council established by section 3 of 
     Executive Order No. 13112 (64 Fed. Reg. 6184).
       (3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (4) Invasive species.--The term ``invasive species'' means, 
     with respect to a particular ecosystem, any animal, plant, or 
     other organism (including biological material of the animal, 
     plant, or other organism that is capable of propagating the 
     species)--
       (A) that is not native to the ecosystem; and
       (B) the introduction of which causes or is likely to cause 
     economic harm, environmental harm, or harm to human health.
       (5) National management plan.--The term ``National 
     Management Plan'' means the management plan referred to in 
     section 5 of Executive Order No. 13112 (64 Fed. Reg. 6185) 
     and entitled ``Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge''.
       (6) Public land.--The term ``Public land'' means all land 
     and water that is--
       (A) owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the United 
     States; and
       (B) administered by the Department of the Interior or the 
     Forest Service.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (8) State.--The term ``State'' means--
       (A) a State of the United States;
       (B) the District of Columbia;
       (C) the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern 
     Mariana Islands;
       (D) the Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin 
     Islands;
       (E) the Federated States of Micronesia;
       (F) the Republic of the Marshall Islands; and
       (G) the Republic of Palau.

     SEC. 4. NATIVE HERITAGE ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Assessment Grants.--The Secretary may provide to a 
     State a grant to carry out an assessment project consistent 
     with relevant invasive species management plans of the State 
     to--
       (1) identify invasive species that occur in the State;
       (2) survey the extent of invasive species in the State;
       (3) assess the needs to restore, manage, or enhance native 
     ecosystems in the State;
       (4) identify priorities for actions to address those needs;
       (5) incorporate, as applicable, the guidelines of the 
     National Management Plan; and
       (6) identify methods to--
       (A) control or detect incipient infestations of invasive 
     species in the State; or
       (B) control or assess established populations of invasive 
     species in the State.
       (b) Control Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may provide grants to 
     appropriate public or private entities and Indian tribes to 
     carry out, in partnership with a Federal agency, control 
     projects for the management or eradication of invasive 
     species on Public land or adjacent land that--
       (A) include plans for--
       (i) monitoring the project areas; and
       (ii) maintaining effective control of invasive species 
     after the completion of the projects, including through the 
     conduct of restoration activities;
       (B) in the case of a project on adjacent land, are carried 
     out with the consent of the owner of the adjacent land; and
       (C) provide public notice to, and conduct outreach 
     activities relating to the control projects in, communities 
     in which control projects are carried out.
       (2) Priority.--In prioritizing grants for control projects, 
     the Secretary shall consider--
       (A) the extent to which a project would address--
       (i) the priorities of a State for invasive species control; 
     and
       (ii) the priorities for invasive species management on 
     Public land, such as the priorities for management on 
     National Park System and National Forest System land;
       (B) the estimated number of, or extent of infestation by, 
     invasive species in the State;
       (C) whether a project would encourage increased 
     coordination and cooperation among 1 or more Federal agencies 
     and State or local government agencies to control invasive 
     species;
       (D) whether a project--
       (i) fosters public-private partnerships; and
       (ii) uses Federal resources to encourage increased private 
     sector involvement, including the provision of private funds 
     or in-kind contributions;
       (E) the extent to which a project would aid the 
     conservation of species included on Federal or State lists of 
     threatened or endangered species;
       (F) whether a project includes pilot testing or a 
     demonstration of an innovative technology that has the 
     potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of controlling 
     invasive species; and
       (G) the extent to which a project--
       (i) considers the potential for unintended consequences of 
     control methods on native species; and
       (ii) includes contingency measures to address the 
     unintended consequences.
       (c) Duties of the Secretary.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) not later than 180 days after the date on which funds 
     are made available to carry out this Act, publish guidelines 
     and solicit applications for grants under this section;
       (2) not later than 1 year after the date on which funds are 
     made available to carry out this Act, evaluate and approve or 
     disapprove applications for grants submitted under this 
     section;
       (3) consult with the Council on--
       (A) any projects proposed for grants under this section, 
     including the priority of proposed projects for the grants; 
     and
       (B) providing a definition of the term ``adjacent land'' 
     for purposes of the control grant program under subsection 
     (b);
       (4) consult with the advisory committee established under 
     section 3(b) of Executive Order No. 13112 (64 Fed. Reg. 6184) 
     on projects proposed for a grant under this section, 
     including the scientific merit, technical merit, and 
     feasibility of a proposed project; and
       (5) if a project is conducted on National Forest System 
     land, consult with the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (d) Grant Duration.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     grant under this section shall provide funding for the 
     Federal share of the cost of a project for not more than 2 
     fiscal years.
       (2) Renewal of control projects.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary, after reviewing the 
     reports submitted under subsection (f) with respect to a 
     control project,

[[Page 18997]]

     finds that the project is making satisfactory progress, the 
     Secretary may renew a grant under this section for an 
     additional 3 fiscal years.
       (B) Implementation of monitoring and maintenance plan.--The 
     Secretary may renew a grant under this section to implement 
     the monitoring and maintenance plan required for a control 
     project under subsection (b) for not more than 10 years after 
     the project is otherwise complete.
       (e) Distribution of Control Grant Awards.--In making grants 
     for control projects under subsection (b), the Secretary 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that--
       (1) at least 50 percent of control project funds are spent 
     on land adjacent to Public land; and
       (2) there is a balance of smaller and larger control 
     projects conducted with grants under that subsection.
       (f) Reporting by Grant Recipient.--
       (1) Assessment projects.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date on which a grant is provided under subsection (a), a 
     grant recipient carrying out an assessment project shall 
     submit to the Secretary and the Governor of the State in 
     which the assessment project is carried out a report on the 
     assessment project.
       (2) Control projects.--A grant recipient carrying out a 
     control project under subsection (b) shall submit to the 
     Secretary--
       (A) an annual synopsis of the control project; and
       (B) a report on the control project not later than the 
     earlier of--
       (i) at least once every 2 years; or
       (ii) the date on which the grant expires.
       (3) Contents.--A report submitted under this subsection 
     shall include--
       (A) a detailed accounting of--
       (i) the funding made available for the project; and
       (ii) any expenditures made for the project; and
       (B) with respect to a control project--
       (i) a chronological list of any progress made with respect 
     to the project;
       (ii) specific information on the methods and techniques 
     used to control invasive species in the project area;
       (iii) trends in the population size and distribution of 
     invasive species in the project area; and
       (iv) the number of acres of the native ecosystem protected 
     or restored.
       (g) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
       (1) Projects on adjacent land.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Federal share of the cost of a control project carried 
     out on adjacent land shall be not more than 75 percent.
       (B) Certain control projects.--The Federal share of a 
     control project carried out on adjacent land that uses pilot 
     testing, demonstrates an innovative technology, or provides 
     for the conservation of threatened or endangered species 
     shall be 85 percent.
       (2) Projects on public land.--The Federal share of the cost 
     of the portion of a control project that is carried out on 
     Public land shall be 100 percent.
       (3) Application of in-kind contributions.--The Secretary 
     may apply to the non-Federal share of the costs of a control 
     project the fair market value of services or any other form 
     of in-kind contribution to the project made by a non-Federal 
     entity.
       (4) Derivation of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share 
     of the cost of a control project carried out with a grant 
     under this section may not be derived from a Federal grant 
     program or other Federal funds.
       (h) Reporting by Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that--
       (A) describes the implementation of this section; and
       (B) includes a determination whether the grants authorized 
     under subsections (a) and (b) should be expanded to land and 
     water that are owned and administered by Federal agencies 
     other than the Department of the Interior or the Forest 
     Service.
       (2) Contents.--A report under paragraph (1) shall include a 
     review of control projects, including--
       (A) a list of control projects selected, in progress, and 
     completed;
       (B) an assessment of project impacts, including--
       (i) areas treated; and
       (ii)(I) if feasible, a measurement of invasive species 
     eradicated; or
       (II) an estimate of the extent to which invasive species 
     have been reduced or contained;
       (C) the success and failure of control techniques used;
       (D) an accounting of expenditures by Federal, State, 
     regional, and local government agencies and other entities to 
     carry out the projects;
       (E) a review of efforts made to maintain an appropriate 
     database of projects assisted under this section; and
       (F) a review of the geographical distribution of Federal 
     funds, matching funds, and in-kind contributions provided for 
     projects.

     SEC. 5. RAPID RESPONSE ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide financial 
     assistance to States, local governments, public or private 
     entities, and Indian tribes for a period of 1 fiscal year to 
     enable States, local governments, nongovernmental entities, 
     and Indian tribes to rapidly respond to outbreaks of invasive 
     species that are at a stage at which rapid eradication or 
     control is possible.
       (b) Requirements for Assistance.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) at the request of the Governor of a State--
       (A) provide assistance under this section to the State, a 
     local government, public or private entity, or Indian tribe 
     for the eradication of an immediate invasive species threat 
     in the State if--
       (i) there is a demonstrated need for the assistance;
       (ii) the invasive species is considered to be an immediate 
     threat to native ecosystems, human health, or the economy, as 
     determined by the Secretary; and
       (iii) the proposed response of the State, local government, 
     public or private entity, or Indian tribe to the threat--

       (I) is technically feasible; and
       (II) minimizes adverse impacts to native ecosystems and 
     non-target species; or

       (B) if the requirements under subparagraph (A) are not met, 
     submit to the Governor of the State, not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the Secretary received the request, 
     written notice that the State is not eligible for assistance 
     under this section;
       (2) determine the amount of financial assistance to be 
     provided under this section, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, with respect to an outbreak of an invasive 
     species;
       (3) require that entities receiving assistance under this 
     section monitor and report on activities carried out with 
     such assistance in the same manner that control project grant 
     recipients monitor and report on such activities; and
       (4) expedite environmental and regulatory reviews to ensure 
     that an outbreak of invasive species can be addressed within 
     the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the State 
     notifies the Secretary of the outbreak.

     SEC. 6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER AUTHORITIES.

       Nothing in this Act affects authorities, responsibilities, 
     obligations, or powers of the Secretary under any other 
     statute.

     SEC. 7. BUDGET CROSSCUT.

       Not later than March 31, 2006, and each year thereafter, 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     consultation with the Council, shall submit to Congress--
       (1) a comprehensive budget analysis and summary of Federal 
     programs relating to invasive species; and
       (2) a list of general priorities, ranked in high, medium, 
     and low categories, of Federal efforts and programs in--
       (A) prevention;
       (B) early detection and rapid response;
       (C) eradication, control, management, and restoration;
       (D) research and monitoring;
       (E) information management; and
       (F) public outreach and partnership efforts.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Assessment Grants.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out assessment 
     projects under section 4(a)--
       (1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2007 through 2010.
       (b) Control Grants.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out control projects 
     under section 4(b)--
       (1) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2007 through 2010.
       (c) Rapid Response Assistance.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section 5--
       (1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2007 through 2010.
       (d) Continuing Availability.--Amounts made available under 
     this section shall remain available until expended.
       (e) Administrative Expenses of Secretary.--Of amounts made 
     available each fiscal year to carry out this Act, the 
     Secretary may expend not more than 5 percent to pay the 
     administrative expenses necessary to carry out this Act.
                                  ____

                                        The National Environmental


                                Coalition on Invasive Species,

                                                    July 22, 2005.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: The member organizations of the 
     National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species are 
     writing in support of the Pubic Land Protection and 
     Conservation Act of 2005.
       Separately, our individual organizations have protested 
     millions of acres of land; worked with thousands of corporate 
     partners, affiliates, and community groups; and provided 
     scientific, economic, and legal analyses that advocate 
     responsible policy solutions to the international, national, 
     and local level.
       Together, our organizations have over six million 
     individual members and supporters. The threat that invasive 
     species pose to our environment and economy and our interest

[[Page 18998]]

     in finding equitable, practical, and cost-effective solutions 
     to this environmental problem unites us in this Coalition.
       Invasive species that choke out, devour, and destroy native 
     wildlife and their habitat have infested more than 100 
     million acres of the American landscape. An additional three 
     million acres are lost each year to invasive weeds--an area 
     equal to a strip of land two miles wide stretching from coast 
     to coat. Invasive species are one of the most critical 
     threats to America's natural diversity and pose clear risks 
     to the nation's waters, forests, farmlands, rangelands, 
     wetlands, natural area, and public and private property 
     values. Experts estimates that these fast moving invaders are 
     already causing $130 billion of damage each year to the 
     economy.
       The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005 is 
     one of the best legislative proposals to date to deal with 
     the growing threat that invasive species pose to our nation's 
     ecological and economic health. We applaud this effort to use 
     federal funding as an incentive to encourage local government 
     agencies, private organizations, and individuals to be more 
     proactive in managing invasive and invading species. The 
     Native Heritage Control Grant Program offered in the bill is 
     noteworthy not only in that it provides such incentives, but 
     also in that it provides additional encouragement for 
     innovative technologies and work to benefit endangered 
     species. The Control Grant Program is aptly tailored to 
     encourage partnerships and work on federal and non-federal 
     land. Invasive species do not respect administrative or 
     political boundaries and we cannot hope to protect the best 
     federal lands without the cooperation of neighboring 
     landowners. Similarly helping private landowners and local 
     governments deal with their invasive species problems is also 
     extremely important, as recognized in this bill.
       The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005 
     reflects some of the latest scientific conclusions on 
     invasive species--we strongly support your esblishment of 
     `rapid response' funding to deal with incipient invasions. 
     There is broad consensus among organizations, scientists, and 
     state and federal agencies that eradicating invaders before 
     they become widely established is second only to prevention 
     as the most cost-effective and ultimately successful way to 
     stop invasions. This rapid response program will be critical 
     if the brown tree snake) Boiga irregularis) ever reaches 
     Hawaii from Guam, if the European green crab (Carcinus 
     maenas) ever reaches Alaska from California, or countless 
     other potential invasions occur on our coasts, inland 
     rangelands, grasslands, wetland, and waterways.
       The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005 
     contains useful deadlines and guidance to help ensure that 
     Assessment Grants, Rapid Response Assistance, and Control 
     Grants are delivered effectively, translating into meaningful 
     conservation results on the ground. The Coalition strongly 
     supports the inclusion of this language, which will help get 
     these programs up and running quickly, and help ensure quick 
     success against rapidly spreading problems. As this bill 
     recognizes, it is particularly important for Rapid Response 
     Assistance to be delivered as quickly as possible after a 
     state requests such assistance, because time is of the 
     essence to prevent new invaders from getting a foothold 
     within a state.
       The National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species 
     supports this proposed legislation as now written. The grant 
     programs it establishes are sorely needed to address the 
     widespread damage being caused by invasive species all across 
     America. We look forward to working with you and your staff 
     on this legislation that will help address America's dire 
     invasive species problem.
           Sincerely,
     Gaby Chavarria, Ph.D,
       Vice President for Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife.
     Peter T. Jenkins,
       Attorney/Policy Analyst, International Center for 
     Technology Assessment.
     Timothy male, Ph.D,
       Senior Ecologist, Environemtnal Defense.
     Mike Daulton,
       Assistant Director, National Audubon Society.
     Adam Kolotn,
       Director, Congressional & Federal Affairs, National 
     Wildlife Federation.
     Phyllis N. Windle, Ph.D,
       Senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists.
     John M. Randall,
       Director, Invasive Species Initiative, The Nature 
     Conservancy.
                                  ____

                                                    June 14, 2004.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Akaka: The Conservation Council of Hawaii 
     commends you for introducing the Public Land Protection and 
     Conservation Act of 2004. This bill will be instrumental in 
     preventing the invasion of new invasive species, and help 
     prevent the spread of invasives that have already taken root 
     in the United States.
       In Hawaii, we know first hand that invasive species choke 
     out, devour, and destroy native wildlife and their habitat. 
     Throughout the nation, invasive species have infested more 
     than 100 million acres of the American landscape and an 
     additional three million acres are lost each year to invasive 
     weeds. Invasive species are one of the most critical threats 
     to America's natural diversity and pose clear risks to the 
     nation's waters, forests, farmlands, rangelands, wetlands, 
     natural areas, and public and private property values. 
     Experts estimate that these fast moving invaders are already 
     causing $130 billion of damage each year to the economy and 
     are the second leading cause, after habitat loss, for 
     wildlife being listed as threatened and endangered.
       The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2004 is 
     one of the best legislative proposals to date to deal with 
     the growing threat that invasive species pose to our nation's 
     ecological and economic health. We applaud this effort to use 
     federal funding as an incentive to encourage local government 
     agencies, private organizations, and individuals to be more 
     proactive in managing invasive and invading species. The 
     Native Heritage Control Grant Program offered in the bill is 
     noteworthy not only in that it provides such incentives, but 
     also in that it provides additional encouragement for 
     innovative technologies and work to benefit endangered 
     species. The Control Grant Program is aptly tailored to 
     encourage partnerships and work on federal and non-federal 
     land. Invasive species do not respect administrative or 
     political boundaries and we cannot hope to protect the best 
     federal lands without the cooperation of neighboring 
     landowners. Similarly, helping private landowners and local 
     governments deal with their invasive species problems is also 
     extremely important, as recognized in this bill.
       The Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2004 
     reflects some of the latest scientific conclusions on 
     invasive species--we strongly support your establishment of 
     `rapid response' funding to deal with incipient invasions. 
     There is broad consensus among organizations, scientists, and 
     state and federal agencies that eradicating invaders before 
     they become widely established is second only to prevention 
     as the most cost-effective and ultimately successful way to 
     stop invasions. This rapid response program will be critical 
     if the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) ever reaches 
     Hawaii from Guam, if the European green crab (Carcinus 
     maenas) ever reaches Alaska from California, or countless 
     other potential invasions occur on our coasts, inland 
     rangelands, grasslands, wetlands, and waterways.
       The Conservation Council of Hawaii strongly supports this 
     proposed legislation. We look forward to working with you and 
     your staff on this legislation to ensure its successful 
     passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Marjorie Ziegler,
     President, Conservation Council of Hawaii.
                                  ____

         State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural 
           Resources,
                                     Honolulu, HI, April 22, 2004.
     Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
     Prince Kuhio Federal Building,
     Honolulu, HI.
       Dear Senator Akaka: I would like to thank you and 
     acknowledge the State of Hawaii's support for the Public Land 
     Conservation Act of 2004. We feel this legislation will 
     achieve its stated purpose of encouraging Federal, State, 
     local and nongovernmental partnerships to assess and control 
     invasive species on Federal and adjacent lands.
       I believe that Hawaii is the best state model for 
     developing strategies for federal agencies, not only to work 
     together more effectively, but also to work in partnership 
     with state and local government entities. Increasing success 
     in invasive species projects in Hawaii has come largely from 
     the formation of strong partnerships between State, County 
     and Federal agencies and private groups. Just as many 
     landowners and businesses are affected by the same invasive 
     species concerns, many agencies are responsible for the 
     pathways that bring potentially invasive species into Hawaii, 
     regulate their movement and control their spread.
       Partnerships to address invasive species issues have been 
     responsible for the greatest improvements in Hawaii's ability 
     to respond to recognized priority pests. In Hawaii, combining 
     limited resources, authority, and expertise has led to the 
     creation of Invasive Species Committees that carry out on the 
     ground actions, the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species 
     that has allowed agency staff to develop integrated policies 
     within the state and most recently the Hawaii Invasive 
     Species Council composed of State agency heads.
       Implementation of current management plans developed by 
     coordinated efforts of relevant public agencies and affected 
     local constituents in Hawaii can help build the framework to 
     begin or enhance larger-scale regional strategies to combat 
     wide-ranging

[[Page 18999]]

     invasive species. Federal investments to support local, 
     State, and regional partners who are prepared to take action 
     now against known priority invasive species will provide 
     valuable lessons for other regions and promote innovation and 
     efficiency in protection and public outreach strategies. By 
     promoting their progress, these partnerships will in turn 
     help identify the policy and legal obstacles to success as 
     well as build a constituency for more effective invasive-
     species prevention and control programs in other areas.
       Please let me know of any way that we can help support this 
     important piece of legislation. Mahalo.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Peter T. Young,
                                                       Chairperson
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  II S. 1545. A bill to withdraw the Los Padres National Forest in 
California from location, entry, and patent under mining laws, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that 
would ban additional oil and gas drilling in the Los Padres National 
Forest. My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, joins me in 
this effort. Representative Capps introduced companion legislation in 
the House of Representatives earlier this month.
  Los Padres National Forest is on California's central coast, 
stretching from Monterey County's Big Sur down to Ventura and the 
western edge of Los Angeles County. Covering almost 1.75 million acres, 
it is California's third-largest national forest and one of the State's 
most visited. Los Padres National Forest is an ecological treasure and 
a recreational refuge in one of California's, indeed America's, most 
densely populated areas.
  It provides habitat for 20 threatened and endangered wildlife 
species, including the spectacular California condor. Los Padres also 
contains unexplored archaeological sites that contain Native American 
historical artifacts.
  Yet, despite these facts and strong local opposition to oil and gas 
drilling in the Forest, the Forest Service announced today that it will 
open up more than 52,000 acres of land to oil and gas drilling in Los 
Padres National Forest. While this is far less land than the Forest 
Service previously considered opening, additional drilling is simply 
unacceptable. That is why I am introducing legislation to prevent this 
new drilling, and any future drilling from occurring in Los Padres 
National Forest.
  Additional oil and gas drilling will threaten the pristine and 
unspoiled lands in the Forest. It could damage or destroy Native 
American artifacts. And, it could ruin recreational opportunities by 
contaminating streams and increasing air pollution.
  My legislation is a critical step toward protecting the irreplaceable 
natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Los Padres 
National Forest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1548. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain Forest 
Service land to the city of Coffman Cove, Alaska; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that is very 
important to a small community in my home State of Alaska. This bill 
will authorize the U.S. Forest Service to convey approximately 12 acres 
of land, which it no longer needs but continues to own in Coffman Cove, 
AK to the city of Coffman Cove. The bill authorizes that the land, a 
former administrative site, be conveyed without charge to the city 
which has a population of about 230 people.
  Coffman Cove was founded in 1965 as a logging community to provide 
support for the timber industry on Prince of Wales Island in the 
Tongass National Forest. It operated for almost 35 years in that 
capacity. Due to changes in Federal policy, the timber industry on the 
island no longer provides the economic base necessary to sustain 
Coffman Cove. Attempts at economic diversification are very difficult 
so long as the Forest Service holds in Federal ownership these 12 acres 
which literally occupy the center of this small community.
  Just a few years ago, the Forest Service in conjunction with the 
timber industry completed the environmental cleanup of the logging site 
and facility at Coffman Cove. That cleanup was funded by the timber 
industry as good corporate citizens. The result of the cleanup is that 
the 12 acres can now be made available for disposal to the city.
  This bill, in which I am joined by my colleague Mr. Stevens, would 
convey title to the City without cost so that it can begin a 
redevelopment plan for the community. The city of Coffman Cove needs 
this land if it is to hope to reorient its economy from a principally 
logging community to a more diversified economic community. A small 
town of 230 people simply does not have the funds to purchase this land 
and the Federal Government needs to pitch in by conveying full title 
without cost to the community.
  This is only fair since the Federal Government's change in timber 
policy has created the city's dilemma. As a result of the change in 
timber policy with which the Senate is so familiar, the city has been 
set adrift to fend for itself economically. And it has done a good job. 
It will soon become the southern terminus for the Inter-Island Ferry 
Authority's new northern route which will connect Prince of Wales 
Island with Wrangell and Petersburg. The new route will go into service 
in the next few months and this should provide an economic boost to the 
community.
  But, Coffman Cove must control the land in the heart of its community 
if it is to economically diversify. For the new ferry route to bring 
economic development to the City, the City must able to sell, rent, or 
develop its local land base. The 12 acres which are the subject of my 
bill are the 12 key acres right in the center of town. Now this is a 
small town and without control of this land, the City cannot ever 
successfully diversity and recovers from the change in its economy as a 
result of the change in Federal timber policy.
  This Forest Service desires to retain a 3 acre site for its continued 
administrative purposes. My bill does not affect that site and I expect 
the Forest Service to have no problem with the land conveyance 
locations provided in this bill. I appreciate the assistance of the 
Forest Service in helping me to draft the legislation.
  This conveyance fulfills the Federal Government's commitment that 
changes in Federal timber policy would be matched by Federal help to 
the local communities to diversify. It is absolutely appropriate and 
fair to offer Coffman Cove this former Forest Service administrative 
site that no longer has value to the Federal government but that is 
crucial to Coffman Cove as it plans its future.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1548

       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 ``Coffman Cove Administrative 
     Site Conveyance Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the community of Coffman Cove, Alaska, which originated 
     as a logging camp in the 1960's, was incorporated as a city 
     in 1989;
       (2) the Forest Service property located in the center of 
     the City was used by the Forest Service as a work center;
       (3) the Forest Service work facilities included part of the 
     logging camp, a log sort yard, and a log transfer site, all 
     of which supported the long-term timber sale operations and 
     other subsequent timber sales in the Tongass National Forest;
       (4) as the long-term timber sale operations concluded, the 
     need for the Forest Service to use the Forest Service site in 
     Coffman Cove diminished;
       (5) the Forest Service work center facilities that 
     supported timber operations have been removed and the site 
     has been restored;
       (6) the location of the administrative site interferes with 
     the ability of the City to further develop commercial 
     operations and tourism support facilities relating to a new 
     ferry terminal;

[[Page 19000]]

       (7) the City wants to acquire a portion of the site to 
     continue the transition of the City from a timber-dependent 
     economy to a more fully developed and diversified economy; 
     and
       (8) the Forest Service expects that only approximately 3 
     acres of the administrative site will be used in the future 
     for National Forest System purposes.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Coffman 
     Cove, Alaska.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 4. CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall convey to the City, without 
     consideration and without additional warrants or liability on 
     behalf of the United States, fee simple title to the parcel 
     of Forest Service land described in subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The parcel of Forest Service land referred 
     to in subsection (a) is the approximately 12 acres of land 
     identified in U.S. Survey 10099, as depicted on the plat 
     entitled ``Subdivision of U.S. Survey No. 10099'' and 
     recorded as Plat 2003-1 on January 21, 2003, Petersburg 
     Recording District, Alaska.
       (2) Excluded land.--The parcel of Forest Service land 
     conveyed under subsection (a) does not include the portion of 
     U.S. Survey 10099 that is north of the right-of-way for 
     Forest Development Road 3030-295 and southeast of Tract CC-8.
       (c) Right-of-way.--The United States may reserve a right-
     of-way to provide access to the Forest Service land excluded 
     from the conveyance to the City under subsection (b)(2).

                          ____________________




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

    SENATE RESOLUTION 218--DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 2005 AS ``NATIONAL 
                   PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH''

  Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
Bunning, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Durbin) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

                              S. Res. 218

       Whereas countless families in the United States have a 
     family member that suffers from prostate cancer;
       Whereas 1 in 6 men in the United States is diagnosed with 
     prostate cancer;
       Whereas throughout the past decade, prostate cancer has 
     been the most commonly diagnosed type of cancer other than 
     skin cancer and the second most common cause of cancer-
     related deaths among men in the United States;
       Whereas, in 2005, more than 232,090 men in the United 
     States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 30,350 men 
     in the United States will die of prostate cancer according to 
     estimates from the American Cancer Society;
       Whereas 30 percent of the new diagnoses of prostate cancer 
     occur in men under the age of 65;
       Whereas a man in the United States turns 50 years old about 
     every 14 seconds, increasing his odds of being diagnosed with 
     prostate cancer;
       Whereas African American males suffer from prostate cancer 
     at an incidence rate up to 65 percent higher than white males 
     and at a mortality rate double that of white males;
       Whereas obesity is a significant predictor of the severity 
     of prostate cancer and the chance that the disease will lead 
     to death;
       Whereas if a man in the United States has 1 family member 
     diagnosed with prostate cancer, he has double the risk of 
     prostate cancer, if he has 2 family members with such 
     diagnosis, he has 5 times the risk, and if he has 3 family 
     members with such diagnosis, he has a 97 percent risk of 
     prostate cancer;
       Whereas screening by both a digital rectal examination 
     (DRE) and a prostate specific antigen blood test (PSA) can 
     detect prostate cancer in earlier and more treatable stages 
     and reduce the rate of mortality due to the disease;
       Whereas ongoing research promises further improvements in 
     prostate cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments; 
     and
       Whereas educating people in the United States, including 
     health care providers, about prostate cancer and early 
     detection strategies is crucial to saving the lives of men 
     and preserving and protecting our families: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) designates September 2005 and September 2006 as 
     ``National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month'';
       (2) declares that the Federal Government has a 
     responsibility to--
       (A) raise awareness about the importance of screening 
     methods and the treatment of prostate cancer;
       (B) increase research funding to be proportionate with the 
     burden of prostate cancer so that the causes of the disease, 
     improved screening and treatments, and ultimately a cure may 
     be discovered; and
       (C) continue to consider methods to improve both access to 
     and the quality of health care services for detecting and 
     treating prostate cancer; and
       (3) calls on the people of the United States, interested 
     groups, and affected persons to--
       (A) promote awareness of prostate cancer;
       (B) take an active role in the fight to end the devastating 
     effects of prostate cancer on individuals, their families, 
     and the economy; and
       (C) observe September 2005 and September 2006 with 
     appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                          ____________________




   SENATE RESOLUTION 219--DESIGNATING MARCH 8, 2006, AS ``ENDANGERED 
   SPECIES DAY'', AND ENCOURAGING THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO 
   BECOME EDUCATED ABOUT, AND AWARE OF, THREATS TO SPECIES, SUCCESS 
  STORIES IN SPECIES RECOVERY, AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE SPECIES 
                         CONSERVATION WORLDWIDE

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Crapo) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
on the Judiciary:

                              S. Res. 219

       Whereas in the United States and around the world, more 
     than 1,000 species are officially designated as at risk of 
     extinction and thousands more also face a heightened risk of 
     extinction;
       Whereas the actual and potential benefits derived from many 
     species have not yet been fully discovered and would be 
     permanently lost if not for conservation efforts;
       Whereas recovery efforts for species such as the whooping 
     crane, Kirtland's warbler, the peregrine falcon, the gray 
     wolf, the gray whale, the grizzly bear, and others have 
     resulted in great improvements in the viability of such 
     species;
       Whereas saving a species requires a combination of sound 
     research, careful coordination, and intensive management of 
     conservation efforts, along with increased public awareness 
     and education; and
       Whereas education and increasing public awareness are the 
     first steps in effectively informing the public about 
     endangered species and species restoration efforts: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) designates March 8, 2006, as ``Endangered Species 
     Day''; and
       (2) encourages--
       (A) educational entities to spend at least 30 minutes on 
     ``Endangered Species Day'' teaching and informing students 
     about threats to, and the restoration of, endangered species 
     around the world;
       (B) organizations, businesses, and agencies with a shared 
     interest in conserving endangered species to collaborate on 
     educational information for use in schools; and
       (C) the people of the United States to observe the day with 
     appropriate ceremonies and activities.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to 
establish ``Endangered Species Day'' on March 8, 2006. I am submitting 
this resolution with Senators Chafee, Clinton, and Crapo whose co-
sponsorship I greatly appreciate.
  Additionally, I want to commend my constituent Mr. David Robinson for 
suggesting the establishment of an ``Endangered Species Day.'' I have 
appreciated his hard work and dedication. Individuals like Mr. Robinson 
do make a difference.
  The designation of an ``Endangered Species Day'' provides a multitude 
of opportunities for young people, students, and the general public to 
learn more about endangered species in both our country and abroad. It 
is my hope that establishing an ``Endangered Species Day'' encourages 
schools, civic organizations, agencies, and businesses to educate the 
general public about the threats to and our efforts to restore these 
precious species in our midst. I believe that ``Endangered Species 
Day'' will foster increased communication and awareness about many of 
the most endangered species by encouraging such activities as school 
field trips to the zoo or attending a lecture at the local library.
  With the recent discovery of the once thought to be extinct Ivory-
billed Woodpecker in Arkansas and the Mount Diablo Buckwheat in 
California, I think this is an opportune moment to highlight the 
success of many of our conservation efforts. For example, in my home 
State of California, I am especially proud of the conservation and

[[Page 19001]]

management efforts that have helped significantly restore populations 
of California condor, winter run chinook salmon, the least Bell's vireo 
songbird, and the California gray whale.
  Despite these success stories, we need to be aware that more needs to 
be done. At this time, we have more than 1,000 species in the U.S. and 
abroad, which are designated as ``at risk'' for extinction. One small 
step is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the 
circumstances facing many of these endangered species and educating the 
public about these species.
  I am introducing this bill with the hope that ``Endangered Species 
Day'' can spark the wonder and interest in our youth to continue the 
conservation efforts we have begun but still are far from finishing.

                          ____________________




 SENATE RESOLUTION 220--TO EXPRESS THE CONCERN OF THE SENATE REGARDING 
THE PASSAGE OF THE ANTI-SECESSION LAW BY THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS 
   OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND TAIWAN ON AN EQUAL FOOTING 
                         WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS

  Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kyl, 
Mr. Bond, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Allard, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. 
Bingaman) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations:

                              S. Res. 220

       Whereas any attempt to determine Taiwan's future by other 
     than peaceful means and other than with the express consent 
     of the people of Taiwan is of grave concern to the United 
     States;
       Whereas the People's Republic of China increased its 
     military budget by 12.6 percent this year and currently 
     maintains approximately 700 conventional missiles and 250,000 
     troops along the Taiwan Strait;
       Whereas the National People's Congress of the People's 
     Republic of China on March 14, 2005, passed an anti-secession 
     law creating a legal framework for possible use of force 
     against Taiwan;
       Whereas the anti-secession law mandates that China use 
     military action under certain circumstances, including when 
     ``possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be 
     completely exhausted'';
       Whereas any threat of force against Taiwan only serves to 
     escalate tension between Taiwan and the People's Republic of 
     China, impede dialogue between the 2 countries, and undermine 
     regional peace and security;
       Whereas the anti-secession law endorses dialogue between 
     China and Taiwan ``on an equal footing,'' and calls on China 
     to promote peace and stability through personal exchanges, 
     closer economic ties, and other measures;
       Whereas, in recent years, Taiwan has invested more than 
     $80,000,000,000 in enterprises in China, and China is now 
     Taiwan's largest trading partner, with total trade worth over 
     $50,000,000,000;
       Whereas, on February 24, 2005, Chen Shui-bian, the 
     President of Taiwan, and James Soong, the leader of the 
     People's First Party, issued a 10-point consensus affirming 
     their commitment to preserve the status quo regarding the 
     issue of independence or unification and outlining steps to 
     reinforce economic, cultural, and academic exchanges with 
     mainland China;
       Whereas, in recent months, Lien Chan, the leader of the 
     Nationalist Party, and Mr. Soong have made private visits to 
     China and met with senior Chinese officials; and
       Whereas there have been no official talks on future 
     relations between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China 
     since 1998, and China recently rejected a proposal by Taiwan 
     for a meeting at a neutral location: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the President should direct all appropriate officials 
     of the United States Government to convey to their 
     counterpart officials in the Government of China the grave 
     concern with which the United States Government views the 
     threat of force embodied in the anti-secession law enacted by 
     the Government of the People's Republic of China in 
     particular, and the growing Chinese military threat to Taiwan 
     in general; and
       (2) the United States Government should continue to 
     encourage dialogue between the People's Republic of China and 
     Taiwan on an equal footing and without preconditions.

                          ____________________




 SENATE RESOLUTION 221--SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF ``NATIONAL 
                    CAMPUS SAFETY AWARENESS MONTH''

  Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Specter) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

                              S. Res. 221

       Whereas college and university campuses are subject to 
     criminal threats both from within and outside their borders;
       Whereas under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus 
     Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act a total of 86 
     homicides, 7,648 sex offenses, 9,649 aggravated assaults, and 
     3,590 arsons were reported on-campus from 2000 to 2002;
       Whereas between \1/5\ and \1/4\ of female students become 
     the victim of a completed or attempted rape, usually by 
     someone they know, during their college careers;
       Whereas each year more than 70,000 students between the 
     ages of 18 and 24 are victims of alcohol-related sexual 
     assault;
       Whereas each year more than 600,000 students between the 
     ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has 
     been drinking;
       Whereas 1,400 college students between the ages of 18 and 
     24 die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, 
     including motor vehicle crashes;
       Whereas each year there is approximately $2.8 million 
     dollars worth of property damage from fires on-campus;
       Whereas Security On Campus, Inc., a national group 
     dedicated to promoting safety and security on college and 
     university campuses, and the University of Wisconsin-Green 
     Bay Student Government Association have designated September 
     2005 as National Campus Safety Awareness Month; and
       Whereas the designation of National Campus Safety Awareness 
     Month provides an opportunity for colleges and universities 
     to inform students about existing campus crime trends, campus 
     security policies, crime prevention techniques, fire safety, 
     and alcohol and other drug education, prevention, and 
     treatment programs: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and ideals of 
     ``National Campus Safety Awareness Month''.

                          ____________________




  SENATE RESOLUTION 222--HONORING THE VICTORIES OF TEAM DISCOVERY AND 
AMERICAN CYCLISTS LANCE ARMSTRONG AND GEORGE HINCAPIE IN THE 2005 TOUR 
                               DE FRANCE

  Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Martinez, 
and Mr. Leahy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 222

       Whereas Team Discovery included Lance Armstrong of Texas 
     and George Hincapie of South Carolina from the United States, 
     Jose Luis Rubiera, Manuel Beltran, and Benjamin Noval from 
     Spain, Pavel Padrnos from the Czech Republic, Jose Azevedo 
     from Portugal, Paolo Savoldelli from Italy, and Yaroslav 
     Popovych from Ukraine;
       Whereas Team Discovery won the 2005 Tour de France under 
     the leadership of Lance Armstrong, who rode to victory by 
     completing the 2,232-mile, 21-stage course in 86 hours, 15 
     minutes, and 2 seconds, finishing 4 minutes and 40 seconds 
     ahead of his nearest competitor;
       Whereas, by winning the Tour de France on July 24, 2005, 
     Lance Armstrong became the only competitor in the history of 
     the Tour de France to win cycling's most prestigious race in 
     7 consecutive years;
       Whereas George Hincapie rode stage 15, which was 127.4 
     miles long and included 1 above category climb, 4 category 1 
     climbs, and 1 category 2 climb, for a total of 33.5 miles of 
     climbing at an average gradient of 7.96 percent;
       Whereas stage 15 was considered the hardest stage of the 
     2005 Tour de France and the victory of George Hincapie atop 
     Pla d'Adet marks his first Tour de France stage victory;
       Whereas George Hincapie is only the 8th competitor from the 
     United States to win a stage in the Tour de France;
       Whereas George Hincapie has participated in the Tour de 
     France 10 times and is the only teammate to assist Lance 
     Armstrong in each of his Tour de France victories;
       Whereas Lance Armstrong and George Hincapie displayed 
     incredible perseverance, determination, and leadership over 7 
     years with their teammates in prevailing over the mountainous 
     terrain of the Alps and Pyrenees and in overcoming crashes, 
     illness, hard-charging rivals, and driving rain on the way to 
     winning the premier cycling event in the world;
       Whereas, in 1996, Lance Armstrong defeated choriocarcinoma, 
     an aggressive form of testicular cancer that had spread 
     throughout his abdomen, lungs, and brain, and has remained 
     cancer-free since treatment for the disease;
       Whereas Lance Armstrong is the 1st cancer survivor to win 
     the Tour de France;
       Whereas the accomplishments of Team Discovery have made the 
     team an inspiration to millions of people around the world: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) honors--
       (A) the victory of Team Discovery in the 2005 Tour de 
     France;

[[Page 19002]]

       (B) professional cyclist Lance Armstrong for his record 7th 
     consecutive Tour de France victory; and
       (C) professional cyclist George Hincapie for his 1st Tour 
     de France stage victory; and
       (2) commends Lance Armstrong and George Hincapie for being 
     pioneers of the sport of cycling in the United States.

                          ____________________




 SENATE RESOLUTION 223--SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF ``NATIONAL 
                    LIFE INSURANCE AWARENESS MONTH''

  Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
Vitter, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Thune, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Allen) submitted 
the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 223

       Whereas life insurance is an essential part of a sound 
     financial plan;
       Whereas life insurance provides financial security for 
     families in the event of a premature death by helping 
     surviving family members meet immediate and longer-term 
     financial obligations and objectives;
       Whereas nearly 50,000,000 Americans say they lack the life 
     insurance coverage needed to ensure a secure financial future 
     for their loved ones;
       Whereas recent studies have found that when a premature 
     death occurs, insufficient life insurance coverage on the 
     part of the insured results in \3/4\ of surviving family 
     members having to take measures such as working additional 
     jobs or longer hours, borrowing money, withdrawing money from 
     savings and investment accounts, and, in too many cases, 
     moving to smaller, less expensive housing;
       Whereas individuals, families, and businesses can benefit 
     greatly from professional insurance and financial planning 
     advice, including the assessment of their life insurance 
     needs; and
       Whereas the Life and Health Insurance Foundation for 
     Education (LIFE), the National Association of Insurance and 
     Financial Advisors (NAIFA), and a coalition representing 
     hundreds of leading life insurance companies and 
     organizations have designated September 2005 as ``National 
     Life Insurance Awareness Month'', the goal of which is to 
     make consumers more aware of their life insurance needs, seek 
     professional advice, and take the actions necessary to 
     achieve the financial security of their loved ones: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Life 
     Insurance Awareness Month''; and
       (2) calls on the Federal Government, States, localities, 
     schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, other entities, 
     and the people of the United States to observe the month with 
     appropriate programs and activities.

                          ____________________




                    AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

       SA 1633. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by her to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil 
     liability actions from being brought or continued against 
     manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of 
     firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other 
     relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; 
     which was ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 1634. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by her to the bill S. 397, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 1635. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to 
     be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, supra; which was 
     ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 1636. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to 
     be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, supra; which was 
     ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 1637. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 397, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 1638. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 397, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 1639. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 397, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 1640. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 397, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 1641. Mr. FRIST submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 397, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 1642. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill S. 397, supra; which was ordered 
     to lie on the table.
       SA 1643. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Dorgan (for himself and Mrs. 
     Dole)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 792, to establish 
     a National sex offender registration database, and for other 
     purposes.

                          ____________________




                           TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

  SA 1633. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
her to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being 
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other 
relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was 
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 10, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
  ``(iv) an action brought in any case in which the product, whether 
imported or manufactured domestically, failed to meet the most 
effective safety standards established for imported handguns, as 
determined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives;''.

                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1634. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
her to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being 
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other 
relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was 
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. DOMESTIC HANDGUN STANDARDS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and after thorough public hearings and review, the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives shall 
     promulgate regulations applying the most effective safety 
     standards to domestically manufactured handguns that now 
     apply to imported handguns, as described in section 925(d)(3) 
     of title 18, United States Code, and regulations issued under 
     such section.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1635. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to be 
proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions 
from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, 
dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive 
or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; 
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 10, strike line 3 and all that follows through page 
     11, line 2, and insert the following:
       (iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in 
     connection with the purchase of the product;
       (v) an action for death, physical injuries or property 
     damage resulting directly from a defect in design or 
     manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a 
     reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the 
     discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that 
     constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be 
     considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, 
     personal injuries or property damage; or
       (vi) any case against a manufacturer or seller based on an 
     incident involving terrorism, as defined in section 2(15) of 
     the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(15)).
       (B) Negligent entrustment.--As used in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), the term ``negligent entrustment'' means the 
     supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by 
     another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should 
     know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely 
     to, and does, use the product in a manner involving 
     unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.
       (C) Rule of construction.--The exceptions enumerated under 
     clauses (i) through (vi)
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1636. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to be 
proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions 
from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, 
dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive 
or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; 
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. IDENTIFICATION OF TERRORISTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 922(t) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) If the national criminal background check system 
     indicates that a person attempting to purchase a firearm or 
     applying for a State permit to possess, acquire, or carry a 
     firearm is identified as a known or suspected member of a 
     terrorist organization

[[Page 19003]]

     in records maintained by the Department of Justice or the 
     Department of Homeland Security, including the Violent Gang 
     and Terrorist Organization File, or records maintained by the 
     Intelligence Community, including records maintained under 
     section 343 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2003 (50 U.S.C. 404n-2)--
       ``(A) all information related to the prospective 
     transaction shall automatically and immediately be 
     transmitted to the appropriate Federal and State 
     counterterrorism officials, including the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation;
       ``(B) the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall coordinate 
     the response to such an event; and
       ``(C) all records generated in the course of the check of 
     the national criminal background check system, including the 
     ATF Form 4473, that are obtained by Federal and State 
     officials shall be retained for a minimum of 10 years.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Title 18.--Section 922(t)(2)(C) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after ``transfer'' the 
     following: ``, except as provided in paragraph (7)''.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1637. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being 
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other 
relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was 
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 6, strike lines 10 through 19 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY 
                   ACTIONS IN FEDERAL COURT.

       (a) In General.--A qualified civil liability action may not 
     be brought in any Federal court.
       (b) Dismissal of Pending Actions.--A qualified civil 
     liability action that is pending in a Federal court on the 
     date of enactment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed 
     by the court in which the action was brought or is currently 
     pending.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1638. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being 
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other 
relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was 
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 13, after line 4, add the following:

            TITLE II--GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE CLOSING ACT OF 2005

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Gun Show Loophole Closing 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(36) The term `special firearms event'--
       ``(A) means any event at which 75 or more firearms are 
     offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or 
     more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or 
     otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce;
       ``(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for 
     sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the 
     personal collection of that individual, at the private 
     residence of that individual, if the individual is not 
     required to be licensed under section 923 or 932; and
       ``(C) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for 
     sale, exchange, or transfer at events conducted and attended 
     by permanent or annual dues paying members, and their 
     immediate family, of private, not-for-profit organizations 
     whose primary purpose is owning and maintaining real property 
     for the purpose of hunting activities.
       ``(37) The term `special firearms event licensee' means any 
     person who has obtained and holds a valid license in 
     compliance with section 932(d) and who is authorized to 
     contact the national instant criminal background check system 
     on behalf of another individual, who is not licensed under 
     this chapter, for the purpose of conducting a background 
     check for a potential firearms transfer at a special firearms 
     event in accordance with section 932(c).
       ``(38) The term `special firearms event vendor' means any 
     person who is not required to be licensed under section 923 
     and who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or 
     exchanges 1 or more firearms at a special firearms event, 
     regardless of whether or not the person arranges with the 
     special firearms event promoter for a fixed location from 
     which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange 
     1 or more firearms.''.

     SEC. 203. REGULATION OF FIREARMS TRANSFERS AT SPECIAL 
                   FIREARMS EVENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 932. Regulation of firearms transfers at special 
       firearms events

       ``(a) Special Firearms Events Operators.--It shall be 
     unlawful for a special firearms events operator to organize, 
     plan, promote, or operate a special firearms event unless 
     that operator--
       ``(1) before the commencement of the special firearms 
     event, or in the case of a vendor who arrives after the 
     commencement of the event, upon the arrival of the vendor, 
     verifies the identity of each special firearms event vendor 
     participating in the special firearms event by examining a 
     valid identification document (as defined in section 
     1028(d)(2)) of the vendor containing a photograph of the 
     vendor;
       ``(2) before the commencement of the special firearms 
     event, or in the case of a vendor who arrives after the 
     commencement of the event, upon the arrival of the vendor, 
     requires each special firearms event vendor to sign--
       ``(A) a ledger with identifying information concerning the 
     vendor; and
       ``(B) a notice advising the vendor of the obligations of 
     the vendor under this chapter;
       ``(3) notifies each person who attends the special firearms 
     event of the requirements of this chapter; and
       ``(4) maintains a copy of the records described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) at the permanent place of business of 
     the operator.
       ``(b) Fees.--The Attorney General shall not impose or 
     collect any fee from special firearms event operators in 
     connection with the requirements under this section.
       ``(c) Responsibilities of Transferors Other Than 
     Licensees.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any part of a firearm transaction 
     takes place at a special firearms event, or on the curtilage 
     of the event, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not 
     licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to another 
     person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless the 
     firearm is transferred through a licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, licensed dealer, or a special firearms event 
     licensee in accordance with subsection (d).
       ``(2) Criminal background checks.--A person who is subject 
     to the requirement under paragraph (1) shall not--
       ``(A) transfer the firearm to the transferee until the 
     licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or 
     a special firearms event licensee through which the transfer 
     is made makes the notification described in subsection 
     (d)(2)(A); or
       ``(B) transfer the firearm to the transferee if the person 
     has been notified under subsection (d)(2)(B) that the 
     transfer would violate section 922 or State law.
       ``(3) Absence of recordkeeping requirements.--Nothing in 
     this section shall permit or authorize the Attorney General 
     to impose recordkeeping requirements on any nonlicensed 
     special firearms event vendor.
       ``(d) Responsibilities of Licensees.--A licensed importer, 
     licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or special firearms 
     event licensee who agrees to assist a person who is not 
     licensed under this chapter in carrying out the 
     responsibilities of that person under subsection (c) with 
     respect to the transfer of a firearm shall--
       ``(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), comply with 
     section 922(t) as if transferring the firearm from the 
     inventory of the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer to the designated transferee (although a 
     licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer 
     complying with this subsection shall not be required to 
     comply again with the requirements of section 922(t) in 
     delivering the firearm to the nonlicensed transferor);
       ``(2) not later than 3 business days (meaning days on which 
     State offices are open) after the date of the agreement to 
     purchase, or if the event is held in a State that has been 
     certified by the Attorney General under section 204 of the 
     Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2005, not later than 24 
     hours after such date (or 3 business days after such date if 
     additional information is required in order to verify 
     disqualifying information from a State that has not been 
     certified by the Attorney General), notify the nonlicensed 
     transferor and the nonlicensed transferee--
       ``(A) of any response from the national criminal background 
     check system, or if the licensee has had no response from the 
     national criminal background check system within the 
     applicable time period under this paragraph, notify the 
     nonlicensed transferor that no response has been received and 
     that the transfer may proceed; and
       ``(B) of any receipt by the licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer of a notification from the 
     national instant criminal background check system that the 
     transfer would violate section 922 or State law;
       ``(3) in the case of a transfer at 1 time or during any 5 
     consecutive business days, of 2 or more pistols or revolvers, 
     or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling 2 or 
     more, to the same nonlicensed person, in addition to the 
     recordkeeping requirements described in paragraph (4), 
     prepare a report of the multiple transfers, which report 
     shall be--
       ``(A) on a form specified by the Attorney General; and

[[Page 19004]]

       ``(B) not later than the close of business on the date on 
     which the multiple transfer occurs, forwarded to--
       ``(i) the office specified on the form described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) the appropriate State law enforcement agency of the 
     jurisdiction in which the transfer occurs; and
       ``(4) comply with all recordkeeping requirements under this 
     chapter.
       ``(e) Special Firearms Event License.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall issue a 
     special firearms event license to a person who submits an 
     application for a special firearms event license in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Application.--The application required by paragraph 
     (1) shall be approved if--
       ``(A) the applicant is 21 years of age or older;
       ``(B) the application includes a photograph and the 
     fingerprints of the applicant;
       ``(C) the applicant (including, in the case of a 
     corporation, partnership, or association, any individual 
     possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or 
     cause the direction of the management and policies of the 
     corporation, partnership, or association) is not prohibited 
     from transporting, shipping, or receiving firearms or 
     ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce under subsection 
     (g) or (n) of section 922;
       ``(D) the applicant has not willfully violated any of the 
     provisions of this chapter or regulations issued thereunder;
       ``(E) the applicant has not willfully failed to disclose 
     any material information required, or has not made any false 
     statement as to any material fact, in connection with the 
     application; and
       ``(F) the applicant certifies that--
       ``(i) the applicant meets the requirements of subparagraphs 
     (A) through (D) of section 923(d)(1);
       ``(ii) the business to be conducted under the license is 
     not prohibited by State or local law in the place where the 
     licensed premises is located; and
       ``(iii) the business will not be conducted under the 
     license until the requirements of State and local law 
     applicable to the business have been met.
       ``(3) Application and approval.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon the approval of an application 
     under this subsection and payment by the applicant of a fee 
     of $200 for 3 years, and upon renewal of a valid registration 
     and payment of a fee of $90 for 3 years, the Attorney General 
     shall issue to the applicant an instant check registration, 
     and advise the Attorney General of that registration.
       ``(B) NICS.--A special firearms event licensee may contact 
     the national instant criminal background check system 
     established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence 
     Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) for information about any 
     individual desiring to obtain a firearm at a special firearms 
     event from any special firearms event vendor who has 
     requested the assistance of the registrant in complying with 
     subsection (c) with respect to the transfer of the firearm, 
     during the 3-year period that begins on the date on which the 
     registration is issued.
       ``(4) Requirements.--The requirements for a special 
     firearms event licensee shall not exceed the requirements for 
     a licensed dealer and the recordkeeping requirements shall be 
     the same.
       ``(5) Restrictions.--
       ``(A) Background checks.--A special firearms event licensee 
     may have access to the national instant criminal background 
     check system to conduct a background check only at a special 
     firearms event and only on behalf of another person.
       ``(B) Transfer of firearms.--A special firearms event 
     licensee shall not transfer a firearm at a special firearms 
     event.
       ``(f) Defined Term.--In this section, the term `firearm 
     transaction'--
       ``(1) includes the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or 
     exchange of a firearm; and
       ``(2) does not include--
       ``(A) the mere exhibition of a firearm; or
       ``(B) the sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms between 
     immediate family members, including parents, children, 
     siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren.''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8)(A) Whoever organizes, plans, promotes, or operates a 
     special firearms event, knowing that the requirements under 
     section 932(a)(1) have not been met--
       ``(i) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 2 years, or both; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, 
     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(B) Whoever organizes, plans, promotes, or operates a 
     special firearms event, knowing that the requirements under 
     subsection (a)(2) or (c) of section 932 have not been met, 
     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(C) Whoever organizes, plans, promotes, or operates a 
     special firearms event, knowing that the requirements under 
     section 932(a)(3) have not been met, shall be fined under 
     this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
       ``(D) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this 
     paragraph, the Attorney General may, with respect to any 
     person who violates any provision of section 932--
       ``(i) if the person is registered pursuant to section 
     932(a), after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend 
     for not more than 6 months or revoke the registration of that 
     person under section 932(a); and
       ``(ii) impose a civil fine in an amount equal to not more 
     than $10,000.''.
       (c) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922(b) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``or licensed collector'' and inserting 
     ``licensed collector, or special firearms event licensee''.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Chapter 44 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended in the chapter 
     analysis, by adding at the end the following:

``932. Regulation of firearms transfers at special firearms events.''.

     SEC. 204. STATE OPTION FOR 24-HOUR BACKGROUND CHECKS AT 
                   SPECIAL FIREARMS EVENTS FOR STATES WITH 
                   COMPUTERIZED DISQUALIFYING RECORDS.

       (a) In General.--Effective 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, a State may apply to the Attorney 
     General for certification of the 24-hour verification 
     authority of that State.
       (b) Certification.--The Attorney General shall certify a 
     State for 24-hour verification authority only upon a clear 
     showing by the State, and certification by the Bureau of 
     Justice Statistics, that--
       (1) not less than 95 percent of all records containing 
     information that would disqualify an individual under 
     subsections (g) and (n) of section 922 of title 18, United 
     States Code, or under State law, is available on computer 
     records in the State, and is searchable under the national 
     instant criminal background check system established under 
     section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 
     U.S.C. 922 note);
       (2) not less than 95 percent of all records containing 
     information that would disqualify an individual under 
     paragraphs (8) and (9) of subsection 922(g) of title 18, 
     United States Code, or under State law, is available on 
     computer records in the State, and is searchable under the 
     national instant criminal background check system established 
     under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection 
     Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note); and
       (3) the chief judicial officer of the State requires the 
     courts of the State to use the toll-free telephone number 
     described in subsection (d)(1) to immediately notify the 
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System each time a 
     restraining order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 
     18, United States Code) is issued, lifted, or otherwise 
     removed by order of the court.
       (c) Clarifications.--
       (1) Disqualifying information.--Disqualifying information 
     for each State under subsection (b) shall include the 
     disqualifying records for that State generated during the 30 
     years preceding the date of application to the Attorney 
     General for certification.
       (2) Toll-free telephone number.--Upon a showing by the 
     State that a court of the State has developed computer 
     systems which permit the court to immediately electronically 
     notify the National Instant Criminal Background Check System 
     with respect to the issuance or lifting of restraining 
     orders, the use of the toll-free telephone number described 
     in subsection (d)(1) shall no longer be required under 
     subsection (b)(3).
       (d) Notification Infrastructure.--Before certifying any 
     State under subsection (b), the Attorney General shall--
       (1) create a toll-free telephone number through which State 
     and local courts may immediately notify the National Instant 
     Background Check System whenever a restraining order (as 
     described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United States 
     Code) is issued, lifted, or otherwise removed by order of the 
     court; and
       (2) encourage States to develop computer systems that 
     permit courts to immediately electronically notify the 
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System whenever a 
     restraining order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 
     18, United States Code) has been issued, lifted, or otherwise 
     removed by order of the court.
       (e) 24-Hour Provision.--Upon certification by the Attorney 
     General, the 24-hour provision in section 932(c)(2) of title 
     18, United States Code, shall apply to the verification 
     process (for transfers between unlicensed persons) in that 
     State unless additional information is required in order to 
     verify disqualifying information from a State that has not 
     been certified by the Attorney General, in which case the 3 
     business day limit shall apply.
       (f) Annual Review.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics shall annually review the certifications under 
     this section.
       (g) Revocation.--The Attorney General shall revoke the 
     certification required under this section for any State that 
     is not in compliance with subsection (b).

     SEC. 205. INSPECTION AUTHORITY.

       Section 923(g)(1)(B), of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``or licensed dealer'' and inserting 
     ``licensed dealer, or special firearms event operator''.

[[Page 19005]]



     SEC. 206. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR SERIOUS RECORDKEEPING 
                   VIOLATIONS BY LICENSEES.

       Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any 
     licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed collector, or special firearms event licensee who 
     knowingly makes any false statement or representation with 
     respect to the information required by this chapter to be 
     kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter, 
     or violates section 922(m) shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(B) If the violation described in subparagraph (A) is in 
     relation to an offense--
       ``(i) under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 922(b), such 
     person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 5 years, or both; or
       ``(ii) under subsection (a)(6) or (d) of section 922, such 
     person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 10 years, or both.''.

     SEC. 207. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL 
                   BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended 
     by section 203(b), is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``subsection (s) or (t) 
     of section 922'' and inserting ``section 922(s)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(t) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 
     both.''.

     SEC. 208. RULE OF INTERPRETATION.

       A provision of State law is not inconsistent with this 
     title or an amendment made by this title if the provision 
     imposes a regulation or prohibition of greater scope or a 
     penalty of greater severity than any prohibition or penalty 
     imposed by this title or an amendment made by this title.

     SEC. 209. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1639. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being 
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other 
relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was 
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. CHILDREN AND FIREARMS SAFETY.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Children's Firearm Access Prevention Act''.
       (b) Definition.--Section 921(a)(34)(A) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``or removing'' after 
     ``deactivating''.
       (c) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the 
     following:
       ``(z) Prohibition Against Giving Juveniles Access to 
     Certain Firearms.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Juvenile.--The term `juvenile' means an individual 
     who has not attained the age of 18 years.
       ``(B) Criminal negligence.--The term `criminal negligence' 
     means conduct that involves a gross deviation from the 
     standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise 
     under the circumstances, but which is not reckless.
       ``(2) Prohibition.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), it 
     shall be unlawful for any person to keep a loaded firearm, or 
     an unloaded firearm and ammunition for a firearm, any of 
     which has been shipped or transported in interstate or 
     foreign commerce or otherwise substantially affects 
     interstate or foreign commerce, within any premises that is 
     under the custody or control of that person if that person 
     knows or, acting with criminal negligence, should know that a 
     juvenile is capable of gaining access to the firearm without 
     the permission of the parent or legal guardian of the 
     juvenile, and fails to take steps to prevent such access.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--Paragraph (2) does not apply if--
       ``(A) the person uses a secure gun storage or safety device 
     for the firearm;
       ``(B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed 
     Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the juvenile 
     obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance 
     of the official duties of the person in that capacity;
       ``(C) the juvenile obtains, or obtains and discharges, the 
     firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of 1 or 
     more other persons;
       ``(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on 
     objective facts and circumstances, that a juvenile is likely 
     to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept;
       ``(E) the juvenile obtains the firearm as a result of an 
     unlawful entry by any person;
       ``(F) the juvenile was supervised by a person older than 18 
     years of age and was engaging in hunting, sporting, or 
     another lawful purpose; or
       ``(G) the juvenile gained the gun during a time that the 
     juvenile was engaged in an agricultural enterprise.''.
       (d) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8)(A) Whoever violates section 922(z) and as a result of 
     such violation a juvenile (as defined in section 922(z)) 
     obtains access to the firearm that is the subject of the 
     violation and thereby causes death or serious bodily injury 
     to the juvenile or to any other person, shall be fined not 
     more than $4,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(B) Whoever violates section 922(z) and as a result of 
     such violation a juvenile (as defined in section 922(z)) 
     obtains access to the firearm that is the subject of the 
     violation shall be fined not more than $500.''.
       (e) Role of Licensed Firearms Dealers.--Section 926 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) Contents of Form.--The Secretary shall ensure that a 
     copy of section 922(z) appears on the form required to be 
     obtained by a licensed dealer from a prospective transferee 
     of a firearm.
       ``(e) Notice of Children's Firearm Access Prevention Act.--
     A licensed dealer shall post a prominent notice in the place 
     of business of the licensed dealer as follows:
       ``IT IS UNLAWFUL AND A VIOLATION OF THE CHILDREN'S FIREARM 
     ACCESS PREVENTION ACT TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN 
     UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE 
     AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM.''.
       (f) No Effect on State Law.--Nothing in this section or the 
     amendments made by this section shall be construed to preempt 
     any provision of the law of any State, the purpose of which 
     is to prevent juveniles from injuring themselves or others 
     with firearms.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1640. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being 
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other 
relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was 
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 10, strike line 3 and all that follows through page 
     11, line 6, and insert the following:
       (iv) an action for breach of contract or warranty in 
     connection with the purchase of the product;
       (v) an action for death, physical injuries or property 
     damage resulting directly from a defect in design or 
     manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a 
     reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the 
     discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that 
     constituted a criminal offense then such act shall be 
     considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, 
     personal injuries or property damage; or
       (vi) any case in which a manufacturer or seller caused 
     injury through willful or criminal misconduct, gross 
     negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant 
     indifference to the rights and safety of the individual 
     harmed.
       (B) Negligent entrustment.--As used in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), the term ``negligent entrustment'' means the 
     supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by 
     another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should 
     know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely 
     to, and does, use the product in a manner involving 
     unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.
       (C) Rule of construction.--The exceptions enumerated under 
     clauses (i) through (vi) of subparagraph (A) shall be 
     construed so as not to be in conflict, and no provision of 
     this Act shall be construed to create a public or private 
     cause of action or remedy.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1641. Mr. FRIST submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being 
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other 
relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was 
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       On page 10, line 16, at the end, add the following:

     ``; or (vi) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney 
     General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of Title 18''
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1642. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being 
brought or

[[Page 19006]]

continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of 
firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief 
resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was 
ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON SUITS AGAINST A FIREARMS OR 
                   AMMUNITION MANUFACTURER, TRADE ASSOCIATION OR 
                   SELLER.

       (a) Definitions.--As used in this Act, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Ammunition.--The term ``ammunition'' has the meaning 
     given that term by section 921(a)(17)(A) of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Firearm.--The term ``firearm'' has the meaning given 
     that term by subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 921(a)(3) of 
     title 18, United States Code, including any antique firearm 
     (as defined in section 921(a)(16) of such title).
       (3) Governmental unit.--The term ``governmental unit'' 
     means--
       (A) a political subdivision of a State, including a 
     municipality or county; and
       (B) any other agency of government whose authority is 
     derived from the laws or constitution of a State.
       (4) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means a person 
     who is engaged in the business of manufacturing a firearm or 
     ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce and who is 
     licensed to engage in business as such a manufacturer under 
     chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.
       (5) Seller.--The term ``seller'' means, with respect to a 
     firearm or ammunition--
       (A) an importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of title 
     18, United States Code) who is engaged in the business as 
     such an importer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is 
     licensed to engage in business as such an importer under 
     chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code;
       (B) a dealer (as defined in section 921(a)(11) of title 18, 
     United States Code) who is engaged in the business as such a 
     dealer in interstate or foreign commerce and who is licensed 
     to engage in business as such a dealer under chapter 44 of 
     title 18, United States Code; or
       (C) a person engaged in the business of selling ammunition 
     in interstate or foreign commerce at the wholesale or retail 
     level.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States.
       (7) Trade association.--The term ``trade association'' 
     means any corporation, unincorporated association, 
     federation, business league, professional or business 
     organization--
       (A) not organized or operated for profit and no part of the 
     net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private 
     shareholder or individual;
       (B) that is an organization described in section 501(c)(6) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax 
     under section 501(a) of such Code; and
       (C) 2 or more members of which are manufacturers or sellers 
     of a firearm or ammunition.
       (b) Prohibition.--Except as provided by subsection (c), a 
     governmental unit may not bring suit against a firearms or 
     ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or seller for 
     recovery of damages resulting from, or injunctive relief or 
     abatement of a nuisance relating to, the lawful design, 
     manufacture, marketing, or sale of firearms or ammunition to 
     the public.
       (c) Exceptions.--
       (1) State approval.--A governmental unit, on behalf of a 
     State or any other governmental unit, may bring a suit 
     described by subsection (b) if the suit is approved in 
     advance by the legislature of the State in which the 
     governmental unit is located by adoption of a concurrent 
     resolution or by enactment of a statute. This subsection 
     shall not be construed to create a cause of action.
       (2) Excluded types of actions.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     prohibit a governmental unit from bringing an action against 
     a firearms manufacturer, trade association, or seller for 
     recovery of damages for--
       (A) breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or 
     ammunition purchased by a governmental unit;
       (B) damage or harm to property owned or leased by the 
     governmental unit caused by a defective firearm or 
     ammunition; or
       (C) injunctive relief to enforce a valid ordinance, 
     statute, or rule.
       (d) Actions by States.--Nothing in this Act shall prohibit 
     the attorney general or other chief law enforcement officer 
     of a State from bringing a suit described by subsection (b) 
     on behalf of a State or a governmental unit. This subsection 
     shall not be construed to create a cause of action.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 1643. Mr. FRIST (for Mr. Dorgan (for himself and Mrs. Dole)) 
proposed an amendment to the bill S. 792, to establish a National sex 
offender registration database, and for other purposes; as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Dru Sjodin National Sex 
     Offender Public Database Act of 2005'' or ``Dru's Law''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       In this Act:
       (1) Criminal offense against a victim who is a minor.--The 
     term ``criminal offense against a victim who is a minor'' has 
     the same meaning as in section 170101(a)(3) of the Jacob 
     Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent 
     Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)(3)).
       (2) Minimally sufficient sexual offender registration 
     program.--The term ``minimally sufficient sexual offender 
     registration program'' has the same meaning as in section 
     170102(a) of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 
     Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 
     14072(a)).
       (3) Sexually violent offense.--The term ``sexually violent 
     offense'' has the same meaning as in section 170101(a)(3) of 
     the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)(3)).
       (4) Sexually violent predator.--The term ``sexually violent 
     predator'' has the same meaning as in section 170102(a) of 
     the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14072(a)).

     SEC. 3. AVAILABILITY OF THE NSOR DATABASE TO THE PUBLIC.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall--
       (1) make publicly available in a registry (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``public registry'') from information 
     contained in the National Sex Offender Registry or State sex 
     offender web sites, via the Internet, all information 
     described in subsection (b); and
       (2) allow for users of the public registry to determine 
     which registered sex offenders are currently residing within 
     a radius, as specified by the user of the public registry, of 
     the location indicated by the user of the public registry.
       (b) Information Available in Public Registry.--With respect 
     to any person convicted of a criminal offense against a 
     victim who is a minor or a sexually violent offense, or any 
     sexually violent predator, required to register with a 
     minimally sufficient sexual offender registration program 
     within a State, including a program established under section 
     170101 of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 
     Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 
     14071(b)), the public registry shall provide, to the extent 
     available in the National Sex Offender Registry--
       (1) the name and any known aliases of the person;
       (2) the date of birth of the person;
       (3) the current address of the person and any subsequent 
     changes of that address;
       (4) a physical description and current photograph of the 
     person;
       (5) the nature of and date of commission of the offense by 
     the person;
       (6) the date on which the person is released from prison, 
     or placed on parole, supervised release, or probation; and
       (7) any other information the Attorney General considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 4. RELEASE OF HIGH RISK INMATES.

       (a) Civil Commitment Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--Any State that provides for a civil 
     commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding, shall 
     issue timely notice to the attorney general of that State of 
     the impending release of any person incarcerated by the State 
     who--
       (A) is a sexually violent predator; or
       (B) has been deemed by the State to be at high-risk for 
     recommitting any sexually violent offense or criminal offense 
     against a victim who is a minor.
       (2) Review.--Upon receiving notice under paragraph (1), the 
     State attorney general shall consider whether or not to 
     institute a civil commitment proceeding, or any equivalent 
     proceeding required under State law.
       (b) Monitoring of Released Persons.--
       (1) In general.--Each State shall intensively monitor, for 
     not less than 1 year, any person described under paragraph 
     (2) who--
       (A) has been unconditionally released from incarceration by 
     the State; and
       (B) has not been civilly committed pursuant to a civil 
     commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding under 
     State law.
       (2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to--
       (A) any sexually violent predator; or
       (B) any person who has been deemed by the State to be at 
     high-risk for recommitting any sexually violent offense or 
     criminal offense against a victim who is a minor.
       (c) Compliance.--
       (1) Compliance date.--Each State shall have not more than 3 
     years from the date of enactment of this Act in which to 
     implement the requirements of this section.
       (2) Ineligibility for funds.--A State that fails to 
     implement the requirements of this section, shall not receive 
     25 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to 
     the State under section 20106(b) of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13706(b)).
       (3) Reallocation of funds.--Any funds that are not 
     allocated for failure to comply with this section shall be 
     reallocated to States that comply with this section.

[[Page 19007]]



                          ____________________




                    AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET


                      Committee on Armed Services

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the 
Senate on July 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the 
following nominations: Lieutenant General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, for 
appointment to the grade of general and to be Commander, U.S. 
Transportation Command; Dr. Ronald M. Sega to be Under Secretary of the 
Air Force; Mr. Philip Jackson Bell to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness; Mr. John G. Grimes to be 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information 
Integration; Mr. Keith E. Eastin to be Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for Installations and Environment; Mr. William C. Anderson to be 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and 
Logistics.
  The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Committee on Banking Housing, and Urban Affairs

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the 
session of the Senate on Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 10 a.m. to mark up 
S. 190 ``The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 
2005'', as amended by the Committee Print; S. 705 ``Meeting the Housing 
and Service Needs of Seniors Act of 2005;'' H.R. 804 ``To Exclude From 
Consideration as Income Certain Payments Under the National Flood 
Insurance Program;'' S. 1047 ``The Presidential $1.00 Coin Act of 
2005,'' and pending nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on 
Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 10 a.m., on pending committee business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on 
Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., on issues related to MGM v. 
Grokster and the appropriate balance between copyright protection and 
communications technology innovation, in SR-253.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      committee on indian affairs

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee 
on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in 
Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight 
hearing on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 
Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs 
Committee at 224-2251.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      committee on the judiciary.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, 
July 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226.

                                 Agenda

  I. Bills: S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, Kyl, Cornyn, 
Grassley, Hatch; S. 103, Combat Meth Act of 2005, Talent, Feinstein, 
Kohl, Schumer, Feingold;, S. __, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act 
of 2005, Specter, Leahy, Feingold; S. 751, Notification of Risk to 
Personal Data Act, Feinstein, Kyl; S. 1326, Notification of Risk to 
Personal Data Act, Feinstein, Kyl; S. 1326, Notification of Risk to 
Personal Data Act, Sessions; S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective 
Deterrence Act of 2005, Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, 
Specter; S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register 
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or Sex 
Offenses, Hatch, Biden, Schumer; S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and 
Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005, Grassley, Kyl, 
Cornyn; S. 1197, Violence Against Women Act of 2005, Biden, Hatch, 
Specter, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl, Grassley, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, 
Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     committee on Veterans' Affairs

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Veteran's Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the 
Senate on Thursday, July 28, 2005, for a markup to consider the 
following:
  Nomination of James Philip Terry to be Chairman of the Board of 
Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans' Affairs and Charles S. 
Ciccolella to be Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and 
Training, Department of Labor.
  Pending Legislation as follows:
  A. Committee Print of S. 1182, the ``Veterans' Health Care 
Improvements Act of 2005'', incorporating provisions derived from S. 
1182, as introduced; S. 1177; S. 1189; and S. 1190.
  B. S. 716, the ``Vet Center Enhancement Act of 2005''.
  C. S. 1234, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment 
Act of 2005''.
  D. Committee Print of S. 1235, the ``Veterans' Benefits Improvement 
Act of 2005'', incorporating provisions derived from S. 1235, as 
introduced; S. 552; S. 917; S. 151; S. 1259; S. 1271; and S. 423.
  The markup will take place in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office 
Building at 9:30 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.


                     subcommittee on national parks

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
subcommittee on National Parks be 
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 
28 at 10 a.m.
  The purpose of the hearings is to 
receive testimony on the following bills: S. 584 and H.R. 432, bills to 
require the secretary of the interior to allow the continued occupancy 
and use of certain land and improvements within rocky mountain National 
Parks; S. 652, a bill to provide financial assistance for the 
rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in 
Philadelphia, PA, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 
300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin; S. 958, a bill to 
amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled 
Banner Trail in the states of Maryland and Virginia and the District of 
Columbia as a national historic trail; S. 1154, a bill to extend the 
Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, to provide improved visitor 
services at the park, and for other purposes; S. 1166, a bill to extend 
the authorization of the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory 
Commission; and S. 1436, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior 
to conduct a study of maritime sites in the states of Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Pilkington 
of Senator Harkin's staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the 
duration of today's session.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Stebbins 
of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of 
today's session.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sophie 
Thurber of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the 
duration of this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of 
the floor be granted to two members of

[[Page 19008]]

my staff, Mike Heidler and Matt Schuh, during debate on S. 397.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate 
immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations on today's Executive Calendar, calendar 170, 211, 221, 222, 
226, 238, and 240, provided further that the following committees be 
discharged from further consideration of the list of nominations and 
the Senate proceed en bloc to their consideration. The HELP Committee: 
Henry Johnson, PN 572; Terrell Halaska, PN 685; Kevin Sullivan, PN 473; 
Bernice Phillips, PN 106; Thomas Fuentes, PN 105. Rules: Donetta 
Davidson, PN 749.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en 
bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return 
to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:


                         department of justice

       Rachel Brand, of Iowa, to be an Assistant Attorney General.


                    environmental protection agency

       Marcus C. Peacock, of Minnesota, to be Deputy Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       David R. Hill, of Missouri, to be General Counsel of the 
     Department of Energy.
       Jill L. Sigal, of Wyoming, to be Assistant Secretary of 
     Energy (Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs).


                    department of homeland security

       Richard L. Skinner, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, 
     Department of Homeland Security.


                       department of the treasury

       Janice B. Gardner, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary 
     for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of the Treasury.
       John S. Redd, Georgia, to be Director of the National 
     Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National 
     Intelligence.


                        department of education

       Henry Louis Johnson, of Mississippi, to be Assistant 
     Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, Department 
     of Education.
       Terrell Halaska, of the District of Columbia, to be 
     Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional 
     Affairs, Department of Education.
       Kevin F. Sullivan, of New York, to be Assistant Secretary 
     for Communications and Outreach, Department of Education.
       Bernice Phillips, of New York, to be a Member of the Board 
     of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation for a term 
     expiring July 13, 2005.
       Thomas A. Fuentes, of California, to be a Member of the 
     Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation for a 
     term expiring July 13, 2005.


                     election assistance commission

       Donetta Davidson, of Colorado, to be a Member of the 
     Election Assistance Commission for the remainder of the term 
     expiring December 12, 2007.

                          ____________________




                  CONFIRMATION OF DONETTA L. DAVIDSON

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today the Senate is acting to fill a vacant 
seat on the Election Assistance Commission EAC with the confirmation of 
Ms. Donetta L. Davidson, of Colorado. Ms. Davidson was nominated by 
President Bush to serve the remainder of the 4-year term of DeForest B. 
Soaries, Jr, resigned. Her term will expire on December 12, 2007.
  I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, 
Senator Lott, for facilitating and expediting action on this 
nomination. By confirming Ms. Davidson at this time, the Senate is 
ensuring that the Commission will have a full complement of members as 
it faces action on some of the most important provisions of the Help 
American Vote Act this fall.
  Nearly 3 years ago, President Bush signed into law the Help America 
Vote Act--HAVA. For the first time in our history, this landmark 
legislation recognizes the need for a Federal partnership in the 
conduct of Federal elections by the States. While this partnership 
respects the authority of State and local governments to administer 
Federal elections, it also provides Federal leadership and support 
through the establishment of minimum requirements that all States must 
meet in all Federal elections.
  One of the primary goals of HAVA is to bolster public confidence in 
our system of Federal elections by addressing the problems and 
irregularities that arose in the November 2000 general election. And 
this is why, following that election, a bipartisan group of Senators 
and Members of Congress came together to enact the Help America Vote 
Act. Although the original bipartisan authors of HAVA initially viewed 
the outcome of the 2000 elections very differently, in the end, we all 
agreed that the Federal Government had an appropriate role to play to 
ensure that in our democracy, we made it easier to vote and harder to 
defraud the system.
  HAVA established a number of requirements for election administration 
and voting technology in Federal elections, including requirements for 
voting systems, provisional ballots, and statewide voter registration 
lists. To date, Congress has appropriated over $3 billion in Federal 
funding for payments to the States for nationwide implementation of 
these requirements.
  The Act also established a new Federal agency, the Election 
Assistance Commission--EAC. Among other things, the EAC serves as a 
clearinghouse to identify best practices for State and local election 
officials to use to conduct elections. The EAC is designed to bring 
together all stakeholders who play a role in elections--from voting 
machine manufacturers to voter registration organizations and other 
civil rights and disability rights groups to State and local election 
officials and administrators--to facilitate fair and transparent 
Federal elections throughout America.
  Ms. Davidson joins the EAC at a crucial time. In less than 6 months, 
by January 1, 2006, all States are required to fully implement two of 
the most significant requirements in HAVA: the voluntary voting system 
standards and the statewide voter registration list. Taken as a whole, 
these two requirements promote accurate, accessible, nondiscriminatory, 
user-friendly and transparent elections. They serve as the mechanisms 
by which all eligible voters can cast their votes and have their votes 
counted.
  Ms. Davidson's qualifications will serve her well at the EAC and 
reflect years of experience as both a State and local election official 
as well as an active participant on numerous national and State 
professional organizations. She currently serves as the Secretary of 
State for Colorado and previously served as the Arapahoe Country Clerk 
and Recorder in Littleton, CO and as the Director of Elections at the 
Colorado Department of State. In addition, she also currently serves as 
the vice chair of the National Association of Secretaries of State.
  Her background will bring to the EAC the election administration and 
technology skills and experience that will help facilitate the 
nationwide implementation of HAVA, in particular the voluntary voting 
system guidelines expected to be approved by the EAC this fall. Her 
involvement with the existing voluntary voting system standards, first 
issued by the Federal Election Commission, dates to the mid- 1990s and 
her support for those standards contributed to their adoption in 
Colorado.
  Most recently, Ms. Davidson served as one of the 15 experts on the 
Technical Guidelines Development Committee TGDC established under HAVA 
to develop an initial set of recommendations for the voluntary voting 
system guidelines with technical support and expertise from the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST. At the end of the 
public comment and revision process, these recommendations are expected 
to form the bases of the new Federal voluntary voting system guidelines 
issued by the EAC.
  Ms. Davidson's confirmation today ensures that the EAC has a full and

[[Page 19009]]

permanent complement of commissioners as we move toward the full 
implementation of HAVA and the November 2006 Federal elections. The EAC 
will be well served by Ms. Davidson's expertise on election issues and 
her broad experience working with all stakeholders in Federal 
elections, including local election officials and their voters.
  I congratulate Ms. Davidson on the honor of being nominated and 
confirmed to the Election Assistance Commission. It is an awesome 
responsibility and one that her background has prepared her well to 
meet.
  To ensure that our Federal partnership gives voice to all Americans 
and their very diverse experiences on election day, the Commission's 
work must reflect more than just the perspectives of any single State 
or local election official. Commissioners must represent all 50 States, 
the District of Columbia, and the territories--all of America and its 
diversity. I am confident that Commissioner Davidson will meet that 
goal.
  While political races among candidates may be partisan, Federal 
elections cannot be. The Help America Vote Act is appropriately the 
first civil rights act of the 21st Century, and Congress must fulfill 
its commitment to the American people to provide the States sufficient 
resources to fund the mandated reforms.
  In order for the EAC to meet its obligations under HAVA, it is 
critically important that Congress fully fund the agency and its 
requirements for fiscal year 2006. To support States in the nationwide 
implementation of HAVA, the Act authorized nearly $4 billion to pay for 
the requirements and tasked the EAC with several responsibilities. To 
date, Congress has appropriated over $3 billion to the States and 
territories.
  For fiscal year 2006, the EAC submitted an appropriations request at 
the funding level of $17,612,000, including four new staff positions 
to, among other duties, establish an Inspector General Office to 
monitor the Federal payments. The House-passed version of the 
Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, District of Columbia 
appropriations bill provides only $15,877,000 for the EAC, and no funds 
for State requirements payments, with an earmark of $2.8 million for 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Complicating 
matters more, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a slightly 
lower funding level for the EAC at $13,888,000, with $4 million 
earmarked for NIST. An average of both Senate-House bills will not 
produce enough funding for the EAC to maintain its current level of 
operations.
  Without appropriate funding, the EAC will be unable to fulfill its 
obligations to the States and the voters for the Federal elections in 
2006. To date, the EAC has been underfunded by over $822 million, 
including a funding gap of $600 million for requirements, $95 million 
for disability access grants and $127 million for other HAVA programs 
such as research and development for voting systems. When we return 
from the August recess, the Senate will complete its work on the 
Transportation, Treasury appropriations bill. It is my hope that we 
will be able to find the necessary resources to ensure the full 
implementation of HAVA without creating an unfunded mandate on the 
States.
  In the meantime, I congratulate Commissioner Davidson on her 
appointment and look forward to working closely with her as she 
oversees the implementation of the most critical requirements of HAVA 
for the upcoming 2006 Federal elections and beyond in America.

                          ____________________




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
return to legislative session.

                          ____________________




      HONORING TEAM DISCOVERY, LANCE ARMSTRONG AND GEORGE HINCAPIE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to consideration of S. Res. 222 which was submitted earlier 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 222) honoring the victories of Team 
     Discovery and American cyclists Lance Armstrong and George 
     Hincapie in the 2005 Tour de France.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 222) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 222

       Whereas Team Discovery included Lance Armstrong of Texas 
     and George Hincapie of South Carolina from the United States, 
     Jose Luis Rubiera, Manuel Beltran, and Benjamin Noval from 
     Spain, Pavel Padrnos from the Czech Republic, Jose Azevedo 
     from Portugal, Paolo Savoldelli from Italy, and Yaroslav 
     Popovych from Ukraine;
       Whereas Team Discovery won the 2005 Tour de France under 
     the leadership of Lance Armstrong, who rode to victory by 
     completing the 2,232-mile, 21-stage course in 86 hours, 15 
     minutes, and 2 seconds, finishing 4 minutes and 40 seconds 
     ahead of his nearest competitor;
       Whereas, by winning the Tour de France on July 24, 2005, 
     Lance Armstrong became the only competitor in the history of 
     the Tour de France to win cycling's most prestigious race in 
     7 consecutive years;
       Whereas George Hincapie rode stage 15, which was 127.4 
     miles long and included 1 above category climb, 4 category 1 
     climbs, and 1 category 2 climb, for a total of 33.5 miles of 
     climbing at an average gradient of 7.96 percent;
       Whereas stage 15 was considered the hardest stage of the 
     2005 Tour de France and the victory of George Hincapie atop 
     Pla d'Adet marks his first Tour de France stage victory;
       Whereas George Hincapie is only the 8th competitor from the 
     United States to win a stage in the Tour de France;
       Whereas George Hincapie has participated in the Tour de 
     France 10 times and is the only teammate to assist Lance 
     Armstrong in each of his Tour de France victories;
       Whereas Lance Armstrong and George Hincapie displayed 
     incredible perseverance, determination, and leadership over 7 
     years with their teammates in prevailing over the mountainous 
     terrain of the Alps and Pyrenees and in overcoming crashes, 
     illness, hard-charging rivals, and driving rain on the way to 
     winning the premier cycling event in the world;
       Whereas, in 1996, Lance Armstrong defeated choriocarcinoma, 
     an aggressive form of testicular cancer that had spread 
     throughout his abdomen, lungs, and brain, and has remained 
     cancer-free since treatment for the disease;
       Whereas Lance Armstrong is the 1st cancer survivor to win 
     the Tour de France;
       Whereas the accomplishments of Team Discovery have made the 
     team an inspiration to millions of people around the world: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) honors--
       (A) the victory of Team Discovery in the 2005 Tour de 
     France;
       (B) professional cyclist Lance Armstrong for his record 7th 
     consecutive Tour de France victory; and
       (C) professional cyclist George Hincapie for his 1st Tour 
     de France stage victory; and
       (2) commends Lance Armstrong and George Hincapie for being 
     pioneers of the sport of cycling in the United States.

                          ____________________




                NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE AWARENESS MONTH

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 223, which was submitted 
earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 223) supporting the goals and ideals 
     of ``National Life Insurance Awareness Month,'' September 
     2005.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 223) was agreed to.

[[Page 19010]]

  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 223

       Whereas life insurance is an essential part of a sound 
     financial plan;
       Whereas life insurance provides financial security for 
     families in the event of a premature death by helping 
     surviving family members meet immediate and longer-term 
     financial obligations and objectives;
       Whereas nearly 50,000,000 Americans say they lack the life 
     insurance coverage needed to ensure a secure financial future 
     for their loved ones;
       Whereas recent studies have found that when a premature 
     death occurs, insufficient life insurance coverage on the 
     part of the insured results in \3/4\ of surviving family 
     members having to take measures such as working additional 
     jobs or longer hours, borrowing money, withdrawing money from 
     savings and investment accounts, and, in too many cases, 
     moving to smaller, less expensive housing;
       Whereas individuals, families, and businesses can benefit 
     greatly from professional insurance and financial planning 
     advice, including the assessment of their life insurance 
     needs; and
       Whereas the Life and Health Insurance Foundation for 
     Education (LIFE), the National Association of Insurance and 
     Financial Advisors (NAIFA), and a coalition representing 
     hundreds of leading life insurance companies and 
     organizations have designated September 2005 as ``National 
     Life Insurance Awareness Month'', the goal of which is to 
     make consumers more aware of their life insurance needs, seek 
     professional advice, and take the actions necessary to 
     achieve the financial security of their loved ones: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Life 
     Insurance Awareness Month''; and
       (2) calls on the Federal Government, States, localities, 
     schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, other entities, 
     and the people of the United States to observe the month with 
     appropriate programs and activities.

                          ____________________




       COMMEMORATING NATIONAL CITIZENS' CRIME PREVENTION CAMPAIGN

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary 
Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now 
proceed to S. Res. 208.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 208) commemorating the 25th 
     anniversary of National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the 
preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 208) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 208

       Whereas crime prevention improves the quality of life in 
     every community;
       Whereas crime prevention is central to maintaining a sound 
     criminal justice system at the national, State, and local 
     level and to ensuring safer and more secure communities;
       Whereas 2005 marks the 25th anniversary of the National 
     Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign, featuring McGruff the 
     Crime Dog, conducted by the National Crime Prevention 
     Council;
       Whereas McGruff the Crime Dog is an icon, recognized as the 
     Nation's symbol for crime prevention;
       Whereas the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign 
     has inspired and directed millions of citizens to take 
     action, individually and collectively, to reduce crime, drug 
     abuse, and the fear of crime;
       Whereas the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign 
     has led a multitude of community organizations, including law 
     enforcement, other State and local agencies, civic and 
     community groups, faith-based organizations, schools, and 
     businesses, to play a vital role in reducing crime and 
     building safer communities; and
       Whereas the National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign is 
     a leading example of a campaign conducted by public and 
     private individuals and entities on a national, State, and 
     local level to improve the quality of life throughout the 
     Nation: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) commemorates the 25th anniversary of the National 
     Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign, and commends all 
     individuals and organizations involved in the campaign for 
     advancing the principles and practice of effective crime 
     prevention;
       (2) asks the people of the United States to join in the 
     celebration of the 25th anniversary of the National Citizens' 
     Crime Prevention Campaign, and of the campaign's icon 
     (McGruff the Crime Dog), and of the campaign's managing 
     organization (National Crime Prevention Council); and
       (3) encourages the National Crime Prevention Council and 
     the Crime Prevention Coalition of America to continue to 
     promote, through the National Citizens' Crime Prevention 
     Campaign, individual and collective action, in collaboration 
     with law enforcement and other supporting agencies, to reduce 
     crime and build safer communities throughout the United 
     States.

                          ____________________




 EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO THE WOMEN SUFFRAGISTS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 59, which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) expressing the sense of 
     Congress with respect to the women suffragists who fought for 
     and won the right of women to vote in the United States.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint 
resolution.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint 
resolution be read three times and passed, the preamble be agreed to, 
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any 
statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) was read the third time and 
passed.
  The preamble was agreed to.

                          ____________________




          EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PURPLE HEART

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Armed 
Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. 
Res. 39 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the concurrent resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 39) to express the 
     sense of Congress on the Purple Heart.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
concurrent resolution.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent 
resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be 
printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 39) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 39

       Whereas the Purple Heart is the oldest military decoration 
     in the world in present use;
       Whereas the Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the 
     President of the United States to members of the Armed Forces 
     who are wounded in conflict with an enemy force or are 
     wounded while held by an enemy force as prisoners of war, and 
     posthumously to the next of kin of members of the Armed 
     Forces who are killed in conflict with an enemy force or who 
     die of a wound received in conflict with an enemy force;
       Whereas the Purple Heart was established on August 7, 1782, 
     during the Revolutionary War, when General George Washington 
     issued an order establishing the Honorary Badge of 
     Distinction, otherwise known as the Badge of Military Merit;
       Whereas the award of the Purple Heart ceased with the end 
     of the Revolutionary War, but was revived in 1932, the 200th 
     anniversary of George Washington's birth, out of respect for 
     his memory and military achievements; and
       Whereas National Purple Heart Recognition Day is a fitting 
     tribute to George Washington and to the more than 1,535,000 
     recipients of the Purple Heart, approximately

[[Page 19011]]

      550,000 of whom are still living: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That Congress--
       (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart 
     Recognition Day;
       (2) encourages all people of the United States to learn 
     about the history of the Purple Heart and to honor its 
     recipients; and
       (3) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
     calling on the people of the United States to conduct 
     appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs to 
     demonstrate support for people who have been awarded the 
     Purple Heart.

                          ____________________




             INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2005

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 160, S. 1375.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1375) to amend the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 
     1990 to modify provisions relating to criminal proceedings 
     and civil actions, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 1375) was read the third time and passed, as follows:

                                S. 1375

       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 ``Indian Arts and Crafts 
     Amendments Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS.

       (a) Criminal Proceedings; Civil Actions; 
     Misrepresentations.--Section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to promote the development of Indian arts and crafts and to 
     create a board to assist therein, and for other purposes'' 
     (25 U.S.C. 305d) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 5. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS; CIVIL ACTIONS.

       ``(a) Definition of Federal Law Enforcement Officer.--In 
     this section, the term `Federal law enforcement officer' 
     includes--
       ``(1) a Federal law enforcement officer (as defined in 
     section 115(c) of title 18, United States Code); and
       ``(2) with respect to a violation of this Act that occurs 
     outside Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 
     18, United States Code), an officer that has authority under 
     section 3 of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 
     2802), acting in coordination with a Federal law enforcement 
     agency that has jurisdiction over the violation.
       ``(b) Criminal Proceedings.--
       ``(1) Referral.--On receiving a complaint of a violation of 
     section 1159 of title 18, United States Code, the Board may 
     refer the complaint to any Federal law enforcement officer 
     for appropriate investigation.
       ``(2) Findings.--The findings of an investigation under 
     paragraph (1) shall be submitted to--
       ``(A) the Attorney General; and
       ``(B) the Board.
       ``(3) Recommendations.--On receiving the findings of an 
     investigation in accordance with paragraph (2), the Board 
     may--
       ``(A) recommend to the Attorney General that criminal 
     proceedings be initiated under section 1159 of that title; 
     and
       ``(B) provide such support to the Attorney General relating 
     to the criminal proceedings as the Attorney General 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(c) Civil Actions.--In lieu of, or in addition to, any 
     criminal proceeding under subsection (a), the Board may 
     recommend that the Attorney General initiate a civil action 
     pursuant to section 6.''.
       (b) Cause of Action for Misrepresentation.--Section 6 of 
     the Act entitled ``An Act to promote the development of 
     Indian arts and crafts and to create a board to assist 
     therein, and for other purposes'' (25 U.S.C. 305e) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (d);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (c) as 
     subsections (b) through (d), respectively;
       (3) by inserting before subsection (b) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)) the following:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Indian.--The term `Indian' means an individual that--
       ``(A) is a member of an Indian tribe; or
       ``(B) is certified as an Indian artisan by an Indian tribe.
       ``(2) Indian product.--The term `Indian product' has the 
     meaning given the term in any regulation promulgated by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Indian tribe.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Indian tribe' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination 
     and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `Indian tribe' includes an 
     Indian group that has been formally recognized as an Indian 
     tribe by--
       ``(i) a State legislature;
       ``(ii) a State commission; or
       ``(iii) another similar organization vested with State 
     legislative tribal recognition authority.
       ``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.'';
       (4) in subsection (b) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by striking ``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (d)'';
       (5) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (2))--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)''; and
       (B) by striking ``suit'' and inserting ``the civil 
     action'';
       (6) by striking subsection (d) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Persons That May Initiate Civil Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--A civil action under subsection (b) may 
     be initiated by--
       ``(A) the Attorney General, at the request of the Secretary 
     acting on behalf of--
       ``(i) an Indian tribe;
       ``(ii) an Indian; or
       ``(iii) an Indian arts and crafts organization;
       ``(B) an Indian tribe, acting on behalf of--
       ``(i) the tribe;
       ``(ii) a member of that tribe; or
       ``(iii) an Indian arts and crafts organization;
       ``(C) an Indian; or
       ``(D) an Indian arts and crafts organization.
       ``(2) Disposition of amounts recovered.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     an amount recovered in a civil action under this section 
     shall be paid to the Indian tribe, the Indian, or the Indian 
     arts and crafts organization on the behalf of which the civil 
     action was initiated.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--
       ``(i) Attorney general.--In the case of a civil action 
     initiated under paragraph (1)(A), the Attorney General may 
     deduct from the amount--

       ``(I) the amount of the cost of the civil action and 
     reasonable attorney's fees awarded under subsection (c), to 
     be deposited in the Treasury and credited to appropriations 
     available to the Attorney General on the date on which the 
     amount is recovered; and
       ``(II) the amount of the costs of investigation awarded 
     under subsection (c), to reimburse the Board for the 
     activities of the Board relating to the civil action.

       ``(ii) Indian tribe.--In the case of a civil action 
     initiated under paragraph (1)(B), the Indian tribe may deduct 
     from the amount--

       ``(I) the amount of the cost of the civil action; and
       ``(II) reasonable attorney's fees.''; and

       (7) in subsection (e), by striking ``(e) In the event 
     that'' and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Savings Provision.--If''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1159(c) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) the term `Indian tribe'--
       ``(A) has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450b); and
       ``(B) includes an Indian group that has been formally 
     recognized as an Indian tribe by--
       ``(i) a State legislature;
       ``(ii) a State commission; or
       ``(iii) another similar organization vested with State 
     legislative tribal recognition authority; and''.

                          ____________________




                       PSORIASIS AWARENESS MONTH

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 206 and 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 206) designating August 2005 as 
     ``Psoriasis Awareness Month''.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution 
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any 
statements related to this matter be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 206) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

[[Page 19012]]



                              S. Res. 206

       Whereas psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are chronic, 
     immune-mediated diseases for which there is no cure;
       Whereas more than 5,000,000 men, women, and children in the 
     United States have been diagnosed with either psoriasis or 
     psoriatic arthritis;
       Whereas psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are painful and 
     disabling diseases that have a significant and adverse impact 
     on the quality of life of an individual diagnosed with either 
     of these diseases;
       Whereas the National Institute of Mental Health funded a 
     study that found that psoriasis may cause as much physical 
     and mental disability as other major diseases, including 
     cancer, arthritis, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, and 
     depression;
       Whereas psoriasis is associated with elevated rates of 
     depression and suicidal ideation;
       Whereas each year the people of the United States spend 
     more than $4,000,000,000 to treat psoriasis;
       Whereas early diagnosis and treatment of psoriatic 
     arthritis may help prevent irreversible joint damage; and
       Whereas treating psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis presents 
     a challenge for patients and physicians because no 1 
     treatment works for everyone, some treatments lose 
     effectiveness over time, many treatments are used in 
     combination with other treatments, and all treatments may 
     cause a unique set of side effects: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate designates August 2005 as 
     ``Psoriasis Awareness Month''.

                          ____________________




                 UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 2361

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to 
be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the 
Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2361, the Interior appropriations 
bill. I further ask unanimous consent that there then be 20 minutes of 
debate equally divided between the majority and the minority, followed 
by a vote adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                 UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 2985

  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by 
the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2985, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. I 
further ask unanimous consent that there then be 20 minutes of debate 
equally divided between the majority and the minority, followed by a 
vote adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                    ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2005

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Friday, 
July 29; I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the 
morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved 
to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
2361, the Interior appropriations bill, as under the previous order. I 
further ask that following the use or yielding back of the time on the 
Interior conference report, it be temporarily set aside and the Senate 
proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2985, the 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill, as under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then 
resume consideration of the Energy conference report and there be 30 
minutes equally divided for closing remarks between the chairman and 
ranking member or their designees with all of the provisions of the 
previous consent remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                                PROGRAM

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will complete 
consideration of the conference reports to accompany the Interior 
appropriations bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, the 
Energy bill, and the highway bill. The Senate will also complete action 
on the gun liability bill with an agreement that was reached this 
evening. As my colleagues can see, we will have a very busy day 
tomorrow with rollcall votes throughout. We should be able to complete 
our business tomorrow. I expect that we will. Again, it will be a very 
busy day. Senators should remain close to the Chamber throughout the 
day so that we can proceed in an orderly way for what could be up to 13 
votes during tomorrow's session.

                          ____________________




                      A PRODUCTIVE SEVERAL MONTHS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will be closing tomorrow afternoon, 
hopefully not too late in the afternoon. This has been a very 
productive several months. If you look back and reflect upon the issues 
that have been discussed and the bills that have been passed, there 
have been many. We are governing in a way that meets the expectations 
of the American people, governing with meaningful solutions to their 
everyday problems. We passed a budget which was the fifth fastest in 
history. We passed a bankruptcy bill, a class action reform bill to rid 
frivilous lawsuits. We had six circuit court nominations, judges that 
had been either filibustered or threatened to be filibustered in the 
past. Now we will continue all of that work tomorrow with an Energy 
bill, a highway bill, a gun liability bill, a legislative conference 
report, and the Interior conference report. So it has been a very 
productive Congress and one that we will continue to work very 
aggressively on as we come back after the recess.

                          ____________________




CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND CONDITIONAL 
                  RECESS OR ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 225, the adjournment 
resolution; provided that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 225) was agreed to, as 
follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 225

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the House 
     adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, July 28, 2005, 
     Friday, July 29, 2005, or Saturday, July 30, 2005, on a 
     motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 
     Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 
     p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2005, or until the time of any 
     reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
     resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate 
     recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, July 29, 2005, 
     through Friday, August 5, 2005, on a motion offered pursuant 
     to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
     designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on 
     Tuesday, September 6, 2005, or at such other time on that day 
     as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in 
     the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any 
     reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
     resolution, whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of 
     the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly 
     after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and 
     the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members 
     of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at 
     such place and time as they may designate whenever, in their 
     opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

                          ____________________




                   ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in 
adjournment under the previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 10:57 p.m., adjourned until 
Friday, July 29, 2005, at 9 a.m.

[[Page 19013]]



                          ____________________




                         DISCHARGED NOMINATIONS

  The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was 
discharged from further consideration of the following nominations and 
the nominations were confirmed:

       THOMAS A. FUENTES, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION FOR A 
     TERM EXPIRING JULY 13, 2005.
       BERNICE PHILLIPS, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD 
     OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION FOR A TERM 
     EXPIRING JULY 13, 2005.
       KEVIN F. SULLIVAN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
     FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
       HENRY LOUIS JOHNSON, OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE ASSISTANT 
     SECRETARY FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT 
     OF EDUCATION.
       TERRELL HALASKA, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE 
     ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION AND CONGRESSIONAL 
     AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

  The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration was discharged from 
further consideration of the following nomination and the nomination 
was confirmed:

       DONETTA DAVIDSON, OF COLORADO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM 
     EXPIRING DECEMBER 12, 2007.

                          ____________________




                              NOMINATIONS

  Executive nominations received by the Senate July 28, 2005:


                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

       JOHN J. YOUNG, JR., OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE 
     RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, VICE RONALD M. SEGA.


                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

       EMIL W. HENRY, JR., OF NEW YORK, TO BE AN ASSISTANT 
     SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, VICE WAYNE ABERNATHY.


                        FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

       WILLIAM E. KOVACIC, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A FEDERAL TRADE 
     COMMISSIONER FOR A TERM OF SEVEN YEARS FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 
     2004, VICE ORSON SWINDLE, RESIGNED.


                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

       KATHRYN HIGGINS, OF SOUTH DAKOTA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING 
     DECEMBER 31, 2009, VICE CAROL JONES CARMODY, RESIGNED.


                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

       EDWARD MCGAFFIGAN, JR., OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR THE TERM OF FIVE YEARS 
     EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2010. (REAPPOINTMENT)


                    ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency

       GEORGE M. GRAY, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE AN ASSISTANT 
     ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, VICE J. 
     PAUL GILMAN, RESIGNED.


                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

       BARRY F. LOWENKRON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
     OF STATE FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, VICE LORNE 
     W. CRANER, RESIGNED.
       WILLIAM PAUL MCCORMICK, OF OREGON, TO BE AMBASSADOR 
     EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
     AMERICA TO NEW ZEALAND, AND SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT 
     ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND 
     PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO SAMOA.
       ROLAND ARNALL, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR 
     EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
     AMERICA TO THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS.


                EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

       CHRISTINE M. GRIFFIN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF 
     THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION FOR A TERM 
     EXPIRING JULY 1, 2009, VICE PAUL STEVEN MILLER, TERM EXPIRED.


                   EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

       JAMES F. X. O'GARA, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR 
     FOR SUPPLY REDUCTION, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, 
     VICE BARRY D. CRANE.


                             THE JUDICIARY

       Timothy Mark Burgess, of Alaska, to be United States 
     District Judge for the District of Alaska, vice James K. 
     Singleton, Jr., retired.
       Joseph Frank Bianco, of New York, to be United States 
     District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, vice 
     Denis R. Hurley, retired.
       Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United 
     States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, 
     vice R. Allan Edgar, retiring.


                            In the Air Force

       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED TO THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 1552:

                             To be colonel

THOMAS L. LUTZ, 0000

       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT TO THE 
     GRADE INDICATED TO THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 
     10, U.S.C., SECTION 531:

                        To be lieutenant colonel

BRUCE A. ELLIS, JR., 0000
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT TO THE 
     GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 
     10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 531 AND 1552:

                        To be lieutenant colonel

ANSELMO FELICIANO, 0000
DENNIS J. MALFER, JR., 0000
VIRGINIA W. SPISAK, 0000
DAKE S. VAHOVICH, 0000

       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND FOR REGULAR 
     APPOINTMENT (IDENTIFIED BY AN ASTERISK (*)) UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTIONS 624 AND 531:

                              To be major

JOLENE A. * AINSWORTH, 0000
THOMAS M. * ALSPAUGH, 0000
JOYCE E. ANNELER, 0000
JANE E. * ARGENTO, 0000
KARLA M. * ATCHLEY, 0000
JUDITH K. * BAILLIE, 0000
RAYMOND E. * BAKER, 0000
BRIAN B. * BARNETT, 0000
ERIC B. * BARNETT, 0000
BETH M. * BAYKAN, 0000
MARED G. * BELING, 0000
MELINDA MARIE * BELLOMYMUTH, 0000
DONNA R. * BELOIN, 0000
TINA A. * BETANCOURT, 0000
DAWN M. * BLACK, 0000
MARTHA J. * BOURNE, 0000
SADINA L. * BRECHEISENBEACH, 0000
PAMELA L. * BREWER, 0000
NERRIZA L. * BROOKS, 0000
CASSANDRA E. * CAMPBELL, 0000
HEATHER R. * CAMPBELL, 0000
JAMES E. * CAMPION, 0000
DAISY E. * CASTRICONE, 0000
KEVIN P. * CAVANAUGH, 0000
LAWANDA M. * CLARK, 0000
ERICA C. * CLARKE, 0000
RANDY O. * CLAXTON, 0000
MARGARET E. * CLEVENGER, 0000
STACEY L. * COLEMAN, 0000
TARA N. * CONSTANTINE, 0000
CHARLES P. * COOLEY, 0000
MARK W. * CORNELL, 0000
CHARLES L. * COX, JR., 0000
MARK A. * DAMMEN, 0000
GINETTE * DAMUSJORDAN, 0000
LINDA S. * DENNY, 0000
SUSAN M. * DICKERSON, 0000
SUZIE C. * DIETZ, 0000
BETH R. * DION, 0000
DANIEL E. * DONAHUE, 0000
ROBIN C. * DOSWELL, 0000
PAUL * DREATER, JR., 0000
DIANA Y. * DUNCAN, 0000
VIRGINIA * DUNN, 0000
CHERYL A. * ELLIOTT, 0000
ROSS M. * EVANS, 0000
VICKI M. * FAIR, 0000
LORINDA L. * FARRIS, 0000
THOMAS G. * FEVURLY, 0000
CHARLES M. * FLOWE, 0000
KAWANIEE R. * FLOWE, 0000
MARY T. * FLOYD, 0000
ALISON T. * FORSYTHE, 0000
SHERRY L. * FRANK, 0000
JANE M. * FREE, 0000
DEBRA L. * FREIMARCK, 0000
ALANE C. * GARLlSI, 0000
MURIEL A. * GATLIN, 0000
VIRGINIA A. * GAVIN, 0000
MARY K. * GEYER, 0000
MATTIE D. * GOODE, 0000
DAWN M. * GRAHAM, 0000
LARHONDA M. * GRAY, 0000
STACY GILMORE * GREENE, 0000
CHERYL L. * GROTSKY, 0000
MARIANNE R. * HAFLER, 0000
LINDA A. * HAGEMANN, 0000
BARBARA A. * HASSAN, 0000
JEANINE D. * HATFIELD, 0000
ROBERT W. * HAYES, 0000
TAMMY G. * HAYES, 0000
MICHELLE A. * HEDRICK, 0000
KRISTINA R. * HERTZLER, 0000
JOHN R. * HIMBERGER, 0000
DAWN K. * HINCKLEY, 0000
FRANCES L. * HODGES, 0000
LEAH NICOLE * HOLLAND, 0000
KATHLEEN M. * HOLLEY, 0000
ANITA A. * HOYUELA, 0000
JACQUELYN J. * HUDSON, 0000
LELA A. * HUDSON, 0000
SHERRY L. * HULSE, 0000
NANCY J. * JOHNSON, 0000
LAURA K. * JONES, 0000
RONALD L. * JONES, JR., 0000
JULIE A. * JUMP, 0000
KRISTIN L. * KALINA, 0000
LESLIE I. * KARAS, 0000
STEVEN M. * KEENE, 0000
JACQUELINE M. * KILLIAN, 0000
DIANE R. * KLINGENBERG, 0000
MARK A. * KNITZ, 0000
LAURA L. * KOONTZ, 0000
LEANN M. * LAMB, 0000
KAREN V. * LARRY, 0000
MARGARET A. * LAUREANOMILLER, 0000
RONALD E. * LECZNER, 0000
JOHN W. * LEDWITCH III, 0000
CHUNG MIN * LEE, 0000
SUSAN J. * LEE, 0000
PAUL L. * LINK, 0000
JOANN A. * LLANEZA, 0000
MICHAEL A. * LOPEZ, 0000
BACH HOA T. MAl, 0000
EDWIN A. * MALDONADO, 0000
NAQUITA J. * MANNING, 0000
JOHN L. * MANSUY, 0000
LILI M. * MARTINEZ, 0000
THOMAS * MCALARNEY, 0000
JACQUELINE J. * MCAULEY, 0000
MICHAEL P. * MCGANN, 0000
KEVIN R. * MCHAFFEY, 0000
CHRISTINE L. * MEVES, 0000
LORI J. * MILLER, 0000
PAUL T. * MILLER, JR., 0000
GRETCHEN H. * MORELAND, 0000
DENNIS * MULLINS, 0000
THERESA A. * MURPHY, 0000
VIRGINIA R. * MUSHENSKI, 0000
DENISE M. * MYERS, 0000
NELVA J. * NIELSEN, 0000
MARTIN * OCKERT, 0000
JAMES G. * OLANDA, 0000
JEFFREY J. * OLIVER, 0000
LAURA J. * PALM, 0000
VINCE E. * PARIS, 0000
DEXTER A. * PATTON, 0000
KARIN E. * PETERSEN, 0000
MIKEL W. * PHILLIPS, 0000
DONALD R. * POTTER, 0000
ANDREA M. * RAMEY, 0000
LORRI M. * REED, 0000
ANDREW L. * REIMUND, 0000
MARK J. * REITTER, 0000
SCOTT C. * RHODES, 0000
HEATHER A. * RISDAL, 0000
VICTOR R. * RIVERA, 0000
KIM G. * ROBINSON, 0000
KENT A. * ROMAN, 0000
PAMELA J. * ROSSIO, 0000
KIMBERLEE M. * RUSSELL, 0000
JEANNIE Y. * SABATINE, 0000
SUSAN M. * SARGENT, 0000
KATHY S. * SAVELL, 0000
KIMBERLY A. * SCHMIDT, 0000
ANTOINETTE N. * SHEPPARD, 0000
SANDRA S. * SHORES, 0000
VICKIE L. * SKUPSKI, 0000
MELISSA C. * SMITH, 0000
SHERRY L. * SMITH, 0000
JANICE L. * SOWERS, 0000
PENNY E. * SPAID, 0000
LISA K. * STOLZER, 0000
KARl M. * STONE, 0000
SEAN A. * STRAIT, 0000
CHRISTOPHER M. * SWEENEY, 0000
LEA M. * THIES, 0000
JENNIFER E. * THOMAS, 0000
SCOTT R. * TONKO, 0000
VALERIE A. * TRUMP, 0000
ANITA S. * UPP, 0000
EDWIN * VALENTIN, 0000
JOHN D. * VANDEVELDE, 0000
KATHI S. * VAVRA, 0000
JERRY * VEGA, 0000
TAMRA C. * WEATHERBEE, 0000
BRUCE W. * WEISS, 0000
GINGER S. * WEISS, 0000
JACQUELINE F. * WHITE, 0000
CINDI L. * WILLIS, 0000
WILLIAM T. * WILSON, 0000
SHARON L. WINDERLICH, 0000
JAMES R. * WITTENAUER III, 0000
LOUISE H. * WOLFE, 0000
SHANNON G. * WOMBLE, 0000
SHANNEN M. * WRIGHT, 0000
DAVID C. * ZIMMERMAN, 0000

                          ____________________




                             CONFIRMATIONS

  Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate Thursday, July 28, 
2005:

[[Page 19014]]




                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

       MARCUS C. PEACOCK, OF MINNESOTA, TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 
     OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.


                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

       DAVID R. HILL, OF MISSOURI, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 
     DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
       JILL L. SIGAL, OF WYOMING, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
     ENERGY (CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS).


                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

       RICHARD L. SKINNER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, 
     DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.


                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

       JANICE B. GARDNER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
     FOR INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY.


                   EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

       JOHN S. REDD, OF GEORGIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL 
     COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
     INTELLIGENCE.
       THE ABOVE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE NOMINEE'S 
     COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY 
     BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.


                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

       KEVIN F. SULLIVAN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
     FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
       HENRY LOUIS JOHNSON, OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE ASSISTANT 
     SECRETARY FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT 
     OF EDUCATION.
       TERRELL HALASKA, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE 
     ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION AND CONGRESSIONAL 
     AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.


                     ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

       DONETTA DAVIDSON, OF COLORADO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM 
     EXPIRING DECEMBER 12, 2007.


                       LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

       THOMAS A. FUENTES, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION FOR A 
     TERM EXPIRING JULY 13, 2005.
       BERNICE PHILLIPS, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD 
     OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION FOR A TERM 
     EXPIRING JULY 13, 2005.


                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

       RACHEL BRAND, OF IOWA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.