[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2757-2816]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Bond):
  S. 414. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to protect 
the

[[Page 2758]]

right of Americans to vote through the prevention of voter fraud, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voter 
Protection Act of 2005, and I am pleased to be joined again by my good 
friend from Missouri, Senator Bond. I also acknowledge the deep 
interest and expertise of the occupant of the chair in this important 
subject of how we have increasingly honest elections in our country.
  In the wake of the 2000 election, as chairman of the Rules and 
Administration Committee, and then its ranking member, Senators Bond, 
Dodd, and I worked together to address the problems brought to light in 
the 2000 elections. In January of 2001, I introduced the first of what 
would become several election reform bills. Nearly 2 years later, all 
the hard work and long hours paid off with the President of the United 
States signing the Help America Vote Act of 2002, commonly referred to 
as HAVA.
  This legislation passed with near unanimous support in both Chambers. 
HAVA set forth several minimum standards for States to meet and was 
coupled with a new Election Assistance Commission to provide advice and 
distribute $3 billion to date. The goal was and is to make it easier to 
vote and harder to cheat.
  The 2004 elections were the first conducted under HAVA. There are 
reports of many successes attributable to HAVA, including a new Cal-
Tech/MIT study, which found a decrease in the residual vote rate, or 
ballots that did not record a vote for President. Further, there were 
new requirements for identification while registering or, at the polls, 
new voting technology, statewide databases, and a broad Federal 
requirement for the casting of provisional ballots.
  HAVA was a tremendous success, but all of the cosponsors were careful 
to avoid a complete Federal takeover of elections. As was stated by 
prominent election expert Doug Lewis, after conducting elections for 
over 200 years, State and local officials didn't become stupid in just 
one election. Throughout the bill, we remained respectful of the States 
rights and left methods of implementation to the discretion of States.
  Today, we bring before this body a new piece of legislation which 
builds upon the successes of HAVA and clarifies some of the 
misinterpretations that occurred in the last election. This bill 
provides State and local officials more tools to ensure every eligible 
voter casts their vote, but make sure it is counted only once.
  First, the most important part of this election process is an 
accurate and secure registration list. This legislation clarifies 
several provisions related to ensuring that those who register are 
legally entitled to do so, do so only once, and in only one State. 
Further, we address the problem brought about by voter registration 
drives which dumped impossible numbers of new registrations on the last 
day of registration. The bill ensures that only real-life, eligible 
Mary Poppins registers to vote.
  Second, the process of actually casting a ballot is sacred to all 
Americans. The legislation will ensure accurate poll lists and photo 
identification at the polls, and will reaffirm HAVA's goal of 
permitting State law to govern counting provisional ballots.
  Further, for absentee ballots, having them returned by election day 
and requiring authentication of their request is critical. Thus, if a 
real, eligible, registered Mary Poppins goes to the polls, she can show 
identification and vote--but just once.
  Third, grant money will be available to pay for photo identification 
for those who don't have one or cannot afford one. The Election 
Assistance Commission will conduct a pilot program for the use of 
indelible ink at the polls, reminiscent of the Iraqi elections on 
January 30. We were all moved by the picture we saw from the Iraqi 
elections of voters proudly showing their ink-sustained fingers. Aside 
from being an act of national pride, it was also an act to ensure that 
all those who voted did so only once.
  Lastly, the 2004 elections saw new tactics which must be addressed by 
new criminal penalties for buying and conspiring to buy voter 
registrations. Further, the destruction or damaging of property with 
intent to impede voting is something that must be prosecuted.
  Again, I am proud to have been the Senate Republican sponsor of the 
Help America Vote Act of 2002 and believe it has and will continue to 
improve the conduct of elections in this country. But much more needs 
to be done. The Voter Protection Act of 2005 builds upon that important 
piece of legislation to combat voter fraud and ensure the integrity of 
the entire election process.
  I know Senator Bond, a cosponsor, is on the way to the floor. I 
commend him for his important contribution to HAVA. I repeat my earlier 
comments about the occupant of the chair and his expertise and interest 
in this issue. We look forward to working with both of them to advance 
a piece of legislation for America that would make it easier to vote 
and harder to cheat.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
Senator McConnell in introducing the Voter Protection Act of 2005. This 
legislation builds upon the progress made by the Help America Vote Act 
toward our goal of making it easier to vote and harder to cheat, while 
addressing some additional issues that came to light during the 
previous election.
  This legislation will clarify the intent of our previous bill and try 
to alleviate some of the administrative burdens and misguided policies 
placed on dedicated, hard-working election workers by previous 
congressional intrusions into the State functioning of running 
elections.
  Make no mistake about it, record numbers of Americans went to the 
polls in 2004. The overwhelming number of Americans were greeted by 
informed, dedicated, and properly trained election workers and were 
able to cast their ballot in a timely manner and in a secure 
environment. In Missouri, my home State, the elections were extremely 
well run. Large numbers of voters were accommodated at the polls in a 
timely fashion, and very few questions have been raised about 
administration or integrity.
  I believe our recent enactment of HAVA, the Help American Vote Act, 
helped make it easier for States and localities to administer their 
elections.
  I might add that once again Missouri voters voted on punch cards. 
Contrary to the bogeyman of hanging chads and other problems we heard 
about in the past, punch cards have served the voters of Missouri well, 
proving that trained poll workers, coupled with informed voters, can 
participate in clean and fair elections using punchcard voting 
machines.
  I live in Audrain County, MO, which is a rural county with a wide 
diversity. It is very average and representative, although I think it 
is an outstanding county. I asked the county clerk: How many problems 
have you had with these punchcard voters? We have the whole range of 
voters, a very wide diversity. She told me in her memory and the memory 
of those in the county clerk's office, they had never had a single 
problem with hanging chads or punchcard machines.
  Some people are saying the Help America Vote Act required getting rid 
of punchcard machines. It did not do that. Let's be clear, that is not 
required by the Help America Vote Act.
  The smoothness leading up to the elections in Missouri was not the 
case everywhere. I continue to have concerns about the registration 
process and voter registration lists. Election officials are still 
laboring under an unnecessarily burdensome system heaped upon them by 
the motor voter bill. Motor voter required States to accept anonymous 
mail registration cards without supporting documents and voter 
registration cards from election drives. Motor voter prohibited 
authentication of registrations, making it extremely difficult for 
names to be removed from voter rolls, such as Mickey Mouse, the 
deceased, or those who had left the State years before. That is why

[[Page 2759]]

to many of us, motor voter had become auto-fraudo, and we took steps in 
the Help America Vote Act to change that.
  The evidence is still overwhelming that this poor policy continues to 
result in tremendous administrative burdens on our election officials, 
with registration lists being bloated and inaccurate but limited 
recourse for election officials to address the situation. All this 
makes it more difficult to run clean, fair, and accurate elections.
  The Help America Vote Act required minimum identification for first-
time voters who take advantage of the mail-in voter registration 
procedures. While the law is clear, some States chose to find ways 
around this reasonable requirement. This bill makes it clear that 
voters who do not register before a government official in person will 
have to provide the ID requirement. We heard reports of partisan 
election workers who brought in bundles of voter registration cards, 
and when they told the governmental election officials they had seen 
the voter ID, those cards were accepted. Anybody who would accept that 
ought to be buying the 14th Street bridge. To say somebody who is not a 
government official and is partisan is going to fulfill the 
governmental requirements is a stretch too far.
  Furthermore, in some Federal elections, I think it is past time to go 
to a full ID provision. So this legislation requires voters in Federal 
elections to present identification at the polls while creating a 
program to ensure that all voters have access to an ID if they cannot 
afford one.
  We now ask our citizens to provide a photo ID for so many tasks of 
everyday life. To provide it once more for election officials on 
election day seems a small request in order to help ensure our 
elections are fair and accurate.
  If a person does not have a photo ID and cannot afford to procure 
one, our bill provides the requirement and the resources to ensure that 
one is provided.
  Let's make sure every legal vote gets counted, and only the legal 
votes and only one vote per person, only one vote per human. No dogs, 
please.
  The practice of dropping off registration cards in bulk at the 
registration deadline continues. It is proving to be a huge burden on 
election officials. The practice of submitting cards for fictitious 
people, deceased, and ineligible voters is alive and well, so to speak.
  Also, a troubling practice by some voter registration groups has come 
to light--registrations not being delivered to the election 
authorities. Whether intentional, through oversight or neglect, this is 
simply unacceptable. Would-be voters place their faith in those 
conducting registration drives, and the States accept the registration 
drives will be conducted on the level. Sloppy practices can only result 
in people being denied the right to vote. So there must be oversight.
  This legislation will bring some accountability to voter registration 
drives while relieving some of the burdens on election authorities by 
mass dumping of registrations.
  I call on our law enforcement officials, the Department of Justice, 
and our U.S. attorneys to review the process and look at those areas 
where fraud has been suggested to find out if it is prosecutable, if 
Federal criminal procedure is required and warranted. I can tell you 
that we will pass all the laws in the world, but until we see some 
voter fraud proponents going to jail, spending time in the cells, we 
are not going to have the effect this bill and our previous bill 
anticipated.
  We need to clean up the registration process by permitting States to 
use Social Security numbers. I think this bill brings some sense to 
voter rules by clarifying the provision in motor voter for name 
removal. The bill also includes a provision for dealing in a reasonable 
manner with registration cards that are incomplete.
  We found in the past, if you did not specifically indicate you were a 
U.S. citizen, the courts refused to prosecute those knowing they were 
not eligible to vote because they were not citizens; they could not be 
prosecuted. Now there is a specific requirement that you indicate you 
are a U.S. citizen, eligible to vote. If you do not do that, the card 
should not be accepted, and if you falsely certify you are a U.S. 
citizen, you ought to be prosecuted.
  As we expressed throughout the debates on Help America Vote Act, 
minimum standard requirements for elections are to be implemented by 
the State. On provisional voting, the language is explicit. Questions 
on the implementation of provisional balloting are for State 
legislators and election officials to decide. But as is too often the 
case in this country, what cannot be achieved through legislation will 
be pursued in the courtroom. Some 65 lawsuits were pursued to overturn 
decisions to preserve the precinct system used at the State level. This 
was a conscious effort to screw up the elections. Fortunately, the 
courts got it right. They overruled them 65 times. But there will be 
more litigation. Therefore, this legislation clarifies further the 
clear language of HAVA that the decision on the precinct system and 
decision on the proper polling place for voters is a State question.
  The goal of the lawsuits, as I said, seemed to introduce complete 
chaos which would have ensued were voters allowed simply to vote 
anywhere they wanted. Additionally, those voters would not have been 
able to vote in local elections and balloting initiatives. The purpose 
of the suits did not make sense, but they were filed anyhow. The 
arguments for throwing out State law made less sense. It is simply the 
height of illogic to argue on one hand that States should permissively 
allow voters to cast ballots from anywhere in the State they chose, 
only to complain later that the number of election machines at a 
polling place was inadequate.
  Many people lodging this complaint also complained it rained on 
election day. Sorry, we cannot change that by law. So their concerns 
must be evaluated accordingly. Among other things, the precinct system 
allows election officials to plan for election day, assign voters to 
voting places in manageable numbers, and dispatch the proper level of 
resources.
  Once again, after election day, the newspapers were filled with 
stories pointing out irregularities on election day. The election day 
problems have grown out of bloated and inaccurate voting lists and 
sloppy registration procedures. The stories clearly establish that 
sloppy laws, poor lists, and chaos at the polls invite efforts to cheat 
on election day. That is unacceptable to voters and to candidates and 
people who depend upon a free, fair system of democracy. If a voter has 
his or her vote canceled by a vote that should never have been cast, 
whether cast by fraud or ineligible voter, he or she has lost the civil 
right to be heard and to have the vote counted. It is a 
disenfranchisement of the voter. It also is a grave offense to the 
candidates who spend countless amounts of their time and their 
supporters' resources on elections.
  Our goal should be elections that are free of suspicion, doubt, and 
cynicism about the results. There are steps that remain to be taken to 
ensure that elections are conducted in a sound and secure manner so 
that the integrity of the ballot box remains beyond doubt. These simple 
steps will begin to clean up the mess created in the registration 
process, while taking away the remains of enticements to game the 
system.
  I look forward to the debate on the floor about these reasonable 
measures. I commend our deputy majority leader for his work on this 
effort, and look forward to discussing this and pursuing it with our 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I can very briefly say to my good 
friend and colleague from Missouri, it is a pleasure to team up with 
him once again in our pursuit of better elections in this country and 
to report to him on the prosecution front there actually was a 
conviction. I know the occupant of the Chair is interested in this as 
well. There actually was a conviction in my State for vote fraud--two 
of them--over the last 6 months. We will see whether that has an impact 
on habits of many decades that exist in my State and I know in several 
parts of the State of Missouri as well.

[[Page 2760]]

  I congratulate the Senator for his statement.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I salute my two colleagues, Senator 
McConnell and Senator Bond, for their leadership in this very important 
area, along with Senator Dodd. They spearheaded the improvements that 
were made to our election, registration, and voting procedures in the 
aftermath of the 2000 election difficulties. Clearly, the experience 
over last November's election shows that we have more work before us 
that has to be bipartisan. They have shown strong leadership, combined 
with others, and I look forward to being part of that as a member of 
the Senate Rules Committee. Senator Lott, the chairman of that 
committee, will hold hearings in the very near future on this and other 
proposals. I believe it is imperative that we get that process underway 
so, as Senator Bond knows, every American knows they have the right to 
vote, and vote expeditiously, and every one of those votes is going to 
be counted.
  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. 414

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Voter 
     Protection Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2.  Findings.

   TITLE I--VOTER REGISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF OFFICIAL LISTS OF 
                           REGISTERED VOTERS

Sec. 101. Requirements for voters who register other than in person 
              with an officer or employee of a State or local 
              government entity.
Sec. 102. Removal of registrants from voting rolls for failure to vote.
Sec. 103. Use of social security numbers for voter registration and 
              election administration.
Sec. 104. Synchronization of State databases.
Sec. 105. Incomplete registration forms.
Sec. 106. Requirements for submission of registration forms by third 
              parties.

                            TITLE II--VOTING

Sec. 201. Voter rolls.
Sec. 202. Return of absentee ballots.
Sec. 203. Identification requirement.
Sec. 204. Clarification of counting of provisional ballots.
Sec. 205. Applications for absentee ballots.
Sec. 206. Pilot program for use of indelible ink at polling places.

                     TITLE III--CRIMINAL PENALTIES

Sec. 301. Penalty for making expenditures to persons to register.
Sec. 302. Penalty for conspiracy to influence voting.
Sec. 303. Penalty for destruction of property with intent to impede the 
              act of voting.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) There is a need for Congress to encourage and enable 
     every eligible and registered American to vote.
       (2) There is a need for Congress to protect the franchise 
     of all Americans by rooting out the potential for fraud in 
     the electoral system.
       (3) There is a need for Congress to provide States the 
     tools necessary to protect against fraud in multiple, 
     fictitious, and ineligible voter registrations.
       (4) There is a need for Congress to ensure completed and 
     valid voter registration forms are returned for processing so 
     as to not disenfranchise voters who believe they have been 
     properly registered.
       (5) There is a need for Congress to provide States the 
     tools necessary to protect against any American casting more 
     than one ballot and ensuring poll workers are equipped to 
     identify those who voted prior to election day.
       (6) There is a need for Congress to ensure the accuracy, 
     integrity, and fairness of every American election.
       (7) There is a need for Congress to ensure the protection 
     of every American's franchise is carried out in a uniform and 
     nondiscriminatory manner.

   TITLE I--VOTER REGISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF OFFICIAL LISTS OF 
                           REGISTERED VOTERS

     SEC. 101. REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER OTHER THAN IN 
                   PERSON WITH AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF A STATE 
                   OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Application of requirements to voters registering other 
     than in person.--Subparagraph (A) of section 303(b)(1) of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(1)(A)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) the individual registered to vote in a jurisdiction 
     in a manner other than appearing in person before an officer 
     or employee of a State or local government entity; and''.
       (2) Meaning of in person.--Paragraph (1) of section 303(b) 
     of such Act is amended by inserting at the end the following:

     ``For purposes of subparagraph (A), an individual shall not 
     be considered to have registered in person if the 
     registration is submitted to an officer or employee of a 
     State or local government entity by a person other than the 
     person whose name appears on the voter registration form.''.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading for subsection (b) of section 303 of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``who register by mail'' and 
     inserting ``who do not register in person''.
       (B) The heading for section 303 of such Act is amended by 
     striking ``requirements for voters who register by mail'' and 
     inserting ``voter registration requirements''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply on and after January 1, 2006.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Paragraph (2) of section 303(d) of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(d)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Applicability with respect to individuals who 
     register other than in person.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B)--
       ``(i) each State and jurisdiction shall be required to 
     comply with the provisions of subsection (b) with respect to 
     individuals who register to vote in a jurisdiction in a 
     manner other than appearing in person before an officer or 
     employee of a State or local government entity on and after 
     January 1, 2006; and
       ``(ii) the provisions of subsection (b) shall apply to any 
     individual who registers to vote in a jurisdiction in a 
     manner other than appearing in person before an officer or 
     employee of a State or local government on and after January 
     1, 2006.''.
       (B) The heading for paragraph (2) of section 303(d) of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``who register by mail''.
       (C) Subparagraph (A) of section 303(d)(2) of such Act is 
     amended by inserting ``with respect to individuals who 
     register by mail'' after ``subsection (b)''.
       (D) Subparagraph (B) of section 303(d)(2) of such Act is 
     amended by inserting ``by mail'' after ``registers to vote''.

     SEC. 102. REMOVAL OF REGISTRANTS FROM VOTING ROLLS FOR 
                   FAILURE TO VOTE.

       (a) In General.--Section 8 of the National Voter 
     Registration Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6) is amended by 
     redesignating subsections (h), (i), and (j) as subsections 
     (i), (j), and (k), respectively, and by inserting after 
     subsection (g) the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Failure to Vote.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     subsection (d), a State shall not remove the name of a 
     registrant from the official list of eligible voters in 
     elections for Federal office on the ground that the 
     registrant has failed to vote unless--
       ``(1) the registrant has not voted or appeared to vote in 2 
     consecutive general elections for Federal office; and
       ``(2)(A) the registrant has not notified the applicable 
     registrar (in person or in writing) during the period 
     described in subparagraph (A) that the individual intends to 
     remain registered in the registrar's jurisdiction; and
       ``(B) the applicable registrar has sent a notice which 
     meets the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) and the notice is 
     undeliverable.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 8(a)(4) of the National Voter Registration Act 
     of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)(4)) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or'' at 
     the end of subparagraph (B), and by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) a failure to vote in 2 consecutive general elections 
     for Federal office, in accordance with subsection (h) of this 
     section;''.
       (2) Section 8(b) of the National Voter Registration Act of 
     1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(b)) is amended by striking ``roll 
     for elections for Federal office'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following ``roll for elections for Federal 
     office shall be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and in compliance 
     with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et 
     seq.).''.

     SEC. 103. USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS FOR VOTER 
                   REGISTRATION AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(I)(i) It is the policy of the United States that any 
     State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the 
     administration of any voter registration or other election 
     law, use the social security account numbers issued by the 
     Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of 
     establishing the identification of individuals affected by 
     such law, and may require any individual who is, or appears 
     to be, so affected to furnish to such State (or political 
     subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having 
     administrative responsibility for the law involved, the 
     social security account number (or numbers, if such 
     individual

[[Page 2761]]

     has more than one such number) issued to such individual by 
     the Commissioner of Social Security.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), an agency of a State (or 
     political subdivision thereof) charged with the 
     administration of any voter registration or other election 
     law that did not use the social security account number for 
     identification under a law or regulation adopted before 
     January 1, 2005, may require an individual to disclose his or 
     her social security number to such agency solely for the 
     purpose of administering the laws referred to in such clause.
       ``(iii) If, and to the extent that, any provision of 
     Federal law enacted before the date of enactment of the Voter 
     Protection Act of 2005 is inconsistent with the policy set 
     forth in clause (i), such provision shall, on and after the 
     date of the enactment of such Act, be null, void, and of no 
     effect.''.
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section or the amendment 
     made by this section may be construed to supersede any 
     privacy guarantee under any Federal or State law that applies 
     with respect to a social security number.

     SEC. 104. SYNCHRONIZATION OF STATE DATABASES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 303(a)(1) of 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(a)(1)(A)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ix) The computerized list shall be in a format which 
     allows for sharing and synchronization with other State 
     computerized lists.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 303(d) of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(d)(1)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Synchronization of databases.--Each State and 
     jurisdiction shall be required to comply with the 
     requirements of subsection (a)(1)(A)(ix) on and after January 
     1, 2007.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     303(d)(1) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
     15483(d)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''.

     SEC. 105. INCOMPLETE REGISTRATION FORMS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 303(b)(4) of 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(4)(B)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Incomplete forms.--If an applicant for voter 
     registration fails to answer the question included on the 
     mail voter registration form pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i), 
     the registrar shall return the incomplete voter registration 
     form to the applicant and provide the applicant with an 
     opportunity to complete the registration form.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to any individual who registers to vote on or 
     after January 1, 2006.

     SEC. 106. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION OF REGISTRATION FORMS 
                   BY THIRD PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 303 of the Help America Vote Act 
     of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and 
     by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Requirements for Submission or Registration Forms by 
     Third Parties.--Notwithstanding section 8(a) of the National 
     Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-6(a)), no 
     State shall register any person to vote in an election for 
     Federal office if the registration form is submitted--
       ``(1) by a person other than the person whose name appears 
     on such form; and
       ``(2) more than 3 days after the date on which such form 
     was signed by the registrant.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 906(a) of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15545(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 303(b)'' and inserting ``subsections (b) 
     and (d) of section 303''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (e) of section 303 of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(d)), as 
     redesignated by subsection (a), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Requirement for submission of registration forms by 
     third parties.--Each State shall be required to comply with 
     the requirements of subsection (d) on and after January 1, 
     2006.''.

                            TITLE II--VOTING

     SEC. 201. VOTER ROLLS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by redesignating 
     sections 304 and 305 as sections 305 and 306, respectively, 
     and by inserting after section 303 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 304. VOTER ROLLS.

       ``(a) In General.--If a State allows early voting or 
     absentee voting for a Federal office, then such State shall 
     be required to ensure that the voter rolls at each polling 
     location on the day of the election accurately and 
     affirmatively indicate--
       ``(1) which individuals have voted prior to such day; and
       ``(2) which individuals have requested an absentee ballot 
     for such election.
       ``(b) Rule for Persons Not Voting in Person.--For purposes 
     of subsection (a)(1), a State shall affirmatively indicate 
     that an individual who has not voted in person has voted if 
     the State has received a ballot from such individual prior to 
     the day of the election.
       ``(c) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be 
     required to comply with the requirements of this section on 
     and after January 1, 2006.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking 
     ``and 303'' and inserting ``303, and 304''.

     SEC. 202. RETURN OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by redesignating sections 305 and 306 as sections 306 
     and 307, respectively, and by inserting after section 304 the 
     following new section.

     ``SEC. 305. RETURN OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in the Uniformed and 
     Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, each absentee ballot 
     cast for a Federal office must be received by the State by 
     the close of business on the day of the election in order to 
     be counted as a valid ballot.
       ``(b) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be 
     required to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on 
     and after January 1, 2006.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511), as amended by this Act, 
     is amended by striking ``and 304'' and inserting ``304, and 
     305''.

     SEC. 203. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Requirement for Voters Who Register by Mail and Other 
     Than in Person.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 303(b)(2) of 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(2)(A)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) by inserting ``issued by a government entity'' after 
     ``identification'' in subclause (I); and
       (ii) by striking ``current utility bill, bank statement, 
     government check, paycheck, or other'' in subclause (II) and 
     inserting ``recent''; and
       (B) in clause (ii) --
       (i) by inserting ``issued by a government entity'' after 
     ``identification'' in subclause (I); and
       (ii) by striking ``current utility bill, bank statement, 
     government check, paycheck, or other'' in subclause (II) and 
     inserting ``recent''.
       (2) Inapplicability.--Paragraph (3) of section 303(b) of 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``part of such'' and inserting ``a 
     requirement for a valid'';
       (ii) by inserting ``issued by a government entity'' after 
     ``identification'' in clause (i); and
       (iii) by striking ``current utility bill, bank statement, 
     government check, paycheck, or other'' in clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``recent''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``with such'' and 
     inserting ``as a requirement for a valid''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to individuals who register to vote on and after 
     January 1, 2006, and each State and jurisdiction shall be 
     required to comply with the requirements of section 303(b) of 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as amended by this 
     section, on and after January 1, 2006.
       (b) New Requirement for Individuals Voting in Person.--
       (1) In general.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by redesignating sections 306 and 307 as sections 307 
     and 308, respectively, and by inserting after section 305 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 306. IDENTIFICATION OF VOTERS AT THE POLLS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the requirements of 
     section 303(b), each State shall require individuals casting 
     ballots in an election for Federal office in person to 
     present a current valid photo identification issued by a 
     governmental entity before voting.
       ``(b) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after 
     January 1, 2006.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511), as amended by this Act, 
     is amended by striking ``and 305'' and inserting ``305, and 
     306''.
       (c) Funding for Free Photo Identifications.--Subtitle D of 
     title II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
     15401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

                     ``PART 7--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

     ``SEC. 297. PAYMENTS FOR FREE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to any other payments made 
     under this subtitle, the Election Assistance Commission shall 
     make payments to States to promote the issuance to registered 
     voters of free photo identifications for purposes of meeting 
     the identification requirements of sections 303(b)(2) and 
     306.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--A State is eligible to receive a grant 
     under this part if it submits to

[[Page 2762]]

     the Commission (at such time and in such form as the 
     Commission may require) an application containing--
       ``(1) a statement that the State intends to comply with the 
     requirements of section 303(b) and section 306; and
       ``(2) a description of how the State intends to use the 
     payment under this part to provide registered voters with 
     free photo identifications to meet the requirements of such 
     sections.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--A State receiving a payment under this 
     part shall use the payment only to provide free photo 
     identification cards to registered voters who do not have an 
     identification card that meets the requirements of sections 
     303(b) and 306.
       ``(d) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the grant made to a State 
     under this part for a year shall be equal to the product of--
       ``(A) the total amount appropriated for payments under this 
     part for the year under section 298; and
       ``(B) an amount equal to--
       ``(i) the voting age population of the State (as reported 
     in the most recent decennial census); divided by
       ``(ii) the total voting age of all eligible States which 
     submit an application for payments under this part (as 
     reported in the most recent decennial census).

     ``SEC. 298. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to any other amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under this subtitle, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006 and such sums as are necessary for each subsequent 
     fiscal year for the purpose of making payments under section 
     297.
       ``(b) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     the authority of this section shall remain available until 
     expended.''.

     SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF COUNTING OF PROVISIONAL BALLOTS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 302(a) of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)(4)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``For purposes of this paragraph, the determination of 
     whether an individual is eligible under State law to vote 
     shall take into account any provision of State law with 
     respect to the polling site at which the individual is 
     required to vote.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--
       (1) Paragraph (1) of section 302(a) of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)(1)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(1) An election official at the polling place shall--
       ``(A) notify the individual that the individual may cast a 
     provisional ballot in that election; and
       ``(B) in the case of an individual who the election 
     official asserts is not eligible to vote under State law 
     because the individual is at an incorrect polling site, 
     direct the individual to the appropriate polling site.''.
       (2) Paragraph (2) of section 302(a) of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``The individual'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding 
     the requirement of paragraph (1)(B), the individual''.

     SEC. 205. APPLICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by redesignating sections 307 and 308 as sections 308 
     and 309, respectively, and by inserting after section 306 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 307. APPLICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

       ``(a) In General.--An application for an absentee ballot 
     for an election for Federal office may not be accepted and 
     processed by a State unless the application includes--
       ``(1) in the case of an applicant who has been issued a 
     current and valid driver's license, the applicant's driver's 
     license number; or
       ``(2) in the case of any other applicant--
       ``(A) a photo copy of a current and valid photo 
     identification issued by a government entity;
       ``(B) at least the last 4 digits of the applicant's social 
     security number; or
       ``(C) the number assigned to such individual under section 
     303(a)(5)(A)(ii).
       ``(b) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after 
     January 1, 2006.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511), as amended by this Act, 
     is amended by striking ``and 306'' and inserting ``306, and 
     307''.

     SEC. 206. PILOT PROGRAM FOR USE OF INDELIBLE INK AT POLLING 
                   PLACES.

       Subtitle D of title II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 
     (42 U.S.C. 15401 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

   ``PART 8--PILOT PROGRAM FOR USE OF INDELIBLE INK AT POLLING PLACES

     ``SEC. 299. PILOT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Commission shall make grants to 
     States to carry out pilot programs under which each voter in 
     an election for Federal office in a State is marked with 
     indelible ink after submitting a ballot.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--A State is eligible to receive a grant 
     under this part if it submits to the Commission, at such time 
     and in such form as the Commission may require, an 
     application containing such information as the Commission may 
     require.
       ``(c) Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State which receives a grant under 
     this part shall submit to the Commission a report describing 
     the activities carried out with the funds provided under the 
     grant.
       ``(2) Deadline.--A State shall submit the report required 
     under paragraph (1) not later than 60 days after the end of 
     the fiscal year for which the State received the grant which 
     is the subject of the report.

     ``SEC. 300. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for grants under this part $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 
     and such sums as are necessary for each succeeding fiscal 
     year.
       ``(b) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     the authority of this section shall remain available, without 
     fiscal year limitation, until expended.''.

                     TITLE III--CRIMINAL PENALTIES

     SEC. 301. PENALTY FOR MAKING EXPENDITURES TO PERSONS TO 
                   REGISTER.

        Section 597 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``to register him to vote,'' after ``either''.

     SEC. 302. PENALTY FOR CONSPIRACY TO INFLUENCE VOTING.

       Section 597 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 
     this Act, is amended by striking ``makes or offers to make'' 
     and inserting ``makes, offers to make, or conspires to 
     make''.

     SEC. 303. PENALTY FOR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY WITH INTENT TO 
                   IMPEDE THE ACT OF VOTING.

       Section 594 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Whoever''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Whoever destroys or damages any property with the 
     intent to prevent or impede an individual from voting in an 
     election for the office of President, Vice President, 
     Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the 
     House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of 
     Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 415. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct 
research on indicators of child well-being; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today know as the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 2005. This 
bill is designed to enhance child well-being in every State by 
collecting data on a State-by-State basis to provide information to 
advocates and policy-makers about the well-being of children. 
Developing a set of indicators and measuring progress of child well-
being deserves to be a priority.
  My hope is to incorporate this important research initiative into the 
welfare reform reauthorization package. I believe that the Senate 
should reauthorize our welfare program, known as Temporary Assistance 
to Needy Families, TANF, and we should do it this year. Chairman 
Grassley's interest in a bipartisan process is very encouraging.
  In 1996, Congress passed bold legislation to dramatically change our 
welfare system, and I supported it. The driving force behind this 
reform was to promote work and self-sufficiency for families and to 
provide flexibility to States to achieve these goals. States have used 
this flexibility to design different programs that work better for 
families who rely on them.
  Nine years later, it is obvious that we need State-by-State data on 
child well-being to measure the results. The current Survey of Income 
and Program Participation (SIPP) is used to evaluate the progress of 
welfare, and it has been an important national longitudinal study 
designed to provide rich, detailed data; the kinds of data most useful 
to academic researchers. It does not, however, provide States with 
good, timely data to help them more effectively accomplish the goals 
set forth in welfare reform. This is why is makes sense to invest in 
both types of surveys, the SIPP and this bill. As social policy and 
flexibility shifts to the States, the data measuring its effects should 
be specific.
  This bill, the State Child Well Being Research Act of 2005, is 
intended to fill this information gap by collecting timely, State-
specific data that can be used by policy-makers, researchers,

[[Page 2763]]

and child advocates to assess the well being of children. It would 
require that a survey examine the physical and emotional health of 
children, adequately represent the experiences of families in 
individual States, be consistent across States, be collected annually, 
articulate results in easy to understand terms, and focus on low-income 
children and families.
  The proposed legislation will provide data for all States, including 
small rural States that cannot be covered under SIPP because the sample 
size is too small. A modest investment in this bill would offer State 
data for the twenty-three rural states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, 
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, 
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 
Moreover, data from a cross-sectional survey would be available to 
State policy-makers on a far more timely basis than those of a national 
longitudinal study, a matter of months instead of years.
  Further, this bill avoids some of the other problems that plague the 
current system by making data files easier to use and more readily 
available. As a result, the information will be more useful for policy-
makers managing welfare reform and programs for children and families.
  This legislation also offers the potential for the Health and Human 
Service Department to partner with several private charitable 
foundations, including the Annie E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T. 
MacArthur, and McKnight foundations, who are interested in forming a 
partnership to provide outreach and support and to guarantee that the 
data collected would be broadly disseminated. This type of public-
private partnership helps to leverage additional resources for children 
and families and increases the study's impact. Given the tight budget 
we face, partnerships make sense.
  I hope my colleagues will support this effort to learn about the 
well-being of our children in rural States. 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. 415

       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 ``State Child Well-Being 
     Research Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The well-being of children is a paramount concern for 
     our Nation and for every State, and most programs for 
     children and families are managed at the State or local 
     level.
       (2) Child well-being varies over time and across social, 
     economic, and geographic groups, and can be affected by 
     changes in the circumstances of families, by the economy, by 
     the social and cultural environment, and by public policies 
     and programs at both the Federal and State level.
       (3) States, including small States, need information about 
     child well-being that is specific to their State and that is 
     up-to-date, cost-effective, and consistent across States and 
     over time.
       (4) Regular collection of child well-being information at 
     the State level is essential so that Federal and State 
     officials can track child well-being over time.
       (5) Information on child well-being is necessary for all 
     States, particularly small States that do not have State-
     level data in other federally supported data bases, such as 
     the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
       (6) Telephone surveys of parents, on the other hand, 
     represent a relatively cost-effective strategy for obtaining 
     information on child well-being at the State level for all 
     States, including small States.
       (7) Data from telephone surveys of the population are used 
     to monitor progress toward many important national goals, 
     including immunization of preschool children with the 
     National Immunization Survey, and the identification of 
     health care issues of children with special needs with the 
     National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs.
       (8) A State-level telephone survey can provide information 
     on a range of topics, including children's social and 
     emotional development, education, health, safety, family 
     income, family employment, and child care. Information 
     addressing marriage and family structure can also be obtained 
     for families with children. Information obtained from such a 
     survey would not be available solely for children or families 
     participating in programs but would be representative of the 
     entire State population and consequently, would not only 
     inform welfare policymaking, but policymaking on a range of 
     other important issues, such as child care, child welfare, 
     and education.

     SEC. 3. RESEARCH ON INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEING.

       Section 413 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Indicators of Child Well-Being.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, through grants, 
     contracts, or interagency agreements shall develop 
     comprehensive indicators to assess child well-being in each 
     State.
       ``(2) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The indicators developed under paragraph 
     (1) shall include measures related to the following:
       ``(i) Education.
       ``(ii) Social and emotional development.
       ``(iii) Health and safety.
       ``(iv) Family well-being, such as family structure, income, 
     employment, child care arrangements, and family 
     relationships.
       ``(B) Other requirements.--The data collected with respect 
     to the indicators developed under paragraph (1) shall be--
       ``(i) statistically representative at the State level;
       ``(ii) consistent across States;
       ``(iii) collected on an annual basis for at least the 5 
     years following the first year of collection;
       ``(iv) expressed in terms of rates or percentages;
       ``(v) statistically representative at the national level;
       ``(vi) measured with reliability;
       ``(vii) current;
       ``(viii) over-sampled, with respect to low-income children 
     and families; and
       ``(ix) made publicly available.
       ``(C) Consultation.--In developing the indicators required 
     under paragraph (1) and the means to collect the data 
     required with respect to the indicators, the Secretary shall 
     consult and collaborate with the Federal Interagency Forum on 
     Child and Family Statistics.
       ``(3) Advisory panel.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     advisory panel to make recommendations regarding the 
     appropriate measures and statistical tools necessary for 
     making the assessment required under paragraph (1) based on 
     the indicators developed under that paragraph and the data 
     collected with respect to the indicators.
       ``(B) Membership.--
       ``(i) In general.--The advisory panel established under 
     subparagraph (A) shall consist of the following:

       ``(I) One member appointed by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services.
       ``(II) One member appointed by the Chairman of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.
       ``(III) One member appointed by the Ranking Member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.
       ``(IV) One member appointed by the Chairman of the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate.
       ``(V) One member appointed by the Ranking Member of the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate.
       ``(VI) One member appointed by the Chairman of the National 
     Governors Association, or the Chairman's designee.
       ``(VII) One member appointed by the President of the 
     National Conference of State Legislatures or the President's 
     designee.
       ``(VIII) One member appointed by the Director of the 
     National Academy of Sciences, or the Director's designee.

       ``(ii) Deadline.--The members of the advisory panel shall 
     be appointed not later than 2 months after the date of 
     enactment of the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 2005.
       ``(C) Meetings.--The advisory panel established under 
     subparagraph (A) shall meet--
       ``(i) at least 3 times during the first year after the date 
     of enactment of the State Child Well-Being Research Act of 
     2005; and
       ``(ii) annually thereafter for the 3 succeeding years.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010, $15,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out 
     this subsection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 417. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for a refundable wage differential credit for activated military 
reservists; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
along with Senator Shelby, to provide a financial safety net for the 
families of our young men and women who proudly serve in the Nation's 
military reserve and National Guard.
  Our country is demanding that our military reservists and members of 
the National Guard play a more crucial and sustained role in 
supplementing

[[Page 2764]]

the activities of our traditional Armed Forces than at any other time 
in our recent history. In response to the Iraq war and homeland 
security needs, the country has called up hundreds of thousands of our 
reservists and Guard members for extended tours of duty of up to 18 
months.
  Today, almost 184,000 National Guardsmen and reservists are on active 
duty. Military leaders expect the total number of reservists and 
Guardsmen on active duty for the war on terrorism to remain above 
100,000 for the indefinite future.
  Since September 11, 2001, more than 2,000 of North Dakota's Guardsmen 
and reservists have been called to duty and placed in harms way around 
the globe. One of the issues I hear most often about from those service 
members and their families is how hard it is for them to make ends meet 
on their military incomes.
  When Guard members or reservists are mobilized, it has an enormous 
impact not only on their lives, but also on the lives of their loved 
ones. In many cases when an individual is mobilized, his or her family 
may experience a serious loss of income. This is because active duty 
military compensation often falls below what reservists earn in 
civilian income. In addition, some reservists experienced continuing 
financial losses after return to civilian life due to neglected 
businesses or professional practices.
  These income losses are often exacerbated by the additional family 
expenses that are associated with military activation, such as the need 
for extra day care.
  The Pentagon doesn't track the number of reservist families who have 
to live on diminished incomes during deployment. But it is clearly a 
significant problem. The Pentagon's Reserve Forces Policy Board says 
that one-third of all mobilized Reserve component members earn less 
than their private sector and civilian salaries while on active duty. 
Other estimates are even higher. For example, 45 percent of reserve 
officers and 55 percent of enlisted members who were activated for the 
1990 Gulf War reported income loss. And a 1998 survey of junior 
enlisted members of the California National Guard's 40th Infantry 
Division showed that the great majority risked cutting their household 
income somewhere between 16 percent and more than 65 percent if they 
were called to active duty.
  The most recent information on mobilization income loss comes from 
the year 2000. Some 41 percent of Guardsmen and reservists who were 
mobilized that year reported income losses ranging from $350 to more 
than $3,000 per month. Self-employed reservists reported an average 
income loss of $1,800 per month. Physicians and registered nurses in 
private practice reported an average income loss of as much as $7,000 
per month.
  Those were big losses. But when that survey was conducted in 2000, 
reservists were mobilized for an average of only 3.6 months. Today 
mobilizations of up 14 to 18 months are common. So the cumulative 
impact of lost wages is much bigger.
  The loss of income that reservists and Guardsmen incur when they are 
ordered to leave their good-paying private sector or civilian jobs to 
serve their country often creates an unmanageable financial burden that 
disrupts the lives of their families who are already trying to cope 
with the emotional stress and hardship caused by the departure of a 
beloved spouse, father or mother who has been ordered to active duty.
  In the mid-1990s the Pentagon tried to deal with this problem by 
offering members of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to 
buy insurance to guard against their risk of being called to active 
duty and losing income. The program sold coverage for income losses of 
up to $5,000 per month. Unfortunately, the program was poorly planned 
and executed, and Congress had to appropriate substantial money to bail 
out the program before it was terminated. Since then the private sector 
has not shown any interest in reviving the mobilization income 
insurance program. Thus, we need to find another way to deal with the 
issue. The solution I propose is one suggested by the Pentagon's 
Reserve Forces Policy Board, that is, an income loss tax credit.
  The legislation that Senator Shelby and I are introducing provides a 
fully refundable, 100-percent income tax credit of up to $20,000 
annually to a military reservists on active duty based upon the 
difference in wages paid in his or her private sector or civilian job 
and the military wages paid upon mobilization. For this purpose, a 
qualified military reservist is a member of the National Guard or Ready 
Reserve who is mobilized and serving for more than 90 days.
  In conclusion, we owe a great deal to those Americans who put on 
their uniforms and serve in the military in the most difficult of 
circumstances. We can never fully repay that debt. However, we can do 
much more to remove the immediate financial burden that many reserve 
and National Guard families experience when a family member is ordered 
to active duty. This legislation will provide those families with some 
much-needed financial assistance. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to 
support my efforts to get this tax relief measure enacted into law as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with 
Senator Dorgan to provide a financial safety net for the families of 
our servicemembers who proudly serve in our Nation's military Reserve 
and National Guard.
  Today, our National Guard and Reserve units are being called upon 
more than ever and are being asked to serve their country in a very 
different way than in the past. The Global War on Terror and the high 
operational tempo of our military require that our Reserve components 
play a more active role in the total force.
  In the past, our Reservists were exactly what their name implied--a 
backup force called upon one weekend a month and two weeks a year. 
However, as the Cold War melted away, so did much of our military. 
Active Duty numbers were reduced as our major threat, the Soviet Union, 
fell apart. Since this reduction in our Active Duty armed forces, the 
burden has fallen to the Reservists to ``pick up the slack.''
  Unlike any other time in our Nation's history, we now depend heavily 
on our Reserve component and have called on many of them to participate 
in major deployments, including Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. These deployments frequently necessitate 
extended tours of duty, many of them exceeding twelve months, for these 
citizen-soldiers.
  These long tours and frequent activations have a profound and 
disruptive effect on the lives of these men and women and on the lives 
of their families and loved ones. Many of our reservists suffer a 
significant loss of income when they are mobilized--forcing them to 
leave often higher paying civilian jobs to serve their country. Such 
losses can be compounded by additional family expenses associated with 
military activation, including the cost of long distance phone calls 
and the need for additional child care. These circumstances create a 
serious financial burden that is extremely difficult for reservists' 
families to manage. We can and should do more to alleviate this 
financial burden.
  Previously, the Pentagon tried to address this problem by offering 
members of the National Guard and Reserve the opportunity to buy 
insurance to protect against income loss upon mobilization in the mid-
1990s. The program sold coverage for income losses of up to $5,000 per 
month. Unfortunately, the program was poorly planned and executed, and 
Congress had to appropriate substantial money to bail out the program 
before it was terminated. Since then, the private sector has shown 
little interest in reviving the mobilization income insurance program 
even though the Reserve Forces Policy Board has sighted income 
protection as one of its top recommendations.
  It is critical that we find another way to deal with the issue. 
Therefore, Senator Dorgan and I have proposed the Military Reserve 
Mobilization Income Security Act. This legislation would provide a 
completely refundable income tax credit of up to $20,000 annually to a 
military reservist called to

[[Page 2765]]

active duty. The amount of the tax credit would be based upon the 
difference between wages paid by the reservist's civilian job and the 
military wages paid upon mobilization. The tax credit would be 
available to members of the National Guard or Ready Reserve who are 
serving for more than 90 days and would vary according to their length 
of service.
  Now is the time to recognize the service and sacrifice of the men and 
women who are in the Reserves. At a time when the Nation is once again 
calling them to active duty to execute the war in Iraq, fight the War 
on Terrorism, and to defend our homeland it is imperative that Congress 
recognize the vital role these soldiers play within our military and 
acknowledge that the success of our military depends on these troops.
  I believe that what Senator Dorgan and I are doing with this bill is 
the least we can do for these men and women and their families. It is 
not too much to ask of our Nation and more importantly, it is the right 
thing to do.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 418. A bill to protect members of the Armed Forces from 
unscrupulous practices regarding sales of insurance, financial, and 
investment products; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New York 
to introduce the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act 
of 2005. This bill is needed to protect our military personnel and 
their families from unscrupulous financial products. Over the past 
year, it has become increasingly clear to many that the lack of 
oversight in this area has allowed certain individuals to push high 
cost financial products on unknowing military personnel. This practice 
must be stopped. Our soldiers and their families deserve much better, 
especially during a time when so many of them are serving at home and 
overseas to protect our freedom.
  The bill that we introduce today will halt completely the sale of a 
mutual fund-like product that charges a 50 percent sales commission 
against the first year of contributions by a military family. 
Currently, there are hundreds of mutual fund products available on the 
market that charge less than six percent. The excessive sales charges 
of these contractually based financial products make them susceptible 
to abusive and misleading sales practices.
  In addition, certain life insurance products are being offered to our 
service members disguised and marketed as investment products. These 
products provide very low death benefits while charging very high 
premiums, especially in the first few years. Many of these products are 
unsuitable for the insurance and investment needs of military families.
  One of the major problems with the sale of insurance products on 
military bases is the confusion of whether state insurance regulators 
or military base commanders are responsible for the oversight of sales 
agents. Typically, military base commanders will bar certain sales 
agents from a military base only to have the sales agents show up at 
other military facilities. Since there is no record of the bar, State 
insurance regulators have been unable to have adequate oversight of the 
individuals. The bill that we introduce today will solve that problem. 
It will state clearly that State insurance regulators have jurisdiction 
of the sale of insurance products on military bases.
  The bill will also urge State insurance regulators to work with the 
Department of Defense to develop life insurance product standards and 
disclosures. The Department of Defense will keep a list of individuals 
who are barred or banned from military bases due to abuse or 
unscrupulous sales tactics and to share that list with Federal and 
State insurance, securities and other relevant regulators.
  Finally, the bill that we are introducing today will protect our 
military families by preventing investment companies from issuing 
periodic payment plan certificates, the mutual fund-like investment 
product with extremely high first year costs. This type of financial 
instrument has been criticized by securities regulators since the late 
1960s.
  It should be noted that there are many upstanding financial and 
insurance companies that sell very worthwhile investment and insurance 
products to military families. They should be applauded for the fine 
job that they do in helping our military members and their families. 
This bill is targeted at the few who abuse the system and prey upon our 
military.
  Congress is fully aware of the dangers faced by our military 
personnel in keeping our country safe from harm. Likewise, we must do 
all that we can to arm our soldiers when they face the dangers of 
planning for their financial futures.
  I urge my colleagues to take up this bill immediately so that we can 
help our men and women in the military and their families.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 419. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the treatment of qualified restaurant property as 15-year property for 
purposes of the depreciation deduction; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make 
the 15-year depreciation recovery period for improvements to 
restaurants permanent, and to extend this treatment to cover new 
restaurant construction as well. Last year, in the American Jobs 
Creation Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-357), Congress set the 
depreciation recovery period for renovations and improvements made to 
existing restaurant buildings at 15 years, but this treatment only 
applies to property placed in service before the end of 2005.
  The legislation I am introducing today will permanently set the 
depreciation recovery period for new restaurant construction and for 
improvements to existing restaurants at 15 years. It simply makes no 
sense that the current law providing a 15-year life for improvements to 
restaurant properties expires at the end of 2005. Restaurants are 
businesses, and they need the certainty to plan investments several 
years in advance. Further, Congress should expand the treatment to 
apply to new construction, as well as to improvements.
  Restaurants are high-volume businesses. Every day, more than half of 
all Americans eat out. Restaurants get more customer traffic and 
maintain longer hours than the average commercial business--many 
staying open 7 days a week. This tremendous amount of activity causes 
rapid deterioration in a restaurant building's systems, from its 
entrances and lobbies to its flooring, restrooms, and interior walls.
  Restaurants improve and renovate constantly to accommodate the wear 
and tear of heavy customer traffic and to keep pace with changing 
consumer preferences. Clearly, a 39-year depreciation recovery period--
which is what the recovery period will revert to after 2005--does not 
match the economic life for new restaurant buildings or for 
improvements to existing structures.
  Moreover, permanently setting the depreciation recovery period at 15 
years will encourage significant economic activity. According to the 
National Restaurant Association, a 15-year depreciation recovery period 
for new restaurant construction and improvements to existing properties 
would generate an additional $3.7 billion in cash flow for the 
restaurant industry over the next 10 years. If restaurants use just 25 
percent of this influx of cash to expand and undertake additional 
renovations, the Restaurant Association study predicts that the 10-year 
economic impact would be $853 million.
  I hope all of my colleagues will join me in this effort to bring 
certainty and a rational depreciation recovery period to the restaurant 
industry so that restaurant owners can continue to expand their 
businesses and provide good jobs to American workers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
        Allen, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Talent, and Mr. Thune):

[[Page 2766]]

  S. 420. A bill to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Death Tax 
Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 along with Senator Bill Nelson. This 
bipartisan legislation will make the death tax a thing of the past.
  As we all know, Congress, working with President Bush, enacted 
bipartisan legislation in 2001 to phase out and eventually repeal the 
death tax in 2010. Unfortunately, because we did not have the 60 votes 
we needed to avoid a filibuster by opponents of the cuts, we could not 
make the repeal permanent. Rather, under Senate rules, the cuts could 
only be extended for the term of the budget: 10 years. As a 
consequence, the death tax springs back to life in 2011, at its old 
rate of up to 60 percent and at its old exemption level of only $1 
million. Senator Nelson and I understand that this tax structure is 
simply unworkable for families and family businesses. We agree that the 
best solution is to simply get rid of the death tax once and for all. 
That's why we are introducing legislation today to make death tax 
repeal permanent.
  Senator Nelson and I are joined in this effort by Senators Allard, 
Allen, Burns, Inhofe, Talent, and Thune, and we have the full support 
of President Bush, who once again included permanent repeal of the 
death tax in his Fiscal Year 2006 budget proposal.
  The death tax is an unfair, inefficient, economically unsound and, 
frankly, an immoral tax that should be removed from the tax code. A 
recent survey found that 58 percent of Americans believe the death tax 
is ``completely unfair.'' In contrast, only 10 percent of those 
surveyed said the same about sales taxes. Moreover, this view is shared 
by Americans across income levels and political parties: 61 percent of 
Americans making less than $30,000 a year believe the death tax is 
``completely unfair''; 89 percent of respondents who supported 
President Bush in the last election and 71 percent of respondents who 
supported his opponent in the last election label the death tax 
somewhat or very ``unfair.''
  And the death tax is unfair, first of all, to the decedent and to his 
or her heirs. We are talking about people who work hard throughout 
their lives, perhaps start businesses, or perhaps buy homes in fast-
growing metropolitan areas where real estate values are skyrocketing. 
Or it could be such a person owns a farm or just works hard in a 
company owned by others, but that person saves and invests and 
eventually accumulates a small but respectable nest egg. As you can 
see, the tax reaches far more than the ``ultra-rich,'' its intended 
targets when it was first imposed. The American dream is to be able to 
leave these assets to one's children so that they might enjoy a better 
life than their parents. It is simply unfair and immoral for the 
government to take more than half of these assets at death.
  Americans understand that the death tax is unfair because it falls on 
families when they have the least ability to make significant economic 
decisions: at the time they lose a loved one. Further, it is unfair 
because expensive tax planning can significantly ease the effect of the 
death tax. If you have the money to hire the right lawyer, buy the 
large insurance policies that are needed, and do the proper planning, 
your family can be spared much of the financial pain caused by the 
death tax. If, on the other hand, you die without warning or if you 
have an unexpectedly large estate due to increased property values and 
prudent investments, you are caught paying a larger tax. Taxes required 
as a result of intentional, planned economic decisions are one thing; 
taxes on an untimely death are quite another.
  Not only is the death tax unfair; it hurts economic growth. The death 
tax creates a disincentive to build a family farm, ranch, or other 
business with the goal of passing it on to one's children. In some 
cases, it makes more sense for a family business to be sold when the 
owner retires, since the taxes, primarily capital gains taxes, are 
going to be much lower if the assets are sold while the owner is still 
alive. Further, planning for the death tax makes it harder to expand a 
family business because needed resources are spent on attorneys and 
life insurance instead of growing the business. As much is spent each 
year on such ``avoidance planning'' as is collected in death taxes by 
the government.
  The death tax also hurts economic growth by discouraging savings and 
investment. Whether it falls on a family business built through hard 
work or on a family with a home and a lifetime of investments in 401(k) 
and IRAs thanks to prudent living, it claims nearly half of an estate 
over the unified credit amount ($1.5 million in 2005) for the federal 
government. Such confiscatory tax rates give people little incentive to 
save and invest. What's more, the American people understand that the 
death tax represents multiple levels of taxation. Fully 80 percent of 
those in a recent survey said that the tax represents an ``extreme'' 
form of ``triple taxation.''
  The death tax has a broader economic reach than to just those 
immediately hit with the tax. Suppose a small business employs 25, 
maybe 30 people, all of whom rely on the business for their livelihood, 
health insurance, and retirement savings. The entrepreneur's heirs may 
not have enough cash to pay the applicable death tax, so they may be 
forced to liquidate the business. Depending on who buys the assets and 
what is done with them, the employees may now have to find other jobs. 
Moreover, all of the companies that sold items to or bought items from 
this business might need to find other suppliers or customers, leaving 
a hole in the economy. According to the IRS ``Statistics of Income,'' 
estate and gift taxes only brought in about $22.8 billion in fiscal 
year 2003 barely more than one percent of all gross tax collections by 
the Treasury Department. For such a small amount of revenue, the death 
tax inflicts a disproportionately large amount of damage on the 
economy.
  One of the most interesting statements about the death tax was made 
by Edward J. McCaffrey, a law professor from the University of Southern 
California and self-described liberal, in testimony before Congress 
several years back. He said, ``Polls and practices show that we like 
sin taxes, such as on alcohol and cigarettes. . . . The estate tax is 
an anti-sin, or a virtue, tax. It is a tax on work and savings without 
consumption, on thrift, on long term savings.''
  I urge Congress to act this year to end this tax on virtue, work, 
savings, job creation and the American dream, and to end it 
permanently.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague 
from Arizona, Senator Kyl, to introduce a bill that will eliminate the 
death tax once and for all. I want to thank my friend for his tireless 
leadership in fighting to completely and permanently repeal this unfair 
and unwise tax. I am proud to join him in this bipartisan effort.
  First, though, I think a little historical context is important. 
Remembering back to 2001, this body passed a tax cut bill that set us 
on the path toward full repeal of the death tax. Under this plan, 
between 2001 and 2009, the tax gradually is phased out, reducing the 
marginal rates and increasing the amount that would be exempt from 
taxes.
  Then, in 2010, the death tax will be eliminated. But it springs back 
to life in 2011 at the level it was in 2001.
  Today, the legislation we are introducing tends to Congress' 
unfinished business. Our bill eliminates the so-called ``sunset'' date 
and, simply put: keeps the death tax dead.
  This is an important point. It is a matter of intellectual honesty 
and provides much needed stability in estate planning. No one ever 
truly expected the death tax would revert to pre-2001 levels. This was 
a quirk of the budget process, and something I always believed would be 
remedied.
  Without action to create permanence in the Tax Code, this on-again, 
off-again, then on again approach makes estate planning complicated and 
uncertain. As it stands now--financially speaking--2010 will be a good 
year to

[[Page 2767]]

die, but dying in 2011 will be very expensive for your heirs. This was 
never Congress' intent.
  Furthermore, I believe the cost of planning is a tremendous burden on 
our economy. Rather than reinvesting resources in their businesses, 
Americans are paying lawyers, accountants and insurers to help insulate 
their families from the cost of the death tax. Typical business owners 
are more concerned about avoiding the tax than investing in their 
businesses and making money, which creates jobs and stimulates the 
economy.
  I echo the feelings of an editor at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 
who in 2001 called this tax ``an un-American drag on the American 
Dream--and economy.''
  Since my election in 2000 it has been a priority of mine to do away 
with this tax, helping business owners and family farmers to improve 
their children's standard of living, and to reinvest in the nation's 
economy. This is the wrong tax levied at the wrong time; we should not 
be taxing individuals at death, forcing family members to make a choice 
between selling assets or keeping the family business.
  In particular, farmers in Florida are affected more than their fair 
share by this tax. With the high price of land, farms can easily 
outgrow the exemptions in current law. When a parent dies, children are 
forced to sell the land in order to cover the death tax. A family 
legacy is lost, and so are jobs.
  I am proud to introduce this bill today, and I look forward to 
working with Senator Kyl as we try to lend some stability and 
sensibility to how taxes are levied at death.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 421. A bill to reauthorize programs relating to sport fishing and 
recreational boating safety, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lott in 
introducing legislation which is of great importance to millions of 
people throughout the country. The sport fishing and boating 
communities play a vital role in our Nation's economy, and I am pleased 
to be working with Senator Lott on legislation that will directly 
impact boaters and anglers everywhere.
  In Wisconsin, anglers and boaters are integral to the State's 
economy. Our access to the Great Lakes is only a portion of what makes 
my State an excellent boating and fishing destination. From the 
Mississippi River to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin encompasses thousands of 
acres of lakes and rivers; my State is home to more than 1.4 million 
anglers, and a destination for thousands of boating and fishing related 
tourists each year. In 2001, approximately $1 billion was spent in the 
State on fishing related activities, according to a study conducted by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Recreational boating is an equal partner 
to the sport fishing industry, with more than $526 million being spent 
in 2003 on powerboats and accessories. As a recreation for residents 
and draw for tourists, the contribution of water sports to Wisconsin is 
immeasurable.
  Today, Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation aimed at giving 
back to the fishing and boating communities. This legislation, however, 
would not exist if it were not for the leadership of Senator Breaux, 
who worked tirelessly on boating and fishing issues during his tenure 
in Congress. In 1984, as a member of the House of Representatives, he 
worked with then Senator Malcolm Wallop, to create the Aquatic 
Resources Trust Fund. The trust fund, commonly known as the Wallop-
Breaux Trust Fund, serves as a collection point for most of the excise 
taxes attributable to motorboat and small engine fuels, as well as the 
taxes on fishing equipment. The Wallop-Breaux fund is one of the most 
successful examples of a ``user pays, user benefits'' program; the 
excise taxes that are collected into the fund are then used on programs 
that directly benefit boaters and anglers. The funding is then 
distributed to States for activities ranging from boating safety 
education to maintaining our nation's wetlands.
  I am dedicated to continuing the legacy of Wallop-Breaux. That is why 
Senator Lott and I are introducing legislation that will reauthorize 
the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and expand the size of the Fund. The 
legislation we are introducing today mirrors the Sport Fishing and 
Recreational Boating Safety bill in the 108th Congress, which was later 
incorporated in the Senate-passed version of the highway 
reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, the legislation was not enacted 
before the end of the last session.
  In addition to reauthorizing this important program, Senator Lott and 
I are introducing legislation that would recover approximately $110 
million per year of excise taxes currently being paid by anglers and 
boaters. Under current law, only 13.5 cents is sent to the Aquatic 
Resources Trust Fund, which is only a portion of the 18.3 cents that is 
collected on motorboat and small engine fuels. Restoring the remaining 
excise taxes will significantly boost funding for the important 
programs under the Sport Fish Restoration Act. In Wisconsin, this could 
amount to an additional $3 million annually for fishing and boating 
activities.
  I am very proud to be working with Senator Lott on this issue. 
Passing this legislation will be a top priority for me in the 109th 
Congress. It is an issue that I know is important to the people of 
Wisconsin: to boaters on the Great Lakes; to the Department of Natural 
Resources; to anglers on rivers and lakes throughout the state. I can 
assure every Senator that it is equally important to people in his or 
her State, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure 
this legislation's adoption.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Talent, Mr. Johnson, 
        and Mr. Isakson):
  S. 424. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
arthritis research and public health, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, with more than 100 different forms, 
arthritis is one of the most widespread and devastating health 
conditions in the United states. Nearly 70 million, or one in every 
three, American adults suffer from arthritis or chronic joint symptoms, 
and 300,000 children live with the pain, disability and emotional 
trauma caused by juvenile arthritis.
  The number of Americans who live with arthritis will grow as the 
number of older Americans continues to increase dramatically in the 
next few decades. As the leading cause of disability in the United 
States, arthritis is a painful and debilitating chronic disease 
affecting men, women and children alike; arthritis has no boundaries. 
Simple, daily tasks like brushing teeth, pouring a cup of coffee, or 
even getting out of bed become excruciating obstacles for millions of 
people who suffer from the disease.
  The impact of the disease on our health care system is also dramatic. 
Arthritis results in 750,000 hospitalizations, 44 million outpatient 
visits, and 4 million days of hospital care every year, according to 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC estimates that 
the annual cost of medical care for arthritis is $51 billion, and the 
annual total costs, including lost productivity, exceeds $86 billion.
  Early diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate management of arthritis 
are critical to controlling symptoms and improving quality of life. To 
address these issues, Senator Kennedy and I are introducing today, the 
Arthritis Prevention, Control, and Cure Act. This bill will improve 
coordination among Federal agencies and the public regarding the 
Federal investment in arthritis research and public health activities 
through a National Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases Summit; accelerate 
research that will lead to improved treatments and a cure for juvenile 
arthritis; invest in a nationwide public health initiative designed to 
reduce the pain and disability of arthritis through early diagnosis and 
effective treatment of the disease; and ensure that kids with arthritis 
have access to

[[Page 2768]]

specialty care by addressing the nationwide shortage of pediatric 
rheumatologists.
  We have a responsibility to look for solutions to this issue in a 
comprehensive manner, and I think this bill can make a real difference 
in the lives of the millions of Americans, both young and old, who 
suffer from this debilitating disease.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues, 
Senators Bond, Talent, Johnson, and Isakson, in introducing the 
``Arthritis Prevention, Control, and Cure Act of 2005'', and I commend 
them for their commitment to this important issue. The bill is the 
product of extensive cooperation and input from the arthritis 
community, including health providers, patients, and their families. 
Through this legislation we hope to lessen the burden of arthritis and 
other rheumatic diseases on citizens across the Nation.
  Seventy million adults--one of every three in the nation--suffer from 
arthritis or related conditions, and all ages are affected. Nearly two-
thirds of its victims are under the age of 65, and 300,000 are 
children. Arthritis accounts for 4 million days of hospital care each 
year, and results in 44 million outpatient visits. It costs $51 million 
in annual medical care, and $86 million more in lost productivity. For 
8 million Americans, it is an overwhelming hardship involving serious 
disability.
  In recent years, research into the prevention and treatment of 
arthritis has led to measures to improve the quality of life for large 
numbers of persons suffering from the disease. We know that early 
diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate management are key to success. A 
National Arthritis Action Plan has been developed that could provide 
timely information and more effective medical care nationwide, but less 
than one percent of persons with arthritis are benefiting from the 
knowledge. With a real commitment, we can bring the highest quality of 
care to everyone with arthritis.
  Our legislation will implement strategies to carry out the National 
Arthritis Action Plan. That means supporting prevention and treatment 
programs and developing education and outreach activities. It means 
coordinating and increasing research for prevention and treatment, and 
applying the results to every age group affected by the disease.
  We include planning grants to support innovative research on juvenile 
arthritis in order to develop better care and treatment for children, 
and collect data on its likely causes. We support training for health 
providers specializing in pediatric rheumatology, so that all children 
will have greater access to these uniquely qualified physicians.
  The legislation will improve the quality of life for large numbers of 
adults and children. It will save lives, reduce disability, and avoid 
millions of dollars in medical costs. Citizens everywhere will have 
greater access to the latest research and medical care to prevent and 
treat this debilitating disease. I urge our colleagues to support this 
much needed legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 426. A bill to enhance national security by improving the 
reliability of the United States electricity transmission grid, to 
ensure efficient, reliable and affordable energy to American consumers, 
and for other purposes, to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing comprehensive 
legislation to ensure the reliable delivery of electric power in the 
United States.
  Last Congress, in August of 2003, nearly 50 million people in the 
Northeast and Midwest were affected by a massive power outage. This 
event emphasized the vulnerability of the U.S. electricity grid to 
human error, mechanical failure, and weather-related outages. We must 
act to protect the grid from devastating interruptions in the future. 
That is why I am introducing this bill today to ensure greater 
reliability in our electricity delivery system.
  My bill, the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005, will help 
achieve reliability and security of the electricity grid in an 
efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally sound manner. It does so 
by creating mandatory, nationwide electric reliability standards.
  The bill also mandates regional coordination in the siting of 
transmission facilities, and provides $10 billion dollars in loan 
guarantees to finance ``smart grid'' technologies that improve the way 
the grid transmits power.
  While a $10 billion dollar investment may seem to be a large 
investment, it is significantly less than the transmission cost 
estimates that have circulated following the Northeast blackout. 
Industry experts estimated that it would cost consumers as much as $100 
billion dollars to upgrade transmission systems and site new lines to 
meet future reliability needs.
  However, even this hefty price tag does not factor in the costs of 
additional generation, does not consider the rising cost of natural gas 
due to increasing electricity consumption, and does not include the 
environmental and other social costs of continued expansion of our 
presently centralized power system. Power lines are expensive and are 
rarely welcomed by the nearby public. The loan guarantees in the bill 
will help balance the need for new transmission lines by providing 
federal resources to help improve existing ones.
  In addition to addressing system operation and transmission needs, 
the bill also promotes sound system management. It establishes a 
Federal system benefits fund as a match for state programs. 
Historically, regulated electric utility companies have provided a 
number of energy-related public services beyond simply supplying 
electricity that benefit the system as a whole. Such services have 
included bill payment assistance and energy conservation measures for 
low-income households, energy efficiency programs for residential and 
business customers, and pilot programs to promote renewable energy 
resources. More than 20 states, including my home state of Vermont, 
have public benefits programs. This bill will provide needed federal 
matching money to States for these programs. Our states can use these 
funds. They will be able to move more quickly to deploy these low-cost 
strategies with federal help.
  The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that a federal program to match 
existing state public benefits programs would save 1.24 trillion 
kilowatt-hours of electricity over 20 years, and cut consumer energy 
bills by about $100 billion dollars. Mr. President, my bill, which has 
the potential to save consumers $100 billion dollars is far preferable 
to raising consumer electricity bills by the $100 billion dollars to 
raise money for grid expansion. My Vermont constituents would prefer to 
keep the lights on, and their money in their own pockets. The bill also 
establishes energy efficiency performance standards for utilities. The 
United States has experienced tremendous growth in electricity 
consumption over the past decade. Current estimates are that 
electricity consumption is increasing at roughly 2 percent per year.
  Between 1993 and 1999, U.S. summer peak electricity use alone 
increased by 95,000 megawatts. This is the equivalent of adding a new, 
six-state New England to the nation's electricity demand every fourteen 
months. Energy experts estimate that as much as 50 percent of expected 
new demand over the next 20 years can be met through consumer 
efficiency and load management programs. Over the past two decades, 
utility demand-side efficiency programs have avoided the need for more 
than 100 300-megawatt power plants. However, with the advent of 
electricity deregulation, utility spending on these efficiency programs 
has dropped by almost half. The federal government should seek to 
correct this trend, and this bill takes a strong first step in that 
direction by phasing in a requirement that utilities reduce their peak 
demand for power and their customers' power use between 2006 and 2015.
  Finally, the bill enacts standards that enable increased on-site, or 
distributed, generation to reduce pressure

[[Page 2769]]

on the grid and lessen the impact of a blackout should one occur. We 
have an obligation, Mr. President, to ensure that the electricity grid 
is secure. We currently have a giant system consisting of almost 
200,000 miles of interconnecting lines that constantly shift huge 
amounts of electricity throughout the country. Such a giant and complex 
system, traversing miles of city and countryside, is inevitably subject 
to unforseen problems. Simply making it bigger will never take away all 
uncertainty, nor can it eliminate the vulnerability of the grid to 
sabotage or terrorist attack. We should do all we can to make certain 
such vulnerabilities are reduced.
  In summary, I am introducing this legislation because I feel that we 
should be cautious in our assumptions that the answer to our nation's 
reliability woes lies primarily in building a bigger, more expansive 
grid. Simply building more transmission lines is not the answer. 
Investments in energy efficiency and on-site generation can 
significantly improve the reliability of the nation's electricity grid 
and in most cases will be cheaper, faster to implement and more 
environmentally friendly than large-scale grid expansion. We also must 
fill the regulatory gaps in the system, which my bill does. Congress 
should establish mandatory reliability standards and close other 
regulatory gaps left by state deregulation of the electricity sector. 
In addition, no national reliability program will be effective or 
complete without strong incentives for demand-side management programs 
for efficiency and for on-site generation.
  We cannot solve today's energy problems with yesterday's solutions. 
My bill is an innovative approach to ensuring electric reliability by 
maximizing energy efficiency, regulatory efficiency, and efficient 
investment. Given the high costs of power outages to our country, we 
cannot afford to do otherwise.
  I invite my colleagues to join me in my efforts to advance energy 
security and reliability in the United States. 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. 426

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Electric 
     Reliability Security Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                          TITLE I--RELIABILITY

Sec. 101. Electric reliability standards.
Sec. 102. Model electric utility workers code.
Sec. 103. Electricity outage investigation.
Sec. 104. Study on reliability of United States energy grid.

                          TITLE II--EFFICIENCY

Sec. 201. System benefits fund.
Sec. 202. Electricity efficiency performance standard.
Sec. 203. Appliance efficiency.
Sec. 204. Loan guarantees.

                      TITLE III--ONSITE GENERATION

Sec. 301. Net metering.
Sec. 302. Interconnection.
Sec. 303. Onsite generation for emergency facilities.

                          TITLE I--RELIABILITY

     SEC. 101. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C 
     824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 215. ELECTRIC RELIABILITY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1)(A) The term `bulk-power system' means--
       ``(i) facilities and control systems necessary for 
     operating an interconnected electric energy transmission 
     network (or any portion thereof); and
       ``(ii) electric energy from generation facilities needed to 
     maintain transmission system reliability.
       ``(B) The term `bulk-power system' does not include 
     facilities used in the local distribution of electric energy.
       ``(2) The terms `Electric Reliability Organization' and 
     `ERO' mean the organization certified by the Commission under 
     subsection (c) the purpose of which is to establish and 
     enforce reliability standards for the bulk-power system, 
     subject to Commission review.
       ``(3) The term `interconnection' means a geographic area in 
     which the operation of bulk-power system components is 
     synchronized such that the failure of 1 or more of such 
     components may adversely affect the ability of the operators 
     of other components within the system to maintain reliable 
     operation of the facilities within their control.
       ``(4) The term `regional entity' means an entity having 
     enforcement authority pursuant to subsection (e)(4).
       ``(5)(A) The term `reliability standard' means a 
     requirement, approved by the Commission under this section, 
     to provide for reliable operation of the bulk-power system.
       ``(B) The term `reliability standard' includes requirements 
     for the operation of existing bulk-power system facilities 
     and the design of planned additions or modifications to those 
     facilities to the extent necessary to provide for reliable 
     operation of the bulk-power system.
       ``(C) The term `reliability standard' does not include any 
     requirement to enlarge a facility described in subparagraph 
     (B) or to construct new transmission capacity or generation 
     capacity.
       ``(6) The term `reliable operation' means operating the 
     elements of the bulk-power system within equipment and 
     electric system thermal, voltage, and stability limits so 
     that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading 
     failures of such system will not occur as a result of a 
     sudden disturbance or unanticipated failure of system 
     elements.
       ``(7) The term `transmission organization' means a regional 
     transmission organization, independent system operator, 
     independent transmission provider, or other transmission 
     organization finally approved by the Commission for the 
     operation of transmission facilities.
       ``(b) Jurisdiction and Applicability.--(1)(A) The 
     Commission shall have jurisdiction, within the United States, 
     over the ERO certified by the Commission under subsection 
     (c), any regional entities, and all users, owners and 
     operators of the bulk-power system, including the entities 
     described in section 201(f), for purposes of approving 
     reliability standards established under this section and 
     enforcing compliance with this section.
       ``(B) All users, owners, and operators of the bulk-power 
     system shall comply with reliability standards that take 
     effect under this section.
       ``(2) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, the Commission shall issue a final rule to 
     implement this section.
       ``(c) Certification.--(1) Following the issuance of a 
     Commission rule under subsection (b)(2), any person may 
     submit an application to the Commission for certification as 
     the Electric Reliability Organization.
       ``(2) The Commission may certify an ERO described in 
     paragraph (1) if the Commission determines that the ERO--
       ``(A) has the ability to develop and enforce, subject to 
     subsection (e)(2), reliability standards that provide for an 
     adequate level of reliability of the bulk-power system; and
       ``(B) has established rules that--
       ``(i) ensure the independence of the ERO from the users and 
     owners and operators of the bulk-power system, while ensuring 
     fair stakeholder representation in the selection of directors 
     of the ERO and balanced decisionmaking in any ERO committee 
     or subordinate organizational structure;
       ``(ii) allocate equitably reasonable dues, fees, and other 
     charges among end users for all activities under this 
     section;
       ``(iii) provide fair and impartial procedures for 
     enforcement of reliability standards through the imposition 
     of penalties in accordance with subsection (e) (including 
     limitations on activities, functions, or operations, or other 
     appropriate sanctions);
       ``(iv) provide for reasonable notice and opportunity for 
     public comment, due process, openness, and balance of 
     interests in developing reliability standards and otherwise 
     exercising the duties of the ERO; and
       ``(v) provide for taking, after certification, appropriate 
     steps to gain recognition in Canada and Mexico.
       ``(d) Reliability Standards.--(1) The Electric Reliability 
     Organization shall file each reliability standard or 
     modification to a reliability standard that the Electric 
     Reliability Organization proposes to be made effective under 
     this section with the Commission.
       ``(2)(A) The Commission may approve, by rule or order, a 
     proposed reliability standard or modification to a 
     reliability standard if the Commission determines that the 
     standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest.
       ``(B) The Commission--
       ``(i) shall give due weight to the technical expertise of 
     the Electric Reliability Organization with respect to the 
     content of a proposed standard or modification to a 
     reliability standard and to the technical expertise of a 
     regional entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis 
     with respect to a reliability standard to be applicable 
     within that interconnection; but
       ``(ii) shall not defer with respect to the effect of a 
     standard on competition.
       ``(C) A proposed standard or modification shall take effect 
     upon approval by the Commission.
       ``(3) The Electric Reliability Organization shall 
     rebuttably presume that a proposal

[[Page 2770]]

     from a regional entity organized on an interconnection-wide 
     basis for a reliability standard or modification to a 
     reliability standard to be applicable on an interconnection-
     wide basis is just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory 
     or preferential, and in the public interest.
       ``(4) The Commission shall remand to the Electric 
     Reliability Organization for further consideration a proposed 
     reliability standard or a modification to a reliability 
     standard that the Commission disapproves in whole or in part.
       ``(5) The Commission, upon a motion of the Commission or 
     upon complaint, may order the Electric Reliability 
     Organization to submit to the Commission a proposed 
     reliability standard or a modification to a reliability 
     standard that addresses a specific matter if the Commission 
     considers such a new or modified reliability standard 
     appropriate to carry out this section.
       ``(6)(A) The final rule adopted under subsection (b)(2) 
     shall include fair processes for the identification and 
     timely resolution of any conflict between a reliability 
     standard and any function, rule, order, tariff, rate 
     schedule, or agreement accepted, approved, or ordered by the 
     Commission applicable to a transmission organization.
       ``(B) The transmission organization shall continue to 
     comply with such function, rule, order, tariff, rate 
     schedule, or agreement as is accepted, approved, or ordered 
     by the Commission until--
       ``(i) the Commission finds a conflict exists between a 
     reliability standard and any such provision;
       ``(ii) the Commission orders a change to the provision 
     pursuant to section 206; and
       ``(iii) the ordered change becomes effective under this 
     part.
       ``(C) If the Commission determines that a reliability 
     standard needs to be changed as a result of such a conflict, 
     the Commission shall order the ERO to develop and file with 
     the Commission a modified reliability standard under 
     paragraph (4) or (5).
       ``(e) Enforcement.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the ERO 
     may impose a penalty on a user or owner or operator of the 
     bulk-power system for a violation of a reliability standard 
     approved by the Commission under subsection (d) if the ERO, 
     after notice and an opportunity for a hearing--
       ``(A) finds that the user or owner or operator has violated 
     a reliability standard approved by the Commission under 
     subsection (d); and
       ``(B) files notice and the record of the proceeding with 
     the Commission.
       ``(2)(A) A penalty imposed under paragraph (1) may take 
     effect not earlier than the 31st day after the date on which 
     the ERO files with the Commission notice of the penalty and 
     the record of proceedings.
       ``(B) The penalty shall be subject to review by the 
     Commission upon--
       ``(i) a motion by the Commission; or
       ``(ii) application by the user, owner, or operator that is 
     the subject of the penalty filed not later than 30 days after 
     the date on which the notice is filed with the Commission.
       ``(C) Application to the Commission for review, or the 
     initiation of review by the Commission upon a motion of the 
     Commission, shall not operate as a stay of the penalty unless 
     the Commission orders otherwise upon a motion of the 
     Commission or upon application by the user, owner, or 
     operator that is the subject of the penalty.
       ``(D) In any proceeding to review a penalty imposed under 
     paragraph (1), the Commission, after notice and opportunity 
     for hearing (which hearing may consist solely of the record 
     before the ERO and opportunity for the presentation of 
     supporting reasons to affirm, modify, or set aside the 
     penalty), shall by order affirm, set aside, reinstate, or 
     modify the penalty, and, if appropriate, remand to the ERO 
     for further proceedings.
       ``(E) The Commission shall implement expedited procedures 
     for hearings described in subparagraph (D).
       ``(3) Upon a motion of the Commission or upon complaint, 
     the Commission may order compliance with a reliability 
     standard and may impose a penalty against a user or owner or 
     operator of the bulk-power system if the Commission finds, 
     after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that the user or 
     owner or operator of the bulk-power system has engaged or is 
     about to engage in any act or practice that constitutes or 
     will constitute a violation of a reliability standard.
       ``(4)(A) The Commission shall issue regulations authorizing 
     the ERO to enter into an agreement to delegate authority to a 
     regional entity for the purpose of proposing reliability 
     standards to the ERO and enforcing reliability standards 
     under paragraph (1) if--
       ``(i) the regional entity is governed by an independent 
     board, a balanced stakeholder board, or a combination of an 
     independent and balanced stakeholder board;
       ``(ii) the regional entity otherwise meets the requirements 
     of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c); and
       ``(iii) the agreement promotes effective and efficient 
     administration of bulk-power system reliability.
       ``(B) The Commission may modify a delegation under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(C) The ERO and the Commission shall rebuttably presume 
     that a proposal for delegation to a regional entity organized 
     on an interconnection-wide basis promotes effective and 
     efficient administration of bulk-power system reliability and 
     should be approved.
       ``(D) The regulations issued under this paragraph may 
     provide that the Commission may assign the authority of the 
     ERO to enforce reliability standards under paragraph (1) 
     directly to a regional entity in accordance with this 
     paragraph.
       ``(5) The Commission may take such action as the Commission 
     determines to be appropriate against the ERO or a regional 
     entity to ensure compliance with a reliability standard or 
     any Commission order affecting the ERO or a regional entity.
       ``(6) Any penalty imposed under this section shall bear a 
     reasonable relation to the seriousness of the violation and 
     shall take into consideration the efforts of the user, owner, 
     or operator to remedy the violation in a timely manner.
       ``(f) Changes in Electric Reliability Organization Rules.--
     (1) The Electric Reliability Organization shall file with the 
     Commission for approval any proposed rule or proposed rule 
     change, accompanied by an explanation of the basis and 
     purpose of the rule and proposed rule change.
       ``(2) The Commission, upon a motion of the Commission or 
     upon complaint, may propose a change to the rules of the ERO.
       ``(3) A proposed rule or proposed rule change shall take 
     effect upon a finding by the Commission, after notice and 
     opportunity for comment, that the change is just, reasonable, 
     not unduly discriminatory or preferential, is in the public 
     interest, and meets the requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(g) Reliability Reports.--The ERO shall conduct periodic 
     assessments of the reliability and adequacy of the bulk-power 
     system in North America.
       ``(h) Coordination With Canada and Mexico.--The President 
     is urged to negotiate international agreements with the 
     governments of Canada and Mexico to provide for effective 
     compliance with reliability standards and the effectiveness 
     of the ERO in the United States and Canada or Mexico.
       ``(i) Savings Provisions.--(1) The ERO may develop and 
     enforce compliance with reliability standards for only the 
     bulk-power system.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section authorizes the ERO or the 
     Commission to order the construction of additional generation 
     or transmission capacity or to set and enforce compliance 
     with standards for adequacy or safety of electric facilities 
     or services.
       ``(3) Nothing in this section preempts any authority of any 
     State to take action to ensure the safety, adequacy, and 
     reliability of electric service within that State, as long as 
     such action is not inconsistent with any reliability 
     standard.
       ``(4) Not later than 90 days after the date of application 
     of the Electric Reliability Organization or other affected 
     party, and after notice and opportunity for comment, the 
     Commission shall issue a final order determining whether a 
     State action is inconsistent with a reliability standard, 
     taking into consideration any recommendation of the ERO.
       ``(5) The Commission, after consultation with the ERO and 
     the State taking action, may stay the effectiveness of any 
     State action, pending the issuance by the Commission of a 
     final order.
       ``(j) Regional Advisory Bodies.--(1) The Commission shall 
     establish a regional advisory body on the petition of at 
     least \2/3\ of the States within a region that have more than 
     \1/2\ of the electric load of the States served within the 
     region.
       ``(2) A regional advisory body--
       ``(A) shall be composed of 1 member from each participating 
     State in the region, appointed by the Governor of the State; 
     and
       ``(B) may include representatives of agencies, States, and 
     provinces outside the United States.
       ``(3) A regional advisory body may provide advice to the 
     Electric Reliability Organization, a regional entity, or the 
     Commission regarding--
       ``(A) the governance of an existing or proposed regional 
     entity within the same region;
       ``(B) whether a standard proposed to apply within the 
     region is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest;
       ``(C) whether fees proposed to be assessed within the 
     region are just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, and in the public interest; and
       ``(D) any other responsibilities requested by the 
     Commission.
       ``(4) The Commission may give deference to the advice of a 
     regional advisory body if that body is organized on an 
     interconnection-wide basis.
       ``(k) Alaska and Hawaii.--This section does not apply to 
     Alaska or Hawaii.''.
       (b) Status of ERO.--The Electric Reliability Organization 
     certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under 
     section 215(c) of the Federal Power Act (as added by 
     subsection (a)) and any regional entity delegated enforcement 
     authority pursuant to section 215(e)(4) of that Act (as so 
     added) are not departments, agencies, or instrumentalities of 
     the United States Government.

[[Page 2771]]



     SEC. 102. MODEL ELECTRIC UTILITY WORKERS CODE.

       Subtitle B of title I of the Public Utility Regulatory 
     Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 118. MODEL CODE FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY WORKERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop by rule and 
     circulate among the States for their consideration a model 
     code containing standards for electric facility workers to 
     ensure electric facility safety and reliability.
       ``(b) Consultation.--In developing the standards, the 
     Secretary shall consult with all interested parties, 
     including representatives of electric facility workers.
       ``(c) Not Affecting Occupational Safety and Health.--In 
     issuing a model code under this section, the Secretary shall 
     not, for purposes of section 4 of the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653), be deemed to be 
     exercising statutory authority to prescribe or enforce 
     standards or regulations affecting occupational safety and 
     health.''.

     SEC. 103. ELECTRICITY OUTAGE INVESTIGATION.

       Part III of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 320 and 321 (16 U.S.C. 825r, 
     791a) as sections 321 and 322, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 319 (16 U.S.C. 825q) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 320. ELECTRICITY OUTAGE INVESTIGATION BOARD.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established an Electricity 
     Outage Investigation Board that shall be an independent 
     establishment within the executive branch.
       ``(b) Membership.--(1) The Board shall consist of 7 members 
     and shall include--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Energy (or a designee);
       ``(B) the Chairperson of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission (or a designee);
       ``(C) a representative of the National Academy of Sciences 
     appointed by the President;
       ``(D) a representative nominated by the majority leader of 
     the Senate and appointed by the President;
       ``(E) a representative nominated by the minority leader of 
     the Senate and appointed by the President;
       ``(F) a representative nominated by the majority leader of 
     the House of Representatives and appointed by the President; 
     and
       ``(G) a representative nominated by the minority leader of 
     the House of Representatives and appointed by the President.
       ``(2) Each member of the Board shall demonstrate relevant 
     expertise in the field of electricity generation, 
     transmission, and distribution, and such other expertise as 
     will best assist in carrying out the duties of the Board.
       ``(c) Terms.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     member of the Board shall serve for a term of 3 years.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Energy and the Chairperson of the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall be permanent 
     members of the Board.
       ``(d) Duties.--The Board shall--
       ``(1) upon request by Congress or the President, 
     investigate a major bulk-power system failure in the United 
     States to determine the causes of the failure;
       ``(2) report expeditiously to Congress and the President 
     the results of the investigation; and
       ``(3) recommend to Congress and the President actions to 
     minimize the possibility of future bulk-power system failure.
       ``(e) Compensation.--(1) Each member of the Board shall be 
     paid at the rate payable for level III of the Executive 
     Schedule for each day (including travel time) the member is 
     engaged in the work of the Board.
       ``(2) Each member of the Board may receive travel expenses, 
     including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner 
     as is permitted under sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, 
     United States Code.''.

     SEC. 104. STUDY ON RELIABILITY OF UNITED STATES ELECTRICITY 
                   GRID.

       (a) Study on Reliability.--Not later than 45 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences 
     under which the Academy shall conduct a study on the 
     reliability of the United States electricity grid to examine 
     the effectiveness of the current United States electricity 
     transmission and distribution system at providing efficient, 
     secure, and affordable power to United States consumers.
       (b) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of--
       (1) the vulnerability of the transmission and distribution 
     system to disruption by natural, mechanical or human causes 
     including sabotage;
       (2) the most efficient and cost-effective solutions for 
     dealing with vulnerabilities or other problems of the 
     electricity transmission and distribution system of the 
     United States, including a comparison of investments in--
       (A) efficiency;
       (B) distributed generation;
       (C) technical advances in software and other devices to 
     improve the efficiency and reliability of the grid;
       (D) new power line construction; and
       (E) any other relevant matters.
       (c) Report.--The contract shall provide that, not later 
     than 180 days after the date of execution of the contract, 
     the National Academy of Sciences shall submit to the 
     President and Congress a report that details the findings and 
     recommendations of the study.

                          TITLE II--EFFICIENCY

     SEC. 201. SYSTEM BENEFITS FUND.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the System Benefits 
     Trust Fund Board established under subsection (b).
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (4) Farm system.--The term ``farm system'' means an 
     electric generating facility that generates electric energy 
     from the anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste produced 
     by farming that is located on the farm where substantially 
     all of the waste used is produced.
       (5) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the System Benefits 
     Trust Fund established under subsection (c).
       (6) Renewable Energy.--The term ``renewable energy'' means 
     electricity generated from wind, ocean energy, organic waste 
     (excluding incinerated municipal solid waste), biomass 
     (including anaerobic digestion from farm systems and landfill 
     gas recovery) or a geothermal, solar thermal, or photovoltaic 
     source.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (b) Board.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a System 
     Benefits Trust Fund Board to carry out the functions and 
     responsibilities described in this section.
       (2) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of--
       (A) 1 representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission appointed by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission;
       (B) 2 representatives of the Secretary of Energy appointed 
     by the Secretary;
       (C) 2 persons nominated by the National Association of 
     Regulatory Utility Commissioners and appointed by the 
     Secretary;
       (D) 1 person nominated by the National Association of State 
     Utility Consumer Advocates and appointed by the Secretary;
       (E) 1 person nominated by the National Association of State 
     Energy Officials and appointed by the Secretary;
       (F) 1 person nominated by the National Energy Assistance 
     Directors' Association and appointed by the Secretary; and
       (G) 1 representative of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     appointed by the Administrator.
       (3) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall select a member of 
     the Board to serve as Chairperson of the Board.
       (c) Establishment of Fund.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall establish an account or 
     accounts at 1 or more financial institutions, which account 
     or accounts shall--
       (A) be known as the ``System Benefits Trust Fund''; and
       (B) consist of amounts deposited in the Fund under 
     subsection (e).
       (2) Status of fund.--The wires charges collected under 
     subsection (e) and deposited in the Fund--
       (A) shall not constitute funds of the United States;
       (B) shall be held in trust by the Board solely for the 
     purposes stated in subsection (d); and
       (C) shall not be available to meet any obligations of the 
     United States.
       (d) Use of Fund.--
       (1) Funding of state programs.--Amounts in the Fund shall 
     be used by the Board to provide matching funds to States and 
     Indian tribes for the support of State or tribal public 
     benefits programs relating to--
       (A) energy conservation and efficiency;
       (B) renewable energy sources;
       (C) assisting low-income households in meeting their home 
     energy needs; or
       (D) research and development in areas described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C).
       (2) Distribution.--
       (A) In general.--Except for amounts needed to pay costs of 
     the Board in carrying out its duties under this section, the 
     Board shall distribute all amounts in the Fund to States or 
     Indian tribes to fund public benefits programs under 
     paragraph (1).
       (B) Fund share.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), the Fund share of 
     a public benefits program funded under paragraph (1) shall be 
     50 percent.
       (ii) Proportionate reduction.--To the extent that the 
     amount of matching funds requested by States and Indian 
     tribes exceeds the maximum projected revenues of the Fund, 
     the matching funds distributed to each State and Indian tribe 
     shall be reduced by an amount equal to the proportion that 
     the annual consumption of electricity of the State or Indian 
     tribe bears to the annual consumption of electricity of all 
     States and Indian tribes.
       (iii) Additional state or indian tribe funding.--A State or 
     Indian tribe may apply funds to public benefits programs in 
     addition

[[Page 2772]]

     to the amount of funds applied for the purpose of matching 
     the Fund share.
       (3) Program criteria.--The Board shall recommend 
     eligibility criteria for public benefits programs funded 
     under this section for approval by the Secretary.
       (4) Application.--Not later than August 1 of each year 
     beginning in 2006, a State or Indian tribe seeking matching 
     funds for the following fiscal year shall file with the 
     Board, in such form as the Board may require, an 
     application--
       (A) certifying that the funds will be used for an eligible 
     public benefits program;
       (B) stating the amount of State or Indian tribe funds 
     earmarked for the program; and
       (C) summarizing how amounts from the Fund from the previous 
     calendar year (if any) were spent by the State and what the 
     State accomplished as a result of the expenditures.
       (e) Wires Charge.--
       (1) Determination of needed funding.--Not later than 
     September 1 of each year, the Board shall determine and 
     inform the Commission of the aggregate amount of wires 
     charges that will be necessary to be paid into the Fund to 
     pay matching funds to States and Indian tribes and pay the 
     operating costs of the Board in the following fiscal year.
       (2) Imposition of wires charge.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than December 15 of each year, 
     the Commission shall impose a nonbypassable, competitively 
     neutral wires charge, to be paid directly into the Fund by 
     the operator of the wire, on electricity carried through the 
     wire (measured as the electricity exits at the busbar at a 
     generation facility, or, for electricity generated outside 
     the United States, at the point of delivery to the wire 
     operator's system) in interstate commerce.
       (B) Amount.--The wires charge shall be set at a rate equal 
     to the lesser of--
       (i) 1.0 mills per kilowatt hour; or
       (ii) a rate that is estimated to result in the collection 
     of an amount of wires charges that is, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, equal to the amount of needed funding determined 
     under paragraph (1).
       (3) Deposit in the fund.--The wires charge shall be paid by 
     the operator of the wire directly into the Fund at the end of 
     each month during the calendar year for distribution by the 
     Board under subsection (c).
       (4) Penalties.--The Commission may assess against a wire 
     operator that fails to pay a wires charge as required by this 
     subsection a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more 
     than the amount of the unpaid wires charge.
       (f) Auditing.--
       (1) In general.--The Fund shall be audited annually by a 
     firm of independent certified public accountants in 
     accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
       (2) Access to records.--Representatives of the Secretary 
     and the Commission shall have access to all books, accounts, 
     reports, files, and other records pertaining to the Fund as 
     necessary to facilitate and verify the audit.
       (3) Reports.--
       (A) In general.--A report on each audit shall be submitted 
     to the Secretary, the Commission, and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, who shall submit the report to the President and 
     Congress not later than 180 days after the end of the fiscal 
     year.
       (B) Requirements.--An audit report shall--
       (i) set forth the scope of the audit; and
       (ii) include--

       (I) a statement of assets and liabilities, capital, and 
     surplus or deficit;
       (II) a surplus of deficit analysis;
       (III) a statement of income and expenses;
       (IV) any other information that may be considered necessary 
     to keep the President and Congress informed of the operations 
     and financial condition of the Fund; and
       (V) any recommendations with respect to the Fund that the 
     Secretary or the Commission may have.

     SEC. 202. ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE STANDARD.

       Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621 note) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 609. FEDERAL ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE 
                   STANDARD.

       ``(a) In General.--Each electric retail supplier shall 
     implement energy efficiency and load reduction programs and 
     measures to achieve verified improvements in energy 
     efficiency and peak load reduction in retail customer 
     facilities and the distribution systems that serve those 
     facilities.
       ``(b) Power Savings.--The programs and measures under 
     subsection (a) shall produce savings in total peak power 
     demand and total electricity use by retail customers by an 
     amount that is equal to or greater than the following 
     percentages relative to the peak demand and electricity used 
     in that year by the retail electric supplier's customers:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Reduction    Reduction
                                                 in demand      in use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In calendar year 2006.........................           1%         .75%
In calendar year 2007.........................           2%         1.5%
In calendar year 2009.........................           4%         3.0%
In calendar year 2011.........................           6%         4.5%
In calendar year 2013.........................           8%         6.0%
In calendar year 2015.........................          10%         7.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(c) Beginning Date.--For purposes of this section, 
     savings shall be counted only for measures installed after 
     January 1, 2006.
       ``(d) Rulemaking.--(1) Not later than June 30, 2005, the 
     Secretary shall establish, by rule--
       ``(A) procedures and standards for counting and 
     independently verifying energy and demand savings for 
     purposes of enforcing the energy efficiency performance 
     standards imposed by this section; and
       ``(B) procedures and a schedule for reporting findings to 
     the Department of Energy and for making the reports available 
     to the public.
       ``(2) In developing the procedures, standards, and schedule 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with--
       ``(A) the association representing public utility 
     regulators in the United States; and
       ``(B) the association representing the State energy 
     officials in the United States.
       ``(e) Reporting.--(1) Not later than June 30, 2008, and 
     every 2 years thereafter, each retail electric supplier shall 
     file with the State public utilities commission in each State 
     in which the supplier provides service to retail customers a 
     report demonstrating that the retail electric supplier has 
     taken action to comply with the energy efficiency performance 
     standards of this section.
       ``(2) A report filed under paragraph (1) shall include 
     independent verification of the estimated savings pursuant to 
     standards established by the Secretary.
       ``(3)(A) A State public utilities commission may--
       ``(i) accept a report as filed under paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) review and investigate the accuracy of the report.
       ``(B) Each State public utilities commission shall--
       ``(i) make findings on any deficiencies relating to the 
     requirements under section 2; and
       ``(ii) issue a remedial order for the correction of any 
     deficiencies that are found.
       ``(f) Utilities Outside State Jurisdiction.--(1) An 
     electric retail supplier that is not subject to the 
     jurisdiction of a State public utilities commission shall 
     submit reports in accordance with subsection (e) to the 
     governing body of the electric retail supplier.
       ``(2) A report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include 
     independent verification of the estimated savings pursuant to 
     standards established by the Secretary.
       ``(g) Program Participation.--(1) An electric retail 
     supplier may demonstrate satisfaction of the standard under 
     this section, in whole or part, by savings achieved through 
     participation in statewide, regional, or national programs 
     that can be demonstrated to significantly improve the 
     efficiency of electric distribution and use.
       ``(2) Verified efficiency savings resulting from programs 
     described in paragraph (1) may be assigned to each 
     participating retail supplier based upon the degree of 
     participation of the supplier in the programs.
       ``(3) An electric retail supplier may purchase rights to 
     extra savings achieved by other electric retail suppliers if 
     the selling supplier or another electric retail supplier does 
     not also take credit for those savings.
       ``(h) Remedies for Failure To Comply.--(1) In the event 
     that any retail electric supplier fails to achieve its energy 
     savings or load reduction target for a specific year, any 
     aggrieved party may bring a civil action or file an 
     administrative claim to seek prompt remedial action before a 
     State public utilities commission (or, in the case of an 
     electric retail supplier not subject to State public utility 
     commission jurisdiction, before an appropriate governing 
     body).
       ``(2)(A) The State public utilities commission or other 
     appropriate governing body shall have a maximum of 1 year to 
     craft a remedy for a civil action or claim filed under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(B) If a State public utilities commission or other 
     governing body certifies that the commission or body has 
     inadequate resources or authority to promptly resolve 
     enforcement actions under this section, or fails to take 
     action within the time period specified in subparagraph (A), 
     the commission or body or an aggrieved party may seek 
     enforcement in Federal district court.
       ``(3)(A) If a commission or court determines that energy 
     savings or load reduction targets for a specific year have 
     not been achieved by a retail electric supplier under this 
     section, the commission or court shall--
       ``(i) determine the amount of the deficit; and
       ``(ii) fashion an equitable remedy to restore the lost 
     savings as soon as practicable.
       ``(B) A remedy under subparagraph (A)(ii) may include--
       ``(i) a refund to retail electric customers of an amount 
     equal to the retail cost of the electricity consumed due to 
     the failure to reach the target; and
       ``(ii) the appointment of a special master to administer a 
     bidding system to procure the energy and demand savings equal 
     to 125 percent of the deficit.''.

     SEC. 203. APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY.

       Section 325(d)(3) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraph 
     (B) and inserting the following:

[[Page 2773]]

       ``(B) Not later than January 1, 2009, the Secretary shall 
     publish a final rule to determine whether the standards in 
     effect for central air conditioners and central air 
     conditioning heat pumps should be amended. The rule shall 
     address both system annual energy use and peak electric 
     demand and may include more than 1 efficiency descriptor. The 
     rule shall apply to products manufactured on or after January 
     1, 2012.''.

     SEC. 204. LOAN GUARANTEES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible activity.--The term ``eligible activity'' 
     means--
       (A) advanced technologies for high-efficiency electricity 
     transmission control and operation, including high-efficiency 
     power electronics technologies (including software-controlled 
     computer chips and sensors to diagnose trouble spots and re-
     route power into appropriate areas), high-efficiency 
     electricity storage systems, and high-efficiency transmission 
     wire or transmission cable system;
       (B) distributed generation systems fueled solely by--
       (i) solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, or ocean energy;
       (ii) landfill gas;
       (iii) natural gas systems utilizing best available control 
     technology;
       (iv) fuel cells; or
       (v) any combination of the above;
       (C) combined heat and power systems; and
       (D) energy efficiency systems producing demonstrable 
     electricity savings.
       (2) Qualifying entity.--The term ``qualifying entity'' 
     means an individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, 
     trust or other entity identified by the Secretary under 
     subsection (d)(1) as eligible for a guaranteed loan under 
     this section.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (b) Authority.--The Secretary may guarantee not more than 
     50 percent of the principal of any loan made to a qualifying 
     entity for eligible activities under this section.
       (c) Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall not guarantee a loan 
     under this section unless--
       (A) the guarantee is a qualifying entity;
       (B) the guarantee has filed an application with the 
     Secretary;
       (C) the project, activity, program, or system for which the 
     loan is made is an eligible activity; and
       (D) the project, activity, program, or system for which the 
     loan is made will significantly enhance the reliability, 
     security, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of electricity 
     generation, transmission or distribution.
       (2) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority to 
     guaranteed loans under this section for eligible activities 
     that accomplish the objectives of this section in the most 
     environmentally beneficial manner.
       (3) Eligible financial institutions.--A loan guaranteed 
     under this section shall be made by a financial institution 
     subject to the examination of the Secretary.
       (d) Rules.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall publish a 
     final rule establishing guidelines for loan requirements 
     under this section, including establishment of--
       (1) criteria for determining which entities shall be 
     considered qualifying entities eligible for loan guarantees 
     under this section;
       (2) criteria for determining which projects, activities, 
     programs, or systems shall be considered eligible activities 
     eligible for loan guarantees in accordance with the purposes 
     of this section;
       (3) loan requirements including term, maximum size, 
     collateral requirements; and
       (4) any other relevant features.
       (e) Limitation on Size.--The Secretary may make commitments 
     to guarantee loans under this section only to the extent that 
     the total principal, any part of which is guaranteed, will 
     not exceed $10,000,000,000.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are 
     necessary to cover the cost of loan guarantees (as defined by 
     section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2. 
     U.S.C. 661a(5))) under this section.

                      TITLE III--ONSITE GENERATION

     SEC. 301. NET METERING.

       (a) Adoption of Standard.--Section 111(d) of the Public 
     Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) Net metering.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each electric utility shall make 
     available upon request net metering service to any electric 
     consumer that the electric utility serves.
       ``(B) References.--For purposes of implementing this 
     paragraph, any reference contained in this section to the 
     date of enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the date of enactment of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Special Rules for Net Metering.--Section 115 of the 
     Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2625) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Net Metering.--(1) In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `eligible onsite generating facility' 
     means--
       ``(i) a facility on the site of a residential electric 
     consumer with a maximum generating capacity of 25 kilowatts 
     or less; or
       ``(ii) a facility on the site of a commercial electric 
     consumer with a maximum generating capacity of 1,000 
     kilowatts or less,

     that is fueled solely by a renewable energy resource.
       ``(B) The term `net metering service' means service to an 
     electric consumer under which electric energy generated by 
     that electric consumer from an eligible onsite generating 
     facility and delivered to the local distribution facilities 
     may be used to offset electric energy provided by the 
     electric utility to the electric consumer during the 
     applicable billing period.
       ``(C) The term `renewable energy resource' means--
       ``(i) solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, or wave energy;
       ``(ii) landfill gas;
       ``(iii) fuel cells; and
       ``(iv) a combined heat and power system.
       ``(2) In undertaking the consideration and making the 
     determination concerning net metering established by section 
     111(d)(11), the following shall apply:
       ``(A) An electric utility--
       ``(i) shall charge the owner or operator of an onsite 
     generating facility rates and charges that are identical to 
     those that would be charged other electric consumers of the 
     electric utility in the same rate class; and
       ``(ii) shall not charge the owner or operator of an onsite 
     generating facility any additional standby, capacity, 
     interconnection, or other rate or charge.
       ``(B) An electric utility that sells electric energy to the 
     owner or operator of an onsite generating facility shall 
     measure the quantity of electric energy produced by the 
     onsite facility and the quantity of electricity consumed by 
     the owner or operator of an onsite generating facility during 
     a billing period in accordance with normal metering 
     practices.
       ``(C) If the quantity of electric energy sold by the 
     electric utility to an on-site generating facility exceeds 
     the quantity of electric energy supplied by the onsite 
     generating facility to the electric utility during the 
     billing period, the electric utility may bill the owner or 
     operator for the net quantity of electric energy sold, in 
     accordance with normal metering practices.
       ``(D) If the quantity of electric energy supplied by the 
     onsite generating facility to the electric utility exceeds 
     the quantity of electric energy sold by the electric utility 
     to the onsite generating facility during the billing period--
       ``(i) the electric utility may bill the owner or operator 
     of the onsite generating facility for the appropriate charges 
     for the billing period in accordance with subparagraph (B); 
     and
       ``(ii) the owner or operator of the onsite generating 
     facility shall be credited for the excess kilowatt-hours 
     generated during the billing period, with the kilowatt-hour 
     credit appearing on the bill for the following billing 
     period.
       ``(E) An eligible onsite generating facility and net 
     metering system used by an electric consumer shall meet all 
     applicable safety, performance, reliability, and 
     interconnection standards established by the National 
     Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
     Engineers, and Underwriters Laboratories.
       ``(F) The Commission, after consultation with State 
     regulatory authorities and nonregulated electric utilities 
     and after notice and opportunity for comment, may adopt, by 
     rule, additional control and testing requirements for onsite 
     generating facilities and net metering systems that the 
     Commission determines are necessary to protect public safety 
     and system reliability.
       ``(G) An electric utility must provide net metering 
     services to electric consumers until the cumulative 
     generating capacity of net metering systems equals 1.0 
     percent of the utility's peak demand during the most recent 
     calendar year.
       ``(H) Nothing in this subsection precludes a State from 
     imposing additional requirements regarding the amount of net 
     metering available within a State consistent with the 
     requirements of this section.''.

     SEC. 302. INTERCONNECTION.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 796) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph 23 and inserting the following:
       ``(23) Transmitting utility.--The term `transmitting 
     utility' means any entity (notwithstanding section 201(f)) 
     that owns, controls, or operates an electric power 
     transmission facility that is used for the sale of electric 
     energy.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(26) Appropriate regulatory authority.--The term 
     `appropriate regulatory authority' means--
       ``(A) the Commission;
       ``(B) a State commission;
       ``(C) a municipality; or
       ``(D) a cooperative that is self-regulating under State law 
     and is not a public utility.
       ``(27) Generating facility.--The term `generating facility' 
     means a facility that generates electric energy.
       ``(28) Local distribution utility.--The term `local 
     distribution facility' means an entity that owns, controls, 
     or operates an electric power distribution facility that is 
     used for the sale of electric energy.

[[Page 2774]]

       ``(29) Non-federal regulatory authority.--The term `non-
     Federal regulatory authority' means an appropriate regulatory 
     authority other than the Commission.''.
       (b) Interconnection to Distribution Facilities.--Section 
     210 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824i) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Interconnection to Distribution Facilities.--(1)(A) A 
     local distribution utility shall interconnect a generating 
     facility with the distribution facilities of the local 
     distribution utility if the owner of the generating 
     facility--
       ``(i) complies with the final rule promulgated under 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) pays the costs of the interconnection.
       ``(B) The costs of the interconnection--
       ``(i) shall be just and reasonable, and not unduly 
     discriminatory or preferential, as determined by the 
     appropriate regulatory authority; and
       ``(ii) shall be comparable to the costs charged by the 
     local distribution utility for interconnection by any 
     similarly situated generating facility to the distribution 
     facilities of the local distribution utility.
       ``(C) The right of a generating facility to interconnect 
     under subparagraph (A) does not relieve the generating 
     facility or the local distribution utility of other Federal, 
     State, or local requirements.
       ``(2) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subparagraph, the Commission shall promulgate final 
     rules establishing reasonable and appropriate technical 
     standards for the interconnection of a generating facility 
     with the distribution facilities of a local distribution 
     utility.
       ``(3)(A) In accordance with subparagraph (B) a local 
     distribution utility shall offer to sell backup power to a 
     generating facility that has interconnected with the local 
     distribution utility to the extent that the local 
     distribution utility--
       ``(i) is not subject to an order of a non-Federal 
     regulatory authority to provide open access to the 
     distribution facilities of the local distribution utility;
       ``(ii) has not offered to provide open access to the 
     distribution facilities of the local distribution utility; or
       ``(iii) does not allow a generating facility to purchase 
     backup power from another entity using the distribution 
     facilities of the local distribution utility.
       ``(B) A sale of backup power under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be at such a rate, and under such terms and conditions as are 
     just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, taking into account the actual incremental 
     cost, whenever incurred by the local distribution utility, to 
     supply such backup power service during the period in which 
     the backup power service is provided, as determined by the 
     appropriate regulatory authority.
       ``(C) A local distribution utility shall not be required to 
     offer backup power for resale to any entity other than the 
     entity for which the backup power is purchased.
       ``(D) To the extent backup power is used to serve a new or 
     expanded load on the distribution system, the generating 
     facility shall pay any reasonable cost associated with any 
     transmission, distribution, or generating upgrade required to 
     provide such service.''.
       (c) Interconnection to Transmission Facilities.--Section 
     210 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824i) (as amended by 
     subsection (b)) is amended by inserting after subsection (e) 
     the following:
       ``(f) Interconnection to Transmission Facilities.--(1)(A) 
     Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (c), a transmitting 
     utility shall interconnect a generating facility with the 
     transmission facilities of the transmitting utility if the 
     owner of the generating facility--
       ``(i) complies with the final rules promulgated under 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) pays the costs of interconnection.
       ``(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), the costs of 
     interconnection--
       ``(i) shall be just and reasonable and not unduly 
     discriminatory or preferential; and
       ``(ii) shall be comparable to the costs charged by the 
     transmitting utility for interconnection by any similarly 
     situated generating facility to the transmitting facilities 
     of the transmitting utility.
       ``(C) A non-Federal regulatory authority that is authorized 
     under Federal law to determine the rates for transmission 
     service shall be authorized to determine the costs of any 
     interconnection under this subparagraph.
       ``(D) The right of a generating facility to interconnect 
     under subparagraph (A) does not relieve the generating 
     facility or the transmitting utility of other Federal, State, 
     or local requirements.
       ``(2) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subparagraph, the Commission shall promulgate rules 
     establishing reasonable and appropriate technical standards 
     for the interconnection of a generating facility with the 
     transmission facilities of a transmitting utility.
       ``(3)(A) In accordance with subparagraph (B), a 
     transmitting utility shall offer to sell backup power to a 
     generating facility that has interconnected with the 
     transmitting utility unless--
       ``(i) Federal or State law allows a generating facility to 
     purchase backup power from an entity other than the 
     transmitting utility; or
       ``(ii) a transmitting utility allows a generating facility 
     to purchase backup power from an entity other than the 
     transmitting utility using the transmission facilities of the 
     transmitting utility and the transmission facilities of any 
     other transmitting utility.
       ``(B) A sale of backup power under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be at such a rate and under such terms and conditions as are 
     just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or 
     preferential, taking into account the actual incremental 
     cost, whenever incurred by the local distribution utility, to 
     supply such backup power service during the period in which 
     the backup power service is provided, as determined by the 
     appropriate regulatory authority.
       ``(C) A transmitting utility shall not be required to offer 
     backup power for resale to any entity other than the entity 
     for which the backup power is purchased.
       ``(D) To the extent backup power is used to serve a new or 
     expanded load on the transmission system, the generating 
     facility shall pay any reasonable costs associated with any 
     transmission, distribution, or generation upgrade required to 
     provide the service.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--Section 210 of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824i) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``transmitting utility, local distribution 
     utility,'' after ``electric utility,''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``any transmitting 
     utility,'' after ``small power production facility,'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``an evidentiary 
     hearing'' and inserting ``a hearing'';
       (3) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) promote competition in electricity markets, and''; 
     and
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking the last sentence.

     SEC. 303. ONSITE GENERATION FOR EMERGENCY FACILITIES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible facility.--The term ``eligible facility'' 
     means a building owned or operated by a State or local 
     government that is used for--
       (A) critical governmental dispatch and communication;
       (B) police, fire, or emergency services;
       (C) traffic control systems; or
       (D) public water or sewer systems.
       (2) Renewable uninterruptible power supply system.--The 
     term ``renewable uninterruptible power supply system'' means 
     a system designed to maintain electrical power to critical 
     loads in a public facility in the event of a loss or 
     disruption in conventional grid electricity, where such 
     system derives its energy production or storage capacity 
     solely from--
       (A) solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, or ocean energy;
       (B) natural gas;
       (C) landfill gas;
       (D) a fuel cell device; or
       (E) a combination of energy described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (D).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (b) Demonstration and Technology Transfer Program.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a demonstration program for the 
     implementation of innovative technologies for renewable 
     uninterruptible power supply systems located in eligible 
     buildings and for the dissemination of information on those 
     systems to interested parties.
       (c) Limit on Federal Funding.--The Secretary shall provide 
     not more than 40 percent of the costs of projects funded 
     under this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 427. A bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
1978 to provide for a Federal renewable portfolio standard; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Renewable 
Energy Investment Act of 2005 to accelerate the use of clean, domestic 
renewable energy sources as an integral part of our Nation's electrical 
generation.
  A recent episode of the television show, West Wing, portrayed 
renewable energy as science fiction. The truth is closer to Reality TV.
  Eighteen States, plus the District of Columbia, have already 
instituted minimum renewable standards. This bill

[[Page 2775]]

would establish a national renewable portfolio standard requiring that, 
by the year 2020, 20 percent of U.S. electricity be derived from clean, 
domestically produced renewable energy including wind, solar, biomass, 
geothermal and wave energy.
  As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee, I think obtaining 20 percent of our country's electricity 
from renewable energy represents the modest end of what we could 
achieve.
  Let me offer five reasons why I believe we need a national commitment 
to encourage renewable power.
  First, renewable power would help consumers by reducing electricity 
prices. According to data provided by the Bush administration's Energy 
Department, a 20 percent renewables requirement similar to that set 
forth in the bill I am introducing today would lower consumer energy 
costs by the year 2020. Why? Because adding additional renewables to 
our energy mix will decrease the pressure on natural gas supplies, 
bringing overall costs down.
  This point is worth repeating. Despite concerns from those in the 
fossil fuel and nuclear industries, the Department of Energy has 
consistently found that a mandatory renewable portfolio standard would 
not raise overall energy costs and would have no significant adverse 
impact on America's wallets.
  Estimates are that reaching 10 percent renewable energy production by 
the year 2020 could reduce the demand for natural gas by as much as 1.4 
trillion cubic feet, and could reduce the price of natural gas by 6 
percent. With the higher renewable portfolio standard in my bill, the 
price reductions are even greater.
  I have received letters from the chemical industry expressing deep 
concern about the high price of natural gas, and imploring me to take 
steps to help alleviate shortages and reduce costs.
  Much to my consternation, however, neither the chemical industry, nor 
this administration have addressed the obvious link between increasing 
renewable energy production and easing demand on natural gas supplies. 
Instead, their solutions have been to open sensitive lands to more 
drilling, reduce environmental compliance and advance clean coal 
technologies.
  Whatever merits there may be to some of their suggestions, an obvious 
step that should be taken is diversifying our energy sector and easing 
the growing demand on natural gas by promoting other clean energies 
which can be readily produced on American soil.
  The second reason for a national commitment to encourage renewable 
power is the public health and environmental benefits.
  Electricity generation is the leading source of U.S. carbon 
emissions, accounting for over 40 percent of the total. Carbon dioxide 
emissions are the primary greenhouse gas, contributing to harmful 
climate change. A 20 percent renewables requirement would, according to 
the U.S. Department of Energy, reduce carbon emissions from power 
plants by up to 18 percent by the year 2020.
  A 20 percent renewables requirement would also significantly reduce 
emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contaminate 
our water, cause smog and acid rain, and contribute to respiratory 
illnesses. As a result, a renewable portfolio standard would help 
alleviate asthma, which has become the most common chronic disease for 
children.
  Coal burning electric power plants are also the largest source of 
mercury pollution, releasing an estimated 98,000 pounds of mercury 
directly into the air, and generating an additional 80,000 pounds a 
year in mercury tainted waste. A renewable portfolio standard would 
help the estimated five million women and children regularly exposed to 
mercury at levels that EPA considers unsafe.
  And according to the Department of Energy, these public health 
benefits would be achieved without raising consumer energy costs.
  Third, a 20 percent renewable portfolio standard would enhance our 
national security by diversifying our energy supply. As we increase our 
reliance on natural gas, much of the demand may have to be met by 
liquified natural gas shipped to the U.S. from other countries. It is 
unthinkable that we should sink to greater reliance on foreign fuel 
imports when we have abundant, inexhaustible renewable energy right 
here.
  Further, much of the U.S. energy system including power plants, 
refineries, and pipelines, present significant safety and security 
risks. Renewable energy facilities are generally smaller, more 
geographically dispersed and do not involve disposal or transportation 
of radioactive or combustible materials.
  A 20 percent renewable portfolio standard such as I offer today will 
help bring the costs of on-site generation down even further, making 
providing your own electricity a reality for a growing number of homes 
and facilities. In these times when we worry about the potential 
security of our energy grid, that option becomes increasingly 
attractive.
  Fourth, a national renewable portfolio standard builds on the 
successful experiments by the States. To date, 18 States, plus the 
District of Columbia, have adopted mandatory renewable energy 
standards. These State programs provide excellent incentives for 
renewable energy. In September 2004, New York created the second-
largest new renewable energy market in the country, behind only 
California, when the state Public Service Commission adopted a standard 
of 24 percent by 2013. Earlier in 2004, Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode 
Island also enacted minimum renewable electricity standards.
  Texas has one of the most successful state programs. The Texas 
Renewable portfolio standard was signed into law by then Governor 
George W. Bush, and administered by Pat Wood, who now chairs the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These men know the value of 
renewable energy. Texas now has enough wind power to run about 300,000 
homes a year, with huge benefits to ranchers who can lease acreage for 
wind turbines.
  However, as good as these State efforts are, they are subject to the 
inherent limitation that they can only address electricity sales and 
production within their own State boundaries. Yet as we know, 
electricity generation and transmission are regional in nature. State 
renewable requirements alone cannot provide the market and other 
mechanisms necessary to address regional and national electricity 
transmission.
  But these State programs demonstrate that renewables requirements can 
work, and operate to the benefit of consumers.
  Finally, I call for a national commitment to encourage renewable 
power because a cleaner energy future is in our grasp. The U.S. has the 
technical capacity to generate 4.5 times its current electricity needs 
from renewable energy resources. European investment continues to 
outstrip U.S. markets, but that is changing. Worldwide, approximately 
6,500 megawatts of new wind energy generating capacity were installed, 
amounting to annual sales of about $7 billion. Almost a third of that 
came from the United States, which installed nearly 1,700 megawatts of 
new wind energy in 2001, or $1.7 billion worth of new wind energy 
generating capacity.
  Yet, renewable energy still accounts for only a little over 2 percent 
of U.S. electricity generation.
  It is not that we expect this renewable portfolio standard to make 
conventional energy sources obsolete. Undoubtedly, fossil, nuclear and 
other fuels will be with us for some time. But isn't it time that we 
charted our future with cleaner energies? The potential is there, but 
we have to give it the assistance of market incentives, as we have 
traditionally done for our more established fuel sources.
  I urge my colleagues to again demonstrate our strong commitment to 
renewables and support my 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:

[[Page 2776]]



                                 S. 427

       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 ``Renewable Energy Investment 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.

       Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 606. FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Biomass.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `biomass' means--
       ``(i) organic material from a plant that is planted for the 
     purpose of being used to produce energy;
       ``(ii) nonhazardous, cellulosic or agricultural waste 
     material that is segregated from other waste materials and is 
     derived from--

       ``(I) a forest-related resource, including--

       ``(aa) mill and harvesting residue;
       ``(bb) precommercial thinnings;
       ``(cc) slash; and
       ``(dd) brush;

       ``(II) agricultural resources, including--

       ``(aa) orchard tree crops;
       ``(bb) vineyards;
       ``(cc) grains;
       ``(dd) legumes;
       ``(ee) sugar; and
       ``(ff) other crop by-products or residues; or

       ``(III) miscellaneous waste such as--

       ``(aa) waste pallet;
       ``(bb) crate; and
       ``(cc) landscape or right-of-way tree trimmings; and
       ``(iii) animal waste that is converted to a fuel rather 
     than directly combusted, the residue of which is converted to 
     a biological fertilizer, oil, or activated carbon.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `biomass' shall not include--
       ``(i) municipal solid waste that is incinerated;
       ``(ii) recyclable post-consumer waste paper;
       ``(iii) painted, treated, or pressurized wood;
       ``(iv) wood contaminated with plastics or metals; or
       ``(v) tires.
       ``(2) Distributed generation.--The term `distributed 
     generation' means reduced electricity consumption from the 
     electric grid due to use by a customer of renewable energy 
     generated at a customer site.
       ``(3) Incremental hydropower.--The term `incremental 
     hydropower' means additional generation achieved from 
     increased efficiency after January 1, 2005, at a 
     hydroelectric dam that was placed in service before January 
     1, 2005.
       ``(4) Landfill gas.--The term `landfill gas' means gas 
     generated from the decomposition of household solid waste, 
     commercial solid waste, and industrial solid waste disposed 
     of in a municipal solid waste landfill unit (as those terms 
     are defined in regulations promulgated under subtitle D of 
     the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.)).
       ``(5) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means 
     electricity generated from
       ``(A) a renewable energy source; or
       ``(B) hydrogen that is produced from a renewable energy 
     source.
       ``(6) Renewable energy source.--The term `renewable energy 
     source' means--
       ``(A) wind;
       ``(B) ocean waves;
       ``(C) biomass;
       ``(D) solar;
       ``(E) landfill gas;
       ``(F) incremental hydropower; or
       ``(G) geothermal.
       ``(7) Retail electric supplier.--The term `retail electric 
     supplier' means a person or entity that sells retail 
     electricity to consumers, and which sold not less than 
     500,000 megawatt-hours of electric energy to consumers for 
     purposes other than resale during the preceding calendar 
     year.
       ``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       ``(b) Renewable Energy Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each calendar year beginning in 
     Calendar year 2006, each retail electric supplier shall 
     submit to the Secretary, not later than April 30 of each 
     year, renewable energy credits in an amount equal to the 
     required annual percentage of the retail electric supplier's 
     total amount of kilowatt-hours of non-hydropower (excluding 
     incremental hydropower) electricity sold to retail consumers 
     during the previous calendar year.
       ``(2) Carryover.--A renewable energy credit for any year 
     that is not used to satisfy the minimum requirement for that 
     year may be carried over for use within the next two years.
       ``(c) Required Annual Percentage.--Of the total amount of 
     non-hydropower (excluding incremental hydropower) electricity 
     sold by each retail electric supplier during a calendar year, 
     the amount generated by renewable energy sources shall be not 
     less than the percentage specified below:

                                                          Percentage of
                                                       Renewable energy
``Calendar years:                                            Each year:
  2006-2009.......................................................5....

  2010-2014......................................................10....

  2015-2019......................................................15....

  2020 and subsequent years......................................20....

       ``(d) Submission of Renewable Energy Credits.--
       ``(1) In general.--To meet the requirements under 
     subsection (b), a retail electric supplier shall submit to 
     the Secretary either--
       ``(A) renewable energy credits issued to the retail 
     electric supplier under subsection (f);
       ``(B) renewable energy credits obtained by purchase or 
     exchange under subsection (g);
       ``(C) renewable energy credits purchased from the United 
     States under subsection (h); or
       ``(D) any combination of credits under subsections (f), (g) 
     or (h).
       ``(2) Prohibition on double counting.--A credit may be 
     counted toward compliance with subsection (b) only once.
       ``(e) Renewable Energy Credit Program.--The Secretary shall 
     establish, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, a program to issue, monitor the sale or exchange 
     of, and track, renewable energy credits.
       ``(f) Issuance of Renewable Energy Credits.--
       ``(1) In general.--Under the program established in 
     subsection (e), an entity that generates electric energy 
     through the use of a renewable energy resource may apply to 
     the Secretary for the issuance of renewable energy credits.
       ``(2) Application.--An application for the issuance of 
     renewable energy credits shall indicate--
       ``(A) the type of renewable energy resource used to produce 
     the electric energy;
       ``(B) the State in which the electric energy was produced; 
     and
       ``(C) any other information the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Credit value.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (4), the Secretary shall issue to an entity applying under 
     this subsection 1 renewable energy credit for each kilowatt-
     hour of renewable energy generated in any State from the date 
     of enactment of this Act and in each subsequent calendar 
     year.
       ``(4) Credit value for distributed generation.--The 
     Secretary shall issue 3 renewable energy credits for each 
     kilowatt-hour of distributed generation.
       ``(5) Vesting.--A renewable energy credit will vest with 
     the owner of the system or facility that generates the 
     renewable energy unless such owner explicitly transfers the 
     credit.
       ``(6) Credit eligibility.--To be eligible for a renewable 
     energy credit, the unit of electricity generated through the 
     use of a renewable energy resource shall be sold for retail 
     consumption or used by the generator. If both a renewable 
     energy resource and a non-renewable energy resource are used 
     to generate the electric energy, the Secretary shall issue 
     renewable energy credits based on the proportion of the 
     renewable energy resource used.
       ``(7) Identifying credits.--The Secretary shall identify 
     renewable energy credits by the type and date of generation.
       ``(8) Sale under purpa contract.--When a generator sells 
     electric energy generated through the use of a renewable 
     energy resource to a retail electric supplier under a 
     contract subject to section 210 of the Public Utilities 
     Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 824a-3), the 
     retail electric supplier is treated as the generator of the 
     electric energy for the purposes of this Act for the duration 
     of the contract.
       ``(g) Sale or Exchange of Renewable Energy Credits.--A 
     renewable energy credit may be sold or exchanged by the 
     entity issued the renewable energy credit or by any other 
     entity that acquires the renewable energy credit. Credits may 
     be sold or exchanged in any manner not in conflict with 
     existing law, including on the spot market or by contractual 
     arrangements of any duration.
       ``(h) Purchase From the United States.--The Secretary shall 
     offer renewable energy credits for sale at the lesser of 
     three cents per kilowatt-hour or 110 percent of the average 
     market value of credits for the applicable compliance period. 
     On January 1 of each year following calendar year 2006, the 
     Secretary shall adjust for inflation the price charged per 
     credit for such calendar year.
       ``(i) State Programs.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude any State from requiring additional renewable energy 
     generation in the State under any renewable energy program 
     conducted by the State.
       ``(j) Consumer Allocation.--The rates charged to classes of 
     consumers by a retail electric supplier shall reflect a 
     proportional percentage of the cost of generating or 
     acquiring the required annual percentage of renewable energy 
     under subsection (b). A retail electric supplier shall not 
     represent to any customer or prospective customer that any 
     product contains more than the percentage of eligible 
     resources if the additional amount of eligible resources is 
     being used to satisfy the renewable generation requirement 
     under subsection (b).
       ``(k) Enforcement.--A retail electric supplier that does 
     not submit renewable energy credits as required under 
     subsection (b) shall be liable for the payment of a civil 
     penalty. That penalty shall be calculated on the basis of the 
     number of renewable energy credits not submitted, multiplied 
     by the lesser of 4.5

[[Page 2777]]

     cents or 300 percent of the average market value of credits 
     for the compliance period.
       ``(l) Information Collection.--The Secretary may collect 
     the information necessary to verify and audit--
       ``(1) the annual electric energy generation and renewable 
     energy generation of any entity applying for renewable energy 
     credits under this section;
       ``(2) the validity of renewable energy credits submitted by 
     a retail electric supplier to the Secretary; and
       ``(3) the quantity of electricity sales of all retail 
     electric suppliers.
       ``(m) Voluntary Participation.--The Secretary may issue a 
     renewable energy credit pursuant to subsection (f) to any 
     entity not subject to the requirements of this Act only if 
     the entity applying for such credit meets the terms and 
     conditions of this Act to the same extent as entities subject 
     to this Act.
       ``(n) State Renewable Energy Grant Program.--
       ``(1) Distribution to states.--The Secretary shall 
     distribute amounts received from sales under subsection (h) 
     and from amounts received under subsection (k) to States to 
     be used for the purposes of this section.
       ``(2) Regional equity program.--
       ``(A) Establishment of program.--Within 1 year from the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish 
     a program to promote renewable energy production and use 
     consistent with the purposes of this section.
       ``(B) Eligibility.--The Secretary shall make funds 
     available under this section to State energy agencies for 
     grant programs for--
       ``(i) renewable energy research and development;
       ``(ii) loan guarantees to encourage construction of 
     renewable energy facilities;
       ``(iii) consumer rebate or other programs to offset costs 
     of small residential or small commercial renewable energy 
     systems including solar hot water; or
       ``(iv) promoting distributed generation.
       ``(3) Allocation preferences.--In allocating funds under 
     the program, the Secretary shall give preference to--
       ``(A) States in regions which have a disproportionately 
     small share of economically sustainable renewable energy 
     generation capacity; and
       ``(B) State grant programs most likely to stimulate or 
     enhance innovative renewable energy technologies.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Allen, Mr. Coleman, 
        Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Dayton, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Graham, 
        and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 428. A bill to provide $30,000,000,000 in new transportation 
infrastructure funding in addition to TEA-21 levels through bonding to 
empower States and local governments to complete significant long-term 
capital improvement projects for highways, public transportation 
systems, and rail systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. TALENT. 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. 428

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Build 
     America Bonds Act of 2005''.
       (b) References to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Except as 
     otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act 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.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Our Nation's highways, public transportation systems, 
     and rail systems drive our economy, enabling all industries 
     to achieve growth and productivity that makes America strong 
     and prosperous.
       (2) The establishment, maintenance, and improvement of the 
     national transportation network is a national priority, for 
     economic, environmental, energy, security, and other reasons.
       (3) The ability to move people and goods is critical to 
     maintaining State, metropolitan, rural, and local economies.
       (4) The construction of infrastructure requires the skills 
     of numerous occupations, including those in the contracting, 
     engineering, planning and design, materials supply, 
     manufacturing, distribution, and safety industries.
       (5) Investing in transportation infrastructure creates 
     long-term capital assets for the Nation that will help the 
     United States address its enormous infrastructure needs and 
     improve its economic productivity.
       (6) Investment in transportation infrastructure creates 
     jobs and spurs economic activity to put people back to work 
     and stimulate the economy.
       (7) Every billion dollars in transportation investment has 
     the potential to create up to 47,500 jobs.
       (8) Every dollar invested in the Nation's transportation 
     infrastructure yields at least $5.70 in economic benefits 
     because of reduced delays, improved safety, and reduced 
     vehicle operating costs.
       (9) The proposed increases to the Transportation Equity Act 
     for the 21st Century (TEA-21) will not be sufficient to 
     compensate for the Nation's transportation infrastructure 
     deficit.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide 
     financing for long-term infrastructure capital investments 
     that are not currently being met by existing transportation 
     and infrastructure investment programs, including mega-
     projects, projects of national significance, multistate 
     transportation corridors, intermodal transportation 
     facilities, and transportation and security improvements to 
     highways, public transportation systems, and rail systems.

     SEC. 3. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF BUILD AMERICA BONDS.

       (a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
     (relating to credits against tax) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subpart:

  ``Subpart H--Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Build America Bonds

``Sec. 54. Credit to holders of Build America bonds.

     ``SEC. 54. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF BUILD AMERICA BONDS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who 
     holds a Build America bond on a credit allowance date of such 
     bond which occurs during the taxable year, there shall be 
     allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter 
     for such taxable year an amount equal to the sum of the 
     credits determined under subsection (b) with respect to 
     credit allowance dates during such year on which the taxpayer 
     holds such bond.
       ``(b) Amount of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined 
     under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance 
     date for a Build America bond is 25 percent of the annual 
     credit determined with respect to such bond.
       ``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with 
     respect to any Build America bond is the product of--
       ``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
       ``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
       ``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2), the applicable credit rate with respect to an issue is 
     the rate equal to an average market yield (as of the day 
     before the date of sale of the issue) on outstanding long-
     term corporate debt obligations (determined in such manner as 
     the Secretary prescribes).
       ``(4) Credit allowance date.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `credit allowance date' means--
       ``(A) March 15,
       ``(B) June 15,
       ``(C) September 15, and
       ``(D) December 15.

     Such term includes the last day on which the bond is 
     outstanding.
       ``(5) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the 
     case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period 
     ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit 
     determined under this subsection with respect to such credit 
     allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit 
     otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month 
     period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule 
     shall apply when the bond is redeemed.
       ``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
       ``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a) 
     for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this part 
     (other than this subpart and subpart C).
       ``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable 
     under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by 
     paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be 
     carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the 
     credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
       ``(d) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income 
     includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer 
     under this section (determined without regard to subsection 
     (c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest 
     income.
       ``(e) Build America Bond.--For purposes of this part, the 
     term `Build America bond' means any bond issued as part of an 
     issue if--
       ``(1) the net spendable proceeds from the sale of such 
     issue are to be used--
       ``(A) for expenditures incurred after the date of the 
     enactment of this section for any qualified project, or

[[Page 2778]]

       ``(B) for deposit in the Build America Trust Account for 
     repayment of Build America bonds at maturity,
       ``(2) the bond is issued by the Transportation Finance 
     Corporation, is in registered form, and meets the Build 
     America bond limitation requirements under subsection (g),
       ``(3) the Transportation Finance Corporation certifies that 
     it meets the State contribution requirement of subsection (k) 
     with respect to such project, as in effect on the date of 
     issuance,
       ``(4) the Transportation Finance Corporation certifies that 
     the State in which an approved qualified project is located 
     meets the requirement described in subsection (l),
       ``(5) except for bonds issued in accordance with subsection 
     (g)(6), the term of each bond which is part of such issue 
     does not exceed 30 years,
       ``(6) the payment of principal with respect to such bond is 
     the obligation of the Transportation Finance Corporation, and
       ``(7) with respect to bonds described in paragraph (1)(A), 
     the issue meets the requirements of subsection (h) (relating 
     to arbitrage).
       ``(f) Qualified Project.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified project' means any--
       ``(A) qualified highway project, and
       ``(B) qualified public transportation project,

     proposed by 1 or more States and approved by the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation.
       ``(2) Qualified highway project.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified highway project' 
     means any--
       ``(i) project of regional or national significance,
       ``(ii) multistate corridor program,
       ``(iii) border planning, operations, technology, and 
     capacity improvement program, and
       ``(iv) freight intermodal connector project.
       ``(B) Projects of regional and national significance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `project of regional or 
     national significance' means the eligible project costs of 
     any surface transportation project which is eligible for 
     Federal assistance under title 23, United States Code, 
     including any freight rail project and activity eligible 
     under such title, if such eligible project costs are 
     reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed the lesser of--

       ``(I) $100,000,000, or
       ``(II) 50 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.

       ``(ii) Eligible project costs.--The term `eligible project 
     costs' means the costs of--

       ``(I) development phase activities, including planning, 
     feasibility analysis, revenue forecasting, environmental 
     review, preliminary engineering and design work, and other 
     preconstruction activities, and
       ``(II) 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.

       ``(iii) Criteria for approval.--The Transportation Finance 
     Corporation may approve a project of regional or national 
     significance only if the Corporation determines that the 
     project is based on the results of preliminary engineering, 
     and is justified based on the project's ability--

       ``(I) to generate national or regional 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, 
     and
       ``(IV) to otherwise enhance the national transportation 
     system.

       ``(C) Multistate corridor program.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `multistate corridor program' 
     means any program for multistate highway and multimodal 
     planning studies and construction.
       ``(ii) Criteria for approval.--The Transportation Finance 
     Corporation shall consider in approving any multistate 
     corridor program--

       ``(I) the existence and significance of signed and binding 
     multijurisdictional agreements,
       ``(II) prospects for early completion of the program, or
       ``(III) whether the projects under such program to be 
     studied or constructed are located on corridors identified by 
     section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2032).

       ``(D) Border planning, operations, technology, and capacity 
     improvement program.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `border planning, operations, 
     technology, and capacity improvement program' means any 
     program which includes 1 or more eligible activities to 
     support coordination and improvement in bi-national 
     transportation planning, operations, efficiency, information 
     exchange, safety, and security at the international borders 
     of the United States with Canada and Mexico.
       ``(ii) Eligible activities.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `eligible activities' means--

       ``(I) highway and multimodal planning or environmental 
     studies,
       ``(II) cross-border port of entry and safety inspection 
     improvements, including operational enhancements and 
     technology applications,
       ``(III) technology and information exchange activities, and
       ``(IV) right-of-way acquisition, design, and construction, 
     as needed to implement the enhancements or applications 
     described in subclauses (II) and (III), to decrease air 
     pollution emissions from vehicles or inspection facilities at 
     border crossings, or to increase highway capacity at or near 
     international borders.

       ``(E) Freight intermodal connector project.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `freight intermodal connector 
     project' means any project for the construction of and 
     improvements to publicly owned freight intermodal connectors 
     to the National Highway System, the provision of access to 
     such connectors, and operational improvements for such 
     connectors (including capital investment for intelligent 
     transportation systems), except that a project located within 
     the boundaries of an intermodal freight facility shall only 
     include highway infrastructure modifications necessary to 
     facilitate direct intermodal access between the connector and 
     the facility.
       ``(ii) Criteria for approval.--The Transportation Finance 
     Corporation shall consider in approving any freight 
     intermodal connector project the criteria set forth in the 
     report of the Department of Transportation to Congress 
     entitled `Pulling Together: The NHS and its Connections to 
     Major Intermodal Terminals'.
       ``(iii) Freight intermodal connector.--The term `freight 
     intermodal connector' means the roadway that connects to an 
     intermodal freight facility that carries or will carry 
     intermodal traffic.
       ``(iv) Intermodal freight facility.--The term `intermodal 
     freight facility' means a port, airport, truck-rail terminal, 
     and pipeline-truck terminal.
       ``(3) Qualified public transportation project.--The term 
     `qualified public transportation project' means a project for 
     public transportation facilities or other facilities which 
     are eligible for assistance under title 49, United States 
     Code, including intercity passenger rail.
       ``(g) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated; Allocation 
     of Bond Proceeds.--
       ``(1) National limitation.--There is a Build America bond 
     limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
       ``(A) with respect to bonds described in subsection 
     (e)(1)(A)--
       ``(i) $5,500,000,000 for 2005,
       ``(ii) $8,000,000,000 for 2006,
       ``(iii) $8,000,000,000 for 2007,
       ``(iv) $3,000,000,000 for 2008,
       ``(v) $3,000,000,000 for 2009,
       ``(vi) $2,500,000,000 for 2010, and
       ``(vii) except as provided in paragraph (4), zero 
     thereafter, plus
       ``(B) with respect to bonds described in subsection 
     (e)(1)(B), such amount each calendar year as determined 
     necessary by the Transportation Finance Corporation to 
     provide funds in the Build America Trust Account for the 
     repayment of Build America bonds at maturity, except that the 
     aggregate amount of such bonds for all calendar years shall 
     not exceed $9,000,000,000,000.
       ``(2) Allocation of bonds for highway and public 
     transportation purposes.--Except with respect to qualified 
     projects described in subsection (j)(3), and subject to 
     paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) Qualified highway projects.--From Build America bonds 
     issued under the annual limitation in paragraph (1)(A), the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation shall allocate 80 percent 
     of the net spendable proceeds to the States for qualified 
     highway projects designated by law from recommendations 
     submitted to Congress identifying various projects approved 
     as meeting the criteria required for each such project by the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation.
       ``(B) Qualified public transportation projects.--From Build 
     America bonds issued under the annual limitation in paragraph 
     (1)(A), the Transportation Finance Corporation shall allocate 
     20 percent of the net spendable proceeds to the States for 
     qualified public transportation projects designated by law 
     from recommendations submitted to Congress identifying 
     various projects approved as meeting the criteria required 
     for each such project by the Transportation Finance 
     Corporation.
       ``(3) Minimum allocations to states.--In making allocations 
     for each calendar year under paragraph (2), the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation shall ensure that the 
     amount allocated for qualified projects located in each State 
     for such calendar year is not less than \1/2\ percent of the 
     total amount allocated for such year.
       ``(4) Carryover of unused issuance limitation.--If for any 
     calendar year the limitation amount imposed by paragraph (1) 
     exceeds the amount of Build America bonds issued during such 
     year, such excess shall be

[[Page 2779]]

     carried forward to one or more succeeding calendar years as 
     an addition to the limitation imposed by paragraph (1) and 
     until used by issuance of Build America bonds.
       ``(5) Issuance of small denomination bonds.--From the Build 
     America bond limitation for each year, the Transportation 
     Finance Corporation shall issue a limited quantity of Build 
     America bonds in small denominations suitable for purchase as 
     gifts by individual investors wishing to show their support 
     for investing in America's infrastructure.
       ``(h) Special Rules Relating to Arbitrage.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an issue shall 
     be treated as meeting the requirements of this subsection if 
     as of the date of issuance, the Transportation Finance 
     Corporation reasonably expects--
       ``(A) to spend at least 85 percent of the net spendable 
     proceeds from the sale of the issue for 1 or more qualified 
     projects within the 5-year period beginning on such date,
       ``(B) to incur a binding commitment with a third party to 
     spend at least 10 percent of the net spendable proceeds from 
     the sale of the issue, or to commence construction, with 
     respect to such projects within the 12-month period beginning 
     on such date, and
       ``(C) to proceed with due diligence to complete such 
     projects and to spend the net spendable proceeds from the 
     sale of the issue.
       ``(2) Spent proceeds.--Net spendable proceeds are 
     considered spent by the Transportation Finance Corporation 
     when a sponsor of a qualified project obtains a reimbursement 
     from the Transportation Finance Corporation for eligible 
     project costs.
       ``(3) Rules regarding continuing compliance after 5-year 
     determination.--If at least 85 percent of the net spendable 
     proceeds from the sale of the issue is not expended for 1 or 
     more qualified projects within the 5-year period beginning on 
     the date of issuance, but the requirements of paragraph (1) 
     are otherwise met, an issue shall be treated as continuing to 
     meet the requirements of this subsection if the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation uses all unspent net 
     spendable proceeds from the sale of the issue to redeem bonds 
     of the issue within 90 days after the end of such 5-year 
     period.
       ``(4) Reallocation.--In the event the recipient of an 
     allocation under subsection (g) fails to demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the Transportation Finance Corporation that 
     its actions will allow the Transportation Finance Corporation 
     to meet the requirements under this subsection, the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation may redistribute the 
     allocation meant for such recipient to other recipients.
       ``(i) Recapture of Portion of Credit Where Cessation of 
     Compliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any bond which when issued purported 
     to be a Build America bond ceases to be such a qualified 
     bond, the Transportation Finance Corporation shall pay to the 
     United States (at the time required by the Secretary) an 
     amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) the aggregate of the credits allowable under this 
     section with respect to such bond (determined without regard 
     to subsection (c)) for taxable years ending during the 
     calendar year in which such cessation occurs and the 2 
     preceding calendar years, and
       ``(B) interest at the underpayment rate under section 6621 
     on the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each 
     calendar year for the period beginning on the first day of 
     such calendar year.
       ``(2) Failure to pay.--If the Transportation Finance 
     Corporation fails to timely pay the amount required by 
     paragraph (1) with respect to such bond, the tax imposed by 
     this chapter on each holder of any such bond which is part of 
     such issue shall be increased (for the taxable year of the 
     holder in which such cessation occurs) by the aggregate 
     decrease in the credits allowed under this section to such 
     holder for taxable years beginning in such 3 calendar years 
     which would have resulted solely from denying any credit 
     under this section with respect to such issue for such 
     taxable years.
       ``(3) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall 
     be increased under paragraph (2) only with respect to credits 
     allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce 
     tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce 
     tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section 
     39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
       ``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under 
     paragraph (2) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this 
     chapter for purposes of determining--
       ``(i) the amount of any credit allowable under this part, 
     or
       ``(ii) the amount of the tax imposed by section 55.
       ``(j) Build America Trust Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The following amounts shall be held in a 
     Build America Trust Account by the Transportation Finance 
     Corporation:
       ``(A) The proceeds from the sale of all bonds issued under 
     this section.
       ``(B) The amount of any matching contributions with respect 
     to such bonds.
       ``(C) The investment earnings on proceeds from the sale of 
     such bonds.
       ``(D) Any earnings on any amounts described in subparagraph 
     (A), (B), or (C).
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Amounts in the Build America Trust 
     Account may be used only to pay costs of qualified projects, 
     redeem Build America bonds, and fund the operations of the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation, except that amounts 
     withdrawn from the Build America Trust Account to pay costs 
     of qualified projects may not exceed the aggregate proceeds 
     from the sale of Build America bonds described in subsection 
     (e)(1)(A).
       ``(3) Use of remaining funds in build america trust 
     account.--Upon the redemption of all Build America bonds 
     issued under this section, any remaining amounts in the Build 
     America Trust Account shall be available to the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation to pay the costs of any 
     qualified project.
       ``(4) Costs of qualified projects.--For purposes of this 
     section, the costs of qualified projects which may be funded 
     by amounts in the Build America Trust Account may only relate 
     to capital investments in depreciable assets and may not 
     include any costs relating to operations, maintenance, or 
     rolling stock.
       ``(5) Applicability of federal law.--The requirements of 
     any Federal law, including titles 23, 40, and 49 of the 
     United States Code, which would otherwise apply to projects 
     to which the United States is a party or to funds made 
     available under such law and projects assisted with those 
     funds shall apply to--
       ``(A) funds made available under the Build America Trust 
     Account for similar qualified projects, including 
     contributions required under subsection (k), and
       ``(B) similar qualified projects assisted by the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation through the use of such 
     funds.
       ``(6) Investment.--It shall be the duty of the 
     Transportation Finance Corporation to invest in investment 
     grade obligations such portion of the Build America Trust 
     Account as is not, in the judgment of the Board of Directors 
     of the Transportation Finance Corporation, required to meet 
     current withdrawals. To the maximum extent practicable, 
     investments should be made in securities that support 
     transportation investment at the State and local level.
       ``(k) State Contribution Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (e)(3), the 
     State contribution requirement of this subsection is met with 
     respect to any qualified project if the Transportation 
     Finance Corporation has received from 1 or more States, not 
     later than the date of issuance of the bond, written 
     commitments for matching contributions of not less than 20 
     percent (or such smaller percentage as determined under title 
     23, United States Code, for such State) of the cost of the 
     qualified project.
       ``(2) State matching contributions may not include federal 
     funds.--For purposes of this subsection, State matching 
     contributions shall not be derived, directly or indirectly, 
     from Federal funds, including any transfers from the Highway 
     Trust Fund under section 9503.
       ``(l) Utilization of Updated Construction Technology for 
     Qualified Projects.--For purposes of subsection (e)(4), the 
     requirement of this subsection is met if the appropriate 
     State agency relating to the qualified project has updated 
     its accepted construction technologies to match a list 
     prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation and in effect 
     on the date of the approval of the project as a qualified 
     project.
       ``(m) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Administrative costs.--The term `administrative 
     costs' shall only include costs of issuance of Build America 
     bonds and operation costs of the Transportation Corporation.
       ``(2) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
       ``(3) Net spendable proceeds.--The term `net spendable 
     proceeds' means the proceeds from the sale of any Build 
     America bond issued under this section reduced by not more 
     than 5 percent of such proceeds for administrative costs.
       ``(4) State.--The term `State' shall have the meaning given 
     such term by section 101 of title 23, United States Code.
       ``(5) Treatment of changes in use.--For purposes of 
     subsection (e)(1)(A), the net spendable proceeds from the 
     sale of an issue shall not be treated as used for a qualified 
     project to the extent that the Transportation Finance 
     Corporation takes any action within its control which causes 
     such proceeds not to be used for a qualified project. The 
     Secretary shall specify remedial actions which may be taken 
     (including conditions to taking such remedial actions) to 
     prevent an action described in the preceding sentence from 
     causing a bond to fail to be a Build America bond.
       ``(6) Partnership; s corporation; and other pass-thru 
     entities.--In the case of a partnership, trust, S 
     corporation, or other pass-thru entity, rules similar to the 
     rules of section 41(g) shall apply with respect to the credit 
     allowable under subsection (a).
       ``(7) Bonds held by regulated investment companies.--If any 
     Build America bond is held by a regulated investment company, 
     the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be allowed 
     to shareholders of such company under procedures prescribed 
     by the Secretary.

[[Page 2780]]

       ``(8) Credits may be stripped.--Under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary--
       ``(A) In general.--There may be a separation (including at 
     issuance) of the ownership of a Build America bond and the 
     entitlement to the credit under this section with respect to 
     such bond. In case of any such separation, the credit under 
     this section shall be allowed to the person who on the credit 
     allowance date holds the instrument evidencing the 
     entitlement to the credit and not to the holder of the bond.
       ``(B) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a separation 
     described in subparagraph (A), the rules of section 1286 
     shall apply to the Build America bond as if it were a 
     stripped bond and to the credit under this section as if it 
     were a stripped coupon.
       ``(9) Credits may be transferred.--Nothing in any law or 
     rule of law shall be construed to limit the transferability 
     of the credit or bond allowed by this section through sale 
     and repurchase agreements.
       ``(10) Reporting.--The Transportation Finance Corporation 
     shall submit reports similar to the reports required under 
     section 149(e).
       ``(11) Prohibition on use of highway trust fund.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds derived 
     from the Highway Trust Fund established under section 9503 
     shall be used to pay costs associated with the Build America 
     bonds issued under this section.''.
       (b) Amendments to Other Code Sections.--
       (1) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 (relating to 
     returns regarding payments of interest) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Reporting of credit on build america bonds.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     `interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under 
     section 54(d) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on 
     the credit allowance date (as defined in section 54(b)(4)).
       ``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in regulations, in the case of any interest 
     described in subparagraph (A), subsection (b)(4) shall be 
     applied without regard to subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), 
     (K), and (L)(i) of such subsection.
       ``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe 
     such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which 
     require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
       (2) Treatment for estimated tax purposes.--
       (A) Individual.--Section 6654 (relating to failure by 
     individual to pay estimated income tax) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (m) as subsection (n) and by 
     inserting after subsection (l) the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Special Rule for Holders of Build America Bonds.--For 
     purposes of this section, the credit allowed by section 54 to 
     a taxpayer by reason of holding a Build America bond on a 
     credit allowance date shall be treated as if it were a 
     payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer on such 
     date.''.
       (B) Corporate.--Subsection (g) of section 6655 (relating to 
     failure by corporation to pay estimated income tax) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Special rule for holders of build america bonds.--For 
     purposes of this section, the credit allowed by section 54 to 
     a taxpayer by reason of holding a Build America bond on a 
     credit allowance date shall be treated as if it were a 
     payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer on such 
     date.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:


    ``Subpart H. Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Build America 
                               Bonds.''.

       (2) Section 6401(b)(1) is amended by striking ``and G'' and 
     inserting ``G, and H''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. TRANSPORTATION FINANCE CORPORATION.

       (a) Establishment and Status.--There is established a body 
     corporate to be known as the ``Transportation Finance 
     Corporation'' (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Corporation''). The Corporation is not a department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government, 
     and shall not be subject to title 31, United States Code.
       (b) Principal Office; Application of Laws.--The principal 
     office and place of business of the Corporation shall be in 
     the District of Columbia, and, to the extent consistent with 
     this section, the District of Columbia Business Corporation 
     Act (D.C. Code 29-301 et seq.) shall apply.
       (c) Functions of Corporation.--The Corporation shall--
       (1) issue Build America bonds for the financing of 
     qualified projects as required under section 54 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
       (2) establish and operate the Build America Trust Account 
     as required under section 54(j) of such Code,
       (3) act as a centralized entity to provide financing for 
     qualified projects,
       (4) leverage resources and stimulate public and private 
     investment in transportation infrastructure,
       (5) encourage States to create additional opportunities for 
     the financing of transportation infrastructure and to provide 
     technical assistance to States, if needed,
       (6) perform any other function the sole purpose of which is 
     to carry out the financing of qualified projects through 
     Build America bonds, and
       (7) not later than February 15 of each year submit a report 
     to Congress--
       (A) describing the activities of the Corporation for the 
     preceding year, and
       (B) specifying whether the amounts deposited and expected 
     to be deposited in the Build America Trust Account are 
     sufficient to fully repay at maturity the principal of any 
     outstanding Build America bonds issued pursuant to such 
     section 54.
       (d) Powers of Corporation.--The Corporation--
       (1) may sue and be sued, complain and defend, in its 
     corporate name, in any court of competent jurisdiction,
       (2) may adopt, alter, and use a seal, which shall be 
     judicially noticed,
       (3) may prescribe, amend, and repeal such rules and 
     regulations as may be necessary for carrying out the 
     functions of the Corporation,
       (4) may make and perform such contracts and other 
     agreements with any individual, corporation, or other private 
     or public entity however designated and wherever situated, as 
     may be necessary for carrying out the functions of the 
     Corporation,
       (5) may determine and prescribe the manner in which its 
     obligations shall be incurred and its expenses allowed and 
     paid,
       (6) may, as necessary for carrying out the functions of the 
     Corporation, employ and fix the compensation of employees and 
     officers,
       (7) may lease, purchase, or otherwise acquire, own, hold, 
     improve, use, or otherwise deal in and with such property 
     (real, personal, or mixed) or any interest therein, wherever 
     situated, as may be necessary for carrying out the functions 
     of the Corporation,
       (8) may accept gifts or donations of services or of 
     property (real, personal, or mixed), tangible or intangible, 
     in furtherance of the purposes of this Act, and
       (9) shall have such other powers as may be necessary and 
     incident to carrying out this Act.
       (e) Nonprofit Entity; Restriction on Use of Moneys; 
     Conflict of Interests; Audits.--
       (1) Nonprofit entity.--The Corporation shall be a nonprofit 
     corporation and shall have no capital stock.
       (2) Restriction.--No part of the Corporation's revenue, 
     earnings, or other income or property shall inure to the 
     benefit of any of its directors, officers, or employees, and 
     such revenue, earnings, or other income or property shall 
     only be used for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
       (3) Conflict of interests.--No director, officer, or 
     employee of the Corporation shall in any manner, directly or 
     indirectly participate in the deliberation upon or the 
     determination of any question affecting his or her personal 
     interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, 
     or organization in which he or she is directly or indirectly 
     interested.
       (4) Audits.--
       (A) Audits by independent certified public accountants.--
       (i) In general.--The Corporation's financial statements 
     shall be audited annually in accordance with generally 
     accepted auditing standards by independent certified public 
     accountants that are certified by a regulatory authority of a 
     State or other political subdivision of the United States. 
     The audits shall be conducted at the place or places where 
     the accounts of the Corporation are normally kept. All books, 
     accounts, financial records, reports, files, and all other 
     papers, things, or property belonging to or in use by the 
     Corporation and necessary to facilitate the audit shall be 
     made available to the person or persons conducting the 
     audits, and full facilities for verifying transactions with 
     the balances or securities held by depositories, fiscal 
     agents, and custodians shall be afforded to such person or 
     persons.
       (ii) Reporting requirements.--The report of each annual 
     audit described in clause (i) shall be included in the annual 
     report required by subsection (c)(8).
       (B) Record keeping requirements.--The Corporation shall 
     ensure that each recipient of assistance from the Corporation 
     keeps--
       (i) separate accounts with respect to such assistance,
       (ii) such records as may be reasonably necessary to fully 
     disclose--

       (I) the amount and the disposition by such recipient of the 
     proceeds of such assistance,
       (II) the total cost of the project or undertaking in 
     connection with which such assistance is given or used, and 
     the extent to which such costs are for a qualified project, 
     and
       (III) the amount and nature of that portion of the cost of 
     the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and

       (iii) such other records as will facilitate an effective 
     audit.

[[Page 2781]]

       (C) Audit and examination of books.--The Corporation shall 
     ensure that the Corporation, or any of the Corporation's duly 
     authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose 
     of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and 
     records of any recipient of assistance from the Corporation 
     that are pertinent to such assistance.
       (f) Exemption From Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--The Corporation, including its franchise, 
     capital, reserves, surplus, sinking funds, mortgages or other 
     security holdings, and income, shall be exempt from all 
     taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United States, by 
     any territory, dependency, or possession thereof, or by any 
     State, county, municipality, or local taxing authority, 
     except that any real property of the Corporation shall be 
     subject to State, territorial, county, municipal, or local 
     taxation to the same extent according to its value as other 
     real property is taxed.
       (2) Financial obligations.--Build America bonds or other 
     obligations issued by the Corporation and the interest on or 
     tax credits with respect to its bonds or other obligations 
     shall not be subject to taxation by any State, county, 
     municipality, or local taxing authority.
       (g) Assistance for Transportation Purposes.--
       (1) In general.--In order to carry out the corporate 
     functions described in subsection (c), the Corporation shall 
     be eligible to receive discretionary grants, contracts, 
     gifts, contributions, or technical assistance from any 
     Federal department or agency, to the extent permitted by law.
       (2) Agreement.--In order to receive any assistance 
     described in this subsection, the Corporation shall enter 
     into an agreement with the Federal department or agency 
     providing such assistance, under which the Corporation 
     agrees--
       (A) to use such assistance to provide funding and technical 
     assistance only for activities which the Board of Directors 
     of the Corporation determines are consistent with the 
     corporate functions described in subsection (c), and
       (B) to review the activities of State transportation 
     agencies and other entities receiving assistance from the 
     Corporation to assure that the corporate functions described 
     in subsection (c) are carried out.
       (3) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to establish the Corporation as a department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government, 
     or to establish the members of the Board of Directors of the 
     Corporation, or the officers and employees of the 
     Corporation, as officers or employees of the United States 
     Government.
       (h) Management of Corporation.--
       (1) Board of directors; membership; designation of 
     chairperson and vice chairperson; appointment considerations; 
     term; vacancies.--
       (A) Board of directors.--The management of the Corporation 
     shall be vested in a board of directors composed of 15 
     members appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate.
       (B) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The President shall 
     designate 1 member of the Board to serve as Chairperson of 
     the Board and 1 member to serve as Vice Chairperson of the 
     Board.
       (C) Individuals from private life.--Eleven members of the 
     Board shall be appointed from private life.
       (D) Federal officers and employees.--Four members of the 
     Board shall be appointed from among officers and employees of 
     agencies of the United States concerned with infrastructure 
     development.
       (E) Appointment considerations.--All members of the Board 
     shall be appointed on the basis of their understanding of and 
     sensitivity to infrastructure development processes. Members 
     of the Board shall be appointed so that not more than 8 
     members of the Board are members of any 1 political party.
       (F) Terms.--Members of the Board shall be appointed for 
     terms of 3 years, except that of the members first appointed, 
     as designated by the President at the time of their 
     appointment, 5 shall be appointed for terms of 1 year and 5 
     shall be appointed for terms of 2 years.
       (G) Vacancies.--A member of the Board appointed to fill a 
     vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which 
     that member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed 
     only for the remainder of that term. Upon the expiration of a 
     member's term, the member shall continue to serve until a 
     successor is appointed and is qualified.
       (2) Compensation, actual, necessary, and transportation 
     expenses.--Members of the Board shall serve without 
     additional compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual and 
     necessary expenses not exceeding $100 per day, and for 
     transportation expenses, while engaged in their duties on 
     behalf of the Corporation.
       (3) Quorum.--A majority of the Board shall constitute a 
     quorum.
       (4) President of corporation.--The Board of Directors shall 
     appoint a president of the Corporation on such terms as the 
     Board may determine.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
        Kerry):
  S. 429. A bill to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National 
Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that is a 
first step in giving the Upper Housatonic Valley, a nationally 
significant area, the acknowledgment and resources it deserves. 
Designation of the upper Housatonic Valley as a national heritage area 
will enhance and foster public-private partnerships to educate 
residents and visitors about the region; improve the area's economy 
through business investment, job expansion, and tourism; and protect 
the area's natural and cultural heritage.
  The Upper Housatonic Valley is a unique cultural and geographical 
region that encompasses in the Housatonic River watershed, extending 60 
miles from Lanesboro, MA to Kent, CT. The valley has made significant 
national contributions through literary, artistic, musical, and 
architectural achievements; as the backdrop for important Revolutionary 
War era events; as the cradle of the iron, paper, and electrical 
industries; and as home to key figures and events in the abolitionist 
and civil rights movements. It includes five National Historic 
Landmarks and four National Natural Landmarks.
  The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Act would 
officially designate the region as part of the National Park Service 
system. It would also authorize funding for a variety of activities 
that conserve the significant natural, historical, cultural, and scenic 
resources, and that provide educational and recreational opportunities 
in the area. The Upper Housatonic Valley is part of our national 
identity. Making it a National Heritage Area will preserve and develop 
the experiences that connect us to our history and heritage as 
Americans.
  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. 429

       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 ``Upper Housatonic Valley 
     National Heritage Area Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The upper Housatonic Valley, encompassing 29 towns in 
     the hilly terrain of western Massachusetts and northwestern 
     Connecticut, is a singular geographical and cultural region 
     that has made significant national contributions through its 
     literary, artistic, musical, and architectural achievements, 
     its iron, paper, and electrical equipment industries, and its 
     scenic beautification and environmental conservation efforts.
       (2) The upper Housatonic Valley has 139 properties and 
     historic districts listed on the National Register of 
     Historic Places including--
       (A) five National Historic Landmarks--
       (i) Edith Wharton's home, The Mount, Lenox, Massachusetts;
       (ii) Herman Melville's home, Arrowhead, Pittsfield, 
     Massachusetts;
       (iii) W.E.B. DuBois' Boyhood Homesite, Great Barrington, 
     Massachusetts;
       (iv) Mission House, Stockbridge, Massachusetts; and
       (v) Crane and Company Old Stone Mill Rag Room, Dalton, 
     Massachusetts; and
       (B) four National Natural Landmarks--
       (i) Bartholomew's Cobble, Sheffield, Massachusetts, and 
     Salisbury, Connecticut;
       (ii) Beckley Bog, Norfolk, Connecticut;
       (iii) Bingham Bog, Salisbury, Connecticut; and
       (iv) Cathedral Pines, Cornwall, Connecticut.
       (3) Writers, artists, musicians, and vacationers have 
     visited the region for more than 150 years to enjoy its 
     scenic wonders, making it one of the country's leading 
     cultural resorts.
       (4) The upper Housatonic Valley has made significant 
     national cultural contributions through such writers as 
     Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edith Wharton, and 
     W.E.B. DuBois, artists Daniel Chester

[[Page 2782]]

     French and Norman Rockwell, and the performing arts centers 
     of Tanglewood, Music Mountain, Norfolk (Connecticut) Chamber 
     Music Festival, Jacob's Pillow, and Shakespeare & Company.
       (5) The upper Housatonic Valley is noted for its pioneering 
     achievements in the iron, paper, and electrical generation 
     industries and has cultural resources to interpret those 
     industries.
       (6) The region became a national leader in scenic 
     beautification and environmental conservation efforts 
     following the era of industrialization and deforestation and 
     maintains a fabric of significant conservation areas 
     including the meandering Housatonic River.
       (7) Important historical events related to the American 
     Revolution, Shays' Rebellion, and early civil rights took 
     place in the upper Housatonic Valley.
       (8) The region had an American Indian presence going back 
     10,000 years and Mohicans had a formative role in contact 
     with Europeans during the seventeenth and eighteenth 
     centuries.
       (9) The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area has 
     been proposed in order to heighten appreciation of the 
     region, preserve its natural and historical resources, and 
     improve the quality of life and economy of the area.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National 
     Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
       (2) To implement the national heritage area alternative as 
     described in the document entitled ``Upper Housatonic Valley 
     National Heritage Area Feasibility Study, 2003''.
       (3) To provide a management framework to foster a close 
     working relationship with all levels of government, the 
     private sector, and the local communities in the upper 
     Housatonic Valley region to conserve the region's heritage 
     while continuing to pursue compatible economic opportunities.
       (4) To assist communities, organizations, and citizens in 
     the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of 
     Massachusetts in identifying, preserving, interpreting, and 
     developing the historical, cultural, scenic, and natural 
     resources of the region for the educational and inspirational 
     benefit of current and future generations.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the 
     Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area, established 
     in section 4.
       (2) Management entity.--The term ``Management Entity'' 
     means the management entity for the Heritage Area designated 
     by section 4(d).
       (3) Management plan.--The term ``Management Plan'' means 
     the management plan for the Heritage Area specified in 
     section 6.
       (4) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Boundary Map Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage 
     Area'', numbered P17/80,000, and dated February 2003.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of 
     Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

     SEC. 4. UPPER HOUSATONIC VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Upper 
     Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area.
       (b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be comprised of--
       (1) part of the Housatonic River's watershed, which extends 
     60 miles from Lanesboro, Massachusetts to Kent, Connecticut;
       (2) the towns of Canaan, Colebrook, Cornwall, Kent, 
     Norfolk, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, and Warren in 
     Connecticut;
       (3) the towns of Alford, Becket, Dalton, Egremont, Great 
     Barrington, Hancock, Hinsdale, Lanesboro, Lee, Lenox, 
     Monterey, Mount Washington, New Marlboro, Pittsfield, 
     Richmond, Sheffield, Stockbridge, Tyringham, Washington, and 
     West Stockbridge in Massachusetts; and
       (4) the land and water within the boundaries of the 
     Heritage Area, as depicted on the map.
       (c) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
       (d) Management Entity.--The Upper Housatonic Valley 
     National Heritage Area, Inc. shall be the management entity 
     for the Heritage Area.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITIES, PROHIBITIONS AND DUTIES OF THE 
                   MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

       (a) Duties of the Management Entity.--To further the 
     purposes of the Heritage Area, the management entity shall--
       (1) prepare and submit a management plan for the Heritage 
     Area to the Secretary in accordance with section 6;
       (2) assist units of local government, regional planning 
     organizations, and nonprofit organizations in implementing 
     the approved management plan by--
       (A) carrying out programs and projects that recognize, 
     protect and enhance important resource values within the 
     Heritage Area;
       (B) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits and 
     programs within the Heritage Area;
       (C) developing recreational and educational opportunities 
     in the Heritage Area;
       (D) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for 
     natural, historical, scenic, and cultural resources of the 
     Heritage Area;
       (E) protecting and restoring historic sites and buildings 
     in the Heritage Area that are consistent with heritage area 
     themes;
       (F) ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs 
     identifying points of public access and sites of interest are 
     posted throughout the Heritage Area; and
       (G) promoting a wide range of partnerships among 
     governments, organizations and individuals to further the 
     purposes of the Heritage Area;
       (3) consider the interests of diverse units of government, 
     businesses, organizations and individuals in the Heritage 
     Area in the preparation and implementation of the management 
     plan;
       (4) conduct meetings open to the public at least semi-
     annually regarding the development and implementation of the 
     management plan;
       (5) submit an annual report to the Secretary for any fiscal 
     year in which the management entity receives Federal funds 
     under this Act, setting forth its accomplishments, expenses, 
     and income, including grants to any other entities during the 
     year for which the report is made;
       (6) make available for audit for any fiscal year in which 
     it receives Federal funds under this Act, all information 
     pertaining to the expenditure of such funds and any matching 
     funds, and require in all agreements authorizing expenditures 
     of Federal funds by other organizations, that the receiving 
     organizations make available for such audit all records and 
     other information pertaining to the expenditure of such 
     funds; and
       (7) encourage by appropriate means economic viability that 
     is consistent with the purposes of the Heritage Area.
       (b) Authorities.--The management entity may, for the 
     purposes of preparing and implementing the management plan 
     for the Heritage Area, use Federal funds made available 
     through this Act to--
       (1) make grants to the State of Connecticut and the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts, their political subdivisions, 
     nonprofit organizations and other persons;
       (2) enter into cooperative agreements with or provide 
     technical assistance to the State of Connecticut and the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts, their political jurisdictions, 
     nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties;
       (3) hire and compensate staff, which shall include 
     individuals with expertise in natural, cultural, and 
     historical resources protection, and heritage programming;
       (4) obtain money or services from any source including any 
     that are provided under any other Federal law or program;
       (5) contract for goods or services; and
       (6) undertake to be a catalyst for any other activity that 
     furthers the purposes of the Heritage Area and is consistent 
     with the approved management plan.
       (c) Prohibitions on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The 
     management entity may not use Federal funds received under 
     this Act to acquire real property, but may use any other 
     source of funding, including other Federal funding outside 
     this authority, intended for the acquisition of real 
     property.

     SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--The management plan for the Heritage Area 
     shall--
       (1) include comprehensive policies, strategies and 
     recommendations for conservation, funding, management and 
     development of the Heritage Area;
       (2) take into consideration existing State, county, and 
     local plans in the development of the management plan and its 
     implementation;
       (3) include a description of actions that governments, 
     private organizations, and individuals have agreed to take to 
     protect the natural, historical and cultural resources of the 
     Heritage Area;
       (4) specify the existing and potential sources of funding 
     to protect, manage, and develop the Heritage Area in the 
     first 5 years of implementation;
       (5) include an inventory of the natural, historical, 
     cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of 
     the Heritage Area related to the themes of the Heritage Area 
     that should be preserved, restored, managed, developed, or 
     maintained;
       (6) recommend policies and strategies for resource 
     management that consider and detail the application of 
     appropriate land and water management techniques including, 
     but not limited to, the development of intergovernmental and 
     interagency cooperative agreements to protect the Heritage 
     Area's natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic and 
     recreational resources;
       (7) describe a program of implementation for the management 
     plan including plans for resource protection, restoration, 
     construction, and specific commitments for implementation 
     that have been made by the management entity or any 
     government, organization, or individual for the first 5 years 
     of implementation;
       (8) include an analysis and recommendations for ways in 
     which local, State, and

[[Page 2783]]

     Federal programs, including the role of the National Park 
     Service in the Heritage Area, may best be coordinated to 
     further the purposes of this Act; and
       (9) include an interpretive plan for the Heritage Area.
       (b) Deadline and Termination of Funding.--
       (1) Deadline.--The management entity shall submit the 
     management plan to the Secretary for approval within 3 years 
     after funds are made available for this Act.
       (2) Termination of funding.--If the management plan is not 
     submitted to the Secretary in accordance with this 
     subsection, the management entity shall not qualify for 
     Federal funding under this Act until such time as the 
     management plan is submitted to and approved by the 
     Secretary.

     SEC. 7. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       (a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may, upon the request of the 
     management entity, provide technical assistance on a 
     reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis and financial 
     assistance to the Heritage Area to develop and implement the 
     approved management plan. The Secretary is authorized to 
     enter into cooperative agreements with the management entity 
     and other public or private entities for this purpose. In 
     assisting the Heritage Area, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to actions that in general assist in--
       (A) conserving the significant natural, historical, 
     cultural, and scenic resources of the Heritage Area; and
       (B) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational 
     opportunities consistent with the purposes of the Heritage 
     Area.
       (2) Spending for non-federally owned property.--The 
     Secretary may spend Federal funds directly on non-federally 
     owned property to further the purposes of this Act, 
     especially in assisting units of government in appropriate 
     treatment of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 
     objects listed or eligible for listing on the National 
     Register of Historic Places.
       (b) Approval and Disapproval of Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve or disapprove 
     the management plan not later than 90 days after receiving 
     the management plan.
       (2) Criteria for approval.--In determining the approval of 
     the management plan, the Secretary shall consider whether--
       (A) the management entity is representative of the diverse 
     interests of the Heritage Area including governments, natural 
     and historic resource protection organizations, educational 
     institutions, businesses, and recreational organizations;
       (B) the management entity has afforded adequate 
     opportunity, including public hearings, for public and 
     governmental involvement in the preparation of the management 
     plan;
       (C) the resource protection and interpretation strategies 
     contained in the management plan, if implemented, would 
     adequately protect the natural, historical, and cultural 
     resources of the Heritage Area; and
       (D) the Secretary has received adequate assurances from the 
     appropriate State and local officials whose support is needed 
     to ensure the effective implementation of the State and local 
     aspects of the management plan.
       (3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary 
     disapproves the management plan, the Secretary shall advise 
     the management entity in writing of the reasons therefore and 
     shall make recommendations for revisions to the management 
     plan. The Secretary shall approve or disapprove a proposed 
     revision within 60 days after the date it is submitted.
       (4) Approval of amendments.--Substantial amendments to the 
     management plan shall be reviewed by the Secretary and 
     approved in the same manner as provided for the original 
     management plan. The management entity shall not use Federal 
     funds authorized by this Act to implement any amendments 
     until the Secretary has approved the amendments.

     SEC. 8. DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       Any Federal agency conducting or supporting activities 
     directly affecting the Heritage Area shall--
       (1) consult with the Secretary and the management entity 
     with respect to such activities;
       (2) cooperate with the Secretary and the management entity 
     in carrying out their duties under this Act and, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, coordinate such activities with 
     the carrying out of such duties; and,
       (3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support 
     such activities in a manner which the management entity 
     determines will not have an adverse effect on the Heritage 
     Area.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated for 
     the purposes of this Act not more than $1,000,000 for any 
     fiscal year. Not more than a total of $10,000,000 may be 
     appropriated for the Heritage Area under this Act.
       (b) Matching Funds.--Federal funding provided under this 
     Act may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of any 
     assistance or grant provided or authorized under this Act.

     SEC. 10. SUNSET.

       The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under 
     this Act shall terminate on the day occurring 15 years after 
     the date of enactment of the Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 430. A bill to arrest methamphetamine abuse in the United States; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
ensure that law enforcement has the resources it needs to address and 
eventually solve the methamphetamine crisis in this country. My bill is 
entitled the Arrest Methamphetamine Act of 2005. It would create a new 
formula-based grant program for States that have enacted sophisticated 
laws governing the sale of the precursor products used to make meth. My 
legislation is designed to help communities cope with the myriad 
problems being caused by meth, and ultimately to stop the growing meth 
epidemic in its tracks.
  Never before has creating a separate program to finance the battle 
against meth been so critical. I am dismayed to see that the 
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request mortally wounds the COPS 
program and that his budget finishes off the already slashed and 
reconstituted Byrne grants program. These two mechanisms have provided 
anti-meth funds for years now, and each year, the administration's 
efforts to undermine the COPS program and the Byrne grants program 
further jeopardize law enforcement efforts against meth and the many 
other important law enforcement-related initiatives that these two 
programs have carried out for so many years. While I plan to work hard 
with my colleagues to restore funding to the COPS and Byrne programs 
generally, I do not see that our efforts to save these programs every 
year from the administration's chopping block is the best way to ensure 
that necessary financial resources are there for all aspects of the 
meth fight.
  While the administration was busy slashing the $499 million COPS 
program all the way down to $22 million, the meth problems that the 
COPS program addresses only got worse. Meth abuse, as an epidemic, 
started in the West and the Midwest, but has more recently begun to 
move east. Meth use and production is exploding in North Carolina. 
Georgia law enforcement officials recently had one of the largest meth 
busts on record, and Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota have been inundated 
by severe meth problems. In 2003, methamphetamine was identified as the 
greatest drug threat by 90.9 percent of local law enforcement agencies 
in the Pacific region. By comparison, only 5.3 percent of agencies 
reporting identified cocaine as their biggest threat, followed by 
marijuana at 2.1 percent and heroin at less than 1 percent.
  This epidemic of meth has permeated the most urban and most rural 
communities. Meth labs range in sophistication from being run by multi-
national organized crime rings to back alley cook shops, and they exist 
in crudely converted farm houses and in illicit high-financed 
facilities run by Mexican drug rings. Meth victims are of all ages, and 
there is heart-wrenching data and anecdotes on meth addiction of 
mothers, and the impact of adult meth addiction on their very young 
children.
  Although much of the information we have on how meth impacts kids is 
anecdotal, we do have some localized assessments which are also useful. 
In a recent study that took urine samples from 26 children found at 
meth labs, many in King County, WA, 23 of the children had traces of 
the drug in their bodies. Meth addicts commit awful crimes to finance 
their habits, and manage to hurt themselves in meth lab explosions or 
by overdosing.
  Anecdotally, officials in Washington State tell me that the family 
and personal tolls of meth addition are worse than what any study could 
indicate. The people whose lives have been affected by meth are 
passionate about preventing other families from going through the same 
tragedy they have gone through. Recently I asked my constituents to 
share their stories with me, heart-wrenching stories, to draw much-
needed attention to this problem which affects so many of our friends,

[[Page 2784]]

neighbors, and loved ones. The stories I read were devastating--
families broken, neighborhoods torn apart, and kids whose lives are 
destroyed. For example, one law enforcement officer from Kennewick, 
Washington wrote me:

       Senator Cantwell. I was working a case using a confidential 
     informant to purchase meth from well known suspects who 
     manufactured methamphetamine. The suspect and his wife were 
     both frequently mentioned by numerous informants as their 
     source of the drug. After purchasing meth from the suspects, 
     a search warrant was granted for the residence. A meth lab 
     was found. Three children were living in this residence at 
     the time. The husband and wife were arrested and the three 
     children were taken to Child Protective Services and later 
     placed in the custody of the grandparents. The husband fled 
     the area and has yet to be located. The wife went to trial 
     and was convicted, although she maintained her innocence 
     during and after the trial. The wife was released on an 
     appeal bond.
       About two weeks later, the Benton County Fire Department 
     was dispatched to a mobile home fire. A deputy was in the 
     area and responded. When the Deputy arrived, he found that 
     same wife carrying her three year old out of the burning 
     trailer. Witnesses reported observing the wife and another 
     male suspect (not the husband) loading things into a pickup 
     and secreting the pickup in some nearby trees before the 
     mother returned to the trailer to rescue her daughter. 
     Another meth lab was found in the pickup and investigation 
     determined the extraction of Pseudoephedrine was occurring in 
     the trailer's bathroom when the fire was started.

  Those very small children didn't have a choice. Their fate was 
determined by meth. But this epidemic can reach beyond young parents 
and their toddlers. Its effects can be felt in our schools. One 
constituent from Kitsap County wrote to me about a friend of hers who 
was a 4.0 student in high school when she began using meth:

       Senator Cantwell. This girl had been a 4.0 student 
     throughout her school career and she stated that getting good 
     grades had always been easy for her. As her meth use 
     increased in both amount and frequency she said she 
     remembered waking up on a dirty mattress on a floor in a run 
     down room and thinking to herself, ``how did I get here?'' 
     Then in a relatively short time she ended up moving to 
     another city and started prostituting.
       One of her solicitors threatened her, and she felt he would 
     kill her, so she contacted her parents and she returned home 
     and entered inpatient treatment. I first saw her after she 
     had been not using for 4 months. She was crying, saying she 
     couldn't relate to the other girls at school. And she kept 
     that part of her life secret for fear of rejection and she 
     was struggling in school. She said what once came easy was 
     now difficult for her to understand, to retain information. 
     In addition, she was depressed. This happened before what we 
     know now, that meth can cause permanent damage in the brain 
     so that a person may have to be on antidepressants the rest 
     of their life.''

  This constituent's tragic story is a sad portrayal of a young girl 
victimized by meth who was just beginning to realize her promise. But 
it doesn't stop there. Even innocent bystanders are affected by this 
epidemic. In another story from Tacoma, WA, a constituent of mine 
explained how her friend's entire neighborhood felt the effects of one 
neighbor's meth addiction:

       This quiet neighborhood in northeast Tacoma was changed 
     forever. Across the street from my friend lived an elderly 
     woman. Her son moved in with her and turned their home into a 
     meth lab. The neighbors became suspicious of the increased 
     traffic to the elderly woman's home at odd hours as well as 
     visible deterioration of the home--more junk, cars, and 
     trash. When they called the police, a Community Mobilization 
     Specialist from ``Safe Streets'' responded and helped the 
     neighbors to organize a watch group. They began to document 
     and report the suspicious activity. This gave the police what 
     they needed to follow-up. Within three months the meth lab 
     was closed and the meth cook was arrested. The home was so 
     toxic that the elderly mother had to move to an extended care 
     facility and the home was boarded up by the City and Health 
     Department

  I received many stories from people who saw their neighborhoods 
changed by meth forever. One landlord wrote to me to explain the meth 
epidemic with respect to his tenant:

       Senator Cantwell. I am getting ready to evict a tenant 
     right now for meth activity. I made the rules very clear to 
     them and even had them sign papers when I rented the place--
     no drug activity. Right away they began to have drug addicts 
     coming and going constantly. Now my 11 year son and I are 
     afraid to go out of our front door because of the awful 
     looking drug addicts hovering around, and I own this place.
       People on meth are not to be underestimated. They will do 
     things and not even know they do it. They become extremely 
     delusional, aggressive and paranoid. They have one thing to 
     do in their life and that is get more of the drug by whatever 
     means necessary. As a matter of fact murder in those circles 
     is not uncommon.
       Now, here is my son, waiting for a school bus on the 
     street. I have worked hard to educate him on addiction and 
     drug use but even that is no guarantee he will make a good 
     choice. Because it is not a matter of ``if it happens''. It 
     is a matter of when. It will happen.

  My constituents also point to the lack of resources. An Everett, WA 
high school counselor shared with me his experience:

       As a life long member of this community with a large 
     family, I have seen family and friends impacted by meth use; 
     it has literally devastated families. We, as community 
     members, end up having to support these people financially 
     and emotionally, knowing that with current resources, it is 
     never enough. My greatest concern is always with the children 
     impacted, those ``silent victims''.
       As a High School counselor, I see student's lives that have 
     been impacted by parents' or siblings' meth use as well as 
     individual students that we, as a school, lose to drug use. 
     They simply stop attending and drop out of high school. At 
     this time, we do not even have a drug intervention resource 
     specialist at our school to support students that are or have 
     been involved in meth. Our individual case load, as 
     Counselors of over 425 kids does not allow us the time to 
     address this need.

  We have the power to reach out and help these people with this 
legislation.
  The meth problem in Washington reached epidemic proportions earlier 
than it did in most other parts of the country, and although we have 
made considerable progress on a number of grounds, Washington has a 
long way to go to stop meth in its tracks. For the last several years, 
Washington has been among the States that have received a meth-related 
earmark. And these Federal resources have helped. Federal resources 
have paid for the hiring of deputies who work full time on meth, funded 
cleanup of ecological problems caused by meth lab byproducts, and it 
has helped us educate our rural teens on the high risks and dangers 
associated with meth use. Meth production in Washington is down from an 
all time high in 2001. And in just one year, Washington went from being 
ranked third for meth lab seizures to seventh. Washington has made 
progress in the struggle against meth, because of a concerned effort 
throughout many aspects of our local communities. Law enforcement, the 
health community, the pharmaceutical industry and retailers, parents 
and yes, the White House and Congress, must work together to address 
meth effectively.
  Emergency funding such as the earmarks that my and other States have 
gotten to fight meth, are not a sufficient long-term solution. And 
though we have made progress an incredible amount remains to be done. I 
have been working on the methamphetamine problem in Washington State 
for a number of years, and in my travels throughout the State, there is 
literally no law enforcement issue I hear about more frequently than 
the rampant meth problem. I know a number of my colleagues are hearing 
the same things at home as I am.
  The meth problem is out of hand, and our local law enforcement 
officials are pleading for help from Congress. According to the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy, meth users are likely to be involved 
in other crimes, most noticeably domestic violence. In 2001, 34 law 
enforcement and epidemiologic respondents reported that methamphetamine 
sellers account for 44 percent of the domestic violence among drug 
sellers, compared with only 24 percent for crack cocaine sellers, 20 
percent for powder cocaine sellers, and 9 percent for heroin sellers. I 
am hearing from Washington local law enforcement officials that when 
they bust meth labs and meth houses, they find that the criminals are 
financing meth habits by engaging in various forms of identity theft.
  We have responded in past years by allocating money through the COPS 
program, and earmarking funds for various States. Much of the COPS 
program money, and indeed all of the COPS program meth money that the

[[Page 2785]]

President's budget requests, is to be administered by the Federal Drug 
Enforcement Agency. While I applaud the administration's efforts to 
direct $20 million in meth money to the DEA, I believe we need more 
funds, directed to State and local officials also, at least back to 
fiscal year 2002 levels of $70 million, but preferably closer to the 
level authorized in my meth bill, of $100 million. The $20 million in 
meth money through the COPS program that the President envisions would 
be a giant step backwards from even last year's level of slightly below 
$52 million. Why are we taking steps backwards, when we should be 
dealing with meth aggressively?
  Establishing a separate grant program for waging this battle is 
critical for a number of reasons. The only States that can access grant 
funds are the ones with comprehensive, long term plans to address meth 
use, manufacture and sale. These States also must have enacted laws to 
limit the sales of precursor products. The precursor products are the 
commercially available products used to make meth, such as 
pseudoephedrine, which is a major ingredient in such popularly 
purchased items as Sudafed. There are a number of different schemes for 
addressing precursors, and my bill would not limit to one kind of law, 
the threshold for qualifying for a meth grant. It would allow the 
States leeway to address precursors as they see fit, provided that the 
law is sufficiently rigorous.
  Also, this legislation allows States the discretion over how to use 
the formula grant funds. States receiving a grant may fund arrest, lab 
seizures and clean up, hiring and specialized training for law 
enforcement, awareness campaigns, prevention and other community-based 
education, intervention, child and family services, community policing, 
health department and environmental agency support, training for law 
enforcement, health, family services, environmental and fire 
departments and prosecution. The Arrest Methamphetamine Act also 
promotes a best practices approach, by assuring that when one state 
finds a solution to part of the meth problem that is working, that 
solution is made known nationwide.
  The bill also requires the Attorney General to establish a national 
clearinghouse for best practices in addressing the meth problem, and 
provide technical assistance to states or local agencies. An example of 
this best practices approach applied involves work being done by the 
Washington State Meth Initiative Committee. This group issued a list of 
best practices for what to do when children are found at the site of an 
illegal meth lab. The report outlines specific roles for law 
enforcement, child protective services, medical providers and 
prosecutors. Sharing this plan with other States could save countless 
lives, and Washington can benefit from wisdom learned by other States 
reciprocally.
  As I mentioned, States would apply for grants under the program 
established by my legislation. These grants will be awarded to eligible 
States based on state population, with a base amount of $250,000 or 25 
percent of the appropriation, very similar to the Byrne formula, 
although it has a more generous base level for the most rural States. 
The bill authorizes $100 million per fiscal year 2006 and 2007, and 
elevates the funding to $200 million for fiscal years 2008 through 
2010. By requiring States to improve their precursor laws before they 
can access this money, the bill encourages States to resolve the 
difficult issues surrounding pseudoephedrine and retail access, in 
favor of rigorous precursor laws such as those we have enacted in 
Washington.
  I have also heard from local officials in Washington that some of the 
meth trafficking problem in the Northwest originates in Canada. Given 
the broad geographic scope of meth trafficking, my bill encourages the 
President to open a dialogue with the Canadian Government to assure 
that Canada understands its part in meth trafficking, in the hopes that 
Canada will seek to curtail problems north of our borders before meth 
shipments make it southward into the United States. I understand that 
very recently, Canada like many States in our country has addressed its 
precursor laws, and I view this as a positive step. The Canadian 
Government recently implemented a reporting requirement and an ``end 
user'' declaration on large precursor transactions. Questions remain, 
however, about whether these new regulations are sufficient to curtail 
the large-scale diversion and smuggling of precursor chemicals from 
Canada. My bill urges the President to build on Canadian precursor 
reform, and encourage the Canadians to address meth trafficking issues 
too.
  My bill anticipates that no matter what happens to the COPS program 
this year or next year, our local law enforcement efforts to combat 
meth can move forward with stable and reliable financial resources. The 
dwindling COPS program, patched together with emergency state earmarks, 
is not a forthright enough effort on the part of the federal Government 
to arrest methamphetamine abuse throughout our country. I look forward 
to working together with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in 
ultimately passing this important meth 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. 430

       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 ``Arrest Methamphetamine Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Methamphetamine (meth) is an extremely dangerous and 
     highly addictive drug.
       (2) Methamphetamine use contributes to the perpetration of 
     violent crimes, particularly burglary, child abuse, and 
     crimes of substantial cost and personal pain to the victims, 
     including identity theft.
       (3) Methamphetamine labs produce hazardous conditions 
     because of their use of chemicals such as anhydrous ammonia, 
     ether, sulfuric acid, and other toxins which are volatile, 
     corrosive and poisonous. When these substances are illegally 
     disposed of in rivers, streams, and other dump areas, 
     explosions and serious environmental damage can and does 
     result.
       (4) Since 2001, Federal funding has been provided through 
     the Department of Justice COPS and Byrne Grant programs to 
     address methamphetamine enforcement and clean up. Since 2002, 
     although the methamphetamine problem has been growing and 
     spreading across the United States, COPS funding has been cut 
     each successive year, from $70,500,000 in 2002, to under 
     $52,000,000 in 2005.
       (5) As methamphetamine has impacted more States each year, 
     the dwindling Federal funds have been parsed into smaller 
     amounts. Each State deserves greater Federal support and a 
     permanent funding mechanism to confront the challenging 
     problem of methamphetamine abuse.
       (6) Permanent Federal funding support for meth enforcement 
     and clean-up is critical to the efforts of State and local 
     law enforcement to reduce the use, manufacture, and sale of 
     methamphetamine, and thus, reduce the crime rate.
       (7) It is necessary for the Federal Government to establish 
     a long-term commitment to confronting methamphetamine use, 
     sale, and manufacture by creating a permanent funding 
     mechanism to assist States.

     SEC. 3. CONFRONTING THE USE OF METHAMPHETAMINE.

       Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

             ``PART HH--CONFRONTING USE OF METHAMPHETAMINE

     ``SEC. 2991. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC 
                   SAFETY AND METHAMPHETAMINE MANUFACTURING, SALE, 
                   AND USE.

       ``(a) Purpose and Program Authority.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this part to assist 
     States--
       ``(A) to carry out programs to address the manufacture, 
     sale, and use of methamphetamine drugs; and
       ``(B) to improve the ability of State and local government 
     institutions of to carry out such programs.
       ``(2) Grant authorization.--The Attorney General, through 
     the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Office of Justice 
     Programs may make grants to States to address the 
     manufacture, sale, and use of methamphetamine to enhance 
     public safety.
       ``(3) Grant projects to address methamphetamine manufacture 
     sale and use.--Grants made under subsection (a) may be

[[Page 2786]]

     used for programs, projects, and other activities to--
       ``(A) arrest individuals violating laws related to the use, 
     manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
       ``(B) undertake methamphetamine clandestine lab seizures 
     and environmental clean up;
       ``(C) provide for community-based education, awareness, and 
     prevention;
       ``(D) provide child support and family services related to 
     assist users of methamphetamine and their families;
       ``(E) facilitate intervention in methamphetamine use;
       ``(F) facilitate treatment for methamphetamine addiction;
       ``(G) provide Drug Court and Family Drug Court services to 
     address methamphetamine;
       ``(H) provide community policing to address the problem of 
     methamphetamine use;
       ``(I) support State and local health department and 
     environmental agency services deployed to address 
     methamphetamine;
       ``(J) prosecute violations of laws related to the use, 
     manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine; and
       ``(K) procure equipment, technology, or support systems, or 
     pay for resources, if the applicant for such a grant 
     demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that 
     expenditures for such purposes would result in the reduction 
     in the use, sale, and manufacture of methamphetamine.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this part, a State shall submit to the Attorney General 
     assurances that the State has implemented, or will implement 
     prior to receipt of a grant under this section laws, 
     policies, and programs that restrict the wholesale and limit 
     sale of products used as precursors in the manufacture of 
     methamphetamine.

     ``SEC. 2992. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--No grant may be made under this part 
     unless an application has been submitted to, and approved by, 
     the Attorney General.
       ``(b) Application.--An application for a grant under this 
     part shall be submitted in such form, and contain such 
     information, as the Attorney General may prescribe by 
     regulation or guidelines.
       ``(c) Contents.--In accordance with the regulations or 
     guidelines established by the Attorney General, each 
     application for a grant under this part shall--
       ``(1) include a long-term statewide strategy that--
       ``(A) reflects consultation with appropriate public and 
     private agencies, tribal governments, and community groups;
       ``(B) represents an integrated approach to addressing the 
     use, manufacture, and sale of methamphetamine that includes--
       ``(i) arrest and clandestine lab seizure;
       ``(ii) training for law enforcement, fire and other 
     relevant emergency services, health care providers, and child 
     and family service providers;
       ``(iii) intervention;
       ``(iv) child and family services;
       ``(v) treatment;
       ``(vi) drug court;
       ``(vii) family drug court;
       ``(viii) health department support;
       ``(ix) environmental agency support;
       ``(x) prosecution; and
       ``(xi) evaluation of the effectiveness of the program and 
     description of the efficacy of components of the program for 
     the purpose of establishing best practices that can be widely 
     replicated by other States; and
       ``(C) where appropriate, incorporate Indian Tribal 
     participation to the extent that an Indian Tribe is impacted 
     by the use, manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
       ``(2) identify related governmental and community 
     initiatives which complement or will be coordinated with the 
     proposal;
       ``(3) certify that there has been appropriate coordination 
     with all affected State and local government institutions and 
     that the State has involved counties and other units of local 
     government, when appropriate, in the development, expansion, 
     modification, operation or improvement of programs to address 
     the use, manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
       ``(4) certify that the State will share funds received 
     under this part with counties and other units of local 
     government, taking into account the burden placed on these 
     units of government when they are required to address the 
     use, manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
       ``(5) assess the impact, if any, of the increase in police 
     resources on other components of the criminal justice system;
       ``(6) explain how the grant will be utilized to enhance 
     government response to the use, manufacture, and sale of 
     methamphetamine;
       ``(7) demonstrate a specific public safety need;
       ``(8) explain the applicant's inability to address the need 
     without Federal assistance;
       ``(9) specify plans for obtaining necessary support and 
     continuing the proposed program, project, or activity 
     following the conclusion of Federal support; and
       ``(10) certify that funds received under this part will be 
     used to supplement, not supplant, other Federal, State, and 
     local funds.

     ``SEC. 2993. PLANNING GRANTS.

       ``(a) Eligible Entity.--The Attorney General through the 
     Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Office of Justice 
     Programs, may make grants under this section to States, 
     Indian tribal governments, and multi-jurisdictional or 
     regional consortia thereof to develop a comprehensive, 
     cooperative strategy to address the manufacture, sale, and 
     use of methamphetamine to enhance public safety.
       ``(b) Authorization.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     provide grants under this section not exceeding $100,000 per 
     eligible entity for such entity to--
       ``(1) define the problem of the use, manufacture, or sale 
     of methamphetamine within the jurisdiction of the entity;
       ``(2) describe the public and private organization to be 
     involved in addressing methamphetamine use, manufacture, or 
     sale; and
       ``(3) describe the manner in which these organizations will 
     participate in a comprehensive, cooperative, and integrated 
     plan to address the use, manufacture, or sale of 
     methamphetamine.

     ``SEC. 2994. ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.

       ``Of the total amount appropriated for this part in any 
     fiscal year, the amount remaining after setting aside the 
     amount to be reserved to carry out section 2993 shall be 
     allocated to States as follows:
       ``(1) 0.25 percent or $250,000, whichever is greater, shall 
     be allocated to each of the States.
       ``(2) Of the total funds remaining after the allocation 
     under paragraph (1), there shall be allocated to each State 
     an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of 
     remaining funds described in this paragraph as the population 
     of such State bears to the population of all the States.

     ``SEC. 2995. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``The Attorney General is authorized--
       ``(1) to collect systematic data on the effectiveness of 
     the programs assisted under this part in reducing the use, 
     manufacture, and sale of methamphetamine;
       ``(2) to establish a national clearinghouse of information 
     on effective programs to address the use, manufacture, and 
     sale of methamphetamine that shall disseminate to State and 
     local agencies describing--
       ``(A) the results of research on efforts to reduce the use, 
     manufacture, and sale of methamphetamine; and
       ``(B) information on effective programs, best practices and 
     Federal resources to--
       ``(i) reduce the use, manufacture, and sale of 
     methamphetamine; and
       ``(ii) address the physical, social, and family problems 
     that result from the use of methamphetamine through the 
     activities of intervention, treatment, drug courts, and 
     family drug courts;
       ``(3) to establish a program within the Department of 
     Justice to facilitate the sharing of knowledge in best 
     practices among States addressing the use, manufacture and 
     sale of methamphetamine through State-to-State mentoring, or 
     other means; and
       ``(4) to provide technical assistance to State agencies and 
     local agencies implementing programs and securing resources 
     to implement effective programs to reduce the use, 
     manufacture, and sale of methamphetamine.

     ``SEC. 2996. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Grants for the Purpose of Confronting the Use of 
     Methamphetamine.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this part--
       ``(1) $100,000,000 for each fiscal year 2006 and 2007; and
       ``(2) $200,000,000 for each fiscal year 2008, 2009, and 
     2010.
       ``(b) National Activities.--For the purposes of section 
     2995, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     are necessary.''.

     SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF CONGRESS REGARDING AVAILABILITY AND 
                   ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE FROM 
                   CANADA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) pseudoephedrine is a particularly abused basic 
     precursor chemical used in the manufacture of the dangerous 
     narcotic methamphetamine;
       (2) the Federal Government, working in cooperation with 
     narcotics agents of State and local governments and the 
     private sector, has tightened the control of pseudoephedrine 
     in the United States in recent years;
       (3) in many States, pseudoephedrine can only be purchased 
     in small quantity bottles or blister packs, and laws 
     throughout various States are gradually becoming tougher, 
     reflecting the increasing severity of America's 
     methamphetamine problem; however, the widespread presence of 
     large containers of pseudoephedrine from Canada at 
     methamphetamine laboratories and dumpsites in the United 
     States, despite efforts of law enforcement agencies to stem 
     the flow of these containers into the United States, 
     demonstrates the strength of the demand for, and the inherent 
     difficulties in stemming the flow of, these containers from 
     neighboring Canada; and
       (4) Canada lacks a comprehensive legislative framework for 
     addressing the pseudoephedrine trafficking problem.
       (b) Call for Action by Canada.--Congress strongly urges the 
     President to seek commitments from the Government of Canada 
     to begin immediately to take effective measures to stem the 
     widespread and increasing availability in Canada and the 
     illegal importation into the United States of 
     pseudoephedrine.

[[Page 2787]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 431. A bill to establish a program to award grants to improve and 
maintain sites honoring Presidents of the United States; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, 
Senator Durbin, to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 
2005. As we look forward to celebrating President's Day this coming 
Monday, I can think of no better way to honor our former Chief 
Executives than by passing this important piece of legislation.
  The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would create a new and 
innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and 
maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and 
tombs. It is our duty to preserve these sites so that future 
generations of Americans can gain a better understanding of those who 
influenced the development of our great Nation.
  In an era when innovative technology has been incorporated into the 
curriculum in schools throughout the country, we often forget that one 
of the best learning tools is that which a child can touch and see. 
Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals talked about in 
the classroom or read about online provides a completely different 
atmosphere to appreciate history. The opportunity to visit the actual 
birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs provides a real-life glimpse 
into the lives of our former Presidents.
  Currently, family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, 
historical societies, historic preservation organizations, and other 
non-profit organizations own the majority of these sites. These 
entities often have little funding and are unable to meet the demands 
of maintaining such important sites because operating costs must be met 
before maintenance needs. As a result, these sites are left to 
deteriorate slowly.
  I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my 
home State of Ohio, a State that has been the home of eight Presidents. 
I was disturbed during one such visit to the Ulysses S. Grant house. 
There, I saw the discoloration and falling plaster due to water damage. 
At the home of President Warren Harding, the front porch was pulling 
away from the house--the very same porch where President Harding 
delivered his now famous campaign speeches. Fortunately, we were able 
to obtain funding to prevent these two historic treasures from 
deteriorating further. We need to continue to provide Federal 
assistance for maintenance projects today in order to prevent larger 
maintenance problems tomorrow.
  These sites are far too important to let slowly decay. Our 
legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park 
Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on Presidential sites 
that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would 
be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To 
administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five-
member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, 
a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a State 
historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant 
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would 
require that half of the funds come from non-Federal sources. Up to $5 
million would be made available annually.
  The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would make sure that every 
American has the chance to appreciate a real piece of history--a chance 
at understanding the lives of the great men who have led our Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I have just 
introduced be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 431

       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 ``Presidential Sites 
     Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there are many sites honoring Presidents located 
     throughout the United States, including Presidential 
     birthplaces, homes, museums, burial sites, and tombs;
       (2) most of the sites are owned, operated, and maintained 
     by non-Federal entities such as State and local agencies, 
     family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, 
     historical societies, historic preservation organizations, 
     and other nonprofit organizations;
       (3) Presidential sites are often expensive to maintain;
       (4) many Presidential sites are in need of capital, 
     technological, and interpretive display improvements for 
     which funding is insufficient or unavailable; and
       (5) to promote understanding of the history of the United 
     States by recognizing and preserving historic sites linked to 
     Presidents of the United States, the Federal Government 
     should provide grants for the maintenance and improvement of 
     Presidential sites.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Grant commission.--The term ``Grant Commission'' means 
     the Presidential Site Grant Commission established by section 
     4(d).
       (2) Presidential site.--The term ``Presidential site'' 
     means a site that is--
       (A) related to a President of the United States;
       (B) of national significance;
       (C) managed, maintained, and operated for, and is 
     accessible to, the public; and
       (D) owned or operated by--
       (i) a State; or
       (ii) a private institution, organization, or person.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants for major 
     maintenance and improvement projects at Presidential sites to 
     owners or operators of Presidential sites in accordance with 
     this section.
       (b) Use of Grant Funds.--
       (1) In general.--A grant awarded under this section may be 
     used for--
       (A) repairs or capital improvements at a Presidential site 
     (including new construction for necessary modernization) such 
     as--
       (i) installation or repair of heating or air conditioning 
     systems, security systems, or electric service; or
       (ii) modifications at a Presidential site to achieve 
     compliance with requirements under titles II and III of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et 
     seq.); and
       (B) interpretive improvements to enhance public 
     understanding and enjoyment of a Presidential site.
       (2) Allocation of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Of the funds made available to award 
     grants under this Act--
       (i) 15 percent shall be used for emergency projects, as 
     determined by the Secretary;
       (ii) 65 percent shall be used for grants for Presidential 
     sites with--

       (I) a 3-year average annual operating budget of less than 
     $700,000 (not including the amount of any grant received 
     under this section); and
       (II) an endowment in an amount that is less than 3 times 
     the annual operating budget of the site; and

       (iii) 20 percent shall be used for grants for Presidential 
     sites with--

       (I) an annual operating budget of $700,000 or more (not 
     including the amount of any grant received under this 
     section); and
       (II) an endowment in an amount that is equal to or more 
     than 3 times the annual operating budget of the site.

       (B) Unexpended funds.--If any funds allocated for a 
     category of projects described in subparagraph (A) are 
     unexpended, the Secretary may use the funds to award grants 
     for another category of projects described in that 
     subparagraph.
       (c) Application and Award Procedure.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than a date to be determined by 
     the Secretary, an owner or operator of a Presidential site 
     may submit to the Secretary an application for a grant under 
     this section.
       (2) Involvement of grant commission.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall forward each 
     application received under paragraph (1) to the Grant 
     Commission.
       (B) Consideration by grant commission.--Not later than 60 
     days after receiving an application from the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A), the Grant Commission shall return the 
     application to the Secretary with a recommendation of whether 
     the proposed project should be awarded a Presidential site 
     grant.
       (C) Recommendation of grant commission.--In making a 
     decision to award a Presidential site grant under this 
     section, the Secretary shall take into consideration any 
     recommendation of the Grant Commission.
       (3) Award.--Not later than 180 days after receiving an 
     application for a Presidential

[[Page 2788]]

     site grant under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       (A) award a Presidential site grant to the applicant; or
       (B) notify the applicant, in writing, of the decision of 
     the Secretary not to award a Presidential site grant.
       (4) Matching requirements.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
     at a Presidential site for which a grant is awarded under 
     this section shall not exceed 50 percent.
       (B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of a project at a Presidential site for which a grant is 
     awarded under this section may be provided in cash or in 
     kind.
       (d) Presidential Site Grant Commission.--
       (1) In general.--There is established the Presidential Site 
     Grant Commission.
       (2) Composition.--The Grant Commission shall be composed 
     of--
       (A) the Director of the National Park Service; and
       (B) 4 members appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       (i) A State historic preservation officer.
       (ii) A representative of the National Trust for Historic 
     Preservation.
       (iii) A representative of a site described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(ii).
       (iv) A representative of a site described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(iii).
       (3) Term.--A member of the Grant Commission shall serve a 
     term of 2 years.
       (4) Duties.--The Grant Commission shall--
       (A) review applications for Presidential site grants 
     received under subsection (c); and
       (B) recommend to the Secretary projects for which 
     Presidential site grants should be awarded.
       (5) Ineligibility of sites during term of representative.--
     A site described in clause (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (2)(B) 
     shall be ineligible for a grant under this Act during the 2-
     year period in which a representative of the site serves on 
     the Grant Commission.
       (6) Nonapplicability of faca.--The Grant Commission shall 
     not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act $5,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to remain available until 
     expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. Talent, Mr. Graham, Mr. McCain, 
        Mr. Lott, Mr. Warner, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Thune):
  S. 432. A bill to establish a digital and wireless network technology 
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, today, with my colleagues, Senators Talent, 
Graham, McCain, Lott, Warner, Grassley and Thune, I rise to introduce 
the Minority Serving Institution Digital & Wireless Technology 
Opportunity Act of 2005.
  This legislation will provide vital resources to address the 
technology gap that exists at many Minority Serving Institutions, MSIs. 
With this legislation together, as a country, we move one step closer 
to eliminating what I like to call the ``economic opportunity divide'' 
that exists between Minority Serving Institutions and non-minority 
institutions of higher education.
  This legislation will establish a new grant program that provides up 
to $250 million a year to help Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges 
upgrade their technology and communications infrastructure.
  Since before I was elected to the Senate, my goal has always been to 
look for ways to improve education and empower all of our young 
people--regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or economic 
background--to compete and succeed in life.
  With over 200 Hispanic Serving Institutions; over 100 Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities and 34 tribal colleges throughout our 
country, it is clear that Minority Serving Institutions provide a 
valuable service to the educational strength and future growth of our 
Nation.
  These institutions must have the technology capabilities and 
infrastructure available to their students and faculty to successfully 
compete and succeed in today's workforce.
  Our goal with this legislation is clear--by increasing access to 
technology and addressing the technological disparities that exist at 
Minority Serving Institutions we will provide our young people with 
important tools for success, both in the classroom and in the 
workforce.
  This nation's economic stability and growth are increasingly 
dependent on a growing portion of the workforce possessing 
technological skills.
  African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans constitute one-
quarter of the total U.S. workforce. Approximately, one-third of all 
students of color in this nation are educated at Minority Serving 
Institutions. It is estimated that in 10 years minorities will comprise 
nearly 40 percent of all college-age Americans.
  Yet, members of these minorities represent only 7 percent of the U.S. 
computer and information science workforce; 6 percent of the 
engineering workforce; and less than 2 percent of the computer science 
faculty.
  At the same time, we know that 60 percent of all jobs require 
information technology skills and these jobs pay significantly higher 
salaries than jobs of a non-technical nature.
  I am proud to say Virginia is home to five Historically Black 
Colleges & Universities--Norfolk State University, St. Paul's College, 
Virginia Union University, Hampton University and Virginia State 
University.
  Mr. President, we must ensure that the students attending these 
minority institutions are competing on a level playing field when it 
comes to technology skills and development.
  We must tap the talent and potential of these students to ensure that 
America's workforce is prepared to lead the world.
  The legislation allows eligible institutions the opportunity through 
grants, contracts or cooperative agreements to acquire equipment, 
instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, digital 
network technology and wireless technology/infrastructure--such as 
wireless fidelity or WiFi--to develop and provide educational services.
  Additionally, the grants can be used for equipment upgrades, 
technology training and hardware/software acquisition. A Minority 
Serving Institution also can use the funds to offer its students 
universal access to campus networks, dramatically increase their 
connectivity rates, or make necessary infrastructure improvements.
  The best jobs in the future will go to those who are the best 
prepared. However, I am increasingly concerned that when it comes to 
high technology jobs--which pay higher wages--this country runs the 
risk of economically limiting many college students in our society. It 
is important for all Americans that we close this opportunity gap.
  Providing equal technological opportunities for all Americans will 
have a positive impact on our education system, our economic 
competitiveness and future generations of innovators and leaders.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. This 
exact legislation passed the Senate last year 97-0.
  Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me today in 
cosponsoring this legislation and I look forward to working with fellow 
Senators to push this important measure across the goal-line so that 
many more college students are provided access to better technology and 
education, and most importantly, even greater opportunities in life.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLEN:
  S. 433. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
develop and implement standards for the operation of non-scheduled, 
commercial air carrier (air charter) and general aviation operations at 
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would re-open Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to all 
aviation. Since the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, general 
aviation flights have not been permitted to operate in and out of 
Reagan National Airport. My legislation would direct the executive 
branch to develop and implement standards for the resumption of general 
aviation flights.
  The closing of Reagan National to general aviation was 
understandable, prudent and tolerable in the weeks and

[[Page 2789]]

months following the tragedy of September 11. The safety and security 
of the capital region is paramount and will always guide our decisions. 
But, despite Congressional action mandating a detailed plan to re-open 
the airport to general aviation following a massive strengthening of 
our airports and air traffic control system serving the Washington 
area, the Federal Government has done little to develop a plan that 
would allow for the use of Reagan National for private aircraft.
  Closing Reagan National to general aviation has had a substantial 
negative effect on jobs and the economy of the capital region. Non-
scheduled air carrier operations at Reagan National once generated an 
estimated $50 million a year in direct economic activity from charter 
revenue, aircraft handling and refueling services. The lack of charter 
and general aviation passengers coming into the city, hotels, 
restaurants and other service businesses near Reagan National have 
suffered a significant, negative economic impact as well.
  Since September 11, 2001, air charter operators have participated in 
a rigorous security program that makes their operations just as safe, 
if not safer, than those of commercial airlines. Charter operators also 
have the capability to check the names of their passengers against 
government terrorist watch lists. Given the unique location of the 
airport, stakeholders in the general aviation industry are willing to 
comply with virtually any rational government policy that would grant 
access to Reagan National for general aviation aircraft. Such proposals 
include using ``gateway'' airports in which all flights into Reagan 
National must first land for additional screening, and added screening 
of pilots and passengers. There are also new technological advances 
that could be required for private planes using Reagan National. 
Notwithstanding the willingness of those in general aviation to comply 
with reasonable security procedures that may be implemented, government 
agencies have remained stolidly silent on the issue.
  That is why I have decided to introduce legislation directing the 
Department of Homeland Security to finalize and implement regulations 
that would again allow general aviation flights to operate at Reagan 
National. The measure allows for reasonable requirements to ensure the 
security of operations at Reagan National. The requirements include 
screening and certification of flight and ground crews; advance 
clearance of passenger manifests; physical screening of passengers and 
luggage; the physical inspection of aircraft; special flight procedures 
and limiting the airports from which flights can originate.
  The Government was able to find conditions under which commercial 
aviation could operate out of Reagan National following the September 
11 terrorist attacks. I see no reason why similar conditions or 
requirements could not be developed to allow for general aviation to 
also begin operations again.
  Congressionally mandated actions on this issue have yet to result in 
a plan or set of circumstances that would fully re-open Reagan 
National. Thus, I believe it is necessary to introduce legislation that 
would direct the Department of Homeland Security to do so.
  I agree that security is the most important factor in this debate; 
however I also believe reasonable requirements can be put in place to 
ensure the safety of general aviation flights and help the local 
businesses that depend on this mode of transportation for their 
livelihood.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 436. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to assess the 
economic implications of the dependence of the State of Hawaii on oil 
as the principal source of energy for the State; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, in the shadow of crude oil prices that have 
reached nearly $50 per barrel, and with the specter of higher gasoline 
prices forecast by the Department of Energy's Energy Information 
Administration, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help Hawaii 
and potentially other insular areas grapple with the difficult choices 
ahead with respect to energy independence.
  The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to assess the short- and 
long-term prospects of oil supply disruptions and price volatility and 
their impacts on Hawaii. It also directs the Secretary to assess the 
economic relationship between oil-fired generation of electricity from 
residual fuel and refined products consumed for transportation needs of 
Hawaii. Hawaii uses crude oil to produce electricity, gasoline, and jet 
fuel. Changing the mix of these products will have significant economic 
implications for Hawaii. We need to have a clear picture of the impacts 
of going down these roads to a different energy mix. In addition, the 
study would address the technical and economic feasibility of 
increasing the contribution of renewable energy resources and the use 
of liquified natural gas, LNG, for generating electricity and other 
needs. In Hawaii, the costs of gasoline, electricity, and jet fuel are 
intertwined in an intricate relationship, because they all come from 
the same feedstock, and changes in the use of one could potentially 
drive consumer prices up or down. We need to know the implications of 
increasing the percentage of renewable sources of energy or switching 
to LNG, and whether these choices will leave us enough residual fuel 
for our transportation system and jets. Finally, the bill calls for an 
analysis of the feasibility of production and use of hydrogen from 
renewable resources on an island-by-island basis, an energy source I 
have championed for a long time.
  Hawaii is heavily dependent on imported oil. About 90 percent of the 
State's energy needs for residents and visitors is produced by refining 
and burning crude oil. We import 28 percent of our oil from Alaska, but 
72 percent comes from foreign sources including Indonesia, China, Papua 
New Guinea, and Vietnam. We use 26 percent of the oil for generating 
electricity. Being an island State, marine transportation between the 
islands is very important. Air transport for residents of Hawaii, as 
well as for our tourism industry, is critical. For many high school 
athletic and academic teams to compete in intramural activities, it 
means getting on planes to go to another island. Many families live on 
multiple islands. We use 32 percent of the oil for air transportation, 
and 23 percent for ground and marine transportation. My State's 
dependence on oil poses potential risks to Hawaii from sudden price 
increases or supply disruptions as were experienced several times in 
the last five years alone.
  Hawaii uses its energy very efficiently. Our per capita energy use is 
well below the national average. In part, this is due to the fact that 
Hawaii is blessed with comfortable climate and short driving distances. 
Nonetheless, we have been paying some of the highest prices in the 
Nation for our energy. We continue to have the highest gasoline prices 
in the country. For a long time our electricity rates also have been 
the highest in the country. Consistent high energy prices affect the 
economic vitality of the State. Before we invest in a different energy 
mix and infrastructure, we need to make transparent all the relations 
between fuels and the consequences of the directions we choose.
  Our State has been proactive in seeking energy solutions. The State 
of Hawaii has income tax credits for the installation of solar, 
photovoltaic, and wind energy. Hawaii has the largest solar water 
heating program in the Nation. Governor Linda Lingle has called for a 
20 percent renewable energy standard by 2020. Last year we obtained 
about 7 percent of electricity sales from renewable sources, compared 
with a national average of about 2 percent. The Hawaiian Electric 
Company, HECO, Hawaii's largest utility, announced in January 2003 the 
formation of a new subsidiary that will invest in renewable energy 
projects for Hawaii.
  The Hawaii Energy Policy Forum, a deliberative body of over 40 
community leaders and energy stakeholders, met many times over a period 
of a year and

[[Page 2790]]

developed an energy vision for Hawaii through the year 2030. Its 
report, ``Hawaii at the Crossroads; A Long-Term Energy Strategy,'' 
identifies strategic principles for Hawaii's future, including 
diversifying the sources of imported energy and beginning the 
transition to a long-term hydrogen economy.
  Mr. President, energy security includes supply security, price 
security, and economic security. Supply security means ensuring that 
energy is available despite market disruptions elsewhere. Price 
security means that energy consumers are protected against price 
fluctuations and chronically high prices. Economic security results 
from both of the above. Hawaii is dependent on oil for both 
transportation and electricity in ways that are without parallel in 
continental States. Hawaii also has an abundance of renewable energy 
resources. It is the intent of this bill to assess these challenges and 
opportunities, and to help us develop a suitable roadmap for Hawaii's 
energy future. This bill will help Hawaii identify the challenges and 
decision points along the way to energy security.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and 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. 436

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

     SECTION 1. HAWAII ENERGY ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Assessment.--The Secretary of Energy shall assess the 
     economic implications of the dependence of the State of 
     Hawaii on oil as the principal source of energy for the 
     State, including--
       (1) the short- and long-term prospects for crude oil supply 
     disruption and price volatility and potential impacts on the 
     economy of Hawaii;
       (2) the economic relationship between oil-fired generation 
     of electricity from residual fuel and refined petroleum 
     products consumed for ground, marine, and air transportation;
       (3) the technical and economic feasibility of increasing 
     the contribution of renewable energy resources for generation 
     of electricity, on an island-by-island basis, including--
       (A) siting and facility configuration;
       (B) environmental, operational, and safety considerations;
       (C) the availability of technology;
       (D) effects on the utility system including reliability;
       (E) infrastructure and transport requirements;
       (F) community support; and
       (G) other factors affecting the economic impact of such an 
     increase and any effect on the economic relationship 
     described in paragraph (2);
       (4) the technical and economic feasibility of using 
     liquefied natural gas to displace residual fuel oil for 
     electric generation, including neighbor island opportunities, 
     and the effect of the displacement on the economic 
     relationship described in paragraph (2), including--
       (A) the availability of supply;
       (B) siting and facility configuration for onshore and 
     offshore liquefied natural gas receiving terminals;
       (C) the factors described in subparagraphs (B) through (F) 
     of paragraph (3); and
       (D) other economic factors;
       (5) the technical and economic feasibility of using 
     renewable energy sources (including hydrogen) for ground, 
     marine, and air transportation energy applications to 
     displace the use of refined petroleum products, on an island-
     by-island basis, and the economic impact of the displacement 
     on the relationship described in (2); and
       (6) an island-by-island approach to--
       (A) the development of hydrogen from renewable resources; 
     and
       (B) the application of hydrogen to the energy needs of 
     Hawaii
       (b) Contracting Authority.--The Secretary of Energy may 
     carry out the assessment under subsection (a) directly or, in 
     whole or in part, through 1 or more contracts with qualified 
     public or private entities.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 300 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall prepare, 
     in consultation with agencies of the State of Hawaii and 
     other stakeholders, as appropriate, and submit to Congress, a 
     report detailing the findings, conclusions, and 
     recommendations resulting from the assessment.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 437. A bill to expedite review of the grand River Band of Ottawa 
Indians of Michigan to secure a timely and just determination of 
whether that group is entitled to recognition as a Federal Indian 
tribe; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce a 
bill to address an inequity to one of Michigan's Native American 
tribes. The Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians, commonly referred to as 
the Grand River Band, has been in some form indigenous to the State of 
Michigan for over 200 years. The Grand River Band consists of the 19 
bands of Indians who occupied the territory along the Grand River in 
what is now southwest Michigan, including the cities of Grand Rapids 
and Muskegon. The members of the Grand River Band are the descendants 
and political successors to signatories of the 1821 Treaty of Chicago 
and the 1836 Treaty of Washington. They are also one of six tribes who 
is an original signatory of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. However, the 
Grand River Band is the only one of those tribes which is not 
recognized by the Federal Government.
  The bill I am introducing today with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, 
will direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior 
to make a recognition determination in a timely manner. Let me be 
clear--this bill does not federally recognize the tribe nor does it 
address the issue of gaming. I hope that this legislation will help to 
address this inequity to the Grand River Band and provide a timely 
remedy so that the tribe can enjoy the full benefits and status of 
Federal recognition.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Hagel, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Collins, and Mr. 
        Hatch):
  S. 438. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
repeal the medicare outpatient rehabilitation therapy caps; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Medicare 
Access to Rehabilitation Services Act to improve the Medicare program 
for our senior citizens. The bill, which enjoyed the support of a 
majority of the Senate in the 108th Congress, would repeal the 
beneficiary cap on rehabilitation therapy care and ensure quality 
healthcare for Medicare patients.
  The beneficiary cap is really two separate therapy caps: one cap for 
occupational therapy and one for both physical therapy and speech-
language pathology care combined. Congress has already shown its 
opposition to this arbitrary cap by placing a moratorium on enforcement 
of the cap in 1999, 2000, and 2003. The latest moratorium will expire 
on January 1, 2006. Without congressional action, the beneficiary cap 
on therapy services will be effective again in less than a year. It is 
time to repeal the cap once and for all.
  Each year, more than 3.7 million Medicare beneficiaries receive 
outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy, and/or speech-
language pathology services to regain their optimum level of function 
and independence. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, 
completed a long-awaited analysis of the therapy cap policy. The 
report, prepared by AdvanceMed, estimates that for Calendar Year 2002, 
some 638,195 beneficiaries receiving physical therapy, occupational 
therapy, and/or speech-language pathology services would have exceeded 
the cap threshold. This represents 23.7 percent of the outpatient 
therapy expenditures for that year. Failure to address the issue this 
year in Congress will have a significant impact on the access 
beneficiaries will have to necessary rehabilitation services.
  It is clear from recent reports prepared for CMS that patients with 
debilitating illnesses and injuries would be severely impacted by 
enforcement of the therapy caps. Based on data from 2002, patients 
suffering from conditions such as stroke, Parkinson's disease, 
congenital heart failure, and Dysphasia were certain to be negatively 
impacted by enforcement of existing statutory limits on rehabilitation 
coverage.

[[Page 2791]]

  Action is needed to address the therapy caps this year. Last 
Congress, this bill attracted 51 Senators as cosponsors. As a member of 
the Senate Budget Committee, I realize the budgetary constraints that 
are upon Congress. I understand that we need to prioritize spending. I 
believe that a meaningful solution to address the rehabilitation needs 
of senior citizens and individuals with disabilities in the Medicare 
program should be a priority.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator 
Chuck Hagel, Senator Patty Murray, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Senator Jon 
Corzine, Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Susan Collins, and Senator Orrin 
Hatch for joining me in this effort. I stand ready to work with my 
colleagues to enact a solution to the therapy caps that ensures access 
to quality restorative services provided by qualified professionals.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 439. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide for 
secondary containment to prevent methyl tertiary butyl ether and 
petroleum contamination; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
protect public health and the environment by preventing chemicals from 
leaking out of underground storage tanks and thereafter contaminating 
drinking water supplies and nearby communities. My colleague in the 
House of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion 
legislation.
  Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can 
move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams 
and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in 
urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks 
to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and 
economic growth.
  There are approximately 670,000 underground storage tanks in the 
United States, and there have been more than 445,000 confirmed releases 
from these tanks as of mid-2003. Over 35 States report that leaking 
underground storage tanks are one of the top threats to their drinking 
water sources. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from leaking 
underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies in 43 
States and in 29 States has contaminated drinking water. Estimates 
indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up MTBE 
contamination nationwide.
  Currently, the leaking underground storage tanks program and other 
laws ensure that responsible parties pay to clean up the damage caused 
by these leaking spills. Unfortunately, the pace of cleaning up leaking 
underground storage tanks is 20 percent below the historic average. Our 
Nation faces an estimated 94,000 to 150,000 additional cleanups over 
the next 10 years--at a cost of $12 billion to $19 billion.
  The best, most commonsense solution to stop leaking underground 
storage tanks from threatening public health is to prevent them from 
leaking in the first place with the use of secondary containment, such 
as double walls. There is already widespread support for this 
throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require secondary 
containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in 
California--or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In 
addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such 
requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls, 
containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment 
Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003 
were double walled.
  But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our 
drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population 
relies on groundwater for their drinking water, including almost 100 
percent in rural areas. The time to prevent contamination is now.
  We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 440. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
include podiatrists as physicians for purposes of covering physicians 
services under the medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important 
bill that will ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries in all states have 
access to the services of top-quality podiatric physicians. I am 
pleased that Senator Mikulski from Maryland is joining me in 
introducing this bill today.
  Having healthy feet and ankles are critical to keeping individuals 
mobile, productive and in good long-term health. This is particularly 
true for individuals with diabetes.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 
over 18 million Americans have diabetes, and it is the sixth leading 
cause of death in this country. Each year, over 200,000 Americans die 
from this disease.
  If not managed properly, diabetes can cause several severe health 
problems, including eye disease or blindness, kidney disease and heart 
disease. Too often, diabetes can lead to foot complications, including 
foot ulcers and even amputations. In fact, the CDC estimates that 
82,000 people undergo an amputation of a leg, foot or toe each year 
because of complications with diabetes.
  Proper care of the feet could prevent many of these amputations. The 
CDC says that regular exams and patient education could prevent up to 
85 percent these amputations.
  The bill we are introducing today recognizes the important role 
podiatrists can play identifying and correcting foot problems among 
diabetics. The bill amends Medicaid's definition of ``physicians'' to 
include podiatric physicians. This will ensure that Medicaid 
beneficiaries have access to foot care from those most qualified to 
provide it.
  Under Medicaid, podiatry is considered an optional benefit. However, 
just because it is optional, doesn't mean that podiatric services are 
not needed, or that beneficiaries will not seek out other providers to 
perform these services. Instead, Medicaid beneficiaries will have to 
receive foot care from other providers who may not be as well trained 
as a podiatrist in treating lower extremities.
  Also, it is important to note that podiatrists are considered 
physicians under the Medicare program, which allows seniors and 
disabled individuals to receive appropriate care.
  I urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to this important 
bill. It will help many Medicaid beneficiaries across the country have 
access to podiatrists that they need.
  Finally, I thank the Senator from Maryland for helping me introduce 
this legislation today. I hope that by working together we can see this 
important change made.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to 
introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have 
access to care provided by podiatrists.
  This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get 
services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill. 
This legislation includes podiatric physicians in Medicaid's definition 
of physician. This means that the services of podiatrists will be 
covered by Medicaid, just like they are in Medicare. Podiatrists are 
considered physicians under Medicare. They should be under Medicaid. 
Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care services. Medicaid should 
allow podiatrists who are trained specifically in foot and ankle care 
to provide these services and be reimbursed for them.
  The services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid. 
Currently, most state Medicaid programs, including Maryland, recognize 
and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their 
beneficiaries. However, during times of tight budgets, states may 
choose to cut back on these optional services. Recently, Connecticut, 
and Texas discontinued podiatric services. Even though podiatrist 
services are considered optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle

[[Page 2792]]

care. If podiatrists do not provide the care, patients will see 
providers who may not be as well trained in the care of the lower 
extremities as podiatrists. I want the over 560,000 Medicaid patients 
in Maryland to have access to the services provided by over 400 
podiatrists in Maryland.
  Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle, and lower 
leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic 
diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of 
peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that 
can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Over 18 
million people in this country have diabetes, but an estimated more 
than 5 million of these people are not aware that they have the 
disease.
  The President's budget challenges Congress to make major cuts to 
Medicaid--up to $60 billion. Covering podiatrists may be, in fact, a 
cost cutting measure. Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists 
will save Medicaid funds in the long term. According to the American 
Podiatric Medical Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience 
some type of foot health problem during their lives. Foot disease is 
the most common complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization. 
About 82,000 people have diabetes-related leg, foot, or toe amputations 
each year. Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient 
education could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. 
Podiatrists are important providers of this care.
  This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country 
have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support of the 
American Podiatric Medical Association. I urge my colleagues to 
cosponsor this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
        Allen, Mr. Bunning, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 441. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
permanent the classification of a motorsports entertainment complex; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator 
Nelson of Florida, Senator Kyl of Arizona, Senator Allen of Virginia, 
Senator Bunning of Kentucky, Senator Chambliss of Georgia, and Senator 
Dole of North Carolina, legislation that would permanently extend the 
current treatment of investments made to motorsports entertainment 
complexes, ensuring that this important economic engine for our economy 
continues to roar. The Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act of 2005 
will help ensure that job-creating investments in motorsports 
facilities continue to be made under the same economic assumptions and 
tax treatment used for the last several decades--decades that have 
witnessed the most explosive growth in motorsports' long history.
  Motorsports is the fastest growing sport in the United States, 
drawing fans to tracks and speedways around the country. In fact, there 
are over 900 motorsports facilities throughout the U.S., with tracks in 
every State. These facilities contribute to the economy by attracting 
motorsports enthusiasts and tourists, hiring permanent and temporary 
employees, and making capital investments. Facilities of every type--
from local tracks that run weekly racing series to ``superspeedways'' 
that host nationally-televised events--must continually upgrade and 
reinvest in order to remain competitive.
  Motorsports play a significant role in the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, where racing is an integral part of Pennsylvania's 
economy with 60 racing facilities in every corner of the State. In 
fact, Pennsylvania is tied with California for the second-most 
motorsports facilities of any State.
  Our facilities and tracks span across the Commonwealth and include 
the nationally known Pocono Raceway in Long Pond, Lake Erie Speedway, 
and Maple Grove Raceway, located just outside of Reading. These and 
other raceways in Pennsylvania hold NASCAR, National Hot Rod 
Association, Import Drag Racing Circuit, and other racing events, 
drawing hundreds of thousands of fans each year contributing vital 
economic support to their local communities.
  It is clear that motorsports racing plays an important role in 
Pennsylvania, just as it does across this country. When making these 
capital investments, owners of motorsports facilities have long relied 
on and in good faith applied a 7-year depreciation life for these 
assets, but a few years ago the IRS began to raise some questions about 
the use of the 7-year classification. Last year, in H.R. 4520, the 
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Congress clarified that the 
appropriate depreciation period for motorsports assets was indeed 7 
years. Due to revenue constraints in that particular bill, the 
provision on motorsports asset classification will lapse in 2008, 
meaning that Congress needs to act to permanently extend the provision. 
These capital expenditures, such as major improvements to existing 
tracks or building new tracks, require several years of planning 
followed by construction. Without a permanent provision that provides 
clarity and certainty, significant capital investments in motorsports 
facilities--and the jobs and economic gains those investments bring--
could be negatively impacted.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in support 
of permanently extending the current treatment of investments in 
motorsports entertainment facilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 443. A bill to improve the investigation of criminal antitrust 
offenses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues 
Senators Kohl and Leahy, to introduce the Antitrust Investigative 
Improvements Act of 2005. We do so to strengthen the Department of 
Justice's ability to investigate criminal antitrust conspiracies. This 
bill gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a wiretap order 
from a Federal judge, for a limited time period, to monitor 
communications between antitrust conspirators.
  Investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies, such 
as cartels and bid-rigging, is the core mission of the Department of 
Justice's Antitrust Division. Because of the harm this behavior can do 
to the economy and to innocent consumers, Assistant Attorney General 
for the Antitrust Division, Hewitt Pate, has said that prosecuting 
``cartels remain[s] our top enforcement priority at the Antitrust 
Division.'' As a result, in the United States, we punish such illegal 
behavior harshly. Corporations can be fined up to $100 million and 
individuals can be fined up to $1 million and be incarcerated for 10 
years. But, despite the high priority the Antitrust Division places on 
these cases and the tough penalties under the law, up to now, we have 
not given the Department of Justice all the tools it needs to 
investigate and prosecute criminal antitrust conspiracies.
  In criminal antitrust investigations, to prosecute a case, it is 
critical that prosecutors gain access to evidence on the inner workings 
of the conspiracy. To meet their heavy burden of proof, prosecutors 
must marshal strong evidence showing, for example, the terms of the 
illegal agreement, the participants in the illegal agreement, and 
precisely when the illegal agreement was reached. This type of evidence 
is extremely difficult to gain without penetrating the inner workings 
of the conspiracy.
  The Department has principally two techniques for investigating 
criminal antitrust enterprises. First, it may enlist the cooperation of 
a witness. The cooperating witness may be, for example, a customer 
being harmed by the conspiracy or a co-conspirator to the antitrust 
crime. Under this approach, a cooperating witness may testify about the 
details of the conspiracy or may record conversations with the 
conspirators, either through videotape or audiotape. One important 
restriction is that the cooperating witness must be present at the 
conversation when recording. But, if the Department cannot secure a 
cooperating witness, which is

[[Page 2793]]

often the case, this technique is not available.
  Second, the Antitrust Division also has a corporate leniency program, 
which has been very successful in investigating and prosecuting 
criminal antitrust conspiracies. In exchange for fully cooperating with 
an antitrust investigation, an otherwise guilty corporation may receive 
lenient treatment. But, this method, too, depends on the cooperation of 
one who was on the inside of the criminal conspiracy.
  Our bill adds a third technique by amending Title III of the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq.) to 
make a criminal violation of the Sherman Act a ``predicate offense'' 
for an order authorizing the interception of wire or oral 
communications, hereinafter ``wiretap order''. Amending this law to 
make criminal antitrust offenses a predicate offense would give the 
Department of Justice a much needed tool to investigate the inner 
workings of criminal antitrust conspiracies. Unlike using a cooperating 
witness or the corporate leniency program, a wiretap order does not 
require the cooperation of someone who has inside knowledge of the 
conspiracy or who is actually participating in the conspiracy. Upon a 
showing of probable cause to a Federal judge, the Department of Justice 
could obtain a wiretap order, for a limited time period, to monitor 
communications between conspirators.
  There are over 150 predicate offenses from title 18 and dozens of 
other predicate offenses from other parts of the U.S. Criminal Code. 
Offenses, such as wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud are predicate 
offenses, but up to now, criminal antitrust offenses have not been on 
the list. I think this is a mistake. Criminal antitrust offenses are 
basically white-collar, fraud offenses, and often do much more harm to 
innocent consumers than other types of fraud offenses. It is time for 
antitrust to be added as a predicate offense, given the gravity of the 
crime.
  This idea is not new. Past Assistant Attorney Generals of the 
Antitrust Division have supported the idea for such legislation. And, 
in 1999, our neighbor to the north, Canada, passed similar legislation. 
It is an idea whose time has come.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important reform to strengthen 
the enforcement of our antitrust laws. I ask unanimous consent to print 
the bill in the Record.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, America's antitrust laws play a vital role 
in protecting consumers and ensuring a competitive marketplace for 
business. The vigorous enforcement of these laws also helps promote and 
maintain the efficiency of our markets by promoting competition, 
innovation, and technological development. Today, I am pleased to join 
Senator Kohl and Senator DeWine in introducing the Antitrust Criminal 
Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, legislation that will provide 
the Department of Justice with long overdue authority in investigating 
and prosecuting criminal antitrust violations.
  Congress acted in 1890 with passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act to 
prohibit abusive monopolization and anticompetitive practices. Since 
that time, the Department of Justice's enforcement efforts have 
benefited consumers in terms of lower prices, greater variety, and 
higher quality of products and services. Despite the value and impact 
of criminal antitrust cases, however, criminal antitrust investigations 
do not currently qualify for judicially approved wiretaps. While the 
Justice Department may engage in court-authorized searches of business 
records, it may only monitor phone calls of informants or the 
conversations of consenting parties.
  The Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005 will 
add criminal price fixing and bid rigging to the many crimes that are 
already ``predicate offenses'' for wiretap purposes. More than 150 
``predicate offenses'' are currently included in Title III of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, including crimes of lesser 
impact and significance than criminal antitrust violations. In light of 
the seriousness of economic harms caused by violations of the Sherman 
Antitrust Act, the inability of the Justice Department to obtain 
wiretaps when investigating criminal antitrust violations makes little 
sense. Moreover, the evidence that can be acquired through wiretaps is 
precisely the type of evidence that is essential for the successful 
prosecution and prevention of serious antitrust violations. This bill 
equips the Department of Justice investigators and prosecutors to 
enforce zealously the criminal antitrust laws of the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 444. A bill to establish a demonstration project to train 
unemployed workers for employment as health care professionals, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a 
series of bills intended to support American companies and American 
workers. Earlier this week, I introduced S. Con. Res. 12, which would 
set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our 
country enters, and S. 395, which would strengthen the Buy American 
Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who 
have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained 
for jobs in high-demand health care fields.
  According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, 
Wisconsin has lost nearly 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. 
Nationally, the country has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing 
jobs since January 2001. In addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, 
I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's contention that the 
outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the 
economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to 
Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these 
sectors.
  There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of 
manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development 
system.
  In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, 
our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to 
retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this 
effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's 11 workforce 
development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions 
to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets.
  I strongly support the work of these agencies and have urged the 
administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for 
the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I 
regret that the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2006 
does not provide adequate funding for WIA, and I will continue to work 
to ensure that the workforce development boards in my State and across 
our country receive the resources they need to help job seekers get the 
training they need to be successful.
  I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been 
laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to 
find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care.
  As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a 
significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some 
progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our 
efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the 
health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality 
health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our 
hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly 
affects patient health.
  As our population ages, and the baby boomers need more health care, 
our need for all types of health professionals is only going to 
increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an 
additional 1.2 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other 
health professionals in long-term care before the year 2010.
  As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of 
jobs

[[Page 2794]]

available within this sector. Currently, health services is the largest 
industry in the country, providing 12.9 million jobs in 2002. It is 
estimated that 16 percent of all new jobs created between 2002 and 2012 
will be in health services. This accounts for 3.5 million new jobs--
more than any other industry.
  According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the 
surging job growth within health care will translate into a real need 
for workers) and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an 
additional 67,430 health care positions by 2012. This represents a 30 
percent increase in jobs in health care, over twice the rate of growth 
for Wisconsin jobs overall.
  Mr. President, workforce development agencies in my home State of 
Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their 
communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a 
real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping 
communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by 
ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their 
communities.
  As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards 
in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to 
replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical 
professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an 
excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family 
oriented standard of living.''
  I believe we need to support our communities in these efforts by 
providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or 
expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am 
introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill 
would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration 
project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local 
workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed 
workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My 
bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 
and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, it ensures 
that the cost of these grants would be offset.
  This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need 
to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could 
be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our 
schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social 
support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows 
for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that 
communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient 
program.
  This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose 
jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have 
access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing 
targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new 
jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans 
and improve the availability and quality of health care that is 
available in our communities.
  I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of 
organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training 
and health care services, inc1uding the National Association of 
Workforce Boards, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, 
the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Northwest Wisconsin 
Concentrated Employment Program, the Northwest Wisconsin Workforce 
Investment Board, the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development 
Board, the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, and the 
Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin.
  Mr. President, in order to ensure that our workers are able to 
compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools 
they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those 
in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the 
resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to 
strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those 
workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other 
policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 445. A resolution to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social 
Security Act, as added by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003, to provide for negotiation of fair 
prices for Medicare prescription drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act of 2005, and am pleased to be 
joined by my colleagues, Senators Carper, Kennedy, Schumer, Bingaman, 
and Johnson.
  This legislation is very simple and very straightforward: it would 
allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly 
with pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of our seniors and the 
disabled to get the lowest possible prices.
  Last week we learned that the Medicare prescription drug benefit will 
cost more than 1 trillion dollars--$1.2 trillion to be exact--just for 
the years 2006 through 2015.
  Some of our colleagues are responding to the news of the $1.2 
trillion price tag with plans to reduce the benefit. But the benefit as 
currently structured is far from comprehensive. Seniors are responsible 
for $420 in premiums, and a $250 deductible before they get one penny's 
worth of help towards the cost of their prescription drugs. Once the 
benefit kicks in, they will face a hefty copayment, and many will fall 
into the infamous ``hole'' in the benefit and--at the same time they 
continue to pay premiums--not get any assistance at all.
  Even with a $1.2 trillion pricetag, our seniors will have to shoulder 
two-thirds of the cost of their prescription drugs. Neither the seniors 
and disabled, nor the taxpayers, should be paying so much for so 
little.
  Last week's news of the cost of the benefit makes it clear that we 
must give Medicare the ability to use the market power of 41 million 
people to secure the lowest prices possible for seniors, the disabled, 
and the American taxpayer.
  Our response to the new cost estimate shouldn't be to reduce the 
already meager benefit but to use our dollars more efficiently. The 
change that my colleagues and I are seeking would allow us to improve 
the drug benefit--by lowering the cost of the drugs, we could fill in 
the gaps in coverage and provide a more meaningful benefit.
  Former HHS Secretary Thompson said at his December 3rd resignation 
press conference that he would have liked to have had the opportunity 
to negotiate lower drug prices.
  I expect Secretary Thompson knows what every smart buyer knows: the 
more you are buying of anything, the better deal you get. We all know 
that Sam's Club gets the best prices on breakfast cereal, batteries, 
and paper towels because they represent a huge market.
  And now that Secretary Leavitt is tasked with running the program, we 
should give him as many tools as possible to run this program at the 
lowest possible cost.
  Today the only entity in this country that cannot bargain for lower 
group prices is Medicare. The States, Fortune 500 companies, large 
pharmacy chains, and the Veterans' Administration use their bargaining 
clout to obtain lower drug prices for the patients they represent.
  Medicare should have that same ability. It doesn't make any sense to 
prohibit the Secretary from using the clout of our 41 million seniors 
to help get them the best possible prices on prescription drugs.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense approach 
to providing real savings for our seniors and the disabled, and 
ensuring the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page 2795]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 445

       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 ``Medicare Prescription Drug 
     Price Reduction Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION 
                   DRUGS.

       Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection (i) (relating to 
     noninterference) and by inserting the following:
       ``(i) Authority To Negotiate Prices With Manufacturers.--In 
     order to ensure that each part D eligible individual who is 
     enrolled under a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan pays 
     the lowest possible price for covered part D drugs, the 
     Secretary shall have authority similar to that of other 
     Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to 
     negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D 
     drugs, consistent with the requirements of this part and in 
     furtherance of the goals of providing quality care and 
     containing costs under this part.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 446. A bill to direct the Director of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to designate New Jersey Task Force 1 as part of the 
National Urban Search and Rescue Response System; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that 
would designate New Jersey's elite urban search and rescue team, New 
Jersey Task Force One, as part of the National Urban Search and Rescue 
Response System.
  I am proud to be joined by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator 
Frank Lautenberg, in introducing this legislation today. And I am also 
pleased that my colleague, Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, has 
introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
  New Jersey Task Force One is a team comprised of career and volunteer 
fire, police, and EMS personnel from all 21 counties in New Jersey. The 
primary mission of the NJTFO is to provide advanced technical search 
and rescue capabilities to victims who are trapped or entombed in 
collapsed buildings. The NJTFO is a world-class operation whose 
response system mirrors the Federal Emergency Management Agencies 
guidelines on urban search and rescue and the appropriate National Fire 
Protection Association Standards.
  The training, commitment, and expertise of the NJTFO has saved lives. 
In fact, New Jersey Task Force One was one of the first units to arrive 
on the scene at the World Trade Center on September 11, and they 
bravely conducted search, rescue, medical, and planning and logistics 
operations on site.
  In this era of terrorism and heightened homeland security we should 
be doing all we can to show our commitment to our first responders. 
This designation would do just that for New Jersey Task Force One. More 
importantly, by making NJTFO a part of the National Urban Search and 
Rescue Team they would be eligible for Federal funding that is vital to 
helping them fulfill their mission. The honor of joining the other 28 
members of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System is a 
recognition that the NJTFO is more than deserving of.
  I urge the Senate to enact this legislation and 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. 446

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

     SECTION 1. ADDITION OF TASK FORCE TO NATIONAL URBAN SEARCH 
                   AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYSTEM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 
     demonstrated the importance of enhancing national domestic 
     terrorism preparedness;
       (2) 26 of the 28 urban search and rescue task forces 
     included in the National Urban Search and Rescue Response 
     System of the Federal Emergency Management Agency were called 
     into action in the wake of the events of September 11;
       (3) highly qualified, urban search and rescue teams not 
     included in the National Urban Search and Rescue Response 
     System were the first teams in New York City on September 11;
       (4) the continuing threat of a possible domestic terrorist 
     attack remains an important mission for which the United 
     States must prepare to respond; and
       (5) part of that response should be to increase the number 
     of urban search and rescue task forces included in the 
     National Urban Search and Rescue Response System.
       (b) Addition of New Jersey Task Force 1.--The Director of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall designate New 
     Jersey Task Force 1 as part of the National Urban Search and 
     Rescue Response System.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 447. A bill to authorize the conveyance of certain Federal land in 
the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce an 
uncontroversial piece of legislation that I hope will receive prompt 
committee action and will make its way quickly to the President's desk 
for his signature.
  I would first like to familiarize the Senate with the important 
mission and related work of the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in Las 
Cruces, NM. The Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in North 
America and contains a great diversity of unique plant and animal 
species. The ecosystem makes up an indispensable part of Southwest's 
treasured ecological diversity. As such, it is important that we teach 
our young ones an appreciation for New Mexico's biological diversity 
and impart upon them the value of this ecological treasure.
  The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park is a nonprofit institution that has 
spent the past 6 years providing hands-on science education to K-12th 
graders. To achieve this mission, the Nature Park provides classroom 
presentation, field trips, schoolyard ecology projects, and teacher 
work shops. The Nature Park serves more than 11,000 students and 600 
teachers annually. This instruction will enable our future leaders to 
make informed decisions about how best to manage these valuable 
resources. I commend those at the Nature Park for taking the initiative 
to create and administer a wonderfully successful program that has been 
so beneficial to the surrounding community.
  The Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park was granted a 1,000 acre easement 
in 1998 at the southern boundary of USDA-Agriculture Research Service, 
USDA-ARS, property just north of Las Cruces, NM. This easement will 
expire soon. It is important that we provide them a permanent location 
so that they are able to continue their valuable mission.
  The bill I introduce today would transfer an insignificant amount of 
land: 1,000 of 193,000 USDA acres to the Desert Nature Park so that 
they may continue their important work. The USDA-ARS has approved the 
land transfer, noting the critically important mission of the Desert 
Park. I have no doubt that Senators on both sides of the aisle will 
recognize the importance of this land transfer.
  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. 447

       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 ``Jornada Experimental Range 
     Transfer Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Chihuahuan Desert 
     Nature Park Board.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO CHIHUAHUAN DESERT NATURE PARK 
                   BOARD.

       (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary may convey to the Board, by 
     quitclaim deed, for no consideration, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the land described in 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in 
     subsection (a) consists of not more than 1000 acres of land 
     selected by the Secretary--

[[Page 2796]]

       (1) that is located in the Jornada Experimental Range in 
     the State of New Mexico; and
       (2) that is subject to an easement granted by the 
     Agricultural Research Service to the Board.
       (c) Conditions.--The conveyance of land under subsection 
     (a) shall be subject to--
       (1) the condition that the Board pay--
       (A) the cost of any surveys of the land; and
       (B) any other costs relating to the conveyance;
       (2) any rights-of-way to the land reserved by the 
     Secretary;
       (3) a covenant or restriction in the deed to the land 
     described in subsection (b) requiring that--
       (A) the land may be used only for educational purposes;
       (B) if the land is no longer used for the purposes 
     described in subparagraph (A), the land shall, at the 
     discretion of the Secretary, revert to the United States; and
       (C) if the land is determined by the Secretary to be 
     environmentally contaminated under subsection (d)(2)(A), the 
     Board shall remediate the contamination; and
       (4) any other terms and conditions that the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (d) Reversion.--If the land conveyed under subsection (a) 
     is no longer used for the purposes described in subsection 
     (c)(3)(A)--
       (1) the land shall, at the discretion of the Secretary, 
     revert to the United States; and
       (2) if the Secretary chooses to have the land revert to the 
     United States, the Secretary shall--
       (A) determine whether the land is environmentally 
     contaminated, including contamination from hazardous wastes, 
     hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, petroleum, or 
     petroleum by-products; and
       (B) if the Secretary determines that the land is 
     environmentally contaminated, the Board or any other person 
     responsible for the contamination shall remediate the 
     contamination.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Cantwell, and 
        Mrs. Murray):
  S. 448. A bill to authorize the President to posthumously award a 
gold medal on behalf of Congress to Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich and 
Roy Peratrovich in recognition of their outstanding and enduring 
contributions to the civil rights and dignity of the Native peoples of 
Alaska and the Nation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this week the people of my State of 
Alaska pause to recognize two giant figures in the fight for equal 
rights and justice under the law, the late Elizabeth and Roy 
Peratrovich. On February 16, 2005, the State of Alaska once again 
observed Elizabeth Peratrovich Day. Activities to celebrate the legacy 
of Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich are taking place in schools and 
cultural centers throughout Alaska this week. This coming Saturday, the 
Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage will conduct a day-long 
celebration of the Peratrovich legacy.
  Roy and Elizabeth are to the Native peoples of Alaska what Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks are to African Americans. Everybody 
knows about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, but hardly 
anyone outside the State of Alaska knows about Roy and Elizabeth 
Peratrovich. Today, I rise to once again share the Peratrovich legacy 
with the Senate.
  Elizabeth was born in 1911, about 17 years before Dr. King. She was 
born in Petersburg, AK. After college she married Roy Peratrovich, a 
Tlingit from Klawock, AK, and the couple had three children. Roy and 
Elizabeth moved to Juneau. They were excited about buying a new home. 
But they could not buy the house that they wanted because they were 
Native. They could not enter the stores or restaurants they wanted. 
Outside some of these stores and restaurants there were signs that read 
``No Natives Allowed.'' History has also recorded a sign that read ``No 
Dogs or Indians Allowed.''
  On December 30, 1941, following the invasion of Pearl Harbor, 
Elizabeth and Roy wrote to Alaska's Territorial Governor:

       In the present emergency our Native boys are being called 
     upon to defend our beloved country. There are no distinctions 
     being made there. Yet when we patronized good business 
     establishments we are told in most cases that Natives are not 
     allowed.
       The proprietor of one business, an inn, does not seem to 
     realize that our Native boys are just as willing to lay down 
     their lives to protect the freedom he enjoys. Instead he 
     shows his appreciation by having a `No Natives Allowed' sign 
     on his door.

  In that letter Elizabeth and Roy noted:

       We were shocked when the Jews were discriminated against in 
     Germany. Stories were told of public places having signs, 
     ``No Jews Allowed.'' All freedom loving people were horrified 
     at what was being practiced in Germany, yet it is being 
     practiced in our own country.

  In 1943, the Alaska Legislature, at the behest of Roy and Elizabeth 
considered an antidiscrimination law. It was defeated. But Roy and 
Elizabeth were not defeated. Two years later, in 1945, the 
antidiscrimination measure was back before the Alaska Terrritorial 
Legislature. It passed the lower house, but met with stiff opposition 
in the Territorial Senate.
  One by one Senators took to the floor to debate the closely contested 
legislation. One Senator argued that ``the races should be kept further 
apart.'' This Senator went on to rhetorically question, ``Who are these 
people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites 
with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us?''
  Elizabeth Peratrovich was observing the debate from the gallery. As a 
citizen, she asked to be heard and in accordance with the custom of the 
day was recognized to express her views.
  In a quiet, dignified and steady voice this ``fighter with velvet 
gloves'' responded, ``I would not have expected that I, who am barely 
out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with 5,000 years of 
recorded history behind them of our Bill of Rights.''
  She was asked by a Senator if she thought the proposed bill would 
eliminate discrimination, Elizabeth Peratrovich queried in rebuttal, 
``Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent these crimes? No 
law will eliminate crimes but at least you as legislators can assert to 
the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and 
speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination.''
  When she finished, there was a wild burst of applause from the 
gallery and the Senate floor alike. The territorial Senate passed the 
bill by a vote of 11 to 5. On February 16, 1945, Alaska had an 
antidiscrimination law that provided that all citizens of the territory 
of Alaska are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public 
accommodations. Following passage of the anti-discrimination law, Roy 
and Elizabeth could be seen dancing at the Baranof Hotel, one of 
Juneau's finest. They danced among people they didn't know. They danced 
in a place where the day before they were not welcome.
  There is an important lesson to be learned from the battles of 
Elizabeth and Roy Peratrovich. Even in defeat, they knew that change 
would come from their participation in our political system. They were 
not discouraged by their defeat in 1943. They came back fighting and 
enjoyed the fruits of their victory 2 years later.
  Twenty-four years before Alaska's statehood and 18 years before Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of his dream for racial equity under the 
law, Alaska had a law protecting civil rights. Elizabeth would not live 
to see the United States adopt the same law she brought to Alaska in 
1945. She passed away in 1958 at the age of 47, 6 years before civil 
rights legislation would pass nationally.
  In addition to the annual observance of Elizabeth Peratrovich Day, 
the State of Alaska has acknowledged Elizabeth Peratrovich's 
contribution to history by designating one of the public galleries in 
the Alaska House of Representatives as the Elizabeth Peratrovich 
Gallery.
  But what about Roy? Why has his role not been recognized? Roy 
Peratrovich passed away in 1989 at age 81. He died 9 days before the 
first Elizabeth Peratrovich Day was observed in the State of Alaska. 
Perhaps it was because Roy was still alive at the time this honor was 
bestowed, it is Elizabeth who has gotten all the credit for passage of 
the antidiscrimination
  Members of the Peratrovich family tell me that this is not entirely 
unjustified because without Elizabeth's stirring speech the 
antidiscrimination law would not have passed. But they also point out, 
as does the historical record, that Elizabeth and Roy were a

[[Page 2797]]

focused and effective team. History should recognize that the 
antidiscrimination law was enacted due to the joint efforts of Roy and 
Elizabeth Peratrovich. I rise today to do my part toward that end.
  Joined by my colleagues, the distinguished senior Senator from 
Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and my distinguished colleague from the State of 
Washington, Ms. Cantwell, I am pleased to once again offer legislation 
to recognize the contributions of Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich with a 
Congressional Gold Medal. I invite all of my colleagues to join with me 
in cosponsoring this important legislation. Congressional Gold Medals 
have been awarded to a number of African Americans who have made 
contributions to the cause of civil rights, among them, Rosa Parks, Roy 
Wilkins, Dorothy Height, the nine brave individuals who desegregated 
the schools of Little Rock, Arkansas, and others involved in the effort 
to desegregate public education.
  With the opening of the very popular National Museum of the American 
Indian last year our Nation is focusing on the many contributions of 
our first people and the challenges they have faced throughout our 
Nation's history. It is time that we also acknowledge the work of 
American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians in the struggle 
for civil rights and social justice. Honoring Elizabeth and Roy 
Peratrovich's substantial contribution with a Congressional Gold Medal 
is a fine start.
  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. 448

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Elizabeth Wanamaker, a Tlingit Indian, was born on July 
     4, 1911, in Petersburg, Alaska.
       (2) Elizabeth married Roy Peratrovich, a Tlingit Indian 
     from Klawock, Alaska, on December 15, 1931.
       (3) In 1941, the couple moved to Juneau, Alaska.
       (4) Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich discovered that they 
     could not purchase a home in the section of Juneau in which 
     they desired to live due to discrimination against Alaska 
     Natives.
       (5) In the early 1940s, there were reports that some 
     businesses in Southeast Alaska posted signs reading ``No 
     Natives Allowed''.
       (6) Roy, as Grand President of the Alaska Native 
     Brotherhood, and Elizabeth, as Grand President of the Alaska 
     Native Sisterhood, petitioned the Territorial Governor and 
     the Territorial Legislature to enact a law prohibiting 
     discrimination against Alaska Natives in public 
     accommodations.
       (7) Rebuffed by the Territorial Legislature in 1943, they 
     again sought passage of an anti-discrimination law in 1945.
       (8) On February 8, 1945, as the Alaska Territorial Senate 
     debated the anti-discrimination law, Elizabeth, who was 
     sitting in the visitor's gallery of the Senate, was 
     recognized to present her views on the measure.
       (9) The eloquent and dignified testimony given by Elizabeth 
     that day is widely credited for passage of the anti-
     discrimination law.
       (10) On February 16, 1945, Territorial Governor Ernest 
     Gruening signed into law an act prohibiting discrimination 
     against all citizens within the jurisdiction of the Territory 
     of Alaska in access to public accommodations and imposing a 
     penalty on any person who shall display any printed or 
     written sign indicating discrimination on racial grounds of 
     such full and equal enjoyment.
       (11) 19 years before Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964, and 18 years before the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther 
     King, Jr. delivered his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, one of 
     America's first antidiscrimination laws was enacted in the 
     Territory of Alaska, thanks to the efforts of Elizabeth and 
     Roy Peratrovich.
       (12) Since 1989, the State of Alaska has observed Elizabeth 
     Peratrovich Day on February 16 of each year, and a visitor's 
     gallery of the Alaska House of Representatives in the Alaska 
     State Capitol has been named for Elizabeth Peratrovich.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized. --The President is authorized, 
     on behalf of the Congress, to posthumously award a gold medal 
     of appropriate design to Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich and 
     Roy Peratrovich, in recognition of their outstanding and 
     enduring contributions to the civil rights and dignity of the 
     Native peoples of Alaska and the Nation.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For the purpose of the 
     presentation referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     the Treasury (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall strike a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and 
     inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       Under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, the 
     Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the 
     gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 at a price sufficient 
     to cover the cost thereof, including labor, materials, dies, 
     use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the 
     gold medal.

     SEC. 4. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS.

       The medals struck under this Act are national medals for 
     purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be charged against the United States Mint Public 
     Enterprise Fund such sum as may be appropriate to pay for the 
     cost of the medals authorized under section 2.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in 
     the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  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; 
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, more than 30 years have passed since 
Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act which settled 
the aboriginal land claims of the first inhabitants of Alaska by making 
each eligible Alaska Native a shareholder in 1 of 13 regional 
corporations and many of these people shareholders in a village 
corporation as well. Each of the corporations was capitalized with land 
and money.
  The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was a bold experiment, and 
its implementation was not without controversy. As originally enacted, 
the law provided that a shareholder of an Alaska Native Corporation 
could sell his or her stock on or after December 18, 1991, without any 
intervening action by the corporation.
  This provision could have resulted in massive sales of stock by 
Native shareholders in the ensuing years and caused the wholesale 
transfer of Native assets to non-Native interests. Thanks to the 
leadership of the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, this catastrophe 
was averted through a series of amendments to the Act, signed into law 
in 1987, which forbade the sale of corporate stock without the consent 
of the corporation's shareholders.
  This landmark legislation brought an end to the speculation about 
whether the Native corporations would survive long enough to fulfill 
the goal that Congress set for them, which was to be the springboard 
for the economic, social and political empowerment of Alaska's Native 
people, or alternatively execute the temporary transfer of land and 
capital which would ultimately end up in non-Native hands. I am proud, 
that none of the Native corporations have opened their stock to 
purchase by outsiders. In fact, I see nothing on the horizon to suggest 
that any of the corporations will take up this question in the 
foreseeable future.
  If history is any guide, the Alaska Native Corporations are destined 
to remain in Native hands for a long time to come. This is good news 
for the Native people of Alaska and it is good news for my State as a 
whole.
  I rise today to offer legislation, requested by the Alaska Federation 
of Natives and the Association of ANCSA Presidents and CEOs, which is 
intended to address a piece of unfinished business left by the 1987 
amendments to the act.
  Under the act, as originally passed, stock in an Alaska Native 
corporation was generally only available to an Alaska Native born on or 
before December 18, 1971 and those who might inherit stock from a 
deceased shareholder. The original legislation gave little thought to 
offering those born after December 18, 1971 a role in the corporation. 
In effect, the original legislation disenfranchised an entire 
generation born after the cutoff date from

[[Page 2798]]

having a stake in the Native corporations. It disenfranchised an entire 
generation of young people from playing a role in the governance of the 
Native corporations and from having an ownership interest in their 
Native lands.
  The 1987 amendments allowed the shareholders of a Native corporation 
to remedy this unintended consequence by allowing new stock to be 
issued to the descendants of a corporation's original shareholders 
provided that a majority of the outstanding shares agreed. Under the 
1987 amendments, such stock could only be issued to those descendants 
who had one quarter or more Alaska Native blood. A subsequent technical 
amendment allowed the stock to be issued to descendants without regard 
to their blood quantum, at the option of each corporation's 
shareholders.
  Time has demonstrated that the remedy for incorporating the 
generation born after December 18, 1971 is an imperfect one. This is 
sad because one of the most important responsibilities faced by the 
Board of Directors of any corporation is to plan for its own succession 
and the succession of the corporation's leadership.
  Since 1987, less than a handful of the 13 regional Native 
corporations have put the question of enrolling the next generation to 
their shareholders. However, all of the corporations that have 
considered the question have voted in the affirmative.
  Why then have more corporations not taken the question to a vote? The 
answer seems to lie in the voting requirements imposed by the 1987 
amendments, which essentially requires an affirmative vote of a 
supermajority of the shares represented in person or by proxy at a 
shareholder meeting. In order for a corporation to obtain an 
affirmative vote of a majority of its outstanding shares, something of 
the order of 80 percent of the corporation's stockholders must be 
represented at the meeting in person or by proxy. Under present law, 
any shareholder who does not attend the meeting or submit a proxy is 
deemed to have voted in the negative.
  When Doyon, Limited, the regional Native corporation for Interior 
Alaska, took the question of enrolling the generation of descendants 
born between 1971 and 1992 to its shareholders at its 1992 annual 
meeting, some 79.2 percent of the shareholders expressed an opinion in 
person or proxy. Still, the decision to approve the enrollment passed 
by the narrowest of margins. This was a record quorum for the 
corporation, which had 9,061 original shareholders, and the record has 
yet to be broken.
  Sealaska Corporation, the regional Native corporation for Southeast 
Alaska, had more original shareholders than any other regional Native 
corporation. Sealaska had 15,700 original shareholders, each owning 100 
shares of stock. Sealaska has never enjoyed a quorum of 79.2 percent 
and is pessimistic that such a quorum could ever be mustered. 
Accordingly, Sealaska, which has been pondering the question of 
enrolling the next generation for many years, has been deterred from 
putting the question to a stockholder vote by the supermajority voting 
requirement in the 1987 amendment.
  Whether Sealaska enrolls the generation born after 1971 is not up to 
me. It is up to the shareholders of Sealaska. But I think the Congress 
owes it to the next generation of Alaska Natives to offer a level 
playing field when it comes to participation in their Native 
corporations.
  In addressing the Alaska Native community, I often make reference to 
a marvelous book by Alexandra J. McClanahan entitled ``Growing Up 
Native in Alaska.'' In this book, A.J. profiled 27 Alaska Natives born 
between 1957 and 1976 and allowed them in their own words to speak 
about what it means to be an Alaska Native. Some of the people profiled 
in the book received stock under the 1971 act while others missed the 
deadline. I will quote from this book for the Record.
  One of these 27 Alaska Natives is Jaeleen Kookesh-Araujo, a Tlingit 
Indian, who grew up in the village of Angoon, AK. Jaeleen is a bright 
young attorney who works at one of Washington's most respected law 
firms. She is precisely the type of person who is well positioned to 
lead her regional corporation, Sealaska, into the future. And she is 
one of many Alaska Natives who was born after December 18, 1971. 
Jaeleen has an opportunity to participate in Sealaska's governance 
because her parents gave her some of their stock as a gift, but she 
remains concerned that others of her generation have been left out.
  This is what Jaeleen said about why it is important to make stock 
available to the descendants.

       I am a shareholder thanks to my parents gifting me shares, 
     but there are a lot of young people who are never going to be 
     shareholders. If you have one parent with several children, 
     they can try to allocate shares to all of them, but some may 
     be left out. Or, maybe you have a Native child who has been 
     adopted who doesn't have parents with shares--whatever. There 
     are going to be a lot of young Native people left out of this 
     corporate structure, and it's really sad. Eventually, there 
     may be a problem because you're going to have a lot of young, 
     talented Alaska Native people going out to get educated. 
     They're going to have a lot of expertise and education in 
     ways that might benefit the corporation, and yet you have to 
     wonder if they're really going to want to be involved in 
     these Native corporations that they don't even belong to. I 
     do want to be involved in the Native corporations because 
     this is my ancestors' land that they're managing and 
     developing and protecting . . .

  I am not going to tell you that each of the 27 young people that A.J. 
profiled feels the same way. Another young Native profiled in A.J.'s 
book supported the status quo in spite of the fact that he was born 2 
days after the cutoff.

       I really don't think it's necessary to adjust for the 
     future generations. The idea of gifting and willing stock is 
     a really efficient method, and I think we ought to stick with 
     that, rather than having to expand and degrade the stock, 
     allowing the children to be shareholders. It's unfair that we 
     as children born after December 18th are not shareholders, 
     but in order to keep the integrity of the stock, I think it's 
     essential that we continue on with the method of granting, 
     gifting and willing stock.

  The final quote is from a Doyon shareholder who was involved in that 
company's decision to make new stock available to those born between 
1971 and 1992.

       When I first started I thought, ``I don't want my dividend 
     to get smaller.'' I was an intern in Doyon's Shareholder 
     Relations, so I was involved in the committee that was 
     studying the issue to enroll children born after 1971. When 
     it was time to vote, I thought: ``Darned if I'm letting my 
     nieces and nephews not be involved.'' I was a total 
     turnaround. There was no way I was going to leave them out. 
     There was no difference between me and them. They were just 
     born later.

  As you can see, there may not be unanimity on the question of whether 
new stock should be made available to the descendants. But I think we 
all can agree that the debate is a healthy one and the debate will not 
take place in earnest unless Congress relaxes the supermajority 
standard imposed by the 1987 amendments.
  The legislation I am introducing today would allow the shareholders 
of a Native corporation to authorize new stock for those born after 
December 18, 1971 by a majority vote of the shares present and voting 
at a duly constituted meeting of the shareholders. Shareholders who 
want to make the stock available will have the opportunity to vote yes. 
Those who do not will have the opportunity to vote no. Those who choose 
not to participate, place the fate of the question in the hands of 
those who choose to participate. The majority prevails.
  The 1987 amendments authorized Native corporations to make additional 
shares available to Native elders and to enroll those who were eligible 
to receive stock as original shareholders but who failed to enroll. The 
number of missed enrollees is expected to be small. My legislation 
would change the voting standard for these two categories to a majority 
of the shares present and voting as well.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 449

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

[[Page 2799]]



     SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS 
                   SETTLEMENT ACT.

        Section 36(d)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1629b) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d)(3)'' and inserting ``(3)'';
       (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``of this section'' and inserting ``or an amendment to 
     articles of incorporation under section 7(g)(1)(B)'';
       (3) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``, or'' and inserting ``; or''; and
       (B) by striking ``such resolution'' and inserting ``the 
     resolution or amendment to articles of incorporation''; and
       (4) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``such resolution'' 
     and inserting ``the resolution or amendment to articles of 
     incorporation''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 450. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require 
a voter-verified paper record, to improve provisional balloting, to 
impose additional requirements under such Act, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mrs. CLINTON. 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. 450

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Count 
     Every Vote Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                TITLE I--VOTER VERIFICATION AND AUDITING

Sec. 101. Promoting accuracy, integrity, and security through 
              preservation of a voter-verified paper record or hard 
              copy.
Sec. 102. Requirement for mandatory recounts.
Sec. 103. Specific, delineated requirement of study, testing, and 
              development of best practices.
Sec. 104. Voter verification and audit capacity funding.
Sec. 105. Reports and provision of security consultation services.
Sec. 106. Improvements to voting systems.

                     TITLE II--PROVISIONAL BALLOTS

Sec. 201. Requirements for casting and counting provisional ballots.

 TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 
                                  2002

                Subtitle A--Shortening Voter Wait Times

Sec. 301. Minimum required voting systems, poll workers, and election 
              resources.
Sec. 302. Requirements for jurisdictions with substantial voter wait 
              times.

                 Subtitle B--No-Excuse Absentee Voting

Sec. 311. No-excuse absentee voting.

       Subtitle C--Collection and Dissemination of Election Data

Sec. 321. Data collection.

                Subtitle D--Ensuring Well Run Elections

Sec. 331. Training of election officials.
Sec. 332. Impartial administration of elections.

                Subtitle E--Standards for Purging Voters

Sec. 341. Standards for purging voters.

         Subtitle F--Election Day Registration and Early Voting

Sec. 351. Election day registration.
Sec. 352. Early voting.

            TITLE IV--VOTER REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION

Sec. 401. Voter registration.
Sec. 402. Establishing voter identification.
Sec. 403. Requirement for Federal certification of technological 
              security of voter registration lists.

          TITLE V--PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES

Sec. 501. Prohibition on certain campaign activities.

                  TITLE VI--ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES

Sec. 601. Ending deceptive practices.

             TITLE VII--CIVIC PARTICIPATION BY EX-OFFENDERS

Sec. 701. Voting rights of individuals convicted of criminal offenses.

                  TITLE VIII--FEDERAL ELECTION DAY ACT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Federal Election Day as a public holiday.
Sec. 803. Study on encouraging government employees to serve as poll 
              workers.

   TITLE IX--TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF ELECTORS

Sec. 901. Transmission of certificate of ascertainment of electors.

       TITLE X--STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Sec. 1001. Strengthening the Election Assistance Commission.
Sec. 1002. Repeal of exemption of Election Assistance Commission from 
              certain Government contracting requirements.
Sec. 1003. Authorization of appropriations.

                TITLE I--VOTER VERIFICATION AND AUDITING

     SEC. 101. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH 
                   PRESERVATION OF A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER RECORD 
                   OR HARD COPY.

       (a) Voter Verification and Manual Audit Capacity.--
       (1) In general.--Section 301(a)(2) of the Help America Vote 
     Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Voter verification and manual audit capacity.--
       ``(A) Voter verification.--
       ``(i) The voting system shall produce an individual voter-
     verifiable paper record of the vote that shall be made 
     available for inspection and verification by the voter before 
     the vote is cast.
       ``(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an 
     opportunity to correct any error made by the system in the 
     voter-verifiable paper record before the permanent voter-
     verified paper record is preserved in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B)(i).
       ``(B) Manual audit capacity.--The permanent voter-verified 
     paper record produced in accordance with subparagraph (A) 
     shall--
       ``(i) be preserved within the polling place, in the manner, 
     if any, in which all other paper ballots are preserved within 
     that polling place, or, in the manner employed by the 
     jurisdiction for preserving paper ballots in general, for 
     later use in any manual audit;
       ``(ii) be suitable for a manual audit equivalent to that of 
     a paper ballot voting system; and
       ``(iii) be available as the official record and shall be 
     the official record used for any recount conducted with 
     respect to any Federal election in which the system is 
     used.''.
       (2) Prohibition of use of thermal paper.--Section 301(a) of 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Prohibition of use of thermal paper.--The voter-
     verified paper record produced in accordance with paragraph 
     (2)(A) shall not be produced on thermal paper, but shall 
     instead be produced on paper of archival quality.''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 301(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the 
     Help America Vote Act (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(1)(A)(ii)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and before the paper record is 
     produced under paragraph (2)'' before the semicolon at the 
     end.
       (b) Voter-verification of Results for Individuals With 
     Disabilities and Language Minority Voters.--Paragraph (3) of 
     section 301(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 15481(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Accessibility for individuals with disabilities and 
     for language minorities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The voting system shall--
       ``(i) be accessible for individuals with disabilities, 
     including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually 
     impaired, in a manner that provides the same opportunity for 
     access, participation (including privacy and independence), 
     inspection, and verification as for other voters;
       ``(ii) be accessible for language minority individuals to 
     the extent required under section 203 of the Voting Rights 
     Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1), in a manner that provides 
     the same opportunity for access, participation (including 
     privacy and independence), inspection, and verification as 
     for other voters;
       ``(iii) satisfy the requirement of clauses (i) and (ii) 
     through the use of at least one direct recording electronic 
     voting system or other voting system equipped for individuals 
     with disabilities at each polling place; and
       ``(iv) if purchased with funds made available under title 
     II on or after November 1, 2006, meet the voting system 
     standards for disability access (as outlined in this 
     paragraph).
       ``(B) Verification requirements.--Any direct recording 
     electronic voting system or other voting system described in 
     subparagraph (A)(iii) shall use a mechanism that separates 
     the function of vote generation from the function of vote 
     casting and shall produce, in accordance with paragraph 
     (2)(A), an individual paper record which--
       ``(i) shall be used to meet the requirements of paragraph 
     (2)(B);
       ``(ii) shall be available for visual, audio, and pictorial 
     inspection and verification by the voter, with language 
     translation available for all forms of inspection and 
     verification in accordance with the requirements of section 
     203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965;
       ``(iii) shall not require the voter to handle the paper; 
     and

[[Page 2800]]

       ``(iv) shall not preclude the use of Braille or tactile 
     ballots for those voters who need them.

     The requirement of clause (iii) shall not apply to any voting 
     system certified by the Independent Testing Authorities 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       ``(C) Requirements for language minorities.--Any record 
     produced under subparagraph (B) shall be subject to the 
     requirements of section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
     to the extent such section is applicable to the State or 
     jurisdiction in which such record is produced.''.
       (c) Additional Voting System Requirements.--Section 301(a) 
     of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)), as 
     amended by subsection (a)(2), is amended by adding to the end 
     the following new paragraphs:
       ``(8) Instruction of election officials.--Each State shall 
     ensure that election officials are instructed on the right of 
     any individual who requires assistance to vote by reason of 
     blindness, other disability, or inability to read or write to 
     be given assistance by a person chosen by that individual 
     under section 208 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
       ``(9) Prohibition of use of undisclosed software in voting 
     systems.--No voting system shall at any time contain or use 
     any undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or 
     using software shall disclose the source code, object code, 
     and executable representation of that software to the 
     Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code, 
     object code, and executable representation available for 
     inspection upon request to any citizen.
       ``(10) Prohibition of use of wireless communication devices 
     in voting systems.--No voting system shall use any wireless 
     communication device.
       ``(11) Certification of software and hardware.--All 
     software and hardware used in any electronic voting system 
     shall be certified by laboratories accredited by the 
     Commission as meeting the requirements of paragraphs (9) and 
     (10).
       ``(12) Security standards for manufacturers of voting 
     systems used in federal elections.--
       ``(A) In general.--No voting system may be used in an 
     election for Federal office unless the manufacturer of such 
     system meets the requirements described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Requirements described.--The requirements described 
     in this subparagraph are as follows:
       ``(i) The manufacturer shall conduct background checks on 
     individuals who are programmers and developers before such 
     individuals work on any software used in connection with the 
     voting system.
       ``(ii) The manufacturer shall document the chain of custody 
     for the handling of software used in connection with voting 
     systems.
       ``(iii) The manufacturer shall ensure that any software 
     used in connection with the voting system is not transferred 
     over the Internet.
       ``(iv) In the same manner and to the same extent described 
     in paragraph (9), the manufacturer shall provide the codes 
     used in any software used in connection with the voting 
     system to the Commission and may not alter such codes once 
     certification by the Independent Testing Authorities has 
     occurred unless such system is recertified.
       ``(v) The manufacturer shall implement procedures to ensure 
     internal security, as required by the Director of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology.
       ``(vi) The manufacturer shall meet such other requirements 
     as may be established by the Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be 
     required to comply with the amendments made by this section 
     on and after November 1, 2006.

     SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT FOR MANDATORY RECOUNTS.

       On and after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Election Assistance Commission shall conduct random 
     unannounced manual mandatory recounts of the voter-verified 
     records of each election for Federal office (and, at the 
     option of the State or jurisdiction involved, of elections 
     for State and local office held at the same time as such an 
     election for Federal office) in 2 percent of the polling 
     locations (or, in the case of any polling location which 
     serves more than 1 precinct, 2 percent of the precincts) in 
     each State and with respect to 2 percent of the ballots cast 
     by uniformed and overseas voters immediately following the 
     election and shall promptly publish the results of those 
     recounts in the Federal Register. In addition, the 
     verification system used by the Election Assistance 
     Commission shall meet the error rate standards described in 
     section 301(a)(5) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

     SEC. 103. SPECIFIC, DELINEATED REQUIREMENT OF STUDY, TESTING, 
                   AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle C of title II of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381 et seq.) is amended by--
       (1) redesignating section 247 as section 248; and
       (2) by inserting after section 246 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 247. STUDY, TESTING, AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES 
                   TO ENHANCE ACCESSIBILITY AND VOTER-VERIFICATION 
                   MECHANISMS FOR DISABLED VOTERS.

       ``The Election Assistance Commission shall study, test, and 
     develop best practices to enhance accessibility and voter-
     verification mechanisms for individuals with disabilities.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 104. VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new part:

        ``PART 7--VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING

     ``SEC. 297. VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING.

       ``(a) Payments to States.--Subject to subsection (b), not 
     later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the Election 
     Assistance Commission shall pay to each State an amount to 
     assist the State in paying for the implementation of the 
     voter-verification and audit capacity requirements of 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 301(a), as amended by 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 2 of such Act.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The amount paid to a State under 
     subsection (a) for each voting system purchased by a State 
     may not exceed the average cost of adding a printer with 
     accessibility features to each type of voting system that the 
     State could have purchased to meet the requirements described 
     in such subsection.

     ``SEC. 298. APPROPRIATION.

       ``There are authorized and appropriated $500,000,000 to the 
     Election Assistance Commission, without fiscal year 
     limitation, to make payments to States in accordance with 
     section 297(a). Furthermore, there are authorized and 
     appropriated $20,000,000 to the Election Assistance 
     Commission, for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, in 
     addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated for 
     administrative costs to assist with conducting recounts, the 
     implementation of voter verification systems, and improved 
     security measures.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 105. REPORTS AND PROVISION OF SECURITY CONSULTATION 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle C of title II of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 103, is amended by--
       (1) redesignating section 248 as section 249; and
       (2) by inserting after section 247 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 248. REPORTS AND PROVISION OF SECURITY CONSULTATION 
                   SERVICES.

       ``(a) Report to Congress on Security Review.--Not later 
     than 6 months after the date of the enactment of the Count 
     Every Vote Act of 2005, the Commission, in consultation with 
     the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, shall submit to Congress a report on a proposed 
     security review and certification process for all voting 
     systems used in elections for Federal office, including a 
     description of the certification process to be implemented 
     under section 231.
       ``(b) Report to Congress on Operational and Management 
     Systems.--Not later than 3 months after the date of the 
     enactment of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the Commission 
     shall submit to Congress a report on operational and 
     management systems applicable with respect to elections for 
     Federal office, including the security standards for 
     manufacturers described in section 301(a)(7), that should be 
     employed to safeguard the security of voting systems, 
     together with a proposed schedule for the implementation of 
     each such system.
       ``(c) Provision of Security Consultation Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--On and after the date of the enactment 
     of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the Commission, in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, shall provide security consultation 
     services to States and local jurisdictions with respect to 
     the administration of elections for Federal office.
       ``(2) Appropriation.--To carry out the purposes of 
     paragraph (1), $2,000,000 is appropriated for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2010.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 106. IMPROVEMENTS TO VOTING SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 301(a)(1) of 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(1)(B)) 
     is amended by striking ``, a punch card voting system, or a 
     central count voting system''.
       (b) Clarification of Requirements for Punch Card Systems.--
     Subparagraph (A) of section 301(a)(1) of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(1)(A)) is amended by 
     inserting ``punch card voting system,'' after ``any''.

[[Page 2801]]

       (c) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be 
     required to comply with the amendments made by this section 
     on and after November 1, 2006.
       (d) Residual Vote Benchmark.--.
       (1) In general.--The error rate of the voting system (as 
     defined under section 301 of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002) in counting ballots (determined by taking into account 
     only those errors which are attributable to the voting system 
     and not attributable to an act of the voter) shall not exceed 
     the error rate standards established under the voting systems 
     standards issued and maintained by Election Assistance 
     Commission.
       (2) Residual ballot performance benchmark.--In addition to 
     the error rate standards described in paragraph (1), the 
     Election Assistance Commission shall issue and maintain a 
     uniform benchmark for the residual ballot error rate that 
     jurisdictions may not exceed. For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, the residual vote error rate shall be equal to the 
     combination of overvotes, spoiled or uncountable votes, and 
     undervotes cast in the contest at the top of the ballot, but 
     excluding an estimate, based upon the best available 
     research, of intentional undervotes. The Commission shall 
     base the benchmark issued and maintained under this 
     subparagraph on evidence of good practices in representative 
     jurisdictions.
       (3) Historically high intentional undervotes.--
       (A) Congress finds that there are certain distinct 
     communities in certain geographic areas that have 
     historically high rates of intentional undervoting in 
     elections for Federal office, relative to the rest of the 
     Nation.
       (B) In establishing the benchmark described in subparagraph 
     (B), the Election Assistance Commission shall--
       (i) study and report to Congress on the occurrences of 
     distinct communities that have significantly higher than 
     average rates of historical intentional undervoting; and
       (ii) promulgate for local jurisdictions in which that 
     distinct community has a substantial presence either a 
     separate benchmark or an exclusion from the national 
     benchmark, as appropriate.

                     TITLE II--PROVISIONAL BALLOTS

     SEC. 201. REQUIREMENTS FOR CASTING AND COUNTING PROVISIONAL 
                   BALLOTS.

       (a) Eligibility of Provisional Ballots.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 302(a) of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)(4)) is 
     amended by inserting at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``The determination of eligibility shall be made without 
     regard to the location at which the voter cast the 
     provisional ballot and without regard to any requirement to 
     present identification to any election official.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to States and jurisdictions on and after November 
     1, 2006.
       (b) Timely Processing of Ballots.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 302 of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(a)) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) The appropriate State election official shall 
     develop, according to guidelines established by the Election 
     Assistance Commission, reasonable procedures to assure the 
     timely processing and counting of provisional ballots, 
     including--
       ``(A) standards for timely processing and counting to 
     assure that, after the conclusion of the provisional vote 
     count, parties and candidates may have full, timely, and 
     effective recourse to the recount and contest procedures 
     provided by State law; and
       ``(B) standards for the informed participation of 
     candidates and parties such as are consistent with reasonable 
     procedures to protect the security, confidentiality, and 
     integrity of personal information collected in the course of 
     the processing and counting of provisional ballots.''.
       (2) Effective date.--Subsection (d) of section 302 of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15482(d)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Each State'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     each State''; and
       (B) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Processing.--Each State shall be required to comply 
     with the requirements of subsection (a)(6) on and after the 
     date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of the 
     Count Every Vote Act of 2005.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

 TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 
                                  2002

                Subtitle A--Shortening Voter Wait Times

     SEC. 301. MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS, POLL WORKERS, AND 
                   ELECTION RESOURCES.

       (a) Minimum Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subtitle:

                 ``Subtitle C--Additional Requirements

     ``SEC. 321. MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS AND POLL WORKERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each State shall provide for the minimum 
     required number of voting systems, poll workers, and other 
     election resources (including all other physical resources) 
     for each voting site on the day of any Federal election and 
     on any days during which such State allows early voting for a 
     Federal election in accordance with the standards determined 
     under section 299.
       ``(b) Voting Site.--For purposes of this section and 
     section 299, the term `voting site' means a polling location, 
     except that in the case of any polling location which serves 
     more than 1 precinct, such term shall mean a precinct.
       ``(c) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of this section on and after 
     October 1, 2006.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 401 of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking 
     ``and 303'' and inserting ``303, and subtitle C''.
       (b) Standards.--
       (1) In general.--Title II of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002 (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subtitle:

                  ``Subtitle E--Guidance and Standards

     ``SEC. 299. STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 
                   VOTING SYSTEMS AND POLL WORKERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2006, the 
     Commission shall issue standards regarding the minimum number 
     of voting systems, poll workers, and other election resources 
     (including all other physical resources) required under 
     section 321 on the day of any Federal election and on any 
     days during which early voting is allowed for a Federal 
     election.
       ``(b) Distribution.--
       ``(1) In general.--The standards described in subsection 
     (a) shall provide for a uniform and nondiscriminatory 
     distribution of such systems, workers, and other resources, 
     and shall take into account, among other factors, the 
     following with respect to any voting site:
       ``(A) The voting age population.
       ``(B) Voter turnout in past elections.
       ``(C) The number of voters registered.
       ``(D) The number of voters who have registered since the 
     most recent Federal election.
       ``(E) Census data for the population served by such voting 
     site.
       ``(F) The educational levels and socio-economic factors of 
     the population served by such voting site.
       ``(G) The needs and numbers of disabled voters and voters 
     with limited English proficiency.
       ``(H) The type of voting systems used.
       ``(2) No factor dispositive.--The standards shall provide 
     that any distribution of such systems shall take into account 
     the totality of all relevant factors, and no single factor 
     shall be dispositive under the standards.
       ``(3) Purpose.--To the extent possible, the standards shall 
     provide for a distribution of voting systems, poll workers, 
     and other election resources with the goals of--
       ``(A) ensuring an equal waiting time for all voters in the 
     State; and
       ``(B) preventing a waiting time of over 1 hour at any 
     polling place.
       ``(c) Deviation.--The standards described in subsection (a) 
     shall permit States, upon giving reasonable public notice, to 
     deviate from any allocation requirements in the case of 
     unforseen circumstances such as a natural disaster or 
     terrorist attack.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 202 of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15322) is amended by 
     redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs (6) and 
     (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (4) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) carrying out the duties described under subtitle 
     E;''.

     SEC. 302. REQUIREMENTS FOR JURISDICTIONS WITH SUBSTANTIAL 
                   VOTER WAIT TIMES.

       (a) In General.--The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 15301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new title:

  ``TITLE X--REMEDIAL PLANS FOR STATES WITH EXCESSIVE VOTER WAIT TIMES

     ``SEC. 1001. REMEDIAL PLANS FOR STATES WITH EXCESSIVE VOTER 
                   WAIT TIMES.

       ``(a) In General.--Each jurisdiction for which the Election 
     Assistance Commission determines that a substantial number of 
     voters waited more than 90 minutes to cast a vote in the 
     election on November 2, 2004, shall comply with a State 
     remedial plan established under this section.
       ``(b) State Remedial Plans.--For each State or jurisdiction 
     which is required to comply with this section, the Election 
     Assistance Commission shall establish a State remedial plan 
     to minimize the waiting times of voters.
       ``(c) Jurisdiction.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `jurisdiction' has the same meaning as the term `registrar's 
     jurisdiction' under section 8 of the National Voter 
     Registration Act of 1993.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 2802]]



                 Subtitle B--No-excuse Absentee Voting

     SEC. 311. NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING.

       Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002, as added by this Act, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 322. NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING.

       ``(a) In General.--Each State and jurisdiction shall permit 
     any person who is otherwise qualified to vote in an election 
     for Federal office to vote in such election in a manner other 
     than in person without regard to any restrictions on absentee 
     voting under State law.
       ``(b) Submission and Processing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any ballot cast under subsection (a) 
     shall be submitted and processed in the manner provided for 
     absentee ballots under State law.
       ``(2) Deadline.--Any ballot cast under subsection (a) shall 
     be counted if postmarked or signed before the close of the 
     polls on election day and received by the appropriate State 
     election official on or before the date which is 10 days 
     after the date of the election or the date provided for the 
     receipt of absentee ballots under State law, whichever is 
     later.
       ``(c) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be 
     required to comply with the requirements of this section on 
     and after October 1, 2006.''.

       Subtitle C--Collection and Dissemination of Election Data

     SEC. 321. DATA COLLECTION.

       Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002, as added and amended by this Act, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 323. PUBLIC REPORTS ON FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after a Federal 
     election, each State and jurisdiction shall publicly report 
     information on such election, including the following 
     information with respect to the election:
       ``(1) The total number of individuals of voting age in the 
     population.
       ``(2) The total number of individuals registered to vote.
       ``(3) The total number of registered voters who voted.
       ``(4) The number of absentee and overseas ballots 
     requested, including the numbers of such ballots requested by 
     military personnel and citizens living overseas.
       ``(5) The number of absentee and overseas ballots cast, 
     including the numbers of such ballots cast by military 
     personnel and citizens living overseas.
       ``(6) The total number of absentee and overseas ballots 
     counted, including the number of such ballots which were cast 
     by military personnel and citizens living overseas that were 
     counted.
       ``(7) The total number of absentee and overseas ballots 
     rejected, including the numbers of such ballots which were 
     cast by military personnel and citizens living overseas that 
     were rejected, and the reasons for any such rejections.
       ``(8) The number of votes cast in early voting at the polls 
     before the day of the election.
       ``(9) The number of provisional ballots cast.
       ``(10) The number of provisional ballots counted.
       ``(11) The number of provisional ballots rejected and the 
     reasons any provisional ballots were rejected.
       ``(12) The number of voting sites (within the meaning of 
     section 321(b)) in the State or jurisdiction.
       ``(13) The number of voting machines in each such voting 
     site on election day and the type of each voting machine.
       ``(14) The total number of voting machines available in the 
     State or jurisdiction for distribution to each such voting 
     site.
       ``(15) The total number of voting machines actually 
     distributed to such voting sites (including voting machines 
     distributed as replacement voting machines on the day of the 
     election).
       ``(16) The total number of voting machines of any type, 
     whether electronic or manual, that malfunctioned on the day 
     of the election and the reason for any malfunction.
       ``(17) The total number of voting machines that were 
     replaced on the day of the election.
       ``(b) Report by EAC.--The Commission shall collect the 
     information published under subsection (a) and shall report 
     to Congress not later than 9 months after any Federal 
     election the following:
       ``(1) The funding and expenditures of each State under the 
     provisions of this Act.
       ``(2) The voter turnout in the election.
       ``(3) The number of registered voters and the number of 
     individuals eligible to register who are not registered.
       ``(4) The number of voters who have registered to vote in a 
     Federal election since the most recent such election.
       ``(5) The extent to which voter registration information 
     has been shared among government agencies (including any 
     progress on implementing statewide voter registration 
     databases under section 303(a)).
       ``(6) The extent to which accurate voter information has 
     been maintained over time.
       ``(7) The number and types of new voting systems purchased 
     by States and jurisdictions.
       ``(8) The amount of time individuals waited to vote.
       ``(9) The number of early votes, provisional votes, 
     absentee ballots, and overseas ballots distributed, cast, and 
     counted.
       ``(10) The amount of training that poll workers received.
       ``(11) The number of poll workers.
       ``(12) The number of polling locations and precincts.
       ``(13) The ratio of the number of voting machines to the 
     number of registered voters.
       ``(14) any other information pertaining to electoral 
     participation as the Commission deems appropriate.
       ``(c) Each State and jurisdiction shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of this section on and after 
     November 1, 2006.''.

                Subtitle D--Ensuring Well Run Elections

     SEC. 331. TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS.

       Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002, as added and amended by this Act, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 324. TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each State and jurisdiction shall 
     require that each person who works in a polling place during 
     an election for Federal office receives adequate training not 
     earlier than 3 months before the election.
       ``(b) Training.--The training required under subsection (a) 
     shall, at a minimum, include--
       ``(1) hands-on training on all voting systems used in the 
     election;
       ``(2) training on accommodating individuals with 
     disabilities, individuals who are of limited English 
     proficiency, and individuals who are illiterate;
       ``(3) training on requirements for the identification of 
     voters;
       ``(4) training on the appropriate use of provisional 
     ballots and the process for casting such ballots;
       ``(5) training on registering voters on the day of the 
     election;
       ``(6) training on which individuals have the authority to 
     challenge voter eligibility and the process for any such 
     challenges; and
       ``(7) training on security procedures.
       ``(c) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be 
     required to comply with the requirements of this section on 
     and after August 1, 2006.''.

     SEC. 332. IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS.

       Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002, as added and amended by this Act, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 325. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Publication of State Election Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State shall be required to publish 
     all State laws, regulations, procedures, and practices 
     relating to Federal elections on January 1 of each year in 
     which there is a regularly scheduled election for a Federal 
     office.
       ``(2) Maintenance of laws on the internet.--Each State 
     shall be required to maintain an updated version of all 
     material published under paragraph (1) on an easily 
     accessible public web site on the Internet.
       ``(b) Notice of Changes in State Election Laws.--Not later 
     than 15 days prior to any Federal election, each State shall 
     issue a public notice describing all changes in State law 
     affecting voting in Federal elections and the administration 
     of Federal elections since the most recent prior such 
     election. If any State or local government makes any change 
     affecting the administration of Federal elections within 15 
     days of a Federal election, the State or local government 
     shall provide adequate public notice.
       ``(c) Observers.--
       ``(1) Standards.--Each State shall issue nondiscriminatory 
     standards for granting access to nonpartisan election 
     observers. Such standards shall take into account the need to 
     avoid disruption and crowding in polling places.
       ``(2) In general.--Each State shall allow uniform and 
     nondiscriminatory access to any polling place for purposes of 
     observing a Federal election to nonpartisan domestic 
     observers (including voting rights and civil rights 
     organizations) and international observers in accordance with 
     the standards published under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Notice of denial of observation request.--Each State 
     shall issue a public notice with respect to any denial of a 
     request by any observer described in paragraph (2) for access 
     to any polling place for purposes of observing a Federal 
     election. Such notice shall be issued not later than 24 hours 
     after such denial.
       ``(d) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of this section on and after 
     October 1, 2006.''.

                Subtitle E--Standards for Purging Voters

     SEC. 341. STANDARDS FOR PURGING VOTERS.

       Subtitle C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002, as added and amended by this Act, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 326. REMOVAL FROM VOTER REGISTRATION LIST.

       ``(a) Public Notice.--Not later than 45 days before any 
     Federal election, each State shall provide public notice of--

[[Page 2803]]

       ``(1) all names which have been removed from the voter 
     registration list of such State under section 303 since the 
     later of the most recent election for Federal office or the 
     day of the most recent previous public notice provided under 
     this section; and
       ``(2) the criteria, processes, and procedures used to 
     determine which names were removed.
       ``(b) Notice to Individual Voters.--
       ``(1) In general.--No individual shall be removed from the 
     voter registration list under section 303 unless such 
     individual is first provided with a notice which meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Requirements of notice.--The notice required under 
     paragraph (1) shall be--
       ``(A) provided to each voter in a uniform and 
     nondiscriminatory manner;
       ``(B) consistent with the requirements of the National 
     Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.); 
     and
       ``(C) in the form and manner prescribed by the Election 
     Assistance Commission.
       ``(c) Privacy.--No State or jurisdiction may disclose the 
     reason for the removal of any voter from the voter 
     registration list unless ordered to do so by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction.
       ``(d) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of this section on and after 
     September 1, 2006.''.

         Subtitle F--Election Day Registration and Early Voting

     SEC. 351. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION.

       (a) Requirement.--Subtitle C of title III of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 327. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Registration.--Notwithstanding section 8(a)(1)(D) of 
     the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 
     1973gg-6), each State shall permit any individual on the day 
     of a Federal election--
       ``(A) to register to vote in such election at the polling 
     place using the form established by the Election Assistance 
     Commission pursuant to section 299A; and
       ``(B) to cast a vote in such election and have that vote 
     counted in the same manner as a vote cast by an eligible 
     voter who properly registered during the regular registration 
     period.
       ``(2) Exception.--The requirements under paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to a State in which, under a State law in 
     effect continuously on and after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, there is no voter registration requirement for 
     individuals in the State with respect to elections for 
     Federal office.
       ``(b) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after 
     October 1, 2006.''.
       (b) Election Day Registration Form.--Subtitle E of title II 
     of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as added by this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 299A. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION FORM.

       ``The Commission shall develop an election day registration 
     form for elections for Federal office.''.

     SEC. 352. EARLY VOTING.

       (a) Requirements.--Subtitle C of title III of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 328. EARLY VOTING.

       ``(a) In General.--Each State shall allow individuals to 
     vote in an election for Federal office not less than 15 days 
     prior to the day scheduled for such election in the same 
     manner as voting is allowed on such day.
       ``(b) Minimum Early Voting Requirements.--Each polling 
     place which allows voting prior to the day of a Federal 
     election pursuant to subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) allow such voting for no less than 4 hours on each 
     day (other than Sunday); and
       ``(2) have minimum uniform hours each day for which such 
     voting occurs.
       ``(c) Application of Election Day Registration to Early 
     Voting.--A State shall permit individuals to register to vote 
     at each polling place which allows voting prior to the day of 
     a Federal election pursuant to subsection (a) in the same 
     manner as the State is required to permit individuals to 
     register to vote and vote on the day of the election under 
     section 327.
       ``(d) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of this section on and after 
     October 1, 2006.''.
       (b) Standards for Early Voting.--Subtitle E of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 299B. STANDARDS FOR EARLY VOTING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Commission shall issue standards for 
     the administration of voting prior to the day scheduled for a 
     Federal election. Such standards shall include the 
     nondiscriminatory geographic placement of polling places at 
     which such voting occurs and the public listing of the date, 
     time, and location of polling places no earlier than 10 days 
     before the date on which such voting begins.
       ``(b) Deviation.--The standards described in subsection (a) 
     shall permit States, upon giving reasonable public notice, to 
     deviate from any requirement in the case of unforeseen 
     circumstances such as a natural disaster or a terrorist 
     attack.''.

            TITLE IV--VOTER REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION

     SEC. 401. VOTER REGISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 303(b) of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(b)(4)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Exception.--On and after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act--
       ``(i) in lieu of the questions and statements required 
     under subparagraph (A), such mail voter registration form 
     shall include an affidavit to be signed by the registrant 
     attesting both to citizenship and age; and
       ``(ii) subparagraph (B) shall not apply.''.
       (b) Processing of Registration Applications.--
       (1) In general.--Subtitle C of title III of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 329. PROCESSING OF REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, each State and jurisdiction shall accept and process a 
     voter registration application for an election for Federal 
     office unless there is a material omission or information 
     that specifically affects the eligibility of the voter.
       ``(b) Presumption to Register.--There shall be a 
     presumption that persons who submit voter registration 
     applications should be registered.
       ``(c) Presumption to Cure Material Omission.--Each State 
     and jurisdiction shall--
       ``(1) provide a process to permit voters an opportunity to 
     cure any material omission within a reasonable period of 
     time; and
       ``(2) accept any application which is so cured as having 
     been filed on the date on which such application is 
     originally received.
       ``(d) Effective Date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be 
     required to comply with the requirements of this subsection 
     on and after October 1, 2006.''.
       (2) Material omission.--Subtitle E of title II of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 299C. STANDARDS FOR MATERIAL OMISSION FROM 
                   REGISTRATION FORMS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Election Assistance Commission shall 
     establish guidelines as to what does and does not constitute 
     a `material omission or information that specifically affects 
     the eligibility of the voter' for purposes of section 329.
       ``(b) Certain Information Not a Material Omission.--In 
     establishing the guidelines under subsection (a), the 
     Commission shall provide that the following shall not 
     constitute a `material omission or information that 
     specifically affects the eligibility of the voter':
       ``(1) The failure to provide a social security number or 
     driver's license number.
       ``(2) The failure to provide information concerning 
     citizenship or age in a manner other than the attestation 
     required under section 9(b)(2) of the National Voter 
     Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973-gg-7).''.
       (c) Internet Registration.--
       (1) In general.--Subtitle C of title II of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381), as added and amended by 
     this Act, is amended by redesignating section 249 as section 
     250 and by inserting after section 248 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 249. STUDY ON INTERNET REGISTRATION AND OTHER USES OF 
                   THE INTERNET IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

       ``(a) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study on--
       ``(1) the feasibility of voter registration through the 
     Internet for Federal elections; and
       ``(2) other uses of the Internet in Federal elections, 
     including--
       ``(A) the use of the Internet to publicize information 
     related to Federal elections; and
       ``(B) the use of the Internet to vote in Federal elections.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the 
     Commission shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the study conducted under subsection (a).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 402. ESTABLISHING VOTER IDENTIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) In person voting.--Clause (i) of section 303(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
     15483(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end 
     of subclause (I) and by adding at the end the following new 
     subclause:

       ``(III) executes a written affidavit attesting to such 
     individual's identity; or''.

       (2) Voting by mail.--Clause (ii) of section 303(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
     15483(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end 
     of subclause (I), by striking the period at the end of 
     subclause (II) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new subclause:

[[Page 2804]]

       ``(III) a written affidavit, executed by such individual, 
     attesting to such individual's identity.''.

       (3) Effective date.--Each State and jurisdiction shall be 
     required to comply with the amendments made by this 
     subsection on and after November 1, 2006.
       (b) Standards for Verifying Voter Information.--Subtitle E 
     of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by 
     this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 299D. VOTER IDENTIFICATION.

       ``The Commission shall develop standards for verifying the 
     identification information required under section 303(a)(5) 
     in connection with the registration of an individual to vote 
     in a Federal election.''.
       (c) Funding for Free Photo Identifications.--Subtitle D of 
     title II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
     15401 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

                     ``PART 8--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

     ``SEC. 298A. PAYMENTS FOR FREE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to any other payments made 
     under this subtitle, the Election Assistance Commission shall 
     make payments to States to promote the issuance to registered 
     voters of free photo identifications.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--A State receiving a payment under this 
     part shall use the payment only to provide free photo 
     identification cards to registered voters who do not have an 
     identification card and who cannot obtain an identification 
     card without undue hardship.
       ``(c) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the grant made to a State 
     under this part for a year shall be equal to the product of--
       ``(A) the total amount appropriated for payments under this 
     part for the year under section 298B; and
       ``(B) an amount equal to--
       ``(i) the voting age population of the State (as reported 
     in the most recent decennial census); divided by
       ``(ii) the total voting age of all eligible States which 
     submit an application for payments under this part (as 
     reported in the most recent decennial census).

     ``SEC. 298B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to any other amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under this subtitle, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006 and such sums as are necessary for each subsequent 
     fiscal year for the purpose of making payments under section 
     298A.
       ``(b) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     the authority of this section shall remain available until 
     expended.''.

     SEC. 403. REQUIREMENT FOR FEDERAL CERTIFICATION OF 
                   TECHNOLOGICAL SECURITY OF VOTER REGISTRATION 
                   LISTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 303(a)(3) of the Help America Vote 
     Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15483(a)(3)) is amended by striking 
     ``measures to prevent the'' and inserting ``measures, as 
     certified by the Election Assistance Commission, to 
     prevent''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

          TITLE V--PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 501. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 319 the following new section:


     ``CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES BY ELECTION OFFICIALS AND VOTING SYSTEM 
                             MANUFACTURERS

       ``Sec. 319A. (a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) Chief state election officials.--It shall be unlawful 
     for any chief State election official to take part in 
     prohibited political activities with respect to any election 
     for Federal office over which such official has managerial 
     authority.
       ``(2) Voting system manufacturers.--It shall be unlawful 
     for any person who owns or serves as the chief executive 
     officer, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, or 
     president of any entity that designs or manufacturers a 
     voting system to take part in prohibited political activities 
     with respect to any election for a Federal office for which a 
     voting system produced by such manufacturer is used.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Chief state election official.--The term `chief State 
     election official' means the individual designated as such 
     under section 10 of the National Voter Registration Act of 
     1993.''
       ``(2) Prohibited political activities.--The term 
     `prohibited political activities' means campaigning to 
     support or oppose a candidate or slate of candidates for 
     Federal office, making public speeches in support of such a 
     candidate, fundraising and collecting contributions on behalf 
     of such a candidate, distributing campaign materials with 
     respect to such a candidate, organizing campaign events with 
     respect to such a candidate, and serving in any position on 
     any political campaign committee of such a candidate.
       ``(b) Ownership.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), a 
     person shall be considered to own an entity if such person 
     controls at least 20 percent, by vote or value, of the 
     entity.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

                  TITLE VI--ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES

     SEC. 601. ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes 
     (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``No person'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--No person''; and
       (B) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Deceptive acts.--No person, whether acting under 
     color of law or otherwise, shall knowingly deceive any other 
     person regarding the time, place, or manner of conducting a 
     general, primary, run-off, or special election for the office 
     of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of 
     the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, 
     Delegates, or Commissioners from the Territories or 
     possessions; nor shall any person knowingly deceive any 
     person regarding the qualifications or restrictions of voter 
     eligibility for any general, primary, run-off, or special 
     election for the office of President, Vice President, 
     presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the 
     House of Representatives, Delegates, or Commissioners from 
     the Territories or possessions.''.
       (2) The heading of section 2004(b) of the Revised Statutes 
     is amended by striking ``or coercion'' and inserting 
     ``coercion, or deceptive acts''.
       (b) Criminal Penalty.--Section 594 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Intimidation.--Whoever''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(b) Deceptive Acts.--Whoever knowingly deceives any 
     person regarding--
       ``(1) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general, 
     primary, run-off, or special election for the office of 
     President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of 
     the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, 
     Delegates, or Commissioners from the Territories or 
     possessions; or
       ``(2) the qualifications or restrictions of voter 
     eligibility for any general, primary, run-off or special 
     election for the office of President, Vice President, 
     presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the 
     House of Representatives, Delegates, or Commissioners from 
     the Territories or possessions

     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one 
     year, or both.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

             TITLE VII--CIVIC PARTICIPATION BY EX-OFFENDERS

     SEC. 701. VOTING RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL 
                   OFFENSES.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the Civic 
     Participation Act of 2005.
       (b) Findings and Purpose.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (A) The right to vote is the most basic constitutive act of 
     citizenship and regaining the right to vote reintegrates 
     offenders into free society. The right to vote may not be 
     abridged or denied by the United States or by any State on 
     account of race, color, gender, or previous condition of 
     servitude. Basic constitutional principles of fairness and 
     equal protection require an equal opportunity for United 
     States citizens to vote in Federal elections.
       (B) Congress has ultimate supervisory power over Federal 
     elections, an authority that has repeatedly been upheld by 
     the Supreme Court.
       (C) Although State laws determine the qualifications for 
     voting in Federal elections, Congress must ensure that those 
     laws are in accordance with the Constitution. Currently, 
     those laws vary throughout the Nation, resulting in 
     discrepancies regarding which citizens may vote in Federal 
     elections.
       (D) An estimated 4,700,000 individuals in the United 
     States, or 1 in 44 adults, currently cannot vote as a result 
     of a felony conviction. Women represent about 676,000 of 
     those 4,700,000.
       (E) State disenfranchisement laws disproportionately impact 
     ethnic minorities.
       (F) Fourteen States disenfranchise some or all ex-offenders 
     who have fully served their sentences, regardless of the 
     nature or seriousness of the offense.
       (G) In those States that disenfranchise ex-offenders who 
     have fully served their sentences, the right to vote can be 
     regained in theory, but in practice this possibility is often 
     illusory.
       (H) In those States that disenfranchise ex-offenders, an 
     ex-offender's right to vote can only be restored through a 
     gubernatorial pardon or order, or a certificate granted by a 
     parole board. Some States require waiting periods as long as 
     10 years after completion of the sentence before an ex-
     offender can initiate the application for restoration of the 
     right to vote.

[[Page 2805]]

       (I) Offenders convicted of a Federal offense often have 
     additional barriers to regaining voting rights. Many States 
     do not offer a restoration procedure for Federal offenders 
     who have completed supervision. The only method available to 
     such persons is a Presidential pardon.
       (J) Few persons who seek to have their right to vote 
     restored have the financial and political resources needed to 
     succeed.
       (K) Thirteen percent of the African-American adult male 
     population, or 1,400,000 African-American men, are 
     disenfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, 3 in 
     10 African-American men in the next generation will be 
     disenfranchised at some point during their lifetimes. 
     Hispanic citizens are also disproportionately 
     disenfranchised, since those citizens are disproportionately 
     represented in the criminal justice system.
       (L) The discrepancies described in this paragraph should be 
     addressed by Congress, in the name of fundamental fairness 
     and equal protection.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to restore 
     fairness in the Federal election process by ensuring that ex-
     offenders who have fully served their sentences are not 
     denied the right to vote.
       (c) Definitions.--In this title:
       (1) Correctional institution or facility.--The term 
     ``correctional institution or facility'' means any prison, 
     penitentiary, jail, or other institution or facility for the 
     confinement of individuals convicted of criminal offenses, 
     whether publicly or privately operated, except that such term 
     does not include any residential community treatment center 
     (or similar public or private facility).
       (2) Election.--The term ``election'' means--
       (A) a general, special, primary, or runoff election;
       (B) a convention or caucus of a political party held to 
     nominate a candidate;
       (C) a primary election held for the selection of delegates 
     to a national nominating convention of a political party; or
       (D) a primary election held for the expression of a 
     preference for the nomination of persons for election to the 
     office of President.
       (3) Federal office.--The term ``Federal office'' means the 
     office of President or Vice President, or of Senator or 
     Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, 
     Congress.
       (4) Parole.--The term ``parole'' means parole (including 
     mandatory parole), or conditional or supervised release 
     (including mandatory supervised release), imposed by a 
     Federal, State, or local court.
       (5) Probation.--The term ``probation'' means probation, 
     imposed by a Federal, State, or local court, with or without 
     a condition on the individual involved concerning--
       (A) the individual's freedom of movement;
       (B) the payment of damages by the individual;
       (C) periodic reporting by the individual to an officer of 
     the court; or
       (D) supervision of the individual by an officer of the 
     court.
       (d) Rights of Citizens.--The right of an individual who is 
     a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for 
     Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that 
     individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless, 
     at the time of the election, such individual--
       (1) is serving a felony sentence in a correctional 
     institution or facility; or
       (2) is on parole or probation for a felony offense
       (e) Enforcement.--
       (1) Attorney general.--The Attorney General may bring a 
     civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain 
     such declaratory or injunctive relief as is necessary to 
     remedy a violation of this section.
       (2) Private right of action.--
       (A) Notice.--A person who is aggrieved by a violation of 
     this section may provide written notice of the violation to 
     the chief election official of the State involved.
       (B) Action.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), if the 
     violation is not corrected within 90 days after receipt of a 
     notice provided under subparagraph (A), or within 20 days 
     after receipt of the notice if the violation occurred within 
     120 days before the date of an election for Federal office, 
     the aggrieved person may bring a civil action in such a court 
     to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to 
     the violation.
       (C) Action for violation shortly before a federal 
     election.--If the violation occurred within 30 days before 
     the date of an election for Federal office, the aggrieved 
     person shall not be required to provide notice to the chief 
     election official of the State under subparagraph (A) before 
     bringing a civil action in such a court to obtain declaratory 
     or injunctive relief with respect to the violation.
       (f) Relation to Other Laws.--
       (1) No prohibition on less restrictive laws.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed to prohibit a State from 
     enacting any State law that affords the right to vote in any 
     election for Federal office on terms less restrictive than 
     those terms established by this section.
       (2) No limitation on other laws.--The rights and remedies 
     established by this section shall be in addition to all other 
     rights and remedies provided by law, and shall not supersede, 
     restrict, or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act 
     of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973 et seq.) or the National Voter 
     Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.).
       (g) Notification of Restoration of Voting Rights.--Subtitle 
     C of title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as added 
     and amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 330. NOTIFICATION OF RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS.

       ``(a) Notification.--
       ``(1) In general.--On the date determined under subsection 
     (b), each State shall notify any qualified ex-offender who 
     resides in the State that such qualified ex-offender has the 
     right to vote in an election for Federal office pursuant to 
     the Civic Participation Act of 2005 and may register to vote 
     in any such election.
       ``(2) Qualified ex-offender.--For the purpose of this 
     section, the term `qualified ex-offender' means any 
     individual who resides in the State who has been convicted of 
     a criminal offense and is not serving a felony sentence in a 
     correctional institution or facility and who is not on parole 
     or probation for a felony offense.
       ``(b) Date of Notification.--The notification required 
     under subsection (a) shall be given on the later of the date 
     on which such individual is released from a correctional 
     institution or facility for serving a felony sentence or the 
     date on which such individual is released from parole for a 
     felony offense.
       ``(c) Definitions.--Any term which is used in this section 
     that is also used in the Civic Participation Act of 2005 
     shall have the meaning given to such term in that Act.
       ``(d) Effective Date.--Each State shall be required to 
     comply with the requirements of this section on and after the 
     date of the enactment of the Civic Participation Act of 
     2005.''.
       (h) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall apply to citizens of 
     the United States voting in any election for Federal office 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Amendments.--The amendment made by subsection (g) shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

                  TITLE VIII--FEDERAL ELECTION DAY ACT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Federal Election Day Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 802. FEDERAL ELECTION DAY AS A PUBLIC HOLIDAY.

       (a) Election Day as a Federal Holiday.--Section 6103(a) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the matter relating to Columbus Day, the following 
     undesignated paragraph:
        ``Federal Election Day, the Tuesday next after the first 
     Monday in November in each even numbered year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 241(b) of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381(b)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (10) and by redesignating paragraphs (11) 
     through (19) as paragraphs (10) through (18), respectively.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 803. STUDY ON ENCOURAGING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO SERVE 
                   AS POLL WORKERS.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle C of title II of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15381), as added and amended by 
     this Act, is amended by redesignating section 250 as section 
     250A and by inserting after section 249 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 250. STUDY ON ENCOURAGING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO 
                   SERVE AS POLL WORKERS.

       ``(a) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study on 
     appropriate methods to encourage State and local government 
     employees to serve as poll workers in Federal elections.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, the 
     Commission shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the study conducted under subsection (a).
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 210 for fiscal 
     year 2006, $100,000 shall be authorized solely to carry out 
     the purposes of this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

   TITLE IX--TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF ELECTORS

     SEC. 901. TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF 
                   ELECTORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of title 3, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and before the date that is 6 days 
     before the date on which the electors are to meet under 
     section 7,'' after ``under and in pursuance of the laws of 
     such State providing for such ascertainment,''; and
       (2) by striking ``by registered mail'' and inserting ``by 
     overnight courier''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 2806]]



       TITLE X--STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

     SEC. 1001. STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.

       (a) Rulemaking Authority.--Part 1 of subtitle A of Title II 
     of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15321 et 
     seq.) is amended by striking section 209.
       (b) Budget Requests.--Part 1 of subtitle A of title II of 
     the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15321 et seq.), 
     as amended by subsection (a), is amended by inserting after 
     section 208 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 209. SUBMISSION OF BUDGET REQUESTS.

       ``Whenever the Commission submits any budget estimate or 
     request to the President or the Office of Management and 
     Budget, it shall concurrently transmit a copy of such 
     estimate or request to the Congress and to the Committee on 
     House Administration of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.''.
       (c) Exemption From Paperwork Reduction Act.--Paragraph (1) 
     of section 3502 of title 44, United States Code, is amended 
     by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) the Election Assistance Commission;''.
       (d) NIST Authority.--Subtitle E of title II of the Help 
     America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 299E. TECHNICAL SUPPORT.

       ``At the request of the Commission, the Director of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology shall provide 
     the Commission with technical support necessary for the 
     Commission to carry out its duties under this title.''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 210 of the 
     Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15330) is amended by 
     striking ``for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005 such 
     sums as may be necessary (but not to exceed $10,000,000 for 
     each such year)'' and inserting ``$35,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006 (of which $4,000,000 are authorized solely to carry out 
     the purposes of section 299E) and such sums as may be 
     necessary for the succeeding fiscal year''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1002. REPEAL OF EXEMPTION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE 
                   COMMISSION FROM CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 205 of the Help America Vote Act 
     of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15325) is amended by striking subsection 
     (e).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to contracts entered into by the 
     Election Assistance Commission on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1003. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Subsection (a) of section 257 of the Help America Vote Act 
     of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15408(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) For fiscal year 2006, $3,000,000,000.
       ``(5) For each fiscal year after 2006, such sums as are 
     necessary.''.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I join Senator Clinton in 
introducing the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.
  The 2000 election exposed a number of serious problems with the 
accuracy and fairness of election procedures in this country, as well 
as the reliability of certain types of voting technology. As a result 
of those irregularities, many eligible voters were effectively 
disenfrachised and thus deprived of one of our most fundamental rights.
  In the 2004 election, we again saw serious irregularities when voters 
across this country went to the polls to cast their votes. From 
untrustworthy electronic voting machines, to partisan secretaries of 
state, to outrageously long lines at the polls, the election system was 
far from what voters are entitled to have.
  At Kenyon College in Ohio, for example, voters were made to wait in 
line until nearly 4 a.m. to vote because there were only two machines 
for 1,300 voters. In the Columbus area alone, an estimated 5,000 to 
10,000 voters left polling places, out of frustration, without having 
voted. In Cleveland, thousands of provisional ballots were disqualified 
after poll workers gave faulty instructions to voters.
  Because of these irregularities--as well as voting irregularities in 
many other places--I joined Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio 
in objecting to the certification of the Ohio electoral votes on 
January 7, 2005. I did this to cast the light of truth on a flawed 
system that must be fixed now. Americans deserve a system where every 
vote is counted and can be verified. And, Congress must do more to give 
confidence to all of our people that their votes matter.
  In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which took 
important steps toward electoral reform. Since the enactment of HAVA, 
however, concerns have been raised about the security of voting 
machines and the inability of the majority of voters who may use these 
machines to be able to adequately verify their vote and to ensure that 
the vote they intended was both cast and counted. In addition, many 
other problems in our Federal election system--including long wait 
times in which to vote, the erroneous purging of voters, voter 
suppression and intimidation, and unequal access to the voting 
process--remain.
  Last year, I sponsored legislation to address some of these issues. I 
also joined Senator Clinton and former Senator Bob Graham in 
introducing an election reform bill. I am pleased to again join Senator 
Clinton today to introduce the Count Every Vote Act of 2005--the CEVA 
Voting Act. It requires voting machines to have a voter-verified paper 
trail for use by all individuals, including language minority voters, 
illiterate voters, and voters with disabilities; and it mandates 
national standards in the registration of voters and the counting of 
provisional ballots. All provisions of this legislation are to be in 
effect no later than the November 2006 Federal election.
  Mr. President, in a democracy, the vote of every citizen counts. We 
must make sure that every citizen's vote is counted--and counted 
accurately and fairly so that the American people have confidence in 
the results. HAVA was a good first step. The CEVA Voting Act is the 
next step, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 451. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all 
dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Pet Safety 
and Protection Act of 2005. My legislation amends the Animal Welfare 
Act to ensure that all companion animals such as dogs and cats used by 
research facilities are obtained legally.
  Over 30 years ago, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act, AWA, 
authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to set and enforce standards 
protecting animals used in biomedical research, bred for commercial 
sale, exhibited to the public, or commercially transported from 
inhumane treatment. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the AWA and 
the enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, 
the act fails to provide reliable protection against the actions of 
some unethical animal dealers.
  Under the AWA, class B animal dealers are defined as individuals 
whose business includes the purchase, sale, or transport of animals in 
commerce, including dogs and cats intended for use at research 
facilities. To the dismay of animal welfare advocates and pet owners, 
some class B, or ``random source,'' dealers have resorted to theft and 
deception to collect animals for resale. In many instances these 
animals were found living under inhumane conditions.
  As recently as August of 2003, USDA agents executed a warrant to 
investigate a class B dealer from Arkansas suspected of violations of 
the AWA for the second time in several years. Many claims have been 
levied against this dealer, and approximately 125 dogs were seized by 
federal agents during this week-long search. The complaint investigated 
by the USDA against the dealer alleged that the respondents' 
veterinarian provided for them falsified official health certificates 
for cats and dogs, and also provided them with blank, undated, and 
signed health certificates. It also alleged that the dealer failed to 
provide the barest standards of care, husbandry, and housing for the 
animals on the premises. In addition, it alleged that its proprietors 
were aware that some of the companion animals brought to the facility 
were stolen, and that the business maintained a list of over 50 
``bunchers,'' individuals who obtain animals and sell them to ``random

[[Page 2807]]

source'' animal dealers. Bunchers have a variety of methods of 
obtaining companion animals, including responding to newspaper ads 
offering free animals, trespassing on private property to abduct the 
animals from yards, and house burglaries.
  I am pleased to report that the civil trial against this class B 
dealer was settled on January 28, 2005. Under the agreement, the dealer 
and others associated with the business had their licenses permanently 
revoked. In addition, fines up to $262,700 were imposed by the USDA, 
which included a personal civil penalty of $12,700. The dealer also is 
prohibited from engaging in any activities under which the licenses 
were revoked for 5 years.
  While this case resulted in a landmark settlement, I would like to 
remind my colleagues that if it were not for an outside organization 
that filed a complaint with the USDA, this class B dealer could still 
be in operation today. We, in Congress, need to ensure that dealers 
such as the one in Arkansas are unable to acquire, house, and sell 
pets.
  The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 strengthens the AWA by 
prohibiting the use of class B dealers as suppliers of dogs and cats to 
research laboratories. Contrary to what others might say, my 
legislation will not be a burden on research facilities because only 2 
percent of the approximately 2,051 class B dealers in the United States 
currently sell cats and dogs to research facilities.
  I am not here to argue whether animals should or should not be used 
in research. Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle 
against disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the 
fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of 
other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and 
continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine. However, I am 
concerned with the sale of stolen pets and stray animals to research 
facilities and the poor treatment of these animals by some class B 
dealers.
  My legislation preserves the integrity of animal research by 
encouraging research laboratories to obtain animals from legitimate 
sources that comply with the AWA. Legitimate sources for animals 
include USDA-licensed class A dealers, breeders, and research 
facilities, municipal pounds and shelters, and legitimate pet owners 
who want to donate their animals to research. These sources are capable 
of meeting the demand for research animals. The National Institutes of 
Health, in an effort to curb abuse and deception, have already adopted 
policies against the acquisition of dogs and cats from class B dealers.
  The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2005 also reduces the USDA's 
regulatory burden by allowing the Department to use its resources more 
efficiently and effectively. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent 
on regulating dealers. To discourage any future violations of the AWA, 
my bill increases the penalties to a minimum of $1,000 per violation.
  I reiterate that this bill in no way impairs or impedes research but 
will end the fraudulent practices of some class B dealers, as well as 
the unnecessary suffering of these animals in their care. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE:
  S. 452. A bill to provide for the establishment of national and 
global tsunami warning systems and to provide assistance for the relief 
and rehabilitation of victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami and for the 
reconstruction of tsunami-affected countries; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
the Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act, to significantly decrease 
losses in the event of a future tsunami anywhere in the world. This 
bill would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
NOAA, to establish and administer a Global Tsunami Disaster Reduction 
Program, based on the successful program which NOAA operates in the 
Pacific Ocean.
  I traveled to South and Southeast Asia in the wake of last year's 
Indian Ocean tsunami that led to the death of more than 160,000 people 
and a widespread humanitarian crisis. What I witnessed in Indonesia, 
Thailand and Sri Lanka was the most incredible destruction I have ever 
seen. I can only imagine that the devastation from the tsunami rivals 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the level of sheer destruction, damage, 
displacement and loss of life.
  Around the world, and right here in the United States, highly 
populated coastal areas are vulnerable to potential devastation on the 
scale of the Indian Ocean tsunami. As we continue to assist our South 
Asian friends in their reconstruction effort, we must also do 
everything in our ability to reduce human, ecological and economic 
damage in the event of another tsunami. We cannot allow such a natural 
disaster to separate families, orphan children and destroy livelihoods 
once again.
  There is no magic solution. Coastal areas, by nature, will face 
significant damage if a tsunami strikes. However, an advance warning 
would go a long way to reduce the loss of life in particular. Had 
governments in South Asia been able to inform their citizens of the 
approaching tsunami, tourists would not have been tanning on the beach 
and coastal markets would not have been obliviously going about their 
everyday business. While they would not have been perfect, rudimentary 
coastal evacuations could have taken place--and as a result we would 
not see the awful human cost that I witnessed this January.
  We currently operate an effective warning system in the Pacific 
Ocean, which warns our citizens and coastal governments about potential 
tsunami threats faced in Hawaii, Alaska and West Coast states. This 
system utilizes a sophisticated network of buoys in the Pacific Ocean 
that monitor rising and falling water levels. Using this data, and 
seismic observation of the ocean floor, NOAA is able to adequately 
assess the threat posed to coastal residents by natural activity in the 
Pacific and inform emergency service agencies in regions that face 
imminent threats.
  The Tsunami Early Warning and Relief Act would expand NOAA's 
successful Pacific tsunami monitoring and communications program to the 
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Indian Ocean, and other areas around the 
world that are vulnerable to tsunamis. Furthermore, this legislation 
expands NOAA's Tsunami Ready Program, which disseminates tsunami 
communications to coastal communities and coordinates evacuation 
strategies for these regions.
  In conclusion, expansion of tsunami warning and readiness programs 
are critical to the lives and livelihoods of coastal residents in the 
United States and around the world. For all of us, the devastating 
aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami is a call to action that we must 
improve our reflexes when it comes to tsunamis. I urge my colleagues to 
consider this legislation, and other tsunami warning systems proposed 
by my colleagues, and to move forward as quickly as possible so that we 
never again have to see the devastation, death, broken families and 
orphaned children that we see right now in South Asia.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Tsunami Early Warning 
and Relief Act be a printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 452

       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 ``Tsunami Early Warning and 
     Relief Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) A tremendous undersea earthquake near Sumatra, 
     Indonesia, created a tsunami whose devastation spread 
     throughout South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Africa, 
     leading to the death of more than 160,000 people on December 
     26, 2004. As of February 4, 2005, more than 140,000 people 
     are still missing. The tsunami-affected countries include 
     Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Maldives, Seychelles, 
     Bangladesh, Burma, Malaysia, Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania.

[[Page 2808]]

       (2) The tsunami resulted in massive destruction affecting 
     millions of people who now require a great amount of short-
     term survival assistance and long-term rehabilitation and 
     reconstruction assistance.
       (3) Compared to past disasters, the Indian Ocean earthquake 
     and tsunami led to historic destruction of the social service 
     infrastructure, businesses, and livelihoods. The devastation 
     caused by the tsunami has resulted in many separated families 
     and countless unaccompanied and orphaned children.
       (4) An effective global tsunami warning system is critical 
     for preventing future humanitarian disasters and for 
     protecting national security, since tsunamis occurring 
     anywhere around the globe could impact the United States at 
     home and United States national interests abroad.
       (5) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has 
     already built a system of tsunami buoys in the Pacific Ocean 
     which has been proven to provide critical information and 
     enhance the Nation's response to tsunamis. The National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has the technical 
     capability to upgrade and expand this system so that it 
     covers the entire globe and is integrated into larger ocean 
     observing efforts.
       (6) Consistent funding and international cooperation would 
     be needed to deploy a broader global tsunami warning system.
       (7) Effective local emergency management capabilities are 
     needed to relay tsunami warning information to coastal 
     communities and their residents.

                    TITLE I--TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEMS

     SEC. 101. GLOBAL PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Commerce shall 
     establish a Global Tsunami Disaster Reduction Program within 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the 
     establishment of a tsunami warning system to protect 
     vulnerable areas around the world, including Atlantic Ocean, 
     Carribean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean 
     Sea, and European areas.
       (b) International Cooperation.--The Secretary of State, in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, shall work with foreign countries 
     that would benefit from the warning system described in 
     subsection (a), and through international organizations, for 
     the purposes of--
       (1) sharing costs;
       (2) sharing relevant data;
       (3) sharing technical advice for the implementation of 
     dissemination and evacuation plans; and
       (4) ensuring that the Global Earth Observation System of 
     Systems program has access to and shares openly all relevant 
     information worldwide.

     SEC. 102. EXPANSION OF UNITED STATES TSUNAMI READY PROGRAM.

       The Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration shall work with coastal communities throughout 
     the United States to build upon local coastal and ocean 
     observing capabilities, improve abilities to disseminate 
     tsunami information and prepare evacuation plans according to 
     the requirements of the Tsunami Ready program of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and encourage more 
     communities to participate in the program.

     SEC. 103. SEISMIC ACTIVITY MONITORING.

       The Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration shall coordinate with the United States 
     Geological Survey and the Department of State to work with 
     other countries to enhance the monitoring, through the Global 
     Seismic Network (GSN), of seismic activities that could lead 
     to tsunamis, to support the programs described in sections 
     101 and 102.

     SEC. 104. ANNUAL REPORT.

       The Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration shall transmit an annual report to Congress on 
     progress in carrying out this title.

     SEC. 105. DEFINITION.

       For purposes of this title, the term ``United States'' 
     means the several States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce for carrying out this title--
       (1) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and for each 
     subsequent fiscal year.

    TITLE II--RELIEF, REHABILITATION, AND RECONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE 
                    RELATING TO INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

     SEC. 201. ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Authorization.--The President, acting through the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development, is authorized to provide assistance for--
       (1) the relief and rehabilitation of individuals who are 
     victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami; and
       (2) the reconstruction of the infrastructures of countries 
     affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami, including Indonesia, 
     Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Maldives, Seychelles, Bangladesh, 
     Burma, Malaysia, Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--Assistance under this section 
     may be provided on such terms and conditions as the President 
     may determine.

     SEC. 202. REPORT.

       The President shall transmit to Congress, on a quarterly 
     basis in 2005, on a biannual basis in 2006, and as determined 
     to be appropriate by the President thereafter, a report on 
     progress in carrying out this title.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITION.

       In this title, the term ``Indian Ocean tsunami'' means the 
     tsunami that resulted from the earthquake that occurred off 
     the west coast of northern Sumatra, Indonesia, on December 
     26, 2004.

     SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the President to 
     carry out this title such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     year 2006 and each subsequent fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lugar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Brownback, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 453. A bill to amend section 402 of the Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide for an 
extension of eligibility for supplemental security income through 
fiscal year 2008 for refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian 
immigrants; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my 
colleagues, Senators Kohl, Lugar, Lieberman, Brownback, Clinton, 
Lautenberg, and Feingold, to introduce this important piece of 
legislation. Legislation that will ensure the United States government 
does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who are the 
most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country of ours.
  As many of you may know, Congress as part of Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, PRWORA, modified the SSI 
program to include a seven-year time limit on the receipt of benefits 
for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance the 
desire to have people who emigrant to the United States to become 
citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also 
takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees 
to become naturalized citizens Congress provided the 7-year time limit 
before the expiration of SSI benefits.
  Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than 7 
years because applicants are requited to live in the United States for 
a minimum of 5 years prior to applying for citizenship and the INS 
often takes 3 or more years to process the application. Because of this 
time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the 
loss of their SSI benefits.
  If Congress does not act to change the law, reports show that over 
the next 4 years nearly 30,000 elderly and disabled refugees and 
asylees will lose their Supplemental Security Income, SSI, benefits 
because their 7-year time limit will expire before they become 
citizens. Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or 
torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious 
persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam 
Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who 
served on the side of the United States military during the Vietnam 
War. They are elderly and unable to work, and have become reliant on 
their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of 
delays encountered through the bureaucratic process seems unjust and 
inappropriate.
  The administration in its fiscal year 2006 budget acknowledged the 
necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding to extend 
refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the 7-year limit. While I am pleased 
that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, I am 
concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most 
people will need at least an additional 2 years to navigate and 
complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I 
have introduced this bill, which will provide a 2-year extension. We 
believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process.

[[Page 2809]]

  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look 
forward to working with Chairman Grassley and other members of the 
Finance Committee to secure these changes during consideration of TANF 
reauthorization.
  Mr. KOHL. I rise today to join Senator Smith and a bipartisan group 
of Senators in introducing the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled 
Refugees Act. This bill builds both on a proposal in the President's 
budget, and on legislation we introduced last year, to serve the 
neediest individuals in our society.
  Wisconsin is the home for hundreds of thousands of Hmong family 
members who were resettled there in the years after the Vietnam War, 
some as recently as the 1990s. Many of these Hmong fought with the CIA 
in Laos during the Vietnam War, providing critical assistance to U.S. 
forces. After the fall of Saigon, thousands of Hmong fled Laos and its 
communist Pathet Lao government. The United States remains indebted to 
these courageous individuals and their families.
  In addition to the Hmong, America has served as a shelter for Jews 
and Baptists fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union; 
and for Iraqis and Cubans escaping tyrannical dictatorships. Our policy 
toward refugees and asylees embodies the best of our country--
compassion, opportunity, and freedom. I am proud of the example our 
policies set with respect to the treatment of those seeking refuge.
  But I am disappointed in our decision to allow these people to enter 
the country and then deny them the means to live. Thousands of people 
who fled religious and political persecution to seek freedom in the 
U.S. are being punished by a short-sighted policy. A provision in the 
1996 welfare reform bill restricted the amount of time that elderly and 
disabled refugees and asylees could be eligible for Supplemental 
Security Income, SSI, benefits. These benefits serve as a basic monthly 
income for individuals who are 65 or older, disabled or blind. Over the 
next 4 years, it is estimated that 40,000 refugees and political 
asylees could lose these important benefits on which they often rely.
  The 7-year time limit on SSI benefits for legal humanitarian 
immigrants has already impacted individuals and families across the 
country, and will impact thousands more without Congressional action. 
The provision specifically mandated that to avoid losing this important 
support, refugees and asylees must become citizens within the 7 year 
limit. Unfortunately, this has proved impossible for far too many. The 
process of becoming a citizen only truly begins after a refugee has 
resided in the U.S. for 5 years as a lawful permanent resident. And 
beyond that, there are many other barriers, such as language skills and 
processing and bureaucratic delays within the various agencies, which 
an immigrant must overcome before they become naturalized. Beginning in 
2003, immigrants trapped in this process--too often the most vulnerable 
elderly and families--began to lose their SSI benefits with no hope of 
recourse.
  This inherent flaw in the system has to be changed. That is why we 
are re-introducing the SSI Extension for Disabled and Elderly Refugees 
Act. This legislation extends the amount of time that refugees and 
asylees have to become citizens to 9 years. In addition, the bill 
contains a ``reach back'' provision: it retroactively restores benefits 
to those individuals who have already lost them for an additional 2 
years. This provision helps the individuals who need it most; 
humanitarian immigrants who are trapped in the system and have lost 
this important income source.
  Across the country, states are recognizing the peril that faces 
individuals who lose these benefits. Most recently, in January, the 
State of Illinois passed legislation that allows individuals to obtain 
monthly grants through a State program, if their Federal SSI benefits 
are suspended. This action highlights the need for Congress to act. We 
cannot continue to pass the buck to cash-strapped States. I believe we 
must act now to protect these individuals.
  I cannot stress how important this legislation is to many in the 
State of Wisconsin. Last year there were several stories across the 
state regarding the plight of Hmong families and individuals whose 
citizenship has been delayed and were faced with losing their benefits. 
That was a year ago, and Congress failed to pass the legislation that 
Senators Smith, Lugar, Feingold and I had worked so hard on. We cannot 
let another year go by without helping these individuals.
  In addition to the Hmong population in Wisconsin, almost every State 
in the country is home to immigrants who will be affected by the limit. 
Our country has long been a symbol of freedom, equality and 
opportunity. Our laws should reflect that. Every day that goes by could 
result in the loss of a refugee's support system--I urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation and restore the principles we were put here 
to protect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 455. A bill to amend the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
Act of 1961 to facilitate United States openness to international 
students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
reverse the decline in the number of international students studying at 
American colleges, universities, and high schools. I am very pleased to 
be joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman, who cares 
deeply about these issues as I do.
  Policies implemented to keep our country safe in the wake of 
September 11 have had the unintended consequence of dramatically 
reducing the number of international students studying in the United 
States. Total international applications to U.S. graduate schools fell 
28 percent from fall 2003 to fall 2004, and 54 percent of all English 
as a Second Language (ESL) programs have reported declines in overall 
applications at a time where countries such as the U.K., Canada, and 
Australia are experiencing increases.
  Why is this a concern for our country?
  From a foreign policy perspective, America needs all the Ambassadors 
of goodwill we can get. In a world that too often hates Americans 
because they do not know us, international education represents an 
opportunity to break down barriers. It is in our local and national 
interest for the best and brightest foreign students to study in 
America because these are people who will lead their nations one day. 
The experience they gain with our democratic system and our values 
gives them a better understanding of what America is and who Americans 
are.
  My caseworkers in Minnesota have dealt with literally hundreds of 
student visas cases. One case in particular stands out--that of 
Humphrey Tusimiirwe, a brilliant student from Uganda who was having 
difficulty getting his student visa for study at St. Thomas. 
Fortunately, after several calls to the U.S. Ambassador, Humphrey's 
story ultimately had a happy ending, and he is going to be part of our 
panel at the University of Minnesota. But too many other students are 
barred from coming to study in America, and far too many are choosing 
to not study in the U.S. and instead go elsewhere.
  I have heard from Minnesota's colleges and universities. The presence 
of international students on campuses gives American students an 
irreplaceable opportunity to learn about other cultures and points of 
view. That's why this legislation has the endorsement of the University 
of Minnesota, the MnSCU student association, the Minneapolis Star 
Tribune and Rochester Post Bulletin, and others. International 
education is a $13 billion industry, and foreign students who pay full 
tuition help keep costs down for American students. In Minnesota alone, 
international students contribute some $175 million to our economy.
  Finally, I think this is an economic competitiveness issue too. 
Attracting the world's top scientific scholars helps to keep our 
economy competitive. Too

[[Page 2810]]

many of the world's best scientists are opting against studying in the 
U.S. because of the barriers we have imposed. We need the world's best 
and brightest to continue to do their research here, and to continue to 
use their talents to improve American innovation and ultimately create 
American jobs. Many of America's most innovative business leaders and 
top CEOs came to the U.S. as international students.
  At the same time, laws are in place to make sure companies hire 
American workers first, and my legislation would not change that. 
That's why I will introduce legislation, the COMPETE Act, that will 
make sure American students have the math, science, and engineering 
skills needed to stay competitive.
  While the State Department has made some very important strides, such 
as extending the validity of Visas Mantis security clearances and 
speeding up their processing time, there are still too many qualified 
students unable to get visas to study in America, and too many who 
today are deterred from even applying.
  That's why I am pleased once again to join with my friend the Senator 
from New Mexico in introducing the American Competitiveness Through 
International Openness Now (ACTION) Act. Our bill calls for a number of 
steps that would help America regain our place as the top destination 
for international students, scholars, scientists and exchange visitors.
  First, our bill calls for a strategic marketing plan similar to 
strategies implemented by the U.K., E.U., Canada and Australia to help 
America regain lost ground in attracting the world's best and 
brightest. There is a perception around the world that America is no 
longer a welcoming place, so we need to be deliberate and smart in our 
efforts to change that view.
  The bill calls for more realistic standards for visa evaluations by 
updating a 50-year old criterion for visa approval and admittance to 
the United States. Under the so-called 214(b) rule, young people 
currently need to prove that they have ``essential ties'' to their home 
countries and no intention of emigrating to the U.S. But in this age of 
globalization, it is increasingly difficult for a 20-year old to do 
this. Many have lived and studied in other countries, and some have 
lost their parents to AIDS. They don't own a house or a business, they 
don't have spouses or children. Consular officers treat every student 
as an intending immigrant, and it is exceedingly difficult for a 
student to prove otherwise.
  Our legislation calls for common-sense changes to management of the 
SEVIS system, which tracks international students and visitors. Under 
this legislation, the database would be run more effectively, and fees 
would be collected in a more fair manner.
  The bill also sets standards for more timeliness and certainty in the 
student visa process, upgrading communication between government 
agencies dealing with student visas and enabling them to identify 
security risks and clear those who are not a threat more quickly.
  I spent time in Minnesota last Friday listening to my constituents' 
views about this bill and the positive effect it would have on 
Minnesota colleges and universities. The response was overwhelming. 
These summits prompted me to add a section to the bill dealing 
specifically with students who have to return home for family 
emergencies, and a section to help intensive English programs compete 
with their counterparts in the U.K. and Australia.
  We have often seen that prejudice is bred by isolation. Those who 
only look at this country through a keyhole can draw all kinds of 
outrageous conclusions. But exposure and interaction bring people 
together. Especially in a time when we are burdened with the question, 
``Why do they hate us?'' we need to enhance those opportunities for 
people to see us as we really are. International exchanges present 
precisely this opportunity.
  International education brings too much to our campuses, our 
communities, our economy and our national security to become another 
victim of the age of terrorism. If we can take ACTION to reverse the 
decline now, all Americans will reap the benefits for decades to come.
  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. 455

       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 ``American Competitiveness 
     Through International Openness Now Act of 2005'' or as the 
     ``ACTION Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States has a strategic interest in 
     encouraging international students, scholars, scientists, and 
     exchange visitors to visit the United States to study, 
     collaborate in research, and to develop personal 
     relationships.
       (2) Openness to international students, scholars, 
     scientists, and exchange visitors serves vital and 
     longstanding national foreign policy, educational, and 
     economic interests and the erosion of such openness 
     undermines the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       (3) Educating successive generations of future world 
     leaders has long been a foundation of the United States 
     international influence and leadership.
       (4) Open scientific exchange enables the United States to 
     benefit from the knowledge of the world's top students and 
     scientists and has been a critical factor in maintaining the 
     United States leadership in science and technology.
       (5) International students studying in the United States 
     and their families contribute nearly $13,000,000,000 to the 
     United States economy each year, making higher education a 
     major service sector export.
       (6) The total number of applications submitted by foreign 
     applicants to graduate schools in the United States for 
     enrollment during the fall of 2004 declined 28 percent from 
     the number of such applications submitted for enrollment 
     during the fall of 2003.
       (7) The total number of foreign students enrolled in 
     graduate schools in the United States during the fall of 2004 
     declined 6 percent from the number of such enrollments during 
     the fall of 2003.
       (8) The number of foreign students enrolled in schools in 
     the United States during the 2003-2004 academic year 
     decreased by 2.4 percent from the number of such students the 
     2002-2003 academic year, marking the first absolute decline 
     in foreign enrollments since the 1971-1972 academic year.
       (9) The policies implemented by the United States since 
     September 11, 2001, and the public perceptions they have 
     engendered, have discouraged many foreign students from 
     studying in the United States and have frustrated the efforts 
     of many foreign scholars and exchange visitors from visiting 
     the United States.
       (10) The United States must improve its student, scholar, 
     scientist, and exchange visitor screening process to protect 
     against terrorists seeking to harm the United States.
       (11) The United States has seen a dramatic increase in 
     requests for Visa Mantis checks, checks designed to protect 
     against illegal transfers of sensitive technology, from 
     approximately 1,000 in fiscal year 2000 to approximately 
     18,500 in fiscal year 2004.
       (12) Concerns related to the international student 
     monitoring system known as ``SEVIS'' have also contributed to 
     the decline in the number of foreign applicants to 
     educational institutions in the United States.
       (13) Other countries have instituted aggressive strategies 
     for attracting foreign students, scholars, and scientists, 
     and have adjusted their policies to encourage and accommodate 
     access to universities and scientific exchange. One such 
     country, Australia, has increased enrollment by foreign 
     students in educational institutions in Australia by more 
     than 53 percent since 2001.
       (14) The European Union has set forth a comprehensive 
     strategy to be the ``most competitive and dynamic knowledge-
     based economy in the world'' by 2010. Part of this strategy 
     is aimed at enhancing economic competitiveness by making the 
     European Union the most favorable destination for students, 
     scholars, and researchers from other regions of the world.
       (15) In order to maintain United States competitiveness in 
     the world economy, build vital relationships with future 
     world leaders, and improve popular perceptions of the United 
     States overseas, the United States requires a comprehensive 
     strategy for recruiting foreign students, scholars, 
     scientists, and exchange visitors.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (2) SEVIS.--The term ``SEVIS'' means the program to collect 
     information relating to

[[Page 2811]]

     nonimmigrant foreign students and other exchange program 
     participants required by the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Division C of Public 
     Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENT TO THE MUTUAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL 
                   EXCHANGE ACT OF 1961.

       The Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2451 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 115. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL 
                   EXCHANGE.

       ``(a) Requirement for Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the ACTION Act of 2005, the President, in 
     consultation with institutions of higher education in the 
     United States, organizations that participate in 
     international exchange programs, and other appropriate 
     groups, shall develop a strategic plan for enhancing the 
     access of foreign students, scholars, scientists, and 
     exchange visitors to the United States for study and exchange 
     activities.
       ``(2) Content.--The strategic plan shall include the 
     following:
       ``(A) A marketing plan that utilizes the Internet and other 
     media resources to promote and facilitate study in the United 
     States by foreign students.
       ``(B) A clear division of responsibility that eliminates 
     duplication and promotes inter-agency cooperation with regard 
     to the roles of the Departments of State, Commerce, 
     Education, Homeland Security, and Energy in promoting and 
     facilitating access to the United States for foreign 
     students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors.
       ``(C) A mechanism for institutionalized coordination of the 
     efforts of Departments of State, Commerce, Education, and 
     Homeland Security in facilitating access to the United States 
     for foreign students, scholars, scientists, and exchange 
     visitors.
       ``(D) A plan to utilize the educational advising centers of 
     the Department of State that are located in foreign countries 
     to promote study in the United States and to prescreen visa 
     applicants.
       ``(E) A description of the lines of authority and 
     responsibility for foreign students in the Department of 
     Commerce.
       ``(F) A description of the mandate related to foreign 
     student and scholar access to educational institutions in the 
     United States for the Department of Education.
       ``(G) Streamlined procedures within the Department of 
     Homeland Security related to foreign students, scholars, 
     scientists, and exchange visitors.
       ``(H) Streamlined procedures to facilitate international 
     scientific collaboration.
       ``(3) Submission to congress.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of the ACTION Act of 2005, the 
     President shall submit the strategic plan to the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       ``(b) Reciprocity Agreements.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that the United States should negotiate reciprocity 
     agreements with foreign countries with the goal of mutual 
     agreement on extending the validity of student and scholar 
     visas to 4 years and permitting multiple entry on student and 
     scholar visas.
       ``(c) Annual Report.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The President, acting through the 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Education, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, and Secretary of Energy, shall submit to Congress 
     an annual report on the implementation of the strategic plan 
     required by subsection (a) and on any negotiations with 
     foreign countries related to the reciprocity agreements 
     referred to in subsection (b).
       ``(2) Content.--An annual report submitted under this 
     subsection shall include a description of the following:
       ``(A) Measures undertaken to enhance access to the United 
     States by foreign students, scholars, scientists, and 
     exchange visitors and to improve inter-agency coordination 
     with regard to foreign students, scholars, scientists, and 
     exchange visitors.
       ``(B) Measures taken to negotiate reciprocal agreements 
     referred to in subsection (b).
       ``(C) The number of foreign students, scholars, scientists, 
     and exchange visitors who applied for visas to enter the 
     United States, disaggregated by applicants' fields of study 
     or expertise, the number of such visa applications that are 
     approved, the number of such visa applications that are 
     denied, and the reasons for such denials.
       ``(D) The average processing time for an application for a 
     visa submitted by a foreign student, scholar, scientist, or 
     exchange visitor.
       ``(E) The number of applications for a visa submitted by 
     foreign students, scholars, scientists, or exchange visitors 
     that require inter-agency review.
       ``(F) The number of applications for a visa submitted by 
     foreign students, scholars, scientists, or exchange visitors 
     that were approved after receipt of such applications in each 
     of the following:
       ``(i) Less than 15 days.
       ``(ii) Between 15 and 30 days.
       ``(iii) Between 31 and 45 days.
       ``(iv) Between 46 and 60 days.
       ``(v) Between 61 and90 days.
       ``(vi) More than 90 days.
       ``(3) Submission of report.--Not later than November 30 
     2005, and annually thereafter through 2008, the President 
     shall submit to Congress the report described in this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 5. FAIRNESS IN THE SEVIS PROCESS.

       (a) Reduced Fee for Short-term Study.--
       (1) In general.--Section 641(e)(4)(A) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A)) is amended by striking the second 
     sentence and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection 
     (g)(2), the fee imposed on any individual may not exceed 
     $100, except that in the case of an alien admitted under 
     subparagraph (J) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) as an au pair, camp 
     counselor, or participant in a summer work travel program, 
     the fee shall not exceed $35 and that in the case of an alien 
     admitted under subparagraph (F) of such section (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)(F)) for a program that will not exceed 90 days, 
     the fee shall not exceed $35.''.
       (2) Technical amendments.--Such section is further 
     amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``Attorney General'' 
     and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (B) in the third sentence, by striking ``Attorney 
     General's'' and inserting ``Secretary's''.
       (b) Report on Improving Fee Collection.--Not later than 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall jointly 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     on the feasibility of--
       (1) entering data into the SEVIS database and collecting 
     the fee required by section 641(e) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1372(e)) only after the applicant's visa has been approved; 
     or
       (2) refunding the fee required by such section in the event 
     that the applicant's visa has been denied.

     SEC. 6. REFORMING SEVIS DATABASE MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
     Secretary of State shall--
       (1) develop policies that permit authorized representatives 
     of SEVIS-approved schools or programs to make corrections to 
     a student, scholar, or exchange visitor's record directly 
     within the SEVIS database;
       (2) in the case of such corrections that cannot be made by 
     such representatives, ensure that sufficient resources are 
     made available to enable such corrections to be made in a 
     timely manner;
       (3) develop policies to prohibit the detention or 
     deportation of a student who is found to be out of status as 
     a result of a SEVIS database error; and
       (4) review the regulations and technology used in the SEVIS 
     system, in order to streamline processes and reduce the time 
     required for SEVIS-approved universities and programs to 
     perform data entry tasks.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
     the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
     implementation of this section.

     SEC. 7. INTEROPERABLE DATA SYSTEMS.

       (a) Responsibilities of the FBI Director.--The Director of 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall take the steps 
     necessary to ensure that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     has full connectivity to the Consular Consolidated Database.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
     of Representatives on the Director's progress in ensuring 
     that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has full 
     connectivity to the Consular Consolidated Database.

     SEC. 8. FACILITATING ACCESS.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that improvements in visa 
     processing would enhance the national security of the United 
     States by--
       (1) permitting closer scrutiny of visa applicants who might 
     pose threats to national security; and
       (2) permitting the timely adjudication of visa applications 
     of those whose presence in the United States serves important 
     national interests.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     improvements in visa processing should include--
       (1) an operational visa policy that articulates the 
     national interest of the United States in denying entry to 
     visitors who seek to harm the United States and in opening 
     entry to legitimate visitors, to guide consular officers in 
     achieving the appropriate balance;
       (2) a greater focus by the visa system on visitors who 
     require special screening, while minimizing delays for 
     legitimate visitors;
       (3) a timely, transparent, and predictable visa process, 
     through appropriate guidelines for inter-agency review of 
     visa applications; and

[[Page 2812]]

       (4) a provision of the necessary resources to fund a visa 
     processing system that meets the requirements of this Act.
       (c) Visa Processing.--
       (1) In general.--Not withstanding any other provision of 
     law, not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State shall issue appropriate 
     guidance to consular officers in order to--
       (A) give consulates appropriate discretion to grant waivers 
     of personal appearance for foreign students, scholars, 
     scientists and exchange visitors in order to minimize delays 
     for legitimate travelers while permitting more thorough 
     interviews of visa applicants in appropriate cases;
       (B) establish a presumption of visa approval for frequent 
     visitors who have previously been granted visas for the same 
     purpose and who have no status violations and for people 
     previously approved for visas who had to depart the United 
     States for family emergencies; and
       (C) give appropriate discretion, according to criteria 
     developed at each post and approved by the Secretary of 
     State, to view as ``recreational in nature'' courses of a 
     duration no more than 1 semester or its equivalent, and not 
     awarding certification, license or degree, for purposes of 
     determining appropriateness to visitor status.
       (2) Timeliness standards.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the President shall publish 
     final regulations for inter-agency review of visa 
     applications requiring security clearances which establish 
     the following standards for timeliness for international 
     student, scholar, scientist, and exchange visitor visas 
     that--
       (A) establish a 15-day standard for responses to the 
     Department of State by other agencies involved in the 
     clearance process;
       (B) establish a 30-day standard for completing the entire 
     inter-agency review and advising the consulate of the result 
     of the review;
       (C) provide for expedited processing of any visa 
     application with respect to which a review is not completed 
     within 30 days, and for advising the consulate of the delay 
     and the estimated processing time remaining; and
       (D) establish a special review process to resolve any cases 
     whose resolution is still pending after 60 days.
       (d) Standards for Visa Evaluations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``having a residence in a foreign country 
     which he has no intention of abandoning'' and inserting 
     ``having the intention, capability, and sufficient financial 
     resources to complete a course of study in the United 
     States''; and
       (B) by striking ``and solely'' after ``temporarily''.
       (2) Presumption of status.--Section 214(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b)) is amended 
     by striking ``subparagraph (L) or'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (F), (J), (L), or''.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to 
     appropriate congressional committees on--
       (1) the feasibility of expediting visa processing for 
     participants in official exchange programs, and for students, 
     scholars, scientists and exchange visitors through 
     prescreening of applicants by the government or a university 
     in the country in which the individual resides, a Department 
     of State educational advising center located in a foreign 
     country, or other appropriate entity;
       (2) the feasibility of developing the capability to collect 
     biometric data without requiring an applicant for a visa to 
     appear in person at a United States mission in a foreign 
     country; and
       (3) the implementation of the guidance described in 
     subsection (b), including the training of consular officers, 
     and the effect of such guidance and training on visa 
     processing volume and timeliness.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

        There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out to carry out this Act, including 
     for the consular affairs and educational and cultural 
     exchange functions of the Department of State, the visa 
     application review and SEVIS database management function of 
     the Department of Homeland Security, for the Departments of 
     Education, Commerce, and State to develop an implement a 
     marketing plan to attract international students, scholars, 
     scientists, and exchange visitors, and for database 
     improvements in the Federal Bureau of Investigations as 
     specified in section 7.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator 
Coleman, to introduce the American Competitiveness Through 
International Openness Now (``ACTION'') Act of 2005.
  A few days ago, I came to the Senate floor to discuss the importance 
of the United States taking steps to ensure that we remain the world 
leader in terms of scientific research and innovation. There is a 
global competition underway for dominance in science and technology, 
and I remain concerned that the federal resources we are allocating for 
research and development are completely insufficient. At a time when 
other countries are investing more in R & D, we are cutting back 
Federal support of key science programs. Our Nation's economic 
competitiveness depends on reversing this trend.
  We must also do all we can to continue to develop a highly skilled 
domestic workforce. It is paramount that we improve math and science 
education in our school systems, and spend more on graduate education 
in science and engineering. Maintaining the world's best education 
system is essential for ensuring Americans well-paying jobs and 
critical for our economic and national security.
  Another area that we must also address in order to ensure U.S. 
competitiveness in the world economy is visa processing for scientists, 
engineers, and students wishing to come to the United States. Red tape 
and delays, although improving, still plague our overseas embassies and 
threaten our long-term economic security.
  The ACTION Act of 2005 would address this important issue.
  A country's immigration system helps determines its relationship to 
the global marketplace. The system can either be conducive to the free 
flow of ideas, scientists, and international business ventures, or it 
can provide disincentives to the flow of international talent and 
scientific collaboration.
  Since September 11, the United States has adopted a number of visa 
policies aimed at making the United States and the traveling public 
more secure. Unfortunately, those policies have also had a significant 
impact on scientific collaboration with other countries and have made 
it problematic for exchange students to come to the United States with 
the ease they once enjoyed. While the United States has an obligation 
to thoroughly vet visa applicants, we need to find ways to do so that 
keep us engaged with the rest of the world and keep our efforts focused 
on those that seek to do us harm.
  Our international economic competitors are taking proactive steps to 
encourage highly talented students and graduates to come to their 
countries and study in their universities. In contrast, the attitude 
that the United States seems to be projecting to highly talented 
foreign scientists and students is one of complacency. This not only 
damages our image abroad, but also hampers research in the nation's 
laboratories and universities.
  Recent studies from the National Science Foundation and the Council 
of Graduate Schools, as well as State Department statistics, have 
documented a sharp decline in the foreign students seeking advanced 
scientific and technical degrees in graduate schools across the United 
States. The National Science Foundation has found that the combination 
of an overly restrictive U.S. policy towards issuing visas, the growing 
perception that the United States is hostile to foreigners, and the 
increase in opportunities overseas has significantly challenged our 
ability to attract the best and brightest from around the world to come 
to the U.S. to study and engage in open scientific exchange.
  The 2003-2004 academic year marked the first absolute decline in 
foreign student enrollments since the early 1970's. And in the fall of 
2004, international student applications to graduate schools dropped 28 
percent from the same time in 2003.
  In contrast, other countries have instituted aggressive strategies 
for attracting students, scholars, and scientists and have sought to 
encourage access to universities and promote scientific collaboration. 
One such example is Australia, which has increased international 
student enrollment 53 percent since 2001. The European Union has also 
set forth a comprehensive strategy to be the ``most competitive and 
dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world'' by 2010. A key part of 
this strategy is aimed at making the E.U. the most favorable 
destination for students, scholars, and researchers from around the 
world.
  Our university system is the envy of the world, and where we have a 
long-standing record of producing the best

[[Page 2813]]

trained and most innovative scientists and engineers, and we must not 
concede our leadership in this area.
  It is also important to note that international students play an 
important economic role--the Institute of International Education 
recently determined that through tuition and living expenses, foreign 
students contribute roughly $13 billion to the U.S. economy.
  In particular, the ACTION Act of 2005 would help keep international 
students and scientist coming to the United States to participate in 
essential research and exchange programs by: improving visa processing 
in a manner consistent with national security; requiring the President 
to develop a strategic plan to enhance the recruitment and access of 
students, scholars, and scientist coming to the United States; 
reforming the SEVIS system, which tracks students, to allow approved 
schools to make corrections to a student's record to correct database 
errors; and by facilitating that the FBI and the State Department 
develop interoperable data systems.
  Openness to international students and scientist is an important 
aspect of maintaining American competitiveness in the world economy, 
and I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting this essential 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 456. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
to permit a State to receive credit towards the work requirements under 
the temporary assistance for needy families program for recipients who 
are determined by appropriate agencies working in coordination to have 
a disability and to be in need of specialized activities; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pathways to 
Independence Act of 2005, along with Senators Jeffords, Chafee, 
Rockefeller, and Collins. This bill includes two important provisions 
that we will work to include in TANF reauthorization. These provisions 
will help States work with TANF recipients who have disabilities to 
transition them into work.
  In July 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that as many as 
44 percent of TANF families have a parent or child with a physical or 
mental impairment. This is almost three times as high as among the non-
TANF population in the United States. In eight percent of TANF 
families, there is both a parent and a child with a disability; among 
non-TANF families, this figure is one percent. The GAO's work confirmed 
the findings of earlier studies, including work by the Urban Institute 
and the HHS Inspector General.
  These figures mean that we need to make sure that TANF 
reauthorization legislation gives States the ability and incentives to 
help families meet their current needs, while also helping them to move 
from welfare to work. This is the lesson that Oregon and many other 
States have already learned as they developed and refined their TANF 
programs.
  The first provision of my bill provides a pragmatic approach to 
helping parents with disabilities and substance abuse problems receive 
the treatment and other rehabilitative services they will need to 
succeed in a work setting. It is designed so that, over time, States 
can gradually increase the work activity requirements, while continuing 
to provide clients with rehabilitative services. Under this proposal, 
much like in other proposals under consideration, a person 
participating in rehabilitation can be counted as engaged in work 
activity for three months. After the first three months, if a person 
continues to need rehabilitative services, the State can continue to 
count participation in those activities for another three months, so 
long as that person is engaged in some number of work hours, to be 
determined by the State.
  The next step of my proposal builds on the concept of partial credit 
that is being considered in the Senate Finance Committee. If, after six 
months, a State determines that a person has a continuing need for 
rehabilitative services, the State may create a package that combines 
work activity with these services. The State will receive credit for 
the individual's efforts so long as at least one-half of the hours in 
which the individual participates are in core work activities. For 
example, if a State receives full credit for a person who works 30 
hours per week, and the State has determined that an individual needs 
rehabilitative services beyond six months, that individual would need 
to be engaged in core work activities for at least 15 hours per week to 
get full credit, with the remaining 15 hours spent in rehabilitative 
services. Similarly, if partial credit is available for a person who 
works 24 hours per week, then a State could receive that same partial 
credit if the person was engaged in core work activities for at least 
12 hours per week, with the remaining 12 hours spent in rehabilitative 
services.
  This approach is appealing for many reasons. First, it allows states 
to design a system in which a person can move progressively over time 
from rehabilitation toward work. Second, it gives states credit for the 
time and effort they will need to invest to help people move 
successfully from welfare to work by allowing States to use a range of 
strategies to help these families. Third, it creates a more realistic 
structure for individuals with disabilities and addictions who may 
otherwise fall out of the system either through sanction or 
discouragement, despite their need for financial support. Finally, this 
approach is appealing because it is designed to work within the 
structure of the final TANF reauthorization bill.
  I look forward to working with my co-sponsors, Senators Jeffords, 
Chafee, Rockefeller, and Collins, and with the Chairman of the Finance 
Committee on these important provisions in the upcoming months, and I 
urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.
  I also wish to thank all of the organizations that have expressed 
support for this bill. I have received support letters from those 
organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that those letters be 
printed in the Record
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Consortium for Citizens


                                            With Disabilities,

                                                February 17, 2005.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     Senate.
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. James M. Jeffords,
     Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith, Jeffords, Collins, Chafee, and 
     Rockefeller: We are writing to thank you for introducing 
     legislation that addresses a key problem facing TANF families 
     with a parent with a disability. We believe that this 
     provision, if included in the larger TANF reauthorization 
     bill, will significantly improve the ability of states to 
     help families successfully move from welfare toward work 
     while also ensuring that the needs of family members with 
     disabilities are met. We enthusiastically support this 
     legislation.
       Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is a 
     coalition of national consumer, advocacy, provider and 
     professional organizations headquartered in Washington, DC. 
     We work together to advocate for national public policy that 
     ensures the self determination, independence, empowerment, 
     integration and inclusion of children and adults with 
     disabilities in all aspects of society. The CCD TANF Task 
     Force seeks to ensure that families that include persons with 
     disabilities are afforded equal opportunities and appropriate 
     accommodations under the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
     Families (TANF) block grant.
       The research is clear that many TANF families include a 
     parent or a child with a disability, and in some families, 
     there is both a child and a parent with a disability. The 
     numbers are high--GAO has found that as many as 44 percent of 
     TANF families have a child or a parent with a disability--and 
     need to be addressed in the policy choices

[[Page 2814]]

     that Congress makes in TANF reauthorization. We believe that, 
     by designing policies that take into account the needs of 
     families with a member with a disability, Congress can help 
     the states move greater numbers of these families off of 
     welfare and toward greater independence. Without reasonable 
     supports, however, and through no fault of their own, these 
     families sometimes fail at work activity and are often 
     subject to inappropriate sanctioning and the crises that flow 
     from abrupt--and often prolonged--loss of income.
       Your bill would provide low-income families with members 
     with disabilities real opportunities to achieve self-
     sufficiency. Under current law, states have the flexibility--
     either through a waiver such as Oregon has or as a result of 
     the caseload reduction credit--to ensure that a parent with a 
     disability, including a substance abuse problem, receives the 
     rehabilitative services she needs in order to move towards 
     work. In recent years, increasing numbers of states have used 
     this flexibility as they realized that some parents would 
     need more specialized help if they were going to successfully 
     leave TANF. Some of the current reauthorization proposals, 
     however, limit states to counting three or six months of 
     rehabilitative services as work activity. Such short limits 
     on rehabilitative services would be inadequate to help many 
     families with members with disabilities find and sustain 
     employment, and, in light of proposed increases in state 
     participation rates, would discourage states from designing 
     programs and requirements that work for people with the most 
     severe barriers.
       Your bill will allow states to count rehabilitative 
     services as work activity beyond six months as long as the 
     state TANF agency works collaboratively with other public or 
     private agencies in determining disability and the services 
     that will be provided and the rehabilitative services are 
     mixed with significant work activity. We believe this mix of 
     work activities and supports will help an individual with 
     severe barriers move toward greater independence. The 
     provision would allow states to count individuals 
     participating in rehabilitative services after six months as 
     long as at least one-half of the hours in which the 
     individual participates are in core work activities. This 
     will allow states to create a progression of work activity 
     hours combined with rehabilitative services over time that 
     will assist in moving the family from welfare to work at a 
     pace that is designed to lead to success for that family.
       CCD is not asking Congress to exempt individuals with 
     disabilities from participation in the TANF program. On the 
     contrary, we are looking for the essential assistance and 
     supports that will help families move off of welfare toward 
     greater independence. Your bill does not create any 
     exemptions from participation requirements, and in fact, 
     provides the necessary assistance and supports that can come 
     with participation in the TANF program. Under the bill, 
     states would have to engage the same number of recipients in 
     welfare-to-work activities as under the standard set in a new 
     reauthorization law. The provision simply allows states to 
     utilize a broader range of activities to help recipients with 
     barriers move to work. In short, this is a way to make the 
     TANF program work for parents with disabilities and substance 
     abuse problems. The provision would give states credit when 
     recipients with barriers are engaged in activities and, thus, 
     will encourage states to assist families with barriers to 
     progress toward work in a manner and at a pace that is more 
     tailored to their needs and disabilities.
       Thank you again for introducing this legislation and your 
     leadership on this very important issue. We look forward to 
     working with you and your staffs to ensure that this 
     provision becomes law.
           Sincerely,
     American Music Therapy Association
     American Network of Community Options and Resources
     APSE: The Network on Employment
     Association of University Centers on Disability
     Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
     Brain Injury Association of America
     Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
     Council for Exceptional Children
     Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
     County Welfare Directors Association of California
     Easter Seals
     Epilepsy Foundation
     Goodwill Industries International
     National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems
     National Association of Research and Training Centers
     National Association of Social Workers
     National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors
     National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
     National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
     National Mental Health Association
     National Rehabilitation Association
     National Respite Coalition
     NISH
     Paralyzed Veterans of America
     The Arc of the United States
     United Cerebral Palsy
                                  ____

                                                February 17, 2005.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
      Washington, DC.
     Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. James M. Jeffords,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lincoln D. Chafee,
     U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Smith, Jeffords, Rockefeller, Collins, and 
     Chafee: Thank you for introducing the ``Pathways to 
     Independence Act of 2005.'' The provision included in this 
     bill, if included in the TANF reauthorization legislation, 
     will improve the ability of states to help TANF recipients 
     with disabilities, including substance abuse problems, to 
     move towards work and greater independence.
       Your bill improves on provisions in the Personal 
     Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone 
     (PRIDE) Act, which passed the Senate Finance Committee in the 
     last Congress and has now been introduced as part of S. 6. 
     The current Senate version of the PRIDE Act allows states to 
     count rehabilitative services towards the work participation 
     rate for up to six months, as long as some core work activity 
     is combined with the rehabilitative services in the second 
     three-month period. The Smith-Jeffords bill builds on this 
     and would allow states to count participation in 
     rehabilitative activities beyond six months, so long as the 
     individual participates in at least one-half the required 
     core work activity hours. The bill also would encourage 
     states to work collaboratively with other agencies that have 
     expertise in identifying disabilities and developing 
     appropriate service plans to address those disabilities.
       The encouragement of collaboration is a critical component 
     of the bill. It is our experience that many states have used 
     the flexibility of current law to begin developing such 
     collaborative approaches to working with families who face 
     multiple barriers to employment and independence. However, we 
     are concerned that the increased participation rate 
     requirement contemplated in TANF reauthorization proposals 
     will discourage states from continuing such collaborative 
     approaches to helping families progress on the pathway to 
     independence. Unless states are provided more flexibility in 
     determining what activities count towards the participation 
     rate, we fear states that are already providing critical 
     services will no longer be able to provide them.
       For example, last year, the Vermont Vocational 
     Rehabilitation Agency, working in conjunction with the 
     state's TANF agency, reported that it had recently assisted 
     109 recipients with disabilities in achieving successful 
     employment (defined as stable employment for 90 days). Only 
     14 of the 109 TANF recipients with disabilities (or 12.8 
     percent) achieved stable employment in six months or less. 
     Without flexibility to go beyond six months in providing 
     rehabilitative services to people with disabilities, as 
     provided by the Smith-Jeffords bill, Vermont would have 
     risked penalties by offering rehabilitative services beyond 
     six months and 95 of the 109 TANF recipients with 
     disabilities would have been unlikely to receive the services 
     they needed to become successfully employed.
       Similarly, drug and alcohol treatment programs that serve 
     women with children, including women receiving TANF 
     assistance, generally require more than six months of 
     services. Indeed, 54 percent of these family-based treatment 
     programs extend beyond six months and demonstrate successful 
     outcomes of upwards of 60 percent of parents achieving 
     lasting sobriety and family stabilization. Family-based 
     treatment programs combine job training, parenting classes, 
     education, and life skills training in their substance abuse 
     treatment plans. These programs also include employment as an 
     essential aspect of the treatment plan, when a particular 
     individual is ready to engage in work. Allowing individuals 
     time to complete treatment is critical. An Oregon study 
     showed that those who completed drug treatment received wages 
     65 percent higher than those who did not. Nationally, SAMHSA 
     research demonstrates that the longer parents stay in 
     substance abuse treatment programs the more likely they are 
     to succeed: of parents who stayed in treatment for more than 
     six months, 71 percent achieved sustained recovery after 
     completing treatment as well as six months post-discharge.
       The goal should be to help parents with disabilities, 
     including substance abuse problems, obtain whatever help they 
     need--for however long they need, as determined by the state 
     and local agencies working together--to help them 
     successfully move from welfare to work. Allowing states to 
     receive credit for only a limited number of months of 
     rehabilitative services will mean that some parents do not 
     get the intensive help they need to succeed.
       We are also quite concerned that many of the families who 
     are unable to obtain the

[[Page 2815]]

     services they need will end up in the child welfare system. 
     It is the most disadvantaged families, those with barriers 
     such as mental or physical disabilities or problems with 
     substance abuse, who are at greatest risk of making the 
     transition into the child welfare system.
       Thus, neither families nor states can afford an inflexible 
     and ineffective approach to addressing barriers in the TANF 
     program. States must be permitted to count participation in 
     activities that help parents with disabilities successfully 
     participate in the workplace and care for their children, for 
     as long as those activities are needed to help the family 
     progress towards greater independence. We believe that your 
     bill provides this needed flexibility and will encourage 
     state agencies to work collaboratively in assisting these 
     families. Thank you again for introducing this legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Alliance for Children and Families
     American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
     American Association of People with Disabilities
     American Association on Health and Disability
     American Counseling Association
     American Dance Therapy Association
     American Federation of Teachers
     American Humane Association
     American Music Therapy Association
     American Network of Community Options and Resources
     APSE: The Network on Employment
     American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children
     American Psychological Association
     Association of University Centers on Disability
     Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
     Black Administrators in Child Welfare Inc.
     Brain Injury Association of America
     Center for Law and Social Policy
     Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
     Child Welfare League of America
     Children Awaiting Parents
     Children's Defense Fund
     Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty
     Coalition on Human Needs
     Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
     Council for Exceptional Children
     Council of Learning Disabilities
     Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
     Easter Seals
     Epilepsy Foundation
     Episcopal Community Services
     Goodwill Industries International
     Helen Keller National Center
     Legal Action Center
     Legal Momentum
     Lutheran Services in America
     National Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds
     National Alliance to End Home1essness
     National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems
     National Association of Research and Training Centers
     National Association of School Psychologists
     National Association of Social Workers
     National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors
     National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
     National Association for Children of Alcoholics
     National Association for Children's Behavioral Health
     National Child Abuse Coalition
     National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness
     National Council of La Raza
     National Council on Alcoholism & Drug Dependence
     National Education Association
     National Indian Child Welfare Association
     National Law center on Homelessness and Poverty
     National Mental Health Association
     National Rehabilitation Association
     National Respite Coalition
     NISH
     Paralyzed Veterans of America
     Protestants for the Common Good
     Research Institute for Independent Living
     School Social Work Association of America
     The Arc of the United States
     Therapeutic Communities of America
     United Cerebral Palsy
     Union for Reform Judaism
     Voices for America's Children
     Women of Reform Judaism
     YWCA USA
                                  ____


                                 S. 456

       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 ``Pathways to Independence Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. STATE OPTION TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR RECIPIENTS WHO ARE 
                   DETERMINED BY APPROPRIATE AGENCIES WORKING IN 
                   COORDINATION TO HAVE A DISABILITY AND TO BE IN 
                   NEED OF SPECIALIZED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 407(c)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(E) State option to receive credit for recipients who are 
     determined by appropriate agencies working in coordination to 
     have a disability and to be in need of specialized 
     activities.--
       ``(i) Initial 3-month period.--At the option of the State, 
     if the State agency responsible for administering the State 
     program funded under this part determines that an individual 
     described in clause (iv) is not able to meet the State's full 
     work requirements, but is engaged in activities prescribed by 
     the State, the State may deem the individual as being engaged 
     in work for purposes of determining monthly participation 
     rates under paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of subsection (b) 
     for not more than 3 months in any 24-month period.
       ``(ii) Additional 3-month period.--A State may extend the 
     3-month period under clause (i) for an additional 3 months 
     only if, during such additional 3-month period, the 
     individual engages in rehabilitative services prescribed by 
     the State and a work activity described in subsection (d) for 
     such number of hours per month as the State determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(iii) Rules for credit in succeeding months.--

       ``(I) In general.-- If the State agency responsible for 
     administering the State program funded under this part works 
     in collaboration or has a referral relationship with other 
     governmental or private agencies with expertise in disability 
     determinations or appropriate services plans for adults with 
     disabilities (including agencies that receive funds under 
     this part) and one of these entities determines that an 
     individual treated as being engaged in work under clauses (i) 
     and (ii) continues to be unable to meet the State's full work 
     requirements because of the individual's disability and 
     continuing need for rehabilitative services after the 
     conclusion of the periods applicable under such clauses, then 
     for purposes of determining monthly participation rates under 
     paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of subsection (b), the State 
     may receive credit in accordance with subclause (II) for 
     certain activities undertaken with respect to the individual.
       ``(II) Credit for activities undertaken through 
     collaborative agency process.--Subject to subclause (III), if 
     the State undertakes to provide services for an individual to 
     which subclause (I) applies through a collaborative process 
     that includes governmental or private agencies with expertise 
     in disability determinations or appropriate services for 
     adults with disabilities, the State shall be credited for 
     purposes of the monthly participation rates determined under 
     paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of subsection (b) with the 
     lesser of--

       ``(aa) the sum of the number of hours the individual 
     participates in an activity described in paragraph (1), (2), 
     (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (12) of subsection (d) for 
     the month and the number of hours that the individual 
     participates in rehabilitation services under this clause for 
     the month; or
       ``(bb) twice the number of hours the individual 
     participates in an activity described in paragraph (1), (2), 
     (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (12) of subsection (d) for 
     the month.

       ``(III) Limitation.--A State shall not receive credit under 
     this clause towards the monthly participation rates under 
     paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of subsection (b) unless the 
     State reviews the disability determination of an individual 
     to which subclause (I) applies and the activities in which 
     the individual is participating not less than every 6 months.

       ``(iv) Individual described.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, an individual described in this clause is an 
     individual who the State has determined has a disability, 
     including a substance abuse problem, and would benefit from 
     participating in rehabilitative services while combining such 
     participation with other work activities.
       ``(v) Definition of disability.--In this subparagraph, the 
     term `disability' means a physical or mental impairment, 
     including substance abuse, that--

       ``(I) constitutes or results in a substantial impediment to 
     employment; or
       ``(II) substantially limits 1 or more major life 
     activities.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on October 1, 2005.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to introduce 
today, along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Collins, Chafee, and 
Rockefeller, the ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005.'' This 
legislation is the product of a bipartisan effort to ensure that those 
individuals in our welfare system who face the toughest barriers to 
work, such as individuals with disabilities or substance abuse 
problems, are provided the best opportunity for future success and 
productivity. This legislation gives states the tools and incentives 
necessary to assist them in moving individuals from welfare to work.
  The current welfare system has been widely regarded as a success in 
moving individuals off the welfare rolls, and states have been given 
incentives to do so. While this approach has been regarded as 
successful, it has one major

[[Page 2816]]

flaw. Although the states are provided incentives for removing people 
from the welfare rolls, no incentives exist for placing individuals 
into sustainable employment. States receive the same credit for moving 
a welfare recipient into a high paying job as they do for sanctioning 
that person outright. This perverse incentive has been particularly 
difficult for the many welfare recipients who have disabilities or 
struggle with substance abuse problems. In many states it is easier to 
write these people off than to give them the support necessary to 
become truly independent.
  In Vermont, approximately 15 percent of the welfare caseload has been 
diagnosed with a disability and receive services through the Vermont 
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Vermont's effort to provide 
these services enables welfare recipients to, move from welfare to 
work. However, these services are not included in the core work 
activities allowed under the current welfare law. Vermont receives no 
credit or incentive for moving these individuals to independence. This 
policy is wrong. If we truly want welfare to be an initiative that 
helps people to become independent and self-sufficient, then our 
policies must reflect our intentions. That is where ``The Pathways to 
Independence Act of 2005'' comes into play.
  The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would allow states to 
count certain rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities 
and treatment for substance abuse toward work activities. Here's how it 
works: the legislation would give states the ability to count a welfare 
recipient who is engaged in work, or work preparation activities, to 
participate in a drug treatment program for three months. At the end of 
this 3-month period, the state would be given the opportunity to re-
evaluate the status of the individual and decide whether to continue 
treatment for an additional 3 months. This is the same process that is 
envisioned in the ``Personal Responsibility and Individual Development 
for Everyone (PRIDE) Act'' that the Finance Committee is planning to 
consider this spring. The PRIDE approach would then require an 
individual with a severe barrier to meet the same standard as a non-
disabled individual. However, the ``Pathways to Independence Act'' 
would allow the state to continue treatment for the individual, 
provided that the individual is meeting at least half of the regular 
work requirements and following their treatment program for the 
remaining hours.
  This is a common sense proposal. It is consistent with the research 
on providing effective support programs for people with disabilities 
and effective treatment programs for people struggling with substance 
abuse leading to sustainable employment. By allowing states to count 
these individuals in the ``working'' category, we provide the states 
with the necessary incentives to engage those most difficult to serve 
in meaningful ways that will help them to work. It will allow the 
states to place people with disabilities and substance abuse problems 
on a pathway to independence.
  The ``Pathways to Independence Act of 2005'' would supply the states 
with the tools and incentives necessary to provide welfare recipients 
with the greatest chance for independence and self-sufficiency. If we 
truly want to take the necessary steps towards achieving this goal and 
improving upon our current welfare system, this legislation must be 
part of any welfare reform reauthorization that is enacted.
  I would like to thank the members of the Consortium for Citizens with 
Disabilities for their help in developing this legislation and their 
strong letter in support of this initiative. I especially want to thank 
my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his commitment to this 
legislation and all of our cosponsors in this endeavor.

                          ____________________