[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6013-6032]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 743. A bill for the relief of Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, 
Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. 743

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR NABIL RAJA DANDAN, 
                   KETTY DANDAN, SOUZI DANDAN, RAJA NABIL DANDAN, 
                   AND SANDRA DANDAN.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Nabil 
     Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, 
     and Sandra Dandan shall each be eligible for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful 
     permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty 
     Dandan, Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan 
     enter the United States before the filing deadline specified 
     in subsection (c), Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi 
     Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan shall each be 
     considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall be 
     eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 
     adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Nabil Raja 
     Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and 
     Sandra Dandan, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
     proper officer to reduce by 5, during the current or next 
     following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas 
     that are made available to natives of the country of the 
     aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such 
     Act.

[[Page 6014]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. 
        Bingaman):
  S. 745. A bill to amend the Global Environmental Protection 
Assistance Act of 1989 to promote international clean energy 
development, to open and expand clean energy markets abroad, to engage 
developing nations in the advancement of sustainable energy use and 
climate change actions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the International 
Clean Energy Deployment and Global Energy Markets Investment Act of 
2005. This is a forward-thinking, made-in-America action plan that can 
serve as a building block that puts the right structure and mechanisms 
in place, mobilizes the necessary resources, and helps define the 
course we will have to take in order to better design the global energy 
system that will be built in coming decades. But let me also state up 
front what this legislation does not do. It is not intended to be a 
substitute for the need to seek globally binding climate change 
agreements that would include commitments from the largest industrial 
and developing country emitters of greenhouse gases. However, my 
legislation can serve as a meaningful first step to seriously engage 
developing countries in tackling the critical link between our mutual 
energy and climate change challenges. Additionally, such engagement can 
be a new cornerstone for the U.S. to demonstrate that we are committed 
to working with other nations on a broad range of international issues.
  We must start by honestly addressing several bottom line issues. We 
know that the world's population will likely grow by about 50 percent 
during this century, and those people, most of whom will live in 
developing nations, will be seeking the necessary resources to live. 
These nations will be growing rapidly and their requirements for energy 
will follow suit for the foreseeable future. But at the same time, we 
know that growth needs to be undertaken in as clean and efficient a 
manner as possible. When economies heat up so does energy use, 
greenhouse gas emissions, and that global change. How can any nation's 
economy continue to grow and provide good jobs in a way that does not 
undermine its environment and vice versa? How do we find ways to 
address these problems of mutual concern for our citizens and for their 
children and grandchildren? These issues matter as much in the United 
States as they do in places in China, India, Brazil, and Mexico.
  This legislation's journey began several years when I included, in 
the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, language 
that called for a clean energy exports and market development strategic 
plan. The Bush administration sent that report to Congress in October 
2002. Since that time, I have been urging, cajoling, and pushing 
Federal agencies like the Department of State, Department of Energy, 
Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development to cooperate more and increase public/private efforts to 
help export U.S. clean energy technologies and open more of these 
markets abroad. It is now time to take the next step and introduce this 
legislation in order to expand upon that foundation.
  By taking this next step, I am suggesting that we must work together 
to develop a broad-based action plan that builds on American ingenuity, 
encourages the export of made-in-America clean energy technologies, 
helps advance developing country climate change engagement, increases 
international sustainable development, and strengthens interagency and 
public/private cooperation. The objectives of this legislation further 
include efforts to increase access to clean and reliable energy 
services, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy security, 
and integrate these goals in a manner that is consistent with U.S. 
foreign policy interests around the world. Finally, my legislation 
essentially codifies and enhances the administrative structure that has 
already been put in place.
  On a related but separate note, I am very aware that on February 16, 
2005, the Kyoto Protocol came into force. As the primary author of 
Senate Resolution 98, which passed unanimously in 1997, I worked to 
establish core principles which should be part of any future binding, 
international climate change agreement. Those principles were that a 
treaty should be cost effective and should include the participation of 
developing nations, especially the largest emitters. The Kyoto Protocol 
does not meet those principles for the United States.
  There have been widely varying interpretations of that resolution, 
especially by the Bush administration. The Byrd-Hagel resolution was 
intended to guide our Nation's role in international negotiations, not 
kill that effort. It was meant to strengthen the hand of any 
administration as it sat at the international negotiating table, but 
this White House has used the Senate's vote as an excuse to totally 
abandon the negotiations and offer, instead, only hollow alternatives. 
Yet, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Bush administration to claim 
that it is defending that resolution's principles when, as a matter of 
fact, it has disregarded its very purpose.
  That Senate resolution directed that any climate change treaty 
include commitments for the developing world, like China and India, 
which will surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. These 
commitments could lead to real reductions. An international treaty with 
binding commitments also could allow for developing countries' 
continued economic growth with relatively modest requirements at first, 
pacing upwards, with ultimate goals to be achieved over time.
  Moreover, given their expected economic growth and energy demands, 
developing nations are a primary market for clean energy technologies. 
But, this multi-billion dollar window of opportunity could close for 
the United States. With little pressure on developing countries to 
reduce or contain their emissions growth, these potentially enormous 
markets for clean energy technologies, made in the U.S., could slip 
away. Thus, my legislation can serve as a commonsense foot-in-the-door 
to help jump start efforts to seek fair and effective globally binding 
agreements in the future.
  Despite this, the President has clearly stated that the U.S. would 
only pursue voluntary measures both domestically and internationally, 
and he continues to follow that path despite the fact that no major 
environmental problem has ever been solved by a purely voluntary basis. 
Since retreating from the international forum, his own climate change 
program is a strong testament to prove that voluntary actions are not 
likely to result in any serious decrease in overall emissions. While 
global climate change is long-term problem, it does not mean that we 
can put off action indefinitely. If we wait for decades to take more 
significant actions, then more radical measures will likely be 
necessary.
  Additionally, I have long said that the U.S. needs a comprehensive, 
national energy strategy that has bipartisan support. A serious energy 
efficiency program, bolstered by the promotion of renewable energy and 
other clean home-grown energy sources, provides a compass point for a 
U.S. energy strategy. At its core, we must rely on our nation's 
domestic energy assets, especially coal. Coal must become a primary 
fuel source for new energy demands into the 21st century. However, to 
do so requires that we think differently about coal.
  It is a myth to say that the U.S. or other major nations like China 
and India will stop burning coal any time soon. Yet, we must begin to 
treat this plentiful resource like black gold and use it in a much 
cleaner and more efficient way. We must accelerate the deployment of 
commercial-scale technologies that move us away from simply burning 
coal toward the enhanced ability to transform coal into a variety of 
energy products. We can begin to meet this challenge by demonstrating 
and deploying advanced power generation, especially coal gasification 
and carbon sequestration technologies, as well as by producing 
synthetic fuels and, eventually, hydrogen for use in

[[Page 6015]]

other sectors of the economy. This broad approach also requires sending 
strong and clear regulatory and market signals which can significantly 
reconcile numerous environmental and climate change concerns, stimulate 
technology deployment, and set the stage for coal into the future.
  The path that I am proposing here today goes far beyond the energy 
proposals that this White House has offered. Pursuing this course will 
take steadfast leadership, hard work, and American ingenuity to move 
forward in a responsible, balanced, and intelligent way. It is time for 
industry, labor, academic, environmental, and community interests to 
work with policymakers to find common ground. Commonsense market-based 
and regulatory approaches, emerging technology platforms, and new 
policy perspectives can bring these divergent groups together.
  I believe it is time to send the message that there will likely be a 
binding carbon management regime in place for the U.S. at some point in 
the future. It may not be in place tomorrow or the next day or even in 
the next 2 to 4 years. It may also be a modest approach initially, but 
it is on the horizon. We certainly cannot run until we have walked, and 
we cannot walk until we have taken a step. But we can no longer stand 
still forever. By acting boldly, we can champion a new energy and 
environmental legacy that will benefit all the world's citizens.
  With regard to my legislation's introduction today, our Nation must 
recognize the incredible impact that U.S. technologies and ideas can 
have in helping to meet other nations' energy needs in a more 
sustainable way. We must work to open and expand international markets 
for a range of U.S. clean energy technologies and simultaneously 
address global energy security, economic, trade, and environmental 
objectives.
  I thank you for this opportunity and hope this legislation will 
receive serious consideration. I urge Members to see this as a key 
component of the architecture that will be necessary if we ever hope to 
seriously tackle the tough energy and environment issues before us as 
well as a way to enhance our broader foreign policy and climate change 
efforts around the world.
  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. 745

       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 ``International Clean Energy 
     Deployment and Global Energy Markets Investment Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to strengthen the cooperation of the United States with 
     developing countries in addressing critical energy needs and 
     global climate change;
       (2) to promote sustainable economic development, increase 
     access to modern energy services, reduce greenhouse gas 
     emissions, and strengthen energy security and independence in 
     developing countries through the deployment of clean energy 
     technologies;
       (3) to facilitate the export of clean energy technologies 
     to developing countries;
       (4) to reduce the trade deficit of the United States 
     through the export of United States energy technologies and 
     technological expertise;
       (5) to retain and create manufacturing and related service 
     jobs in the United States;
       (6) to integrate the objectives described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (5) in a manner consistent with interests of the 
     United States, into the foreign policy of the United States;
       (7) to authorize funds for clean energy development 
     activities in developing countries; and
       (8) to ensure that activities funded under part C of title 
     VII of the Global Environmental Protection Assistance Act of 
     1989 (as added by section 3) contribute to economic growth, 
     poverty reduction, good governance, the rule of law, property 
     rights, and environmental protection.

     SEC. 3. CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPING 
                   COUNTRIES.

       Title VII of the Global Environmental Protection Assistance 
     Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-240; 103 Stat. 2521) is amending 
     by adding at the end the following:

  ``PART C--CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

     ``SEC. 731. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Clean energy technology.--The term `clean energy 
     technology' means an energy supply or end-use technology 
     that, over its lifecycle and compared to a similar technology 
     already in commercial use in any developing country--
       ``(A) is reliable, affordable, economically viable, 
     socially acceptable, and compatible with the needs and norms 
     of the host country;
       ``(B) results in--
       ``(i) reduced emissions of greenhouse gases; or
       ``(ii) increased geological sequestration; and
       ``(C) may--
       ``(i) substantially lower emissions of air pollutants; and
       ``(ii) generate substantially smaller or less hazardous 
     quantities of solid or liquid waste.
       ``(2) Department.--The term `Department' means the 
     Department of State.
       ``(3) Developing country.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `developing country' means any 
     country not listed in Annex I of the United Nations Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change, done at New York on May 9, 
     1992.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `developing country' may include 
     a country with an economy in transition, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(4) Geological sequestration.--The term `geological 
     sequestration' means the capture and long-term storage in a 
     geological formation of a greenhouse gas from an energy 
     producing facility, which prevents the release of greenhouse 
     gases into the atmosphere.
       ``(5) Greenhouse gas.--The term `greenhouse gas' means--
       ``(A) carbon dioxide;
       ``(B) methane;
       ``(C) nitrous oxide;
       ``(D) hydrofluorocarbons;
       ``(E) perfluorocarbons; and
       ``(F) sulfur hexafluoride.
       ``(6) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       ``(7) Interagency working group.--The term `Interagency 
     Working Group' means the Interagency Working Group on Clean 
     Energy Technology Exports established under section 
     732(b)(1)(A).
       ``(8) National laboratory.--The term `National Laboratory' 
     means any of the following laboratories owned by the 
     Department of Energy:
       ``(A) Ames Laboratory.
       ``(B) Argonne National Laboratory.
       ``(C) Brookhaven National Laboratory.
       ``(D) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
       ``(E) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
     Laboratory.
       ``(F) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
       ``(G) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
       ``(H) Los Alamos National Laboratory.
       ``(I) National Energy Technology Laboratory.
       ``(J) National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
       ``(K) Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
       ``(L) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
       ``(M) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
       ``(N) Sandia National Laboratories.
       ``(O) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
       ``(P) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.
       ``(9) Qualifying project.--The term `qualifying project' 
     means a project meeting the criteria established under 
     section 735(b).
       ``(10) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of State.
       ``(11) State.--The term `State' means--
       ``(A) a State;
       ``(B) the District of Columbia;
       ``(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
       ``(D) any other territory or possession of the United 
     States.
       ``(12) Strategy.--The term `Strategy' means the strategy 
     established under section 733.
       ``(13) Task force.--The term `Task Force' means the Task 
     Force on International Clean Energy Cooperation established 
     under section 732(a).
       ``(14) United states.--The term `United States', when used 
     in a geographical sense, means all of the States.

     ``SEC. 732. ORGANIZATION.

       ``(a) Task Force.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this part, the President shall establish a 
     Task Force on International Clean Energy Cooperation.
       ``(2) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of--
       ``(A) the Secretary, who shall serve as Chairperson; and
       ``(B) representatives, appointed by the head of the 
     respective Federal agency, of--
       ``(i) the Department of Commerce;
       ``(ii) the Department of the Treasury;
       ``(iii) the Department of Energy;

[[Page 6016]]

       ``(iv) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       ``(v) the United States Agency for International 
     Development;
       ``(vi) the Export-Import Bank;
       ``(vii) the Overseas Private Investment Corporation;
       ``(viii) the Trade and Development Agency;
       ``(ix) the Small Business Administration;
       ``(x) the Office of United States Trade Representative; and
       ``(xi) other Federal agencies, as determined by the 
     President.
       ``(3) Duties.--
       ``(A) Lead agency.--The Task Force shall act as the lead 
     agency in the development and implementation of strategy 
     under section 733.
       ``(B) Coordination and implementation.--The Task Force 
     shall support the coordination and implementation of programs 
     under sections 1331, 1332, and 1608 of the Energy Policy Act 
     of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13361, 13362, 13387).
       ``(4) Termination.--The Task Force, including any working 
     group established by the Task Force, shall terminate on 
     January 1, 2016.
       ``(b) Working Groups.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Task Force--
       ``(A) shall establish an Interagency Working Group on Clean 
     Energy Technology Exports; and
       ``(B) may establish other working groups as necessary to 
     carry out this part.
       ``(2) Composition of interagency working group.--The 
     Interagency Working Group shall be composed of--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, 
     and the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development, who shall jointly serve as 
     Chairpersons; and
       ``(B) other members, as determined by the Task Force.
       ``(c) Interagency Center.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established an Interagency 
     Center in the Office of International Energy Market 
     Development of the Department of Energy.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Interagency Center shall--
       ``(A) assist the Interagency Working Group in carrying out 
     this part; and
       ``(B) perform such other duties as are determined to be 
     appropriate by the Secretary of Energy.

     ``SEC. 733. STRATEGY.

       ``(a) Initial Strategy.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this part, the Task Force shall develop and 
     submit to the President a Strategy to--
       ``(A) support the development and implementation of 
     programs and policies in developing countries to promote the 
     adoption of clean energy technologies and energy efficiency 
     technologies and strategies, with an emphasis on those 
     developing countries that are expected to experience the most 
     significant growth in energy production and use over the next 
     20 years;
       ``(B) open and expand clean energy technology markets and 
     facilitate the export of clean energy technology to 
     developing countries, in a manner consistent with the subsidy 
     codes of the World Trade Organization;
       ``(C) integrate into the foreign policy objectives of the 
     United States the promotion of--
       ``(i) clean energy technology deployment and reduced 
     greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries; and
       ``(ii) clean energy technology exports;
       ``(D) establish a pilot program that provides financial 
     assistance for qualifying projects; and
       ``(E) develop financial mechanisms and instruments 
     (including securities that mitigate the political and foreign 
     exchange risks of uses that are consistent with the foreign 
     policy of the United States by combining the private sector 
     market and government enhancements) that--
       ``(i) are cost-effective; and
       ``(ii) facilitate private capital investment in clean 
     energy technology projects in developing countries.
       ``(2) Transmission to congress.--On receiving the Strategy 
     from the Task Force under paragraph (1), the President shall 
     transmit to Congress the Strategy.
       ``(b)  Updates.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     submission of the initial Strategy under subsection (a)(1), 
     and every 2 years thereafter--
       ``(A) the Task Force shall--
       ``(i) review and update the Strategy; and
       ``(ii) report the results of the review and update to the 
     President; and
       ``(B) the President shall submit to Congress a report on 
     the Strategy.
       ``(2) Inclusions.--The report shall include--
       ``(A) the updated Strategy;
       ``(B) a description of the assistance provided under this 
     part;
       ``(C) the results of the pilot projects carried out under 
     this part, including a comparative analysis of the relative 
     merits of each pilot project;
       ``(D) the activities and progress reported by developing 
     countries to the Department under section 736(b)(2); and
       ``(E) the activities and progress reported towards meeting 
     the goals established under section 736(b)(2).
       ``(c) Content.--In developing, updating, and submitting a 
     report on the Strategy, the Task Force shall--
       ``(1) assess--
       ``(A) energy trends, energy needs, and potential energy 
     resource bases in developing countries; and
       ``(B) the implications of the trends and needs for domestic 
     and global economic and security interests;
       ``(2) analyze technology, policy, and market opportunities 
     for international development, demonstration, and deployment 
     of clean energy technologies and strategies;
       ``(3) examine relevant trade, tax, finance, international, 
     and other policy issues to assess what policies, in the 
     United States and in developing countries, would help open 
     markets and improve clean energy technology exports of the 
     United States in support of--
       ``(A) enhancing energy innovation and cooperation, 
     including energy sector and market reform, capacity building, 
     and financing measures;
       ``(B) improving energy end-use efficiency technologies 
     (including buildings and facilities) and vehicle, industrial, 
     and co-generation technology initiatives; and
       ``(C) promoting energy supply technologies, including 
     fossil, nuclear, and renewable technology initiatives;
       ``(4) investigate issues associated with building capacity 
     to deploy clean energy technology in developing countries, 
     including--
       ``(A) energy-sector reform;
       ``(B) creation of open, transparent, and competitive 
     markets for clean energy technologies;
       ``(C) the availability of trained personnel to deploy and 
     maintain clean energy technology; and
       ``(D) demonstration and cost-buydown mechanisms to promote 
     first adoption of clean energy technology;
       ``(5) establish priorities for promoting the diffusion and 
     adoption of clean energy technologies and strategies in 
     developing countries, taking into account economic and 
     security interests of the United States and opportunities for 
     the export of technology of the United States;
       ``(6) identify the means of integrating the priorities 
     established under paragraph (5) into bilateral, multilateral, 
     and assistance activities and commitments of the United 
     States;
       ``(7) establish methodologies for the measurement, 
     monitoring, verification, and reporting under section 
     736(b)(2) of the greenhouse gas emission impacts of clean 
     energy projects and policies in developing countries;
       ``(8) establish a registry that is accessible to the public 
     through electronic means (including through the Internet) in 
     which information reported under section 736(b)(2) shall be 
     collected;
       ``(9) make recommendations to the heads of appropriate 
     Federal agencies on ways to streamline Federal programs and 
     policies to improve the role of the agencies in the 
     international development, demonstration, and deployment of 
     clean energy technology;
       ``(10) make assessments and recommendations regarding the 
     distinct technological, market, regional, and stakeholder 
     challenges necessary to deploy clean energy technology;
       ``(11) recommend conditions and criteria that will help 
     ensure that funds provided by the United States promote sound 
     energy policies in developing countries while simultaneously 
     opening their markets and exporting clean energy technology 
     of the United States;
       ``(12) establish an advisory committee, composed of 
     representatives of the private sector and other interested 
     groups, on the export and deployment of clean energy 
     technology;
       ``(13) establish a coordinated mechanism for disseminating 
     information to the private sector and the public on clean 
     energy technologies and clean energy technology transfer 
     opportunities; and
       ``(14) monitor the progress of each Federal agency in 
     promoting the purposes of this part, in accordance with--
       ``(A) the 5-year strategic plan submitted to Congress in 
     October 2002; and
       ``(B) other applicable law.

     ``SEC. 734. CLEAN ENERGY ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to section 736, the Secretary 
     may provide assistance to developing countries for activities 
     that are consistent with the priorities established in the 
     Strategy.
       ``(b) Assistance.--The assistance may be provided through--
       ``(1) the Millennium Challenge Corporation established 
     under section 604(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 
     (22 U.S.C. 7703(a));
       ``(2) the Global Village Energy Partnership; and
       ``(3) other international assistance programs or activities 
     of--
       ``(A) the Department;
       ``(B) the United States Agency for International 
     Development; and
       ``(C) other Federal agencies.
       ``(c) Eligible Activities.--The activities supported under 
     this section include--

[[Page 6017]]

       ``(1) development of national action plans and policies 
     to--
       ``(A) facilitate the provision of clean energy services and 
     the adoption of energy efficiency measures;
       ``(B) identify linkages between the use of clean energy 
     technologies and the provision of agricultural, 
     transportation, water, health, educational, and other 
     development-related services; and
       ``(C) integrate the use of clean energy technologies into 
     national strategies for economic growth, poverty reduction, 
     and sustainable development;
       ``(2) strengthening of public and private sector capacity 
     to--
       ``(A) assess clean energy needs and options;
       ``(B) identify opportunities to reduce, avoid, or sequester 
     greenhouse gas emissions;
       ``(C) establish enabling policy frameworks;
       ``(D) develop and access financing mechanisms; and
       ``(E) monitor progress in implementing clean energy and 
     greenhouse gas reduction strategies;
       ``(3) enactment and implementation of market-favoring 
     measures to promote commercial-based energy service provision 
     and to improve the governance, efficiency, and financial 
     performance of the energy sector; and
       ``(4) development and use of innovative public and private 
     mechanisms to catalyze and leverage financing for clean 
     energy technologies, including use of the development credit 
     authority of the United States Agency for International 
     Development and credit enhancements through the Export-Import 
     Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

     ``SEC. 735. PILOT PROGRAM FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this part, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the United 
     States Agency for International Development, shall, by 
     regulation, establish a pilot program that provides financial 
     assistance for qualifying projects consistent with the 
     Strategy and the performance criteria established under 
     section 736.
       ``(b) Qualifying Projects.--To be qualified to receive 
     assistance under this section, a project shall--
       ``(1) be a project--
       ``(A) to construct an energy production facility in a 
     developing country for the production of energy to be 
     consumed in the developing country; or
       ``(B) to improve the efficiency of energy use in a 
     developing country;
       ``(2) be a project that--
       ``(A) is submitted by a firm of the United States to the 
     Secretary in accordance with procedures established by the 
     Secretary by regulation;
       ``(B) meets the requirements of section 1608(k) of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13387(k));
       ``(C) uses technology that has been successfully developed 
     or deployed in the United States; and
       ``(D) is selected by the Secretary without regard to the 
     developing country in which the project is located, with 
     notice of the selection published in the Federal Register; 
     and
       ``(3) when deployed, result in a greenhouse gas emission 
     reduction (when compared to the technology that would 
     otherwise be deployed) of at least--
       ``(A) in the case of a unit or energy-efficiency measure 
     placed in service during the period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this part and ending on December 31, 2009, 20 
     percentage points;
       ``(B) in the case of a unit or energy-efficiency measure 
     placed in service during the period beginning on January 1, 
     2010, and ending on December 31, 2019, 40 percentage points; 
     and
       ``(C) in the case of a unit or energy-efficiency measure 
     placed in service after December 31, 2019, 60 percentage 
     points.
       ``(c) Financial Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each qualifying project selected by 
     the Secretary to participate in the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall make a loan or loan guarantee available for 
     not more than 50 percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(2) Interest rate.--The interest rate on a loan made 
     under this subsection shall be equal to the current average 
     yield on outstanding obligations of the United States with 
     remaining periods of maturity comparable to the maturity of 
     the loan.
       ``(3) Host country contribution.--To be eligible for a loan 
     or loan guarantee for a project in a host country under this 
     subsection, the host country shall--
       ``(A) make at least a 10 percent contribution toward the 
     total cost of the project; and
       ``(B) verify to the Secretary (using the methodology 
     established under section 733(c)(7)) the quantity of annual 
     greenhouse gas emissions reduced, avoided, or sequestered as 
     a result of the deployment of the project.
       ``(4) Capacity building research.--
       ``(A) In general.--A proposal made for a qualifying project 
     may include a research component intended to build 
     technological capacity within the host country.
       ``(B) Research.--To be eligible for a loan or loan 
     guarantee under this paragraph, the research shall--
       ``(i) be related to the technology being deployed; and
       ``(ii) involve--

       ``(I) an institution in the host country; and
       ``(II) a participant from the United States that is an 
     industrial entity, an institution of higher education, or a 
     National Laboratory.

       ``(C) Host country contribution.--To be eligible for a loan 
     or loan guarantee for research in a host country under this 
     paragraph, the host country shall make at least a 50 percent 
     contribution toward the total cost of the research.
       ``(5) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the United 
     States Agency for International Development, may, at the 
     request of the United States ambassador to a host country, 
     make grants to help address and overcome specific, urgent, 
     and unforeseen obstacles in the implementation of a 
     qualifying project.
       ``(B) Maximum amount.--The total amount of a grant made for 
     a qualifying project under this paragraph may not exceed 
     $1,000,000.

     ``SEC. 736. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR MAJOR ENERGY CONSUMERS.

       ``(a) Identification of Major Energy Consumers.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of enactment of this part, the 
     Task Force shall identify those developing countries that, by 
     virtue of present and projected energy consumption, represent 
     the predominant share of energy use among developing 
     countries.
       ``(b) Performance Criteria.--As a condition of accepting 
     assistance provided under sections 734 and 735, any 
     developing country identified under subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) meet the eligibility criteria established under 
     section 607 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 
     U.S.C. 7706), notwithstanding the eligibility of the 
     developing country as a candidate country under section 606 
     of that Act (22 U.S.C. 7705); and
       ``(2) agree to establish and report on progress in meeting 
     specific goals for reduced energy-related greenhouse gas 
     emissions and specific goals for--
       ``(A) increased access to clean energy services among 
     unserved and underserved populations;
       ``(B) increased use of renewable energy resources;
       ``(C) increased use of lower greenhouse gas-emitting fossil 
     fuel-burning technologies;
       ``(D) more efficient production and use of energy;
       ``(E) greater reliance on advanced energy technologies;
       ``(F) the sustainable use of traditional energy resources; 
     or
       ``(G) other goals for improving energy-related 
     environmental performance, including the reduction or 
     avoidance of local air and water quality and solid waste 
     contaminants.

     ``SEC. 737. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this part for each of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2015.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 746. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the Inland Empire regional recycling project and in the 
Cucamonga Valley Water District recycling project; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to authorize the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling initiative to 
be part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program. These 
water recycling projects will produce approximately 100,000 acre-feet 
of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the 
United States.
  The legislation would authorize two project components: the first of 
which will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, IEUA 
and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. 
The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley 
Water District CVWD, will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new 
water annually. Combined, approximately 100,000 acre feet of new water 
would be produced locally by 2010, reducing the need for imported water 
from the Colorado River and northern California through the California 
Water Project.
  Significantly, the Federal cost share is only 10 percent of the 
upfront capital costs.
  We must continue to approve measures preventing water supply 
shortages in the Western United States. The Inland Empire region is one 
of the fastest growing areas in the nation. This legislation means that 
the Inland Empire will use less water from the Colorado

[[Page 6018]]

River and northern California, and the bill will have other benefits 
like improved water quality, energy savings, and job creation.
  The development of recycled water has enormous capacity to produce 
significant amounts of water, and have it ``on line'' in a relatively 
short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with 
the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in 
so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. 
According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water 
recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an 
estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of new supplies being developed over 
the next 25 years.
  Today's Commissioner of Reclamation said it best when, in a speech to 
the WateReuse Association he declared that recycled water is ``the last 
river to tap.''
  IEUA produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable purposes, 
such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction, 
and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-intensive applications 
with high-quality recycled water, fresh water can be conserved or used 
for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on expensive imported 
water.
  As we look into the future, it is appropriate that we are guided by 
lessons from the recent past. In the late 1980's, California confronted 
a sustained, multi-year drought. It was so serious that some observed 
that our State had 6-year-old first graders who had never seen ``green 
grass.'' California faced a crisis and water agencies and water 
districts, particularly in Southern California found a solution--
recycled water.
  In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior in President George H.W. 
Bush's administration, Manual Lujan, recognized that California was 
receiving more water from the Colorado River than its allocation. The 
Interior Secretary looked into the future and saw a day when California 
would get its allocation--4.4. million acre-feet, but no longer would 
it get up to 800,000 acre-feet of ``surplus flows.'' As is well known, 
that day has arrived.
  For any political leader, it's always a tremendous challenge to look 
into the future and design programs and solutions to a crisis. 
Secretary Lujan did exactly that. In August 1991, he launched the 
Southern California Water Initiative, a program to evaluate and study 
the feasibility of water reclamation projects. Mr. Lujan's vision was 
to build replacement water capacity to offset the anticipated Colorado 
River water supply reductions. In this endeavor, Secretary Lujan was 
assisted by then Commissioner of Reclamation Dennis Underwood. Last 
week, Mr. Underwood was selected by the Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California, MWD, board of directors as their new general 
manager and CEO.
  Congress saw the wisdom of the Lujan initiative too. Congress, in 
1992, was completing work on major water legislation. The Lujan 
initiative, a year after it was first announced, became Title XVI, the 
Bureau of Reclamation water recycling program that today serves the 
entire West, not just California. Today, water recycling is an 
essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt 
Lake City, Tucson, El Paso, San Antonio, Portland and other western 
metropolitan areas.
  The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support 
of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies 
downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square 
miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, through the 
Fontana Water Company, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga 
through the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and the Monte Vista Water 
District.
  This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, MWD's Integrated 
Resource Plan, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, SAWPA's 
Integrated Watershed Plan, and the Chino Basin Watermas-
ter's Optimum Basin Management Plan, Inland Empire Utility Agency's 
Feasibility Study, Cucamonga Valley Water District's ``Every Drop 
Counts'' Urban Water Reuse Management Strategy, the Bureau of 
Reclamation's Southern California Comprehensive Water Recycling and 
Reuse Feasibility Study, the State of California's Water Recycling Task 
Force, the WateReuse Association, the Association of California Water 
Agencies, ACWA and the U.S. Department of the Interior's Water 2025 
Initiative.
  Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental 
Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly 
support recycling projects. Business leaders such as Southern Cal 
Edison and Building Industry Association also support these water 
recycling projects.
  These projects were authorized for feasibility study in Public Law 
102-575, Title XVI, Section 1606, the Southern California Comprehensive 
Water Recycling and Reuse Feasibility Study in 1992. The State of 
California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, SAWPA 
and others provided $3 million of the $6 million required for the 
regional feasibility study of which these projects were one part.
  Detailed Feasibility Studies and environmentally reports have been 
prepared and approved by both agencies and certified by the State of 
California.
  Congressman David Dreier introduced identical legislation in the 
House in the 108th Congress. The House Resources Committee and then the 
House of Representatives both passed the bill unanimously.
  His bill is cosponsored by Representatives Gary Miller, Grace 
Napolitano, Ken Calvert and Joe Baca.
  And these valuable recycling projects would never have progressed at 
all without the hard work and dedication of Mr. Robert DeLoach, general 
manager of the Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Mr. Rich Atwater, 
CEO and general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 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. 746

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

     SECTION 1. INLAND EMPIRE AND CUCAMONGA VALLEY RECYCLING 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Inland 
     Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative''.
       (b) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
     Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second section 1636 (as added by 
     section 1(b) of Public Law 108-316 (118 Stat. 1202)) as 
     section 1637; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1638. INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Inland Empire Utilities Agency, may participate in the 
     design, planning, and construction of the Inland Empire 
     regional water recycling project described in the report 
     submitted under section 1606(c).
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the total cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation and maintenance of the project 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     ``SEC. 1639. CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Cucamonga Valley Water District, may participate in the 
     design, planning, and construction of the Cucamonga Valley 
     Water District satellite recycling plants in Rancho 
     Cucamonga, California, to reclaim and recycle approximately 2 
     million gallons per day of domestic wastewater.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent of the capital cost of the project.
       ``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall 
     not be used for operation and maintenance of the project 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--The table of sections in 
     section 2 of the Reclamation

[[Page 6019]]

     Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 
     prec. 371) is amended by striking the item relating to the 
     second section 1636 (as added by section 2 of Public Law 108-
     316 (118 Stat. 1202)) and inserting the following:

``Sec. 1637. Williamson County, Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse 
              Project.
``Sec. 1638. Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Program.
``Sec. 1639. Cucamonga Valley Water Recycling Project.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Grassley, and Ms. 
        Stabenow):
  S. 749. A bill to amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
to establish a governmentwide policy requiring competition in certain 
executive agency procurements, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Craig 
Thomas, Chuck Grassley and Debbie Stabenow in introducing the Federal 
Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. Our bill is based on 
a straightforward premise: it is unfair for Federal Prison Industries 
to deny businesses in the private sector an opportunity to compete for 
sales to their own government.
  We have made immeasurable progress on this issue since I first 
introduced a similar bill ten years ago. It may seem incredible, but at 
that time, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) could bar private sector 
companies from competing for a federal contract. Under the law 
establishing Federal Prison Industries, if Federal Prison Industries 
said that it wanted a contract, it would get that contract, regardless 
whether a company in the private sector could provide the product 
better, cheaper, or faster.
  Four years ago, the Senate took a giant step toward addressing this 
inequity when we voted 74-24 to end Federal Prison Industries' monopoly 
on Department of Defense contracts. Not only was that provision enacted 
into law, we were able to strengthen it with a second provision in last 
year's defense bill. Last year, we took another important step, 
enacting an appropriations provision which extends the DOD rules to 
other Federal agencies. This means that, for the first time, private 
sector companies should be able to compete against for contracts 
awarded by all Federal agencies.
  Despite this progress, work remains to be done. We have heard reports 
from federal procurement officials and from small businesses that FPI 
continues to claim that it retains the mandatory source status that 
protected it from competition for so long. This kind of misleading 
statement may undermine the right to compete that we have fought so 
hard for so long to establish.
  In addition, FPI continues to sell its services into interstate 
commerce on an unlimited basis. I am concerned that the sale of prison 
labor into commerce could have the effect of undermining companies and 
work forces that are already in a weakened position as a result of 
foreign competition. We have long taken the position as a nation that 
prison-made goods should not be sold into commerce, where prison wages 
of a few cents per hour could too easily undercut private sector 
competition. It is hard for me to understand why the sale of services 
should be treated any differently than the sale of products.
  The bill that we are introducing today would address these issues by 
making it absolutely clear that FPI no longer has a mandatory source 
status, by reaffirming the critical requirement that FPI compete for 
its contracts, and by carefully limiting the circumstances under which 
prison services may be sold into the private sector economy.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important 
issues, and 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. 749

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

     SECTION 1. GOVERNMENTWIDE PROCUREMENT POLICY RELATING TO 
                   PURCHASES FROM FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES.

       (a) Requirements.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 42. GOVERNMENTWIDE PROCUREMENT POLICY RELATING TO 
                   PURCHASES FROM FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES.

       ``(a) Competition Required.--In the procurement of any 
     product that is authorized to be offered for sale by Federal 
     Prison Industries and is listed in the catalog published and 
     maintained by Federal Prison Industries under section 4124(b) 
     of title 18, United States Code, or any service offered to be 
     provided by Federal Prison Industries, the head of an 
     executive agency shall, except as provided in subsection 
     (d)--
       ``(1) use competitive procedures for entering into a 
     contract for the procurement of such product, in accordance 
     with the requirements applicable to such executive agency 
     under sections 2304 and 2305 of title 10, United States Code, 
     or sections 303 through 303C of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253 through 
     253c); or
       ``(2) make an individual purchase under a multiple award 
     contract in accordance with competition requirements 
     applicable to such purchases.
       ``(b) Offers From Federal Prison Industries.--In conducting 
     a procurement pursuant to subsection (a), the head of an 
     executive agency shall--
       ``(1) notify Federal Prison Industries of the procurement 
     at the same time and in the same manner as other potential 
     offerors are notified;
       ``(2) consider a timely offer from Federal Prison 
     Industries for award in the same manner as other offers 
     (regardless of whether Federal Prison Industries is a 
     contractor under an applicable multiple award contract); and
       ``(3) consider a timely offer from Federal Prison 
     Industries without limitation as to the dollar value of the 
     proposed purchase, unless the contract opportunity has been 
     reserved for competition exclusively among small business 
     concerns pursuant to section 15(a) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 644(a)) and its implementing regulations.
       ``(c) Implementation by Agencies.--The head of each 
     executive agency shall ensure that--
       ``(1) the executive agency does not purchase a Federal 
     Prison Industries product or service unless a contracting 
     officer of the executive agency determines that the product 
     or service is comparable to a product or service available 
     from the private sector that best meet the executive agency's 
     needs in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery; and
       ``(2) Federal Prison Industries performs its contractual 
     obligations to the executive agency to the same extent as any 
     other contractor for the executive agency.
       ``(d) Exception.--
       ``(1) Other procedures.--The head of an executive agency 
     may use procedures other than competitive procedures to enter 
     into a contract with Federal Prison Industries only under the 
     following circumstances:
       ``(A) The Attorney General personally determines in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), within 30 days after Federal 
     Prison Industries has been informed by the head of that 
     executive agency of an opportunity for award of a contract 
     for a product or service, that--
       ``(i) Federal Prison Industries cannot reasonably expect 
     fair consideration in the selection of an offeror for award 
     of the contract on a competitive basis; and
       ``(ii) the award of the contract to Federal Prison 
     Industries for performance at a penal or correctional 
     facility is necessary to maintain work opportunities not 
     otherwise available at the penal or correctional facility 
     that prevent circumstances that could reasonably be expected 
     to significantly endanger the safe and effective 
     administration of such facility.
       ``(B) The product or service is available only from Federal 
     Prison Industries and the contract may be awarded under the 
     authority of section 2304(c)(1) of title 10, United States 
     Code, or section 303(c)(1) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1)), as 
     may be applicable, pursuant to the justification and approval 
     requirements relating to noncompetitive procurements 
     specified by law and the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       ``(2) Determination.--
       ``(A) In general.--A determination made by the Attorney 
     General regarding a contract pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) 
     shall be--
       ``(i) supported by specific findings by the warden of the 
     penal or correctional institution at which a Federal Prison 
     Industries workshop is scheduled to perform the contract;
       ``(ii) supported by specific findings by Federal Prison 
     Industries regarding the reasons that it does not expect to 
     be selected for award of the contract on a competitive basis; 
     and
       ``(iii) made and reported in the same manner as a 
     determination made pursuant to section 303(c)(7) of the 
     Federal Property and

[[Page 6020]]

     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(7)).
       ``(B) Nondelegation.--The Attorney General may not delegate 
     to any other official authority to make a determination that 
     is required under paragraph (1)(A) to be made personally by 
     the Attorney General.
       ``(e) Performance as a Subcontractor.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contractor or potential contractor 
     under a contract entered into by the head of an executive 
     agency may not be required to use Federal Prison Industries 
     as a subcontractor or supplier of a product or provider of a 
     service for the performance of the contract by any means, 
     including means such as--
       ``(A) a provision in a solicitation of offers that requires 
     a contractor to offer to use or specify a product or service 
     of Federal Prison Industries in the performance of the 
     contract;
       ``(B) a contract clause that requires the contractor to use 
     or specify a product or service (or classes of products or 
     services) offered by Federal Prison Industries in the 
     performance of the contract; or
       ``(C) any contract modification that requires the use of a 
     product or service of Federal Prison Industries in the 
     performance of the contract.
       ``(2) Subcontractor or supplier.--A contractor using 
     Federal Prison Industries as a subcontractor or supplier in 
     furnishing a commercial product pursuant to a contract of an 
     executive agency shall implement appropriate management 
     procedures to prevent an introduction of an inmate-produced 
     product into the commercial market.
       ``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     `contractor', with respect to a contract, includes a 
     subcontractor at any tier under the contract.
       ``(f) Protection of Classified and Sensitive Information.--
     The head of an executive agency may not enter into any 
     contract with Federal Prison Industries under which an inmate 
     worker would have access to--
       ``(1) any data that is classified or will become classified 
     after being merged with other data;
       ``(2) any geographic data regarding the location of--
       ``(A) surface or subsurface infrastructure providing 
     communications or water or electrical power distribution;
       ``(B) pipelines for the distribution of natural gas, bulk 
     petroleum products, or other commodities; or
       ``(C) other utilities; or
       ``(3) any personal or financial information about any 
     individual private citizen, including information relating to 
     such person's real property however described, without the 
     prior consent of the individual.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``Sec. 42. Governmentwide procurement policy relating to purchases from 
              Federal Prison Industries.''.

     SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Repeal of Inconsistent Requirements Applicable to 
     Department of Defense.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2410n of title 10, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (2) Table of sections.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 141 of such title is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 2410n.
       (b) Repeal of Inconsistent Requirements Applicable to Other 
     Agencies.--Section 4124 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and redesignating 
     subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (a) and (b), 
     respectively; and
       (2) in subsection (a), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by 
     striking ``Federal department, agency, and institution 
     subject to the requirements of subsection (a)'' and inserting 
     ``Federal department and agency''.
       (c) Other Laws.--
       (1) Javits-wagner-o'day act.--Section 3 of the Javits-
     Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 48) is amended by striking 
     ``which, under section 4124 of such title, is required'' and 
     inserting ``which is required by law''.
       (2) Small business act.--Section 31(b)(4) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b)(4)) is amended by striking 
     ``a different source under section 4124 or 4125 of title 18, 
     United States Code, or the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 
     46 et seq.)'' and inserting ``a different source under the 
     Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46 et seq.) or Federal 
     Prison Industries under section 40(d) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act or section 4125 of title 18, 
     United States Code''.

     SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS, 
                   SERVICES, OR MINERALS RESULTING FROM CONVICT 
                   LABOR.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 1761 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``reformatory 
     institution,'' the following: ``or knowingly sells in 
     interstate commerce any services, other than disassembly and 
     scrap resale activities to achieve landfill avoidance, 
     furnished wholly or in part by convicts or prisoners, except 
     convicts or prisoners on parole, supervised release, or 
     probation, or in any penal or reformatory institution,''; and
       (2) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) in subsection 
     (c), by inserting ``, or services furnished,'' after ``or 
     mined''.
       (b) Completion of Existing Agreements.--Any prisoner work 
     program operated by the Federal Government or by a State or 
     local government which was providing a service for the 
     commercial market through inmate labor on October 1, 2005, 
     may continue to provide such commercial services until--
       (1) the expiration that was specified in the contract or 
     other agreement with a commercial partner on October 1, 2005; 
     or
       (2) until September 30, 2006, if no expiration date was 
     specified in a contract or other agreement with a commercial 
     partner.
       (c) Approval Required for Long-Term Operation of State and 
     Local Programs.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     prison work program operated by a State or local government 
     may provide a service for the commercial market through 
     inmate labor only if such program has been certified pursuant 
     to section 1761(c) of title 18, United States Code, and is in 
     compliance with the requirements of such subsection and its 
     implementing regulations.
       (d) Approval Required for Long-Term Operation of Federal 
     Programs.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a prison 
     work program operated by the Federal Government may provide a 
     service for the commercial market through inmate labor only 
     if a Federal Prison Industries proposal to provide such 
     services is approved in accordance with the requirements of 
     this subsection by the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary 
     of Labor, and the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration. Such a proposal may be approved only upon a 
     determination, after notice and an opportunity for public 
     comment, that--
       (1) the service to be provided would be provided 
     exclusively by foreign labor in the absence of the Federal 
     Prison Industries proposal; and
       (2) the approval of the proposal will not have an adverse 
     impact on employment in any United States business.
       (e) Protection of Classified and Sensitive Information.--A 
     prison work program operated by a State or local government 
     may not provide a service, including a service for the 
     commercial market through inmate labor pursuant to section 
     1761(c) of title 18, United States Code, under which an 
     inmate worker would have access to--
       (1) any data that is classified or will become classified 
     after being merged with other data;
       (2) any geographic data regarding the location of--
       (A) surface or subsurface infrastructure providing 
     communications or water or electrical power distribution;
       (B) pipelines for the distribution of natural gas, bulk 
     petroleum products, or other commodities; or
       (C) other utilities or transportation infrastructure; or
       (3) any personal or financial information about any 
     individual private citizen, including information relating to 
     such person's real property however described, without the 
     prior consent of the individual.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL INMATE WORK OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH PUBLIC 
                   SERVICE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Cooperation With Charitable Organizations.--Chapter 307 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 4130. COOPERATION WITH CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS.

       ``(a) Sale or Donation of Products or Services to 
     Charitable Entities.--Federal Prison Industries may, subject 
     to subsection (b), sell or donate a product or service to an 
     organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt from taxation under 
     section 501(a) of such Code. Any product or service sold or 
     donated under this section may be donated or sold by the 
     charitable organization to low-income individuals who would 
     otherwise have difficulty purchasing such products or 
     services.
       ``(b) Work Agreements With Charitable Organizations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Federal Prison Industries may sell or 
     donate a product or service to a charitable organization 
     under subsection (a) only pursuant to a work agreement with 
     the charitable organization receiving the product or service.
       ``(2) Terms.--Federal Prison Industries may enter a work 
     agreement relating to a product and service under paragraph 
     (1) only if--
       ``(A) the Attorney General determines, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce, that 
     the product or service would not be available except for the 
     availability of inmate workers provided by Federal Prison 
     Industries; and
       ``(B) the work agreement is accompanied by a written 
     certification by the chief executive officer of the 
     charitable organization that--
       ``(i) no job of a noninmate employee or volunteer of the 
     charitable organization (or any affiliate of the charitable 
     organization) will be abolished, and no such employee's or 
     volunteer's work hours will be reduced, as a result of the 
     entity being authorized to utilize inmate workers; and

[[Page 6021]]

       ``(ii) the work to be performed by the inmate workers will 
     not supplant work currently being performed by a contractor 
     of the charitable organization.
       ``(3) Nondelegation.--The Attorney General may not delegate 
     authority to make determinations under paragraph (2)(A) to 
     any person serving in a position below the lowest level of 
     positions that are filled by appointment by the President, by 
     and with the advice and consent of the Senate.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 307 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``4130. Cooperation with charitable organizations. 

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL REHABILITATIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INMATES.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 4049. ENHANCED IN-PRISON EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL 
                   ASSESSMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established the Enhanced In-
     Prison Educational and Vocational Assessment and Training 
     Program within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
       ``(b) Requirements.--The program established under this 
     section shall provide, at a minimum, a full range of 
     educational opportunities, vocational training and 
     apprenticeships, and comprehensive release-readiness 
     preparation for inmates in Federal prisons.''.
       (2) Table of sections.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``4049. Enhanced In-Prison Educational and Vocational Assessment and 
              Training Program. 

       (b) Implementation Objective.--It shall be the objective of 
     the Federal Bureau of Prisons to implement the program 
     established under section 4049 of title 18, United States 
     Code (as added by subsection (a)), in all Federal prisons not 
     later than 8 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 6. NEW PRODUCTS AND EXPANDED PRODUCTION OF EXISTING 
                   PRODUCTS.

       Federal Prison Industries shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, increase inmate employment by producing new 
     products or expanding the production of existing products for 
     the public sector that would otherwise be produced outside 
     the United States.

     SEC. 7. TRANSITIONAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.

       Any correctional officer or other employee of Federal 
     Prison Industries being paid with nonappropriated funds who 
     would be separated from service because of a reduction in the 
     net income of Federal Prison Industries before the date that 
     is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act shall 
     be--
       (1) eligible for appointment (or reappointment) in the 
     competitive service in accordance with subpart B or part III 
     of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) registered on a Bureau of Prisons reemployment priority 
     list; and
       (3) given priority for any other position within the Bureau 
     of Prisons for which such employee is qualified.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. THOMAS. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in 
introducing a bill that will further my efforts to limit unfair 
government competition with the private sector. Throughout my career in 
public office, I have always taken the position that government should 
not compete unfairly with American small businesses. If a function or 
product is available in the private sector, then that should be the 
first avenue of choice as opposed to having that function provided by 
government.
  For several years now, Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a government 
entity with the purpose of keeping prisoners busy while serving their 
sentences, has been providing a growing variety of products and 
services to both the Federal Government and the private sector. 
Currently, FPI employs approximately 21,000 Federal prisoners or 
roughly 12 percent of a population of 174,000. These prisoners are 
responsible for producing a diverse range of products for FPI, ranging 
from office furniture to clothing, as well as providing a variety of 
services, including telemarketing. The remaining Federal prisoners who 
work do so in and around Federal prisons.
  Through its status as a sole provider of certain goods to the Federal 
Government, FPI has effectively blocked private sector businesses from 
having a chance to provide products, even though they may be able to 
provide a better product in a more cost effective and efficient manner. 
This situation is not in the best interest of the American taxpayer and 
is blatantly unfair to American small businesses across the country. 
Along with Senators Grassley and Stabenow, Senator Levin and I propose 
to enact thorough and lasting reforms to Federal Prison Industries that 
would ensure that they no longer compete unfairly with private sector 
small businesses.
  We have already taken steps to remedy the situation. In last year's 
Omnibus Appropriations bill, language was included that prohibited 
funding for sole source products from FPI and subjected such 
procurements to follow the competitive requirements set out in the 
Federal Acquisitions Regulations. However, there are questions as to 
whether the mandatory sourcing requirement still remains under these 
regulations. Our bill makes it very clear to Federal Managers and 
Federal Prison Industries that contracting officers are to use 
competitive procedures for the procurement of products and services. 
This approach allows federal agencies to select FPI for contracts if, 
as a result of a competitive process, FPI can meet that particular 
agency's requirements and the product or service is the best value 
offered at a fair and reasonable price. By removing FPI's status as the 
sole provider and subjecting procurement to competition, the above 
outlined provision in our bill places the control of government 
procurement in the hands of contracting officers and allows them to 
pursue the most cost effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
  While we believe that it is important to keep prisoners working, we 
do not believe that this effort should unduly harm or conflict with 
law-abiding businesses. This bill seeks to minimize the unfair 
competition that private sector companies face with the FPI. As FPI 
continues to expand its reach into providing services, the low costs of 
inmate labor is undercutting private sector businesses that provide 
similar services. The result is an unfair advantage for FPI. While 
allowing for the conclusion of current contracts, this bill also looks 
to limit services provided by inmates that compete with the private 
sector in interstate commerce. Additionally, the bill prohibits FPI 
from production of goods or services in which an inmate would have 
access to classified or sensitive data.
  We support the goal of keeping prisoners busy while serving their 
time in prison. But FPI should not be placed in a position of advantage 
when providing goods to the federal government, and these activities 
should not unfairly compete with services already provided in the 
private sector. However, I recognize that there may be cases in which a 
particular contract is deemed essential to the safety and effective 
administration of a particular prison. To deal with these exceptions, a 
provision is included that allows the Attorney General to grant a 
waiver to these reform measures in certain cases.
  In addition to bringing a halt to unfair business practices with the 
private sector, this bill allows for FPI to search for other means to 
keep prisoners working that do not impact the employment of individuals 
in the private sector. There is a need to keep inmates busy, and this 
legislation addresses further work opportunities though public service 
activities and cooperation with charitable organizations. Additionally, 
the bill recognizes the need for further avenues of rehabilitation and 
directs the Federal Bureau of Prisons to establish an Enhanced In-
Prison Educational and Vocational Assessment and Training Program for 
inmates.
  I am confident that by allowing competition for government contracts 
our bill will save taxpayer dollars. Through healthy competition with 
the private sector for procurement contracts, FPI will be forced to 
look internally for ways to improve its own effectiveness and 
efficiency. The reform of Federal Prison Industries will bring about 
numerous improvements, not just in cost savings, but also in preserving 
jobs for law abiding Americans in the private sector who work in small 
businesses. And the most important effect will be the better use of tax 
dollars. The American taxpayer is the one who will benefit most from 
this legislation.

[[Page 6022]]

  A similar version of our bill was reported favorably out of the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in the 108th Congress, and reform 
measures have passed overwhelming in the House of Representatives. Our 
bill has the support of small business groups from across the country, 
as well as organized labor. Clearly, reforming the way Federal Prison 
Industries does business is an issue that enjoys broad, bipartisan 
support. I believe this bill provides that reform. I would ask my 
colleagues to look at this legislation and consider giving it their 
support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 750. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
look-through treatment of payments between related foreign 
corporations; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the 108th Congress began the necessary 
process, as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, of rationalizing 
the way the United States taxes the foreign income of U.S.-based 
companies, thereby helping U.S. employers to be more competitive in 
international markets. There was one provision, however, that passed 
both the Senate and the House but that was dropped out of the 
conference report at the eleventh hour for reasons that were unrelated 
to the merits of the provision. That provision extended the general 
rule of tax deferral to dividends, interest, rents and royalties that 
are paid out in the ordinary course of active business activities by 
one foreign affiliate of a U.S. company to another affiliate in another 
country. Today, I am introducing legislation to make this important 
change.
  The United States taxes U.S. companies on their worldwide income, but 
the general rule is that foreign subsidiary income is not taxed by the 
United States until the subsidiary earnings are brought back to the 
U.S. parent, usually in the form of a dividend. Subpart F of the 
Internal Revenue Code sets forth a number of exceptions to this general 
rule. Subpart F imposes current tax on subsidiary earnings generally 
when that income is passive in nature. One such exception taxes the 
U.S. parent when a subsidiary receives dividends, interest, rents or 
royalties from another subsidiary that is located in a different 
country. If the two subsidiaries are in the same country, however, 
current taxation does not apply.
  The proposal I am introducing today would extend this ``same-
country'' treatment to payments between related foreign subsidiaries 
that are located in different countries. This proposal is identical to 
the one that passed the Senate last year.
  Today's global economy is significantly different from the 
environment that existed when the subpart F rules were first introduced 
in 1962. As the global economy has changed, the traditional model for 
operating a global business has changed as well. In today's world, it 
makes no sense to impose a tax penalty when a company wants to fund the 
operations of a subsidiary in one country from the active business 
earnings of a subsidiary in a second country. For example, to operate 
efficiently, a U.S.-based manufacturer will probably establish 
specialized manufacturing sites, distribution hubs, and service 
centers. As a result, multiple related-party entities may be required 
to fulfill a specific customer order. U.S. tax law today 
inappropriately increases the cost for these foreign subsidiaries to 
serve their customers in a very competitive business environment by 
imposing current tax on these related-party payments, even though the 
income remains deployed in the foreign market.
  Further, financial institutions have established foreign subsidiaries 
with headquarters in a financial center, such as London, and branches 
in multiple countries in the same geographic region. This permits an 
efficient ``hub and spoke'' form of regional operation; however, this 
efficient business model may make it difficult for the same country 
exception under current law to be met for payments of dividends and 
interest.
  Under the existing rules, American companies are at a real and 
significant competitive disadvantage as compared to foreign-based 
companies. By creating current U.S. taxation of active business income 
when subsidiaries make cross-border payments, U.S.-based multinationals 
are penalized for responding to market or investment opportunities by 
redeploying active foreign earnings among foreign businesses conducted 
through multiple subsidiaries. To remove this impediment, subpart F 
should be amended to provide a general exception for interaffiliate 
payments of dividends, interest, rents or royalties that are generated 
from an active business.
  The right answer is to apply ``look-through'' treatment to payments 
of dividends, interest, rents and royalties between subsidiaries. If 
the underlying earnings would not have been subject to subpart F, the 
payments should not be subpart F income. Look-through treatment for 
payments of dividends, interest, rents and royalties should be 
permitted as long as the payments are made out of active business, non-
subpart F, income. ``Look-through'' principles are already well-
developed for other purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. For example, 
a look-through approach to the characterization of foreign income is 
used for purposes of calculating foreign tax credits. A consistent 
application of look-through principles would simplify the interaction 
between subpart F and the foreign tax credit rules.
  If we want to keep U.S.-based multinational companies--who employ 
millions of workers here at home--headquartered in the United States, 
we must modernize our tax rules so that our companies can be 
competitive around the globe I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this 
legislation to make a modest change in the law that will enhance the 
position of U.S.-based employers trying to succeed in competitive 
foreign markets.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 752. A bill to require the United States Trade Representative to 
pursue a complaint of anti-competitive practices against certain oil 
exporting countries; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. 752

       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 ``OPEC Accountability Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Gasoline prices have nearly doubled since January, 
     2002, with oil recently trading at more than $58 per barrel 
     for the first time ever.
       (2) Rising gasoline prices have placed an inordinate burden 
     on American families.
       (3) High gasoline prices have hindered and will continue to 
     hinder economic recovery.
       (4) The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 
     (OPEC) has formed a cartel and engaged in anti-competitive 
     practices to manipulate the price of oil, keeping it 
     artificially high.
       (5) Six member nations of OPEC--Indonesia, Kuwait, Nigeria, 
     Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela--are also 
     members of the World Trade Organization.
       (6) The agreement among OPEC member nations to limit oil 
     exports is an illegal prohibition or restriction on the 
     exportation or sale for export of a product under Article XI 
     of the GATT 1994.
       (7) The export quotas and resulting high prices harm 
     American families, undermine the American economy, impede 
     American and foreign commerce, and are contrary to the 
     national interests of the United States.

     SEC. 3. ACTIONS TO CURB CERTAIN CARTEL ANTI-COMPETITIVE 
                   PRACTICES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) GATT 1994.--The term ``GATT 1994'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(1)(B)).
       (2) Understanding on rules and procedures governing the 
     settlement of disputes.--The term ``Understanding on Rules 
     and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes'' means 
     the agreement described in section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(16)).
       (3) World trade organization.--

[[Page 6023]]

       (A) In general.--The term ``World Trade Organization'' 
     means the organization established pursuant to the WTO 
     Agreement.
       (B) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the 
     Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization entered 
     into on April 15, 1994.
       (b) Action by President.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the President shall, not later than 15 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, initiate consultations with 
     the countries described in paragraph (2) to seek the 
     elimination by those countries of any action that--
       (A) limits the production or distribution of oil, natural 
     gas, or any other petroleum product,
       (B) sets or maintains the price of oil, natural gas, or any 
     petroleum product, or
       (C) otherwise is an action in restraint of trade with 
     respect to oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product, when 
     such action constitutes an act, policy, or practice that is 
     unjustifiable and burdens and restricts United States 
     commerce.
       (2) Countries described.--The countries described in this 
     paragraph are the following:
       (A) Indonesia.
       (B) Kuwait.
       (C) Nigeria.
       (D) Qatar.
       (E) The United Arab Emirates.
       (F) Venezuela.
       (c) Initiation of WTO Dispute Proceedings.--If the 
     consultations described in subsection (b) are not successful 
     with respect to any country described in subsection (b)(2), 
     the United States Trade Representative shall, not later than 
     60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, institute 
     proceedings pursuant to the Understanding on Rules and 
     Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes with respect 
     to that country and shall take appropriate action with 
     respect to that country under the trade remedy laws of the 
     United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 753. A bill to provide for modernization and improvement of the 
Corps of Engineers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Corps of 
Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005. I am pleased to be 
joined by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who worked with 
me in the 107th and 108th Congresses to reform the Corps.
  We cannot ignore the record-breaking deficits that the Nation faces. 
Fiscal responsibility has never been so important. This legislation 
provides Congress with a unique opportunity to underscore our 
commitment to that goal. Too often, some have suggested that fiscal 
responsibility and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. 
Through this legislation, however, we can save taxpayers billions of 
dollars and protect the environment. As evidence of this unique 
opportunity, this bill is supported by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the 
National Taxpayers Union, the National Wildlife Federation, American 
Rivers, the Corps Reform Network, and Earthjustice.
  Reforming the Army Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for 
Congress. It involves restoring credibility and accountability to a 
Federal agency rocked by scandals and constrained by endlessly growing 
authorizations and a gloomy Federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency 
that Wisconsin, and many other States across the country, have come to 
rely upon. From the Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is 
involved in providing aid to navigation, environmental remediation, 
water control and a variety of other services in my state alone.
  My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock 
Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I 
want the fiscal and management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so 
that the Corps can continue to contribute to our environment and our 
economy.
  This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an 
amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create 
independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to 
my initiative, the bill's managers, who included the former Senator 
from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, and the senior Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their managers' 
package to require a National Academy of Sciences study on the issue of 
peer review of Corps projects.
  The bill I introduce today includes many provisions that were 
included the bill I authored in the 108th Congress. It codifies the 
idea of independent review of the Corps, which was investigated through 
the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism to speed up 
completion of construction for good Corps projects with large public 
benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically wasteful 
projects.
  I will note, however, that this is not the first time that the 
Congress has realized that the Corps needs to be reformed because of 
its association with pork projects. In 1836, a House Ways and Means 
Committee report discovered that at least 25 Corps projects were over 
budget. In its report, the Committee noted that Congress must ensure 
that the Corps institutes ``actual reform, in the further prosecution 
of public works.'' In 1902, Congress created a review board to 
determine whether Corps projects were justified. The review board was 
dismantled just over a decade ago, and the Corps is still linked with 
wasteful spending. Here we are, more than 100 years later, talking 
about the same issue.
  The reality is that the underlying problem is not with the Corps, the 
problem is with Congress. All too often, Members of Congress have seen 
Corps projects as a way to bring home the bacon, rather than ensuring 
that taxpayers get the most bang for their Federal buck.
  This bill puts forth bold, comprehensive reform measures. It 
modernizes the Corps project planning guidelines, which have not been 
updated since 1983. It requires the Corps to use sound science in 
estimating the costs and evaluating the needs for water resources 
projects. The bill clarifies that the national economic development and 
environmental protection are co-equal objectives of the Corps. 
Furthermore, the Corps must use current discount rates when determining 
the costs and benefits of projects. Several Corps projects are 
justified using a discount rate formula established over 30 years ago, 
not the current government-wide discount rate promulgated by the Office 
of Management and Budget. By using this outdated discount rate formula, 
the Corps often overestimates project benefits and underestimates 
project costs.
  This legislation also requires that a water resource project's 
benefits must be 1.5 times greater than the costs to the taxpayer. 
According to a 2002 study of the Corps backlog of projects, at least 60 
Corps projects, whose combined costs total $4.6 billion, do not meet 
this 1.5 to 1 benefit-cost ratio. Thus, this benefit-cost ratio will 
save the taxpayer billions of dollars. The bill also mandates federal-
local cost sharing of flood control projects and reduces the federal 
cost burden of these projects.
  While the bill assumes a flat 50 percent cost-share for flood control 
projects, my home state of Wisconsin has been on the forefront of 
responsible flood plain management and also happens to be home to the 
Association of State Flood Plain Managers. As Congress considers the 
issue of Corps reform and the Water Resources Development Act, I hope 
my colleagues will take a closer look at the issue of a sliding cost 
scale. We should explore the possibility of creating incentives for 
communities with cutting-edge flood plain management practices to 
reduce their local share for projects.
  The bill requires independent review of Corps projects. The National 
Academy of Sciences, the General Accounting Office, and even the 
Inspector General of the Army agree that independent review is an 
essential step to assuring that each Corps project is economically 
justified. Independent review will apply to projects in the following 
circumstances: 1. the project has costs greater than $25 million, 
including mitigation costs; 2. the Governor of a state that is affected 
by the project requests a panel; 3. the head of a federal agency 
charged with reviewing the project determines that the project is 
likely to have a significant adverse environmental or cultural impact; 
or 4. the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is 
controversial. Any party can request that

[[Page 6024]]

the Secretary make a determination of whether the project is 
controversial.
  This bill also creates a Director of Independent Review within the 
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. The 
Director is responsible for empaneling experts to review projects. The 
Secretary is required to respond to the panel's report and explain the 
extent to which a final report addresses the panel's concerns. The 
panel report and the underlying data that the Corps uses to justify the 
project will be made available to the public.
  The bill also requires strong environmental protection measures. The 
Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its projects 
in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands in the 
first place and either holding other lands or constructing wetlands 
elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps requires 
private developers to meet this standard when they construct projects 
as a condition of receiving a Federal permit, and I think the Federal 
Government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the Corps 
does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental risks.
  I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the true 
costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and that 
the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation projects. 
The bill requires the Corps to develop a detailed mitigation plan for 
each water resources project, and conduct monitoring to demonstrate 
that the mitigation is working. In addition, the concurrent mitigation 
requirements of this bill would actually reduce the total mitigation 
costs by ensuring the purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible.
  This bill streamlines the existing automatic deauthorization process. 
Estimates of the project backlog runs from $58 billion to $41 billion. 
The bill requires the Corps to conduct a fiscal transparency report to 
review and report on the current backlog of Corps projects. Under 
current law, a project will be deauthorized anywhere from 7.5 to 11.5 
years after authorization for construction if it receives no funding, 
and any type of funding will keep the project alive. This bill reduces 
the amount of time until automatic deauthorization based on funding to 
between 7.5 to 6.5 years. After 4 years of receiving no construction 
funding, a project goes on the Fiscal Transparency Report list. To keep 
one of those projects alive, Federal funds must be obligated for 
construction within 30 months of submission of the Fiscal Transparency 
Report. If no funds are obligated during that time, the project is 
deauthorized.
  This legislation will bring out comprehensive revision of the project 
review and authorization procedures at the Army Corps of Engineers. My 
goals for the Corps are to increase transparency and accountability, to 
ensure fiscal responsibility, and to allow greater stakeholder 
involvement in their projects. I remain committed to these goals, and 
to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of this Congress's Water 
Resources bill.
  I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a 
reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch 
mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps 
officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified 
projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the 
never-ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters include 
congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to 
champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork 
and no substance.
  I wish it were the case that the changes we are proposing today were 
not needed, but unfortunately, there is still need for this bill. I 
want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce 
predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers more than the Corps 
estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental impacts, and are 
built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill will help the 
Corps do a better job, which is what the taxpayers and the environment 
deserve.
  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. 753

       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 ``Corps of 
     Engineers Modernization and Improvement 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 and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                 TITLE I--MODERNIZING PROJECT PLANNING

Sec. 101. Modern planning principles.
Sec. 102. Independent review.
Sec. 103. Benefit-cost analysis.
Sec. 104. Benefit-cost ratio.
Sec. 105. Cost sharing.

                          TITLE II--MITIGATION

Sec. 201. Full mitigation.
Sec. 202. Concurrent mitigation.
Sec. 203. Mitigation tracking system.

                  TITLE III--IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 301. Fiscal Transparency Report.
Sec. 302. Project deauthorizations.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Corps of Engineers is the primary Federal agency 
     responsible for developing and managing the harbors, 
     waterways, shorelines, and water resources of the United 
     States;
       (2) the scarcity of Federal resources requires more 
     efficient use of Corps resources and funding, and greater 
     oversight of Corps analyses;
       (3) appropriate cost sharing ensures efficient measures of 
     project demands and enables the Corps to meet more national 
     project needs;
       (4) the significant demand for recreation, clean water, and 
     healthy wildlife habitat must be fully reflected in the 
     project planning and construction process of the Corps;
       (5) the human health, environmental, and social impacts of 
     dams, levees, shoreline stabilization structures, river 
     training structures, river dredging, and other Corps projects 
     and activities must be adequately considered and, in any case 
     in which adverse impacts cannot be avoided, fully mitigated;
       (6) the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the 
     Principles and Guidelines for water resources projects need 
     to be modernized and updated to reflect current economic 
     practices and environmental laws and planning guidelines; and
       (7) affected interests must have access to information that 
     will allow those interests to play a larger and more 
     effective role in the oversight of Corps project development 
     and mitigation.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure that the water resources investments of the 
     United States are economically justified and enhance the 
     environment;
       (2) to provide independent review of feasibility studies, 
     general reevaluation studies, and environmental impact 
     statements of the Corps;
       (3) to ensure timely, ecologically successful, and cost-
     effective mitigation for Corps projects;
       (4) to ensure appropriate local cost sharing to assist in 
     efficient project planning focused on national needs;
       (5) to enhance the involvement of affected interests in 
     feasibility studies, general reevaluation studies, and 
     environmental impact statements of the Corps;
       (6) to modernize planning principles of the Corps to meet 
     the economic and environmental needs of riverside and coastal 
     communities and the nation;
       (7) to ensure that environmental protection and 
     restoration, and national economic development, are co-equal 
     goals, and given co-equal emphasis, during the evaluation, 
     planning, and construction of Corps projects;
       (8) to ensure that project planning, project evaluations, 
     and project recommendations of the Corps are based on sound 
     science and economics and on a full evaluation of the impacts 
     to the health of aquatic ecosystems; and
       (9) to ensure that the determination of benefits and costs 
     of Corps projects properly reflects current law and Federal 
     policies designed to protect human health and the 
     environment.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Academy.--The term ``Academy'' means the National 
     Academy of Sciences.
       (2) Corps.--The term ``Corps'' means the Corps of 
     Engineers.
       (3) Principles and guidelines.--The term ``Principles and 
     Guidelines'' means the principles and guidelines of the Corps 
     for water resources projects (consisting of Engineer 
     Regulation 1105-2-100 and Engineer Pamphlet 1165-2-1).

[[Page 6025]]

       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army.

                 TITLE I--MODERNIZING PROJECT PLANNING

     SEC. 101. MODERN PLANNING PRINCIPLES.

       (a) Planning Principles.--Section 209 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 209. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES.

       ``(a) In General.--It is the intent of Congress that--
       ``(1) national economic development and environmental 
     protection and restoration are co-equal objectives of water 
     resources project planning and management; and
       ``(2) Federal agencies manage and, if clearly justified, 
     construct water resource projects--
       ``(A) to meet national economic needs; and
       ``(B) to protect and restore the environment.
       ``(b) Revision of Planning Guidelines, Regulations and 
     Circulars.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Corps of Engineers Modernization and 
     Improvement Act of 2005, the Secretary, in collaboration with 
     the National Academy of Sciences, shall develop proposed 
     revisions of, and revise, the planning guidelines, 
     regulations, and circulars of the Corps.
       ``(c) Additional Requirements.--Corps planning regulations 
     revised under subsection (b) shall--
       ``(1) incorporate new and existing analytical techniques 
     that reflect the probability of project benefits and costs;
       ``(2) apply discount rates provided by the Office of 
     Management and Budget;
       ``(3) eliminate biases and disincentives that discourage 
     the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources 
     development and management;
       ``(4) encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     restoration of ecosystems through the restoration of 
     hydrologic and geomorphic processes;
       ``(5) consider the costs and benefits of protecting or 
     degrading natural systems;
       ``(6) ensure that projects are justified by benefits that 
     accrue to the public at large;
       ``(7) ensure that benefit-cost calculations reflect a 
     credible schedule for project construction;
       ``(8) ensure that each project increment complies with 
     section 104;
       ``(9) include as a cost any increase in direct Federal 
     payments or subsidies and exclude as a benefit any increase 
     in direct Federal payments or subsidies; and
       ``(10) provide a mechanism by which, at least once every 5 
     years, the Secretary shall collaborate with the National 
     Academy of Sciences to review, and if necessary, revise all 
     planning regulations, guidelines, and circulars.
       ``(d) National Navigation and Port Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Corps of Engineers Modernization and 
     Improvement Act of 2005, the Corps shall develop, and update 
     not less frequently than every 4 years, an integrated, 
     national plan to manage, rehabilitate and, if justified, 
     modernize inland waterway and port infrastructure to meet 
     current national economic and environmental needs.
       ``(2) Tools.--To develop the plan, the Corps shall employ 
     economic tools that--
       ``(A) recognize the importance of alternative 
     transportation destinations and modes; and
       ``(B) employ practicable, cost-effective congestion 
     management alternatives before constructing and expanding 
     infrastructure to increase waterway and port capacity.
       ``(3) Benefits and proximity.--The Corps shall give 
     particular consideration to the benefits and proximity of 
     proposed and existing port, harbor, waterway, rail and other 
     transportation infrastructure in determining whether to 
     construct new water resources projects.
       ``(e) Notice and Comment.--The Secretary shall comply with 
     the notice and comment provisions of chapter 551 of title 5, 
     United States Code, in issuing revised planning regulations, 
     guidelines and circulars.
       ``(f) Applicability.--On completion of the revisions 
     required under this section, the Secretary shall apply the 
     revised regulations to projects for which a draft feasibility 
     study or draft reevaluation report has not yet been issued.
       ``(g) Project Reformulation.--Projects of the Corps, and 
     separable elements of projects of the Corps, that have been 
     authorized for 10 years, but for which less than 15 percent 
     of appropriations specifically identified for construction 
     have been obligated, shall not be constructed unless a 
     general reevaluation study demonstrates that the project or 
     separable element meets--
       ``(1) all project criteria and requirements applicable at 
     the time the study is initiated, including requirements under 
     this section; and
       ``(2) cost share and mitigation requirements of this 
     Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17) is repealed.
       (2) Section 7(a) of the Department of Transportation Act 
     (Public Law 89-670; 80 Stat. 941) is repealed.

     SEC. 102. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', with 
     respect to a water resources project, means a State or 
     portion of a State that--
       (A) is located, at least partially, within the drainage 
     basin in which the project is carried out; and
       (B) would be economically or environmentally affected as a 
     result of the project.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     Independent Review appointed under subsection (c)(1).
       (b) Projects Subject to Independent Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
     feasibility report, general reevaluation report, and 
     environmental impact statement for each water resources 
     project described in paragraph (2) is subject to review by an 
     independent panel of experts established under this section.
       (2) Projects subject to review.--A water resources project 
     shall be subject to review under paragraph (1) if--
       (A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than 
     $25,000,000, including mitigation costs;
       (B) the Governor of an affected State requests the 
     establishment of an independent panel of experts for the 
     project;
       (C) the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the 
     project determines that the project is likely to have a 
     significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or 
     other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency; or
       (D) the Secretary determines under paragraph (3) that the 
     project is controversial.
       (3) Controversial projects.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall determine that a water 
     resources project is controversial for the purpose of 
     paragraph (2)(D) if the Secretary finds that--
       (i) there is a significant dispute as to the size, nature, 
     or effects of the project;
       (ii) there is a significant dispute as to the economic or 
     environmental costs or benefits of the project; or
       (iii) there is a significant dispute as to the benefits to 
     the communities affected by the project of a project 
     alternative that--

       (I) was not the focus of the feasibility report, general 
     reevaluation report, or environmental impact statement for 
     the project; or
       (II) was not considered in the feasibility report, general 
     reevaluation report, or environmental impact statement for 
     the project.

       (B) Written requests.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary receives a written request of any 
     party, or on the initiative of the Secretary, the Secretary 
     shall determine whether a project is controversial.
       (c) Director of Independent Review.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Inspector General of the Army shall 
     appoint in the Office of the Inspector General of the Army a 
     Director of Independent Review.
       (2) Qualifications.--The Inspector General of the Army 
     shall select the Director from among individuals who are 
     distinguished experts in biology, hydrology, engineering, 
     economics, or another discipline relating to water resources 
     management.
       (3) Limitation on appointments.--The Inspector General of 
     the Army shall not appoint an individual to serve as the 
     Director if the individual has a financial interest in or 
     close professional association with any entity with a 
     financial interest in a water resources project that, on the 
     date of appointment of the Director, is--
       (A) under construction;
       (B) in the preconstruction engineering and design phase; or
       (C) under feasibility or reconnaissance study by the Corps.
       (4) Terms.--
       (A) In general.--The term of a Director appointed under 
     this subsection shall be 6 years.
       (B) Term limit.--An individual may serve as the Director 
     for not more than 2 nonconsecutive terms.
       (5) Duties.--The Director shall establish a panel of 
     experts to review each water resources project that is 
     subject to review under subsection (b).
       (d) Establishment of Panels.--
       (1) In general.--After the Secretary selects a preferred 
     alternative for a water resources project subject to review 
     under subsection (b) in a formal draft feasibility report, 
     draft general reevaluation report, or draft environmental 
     impact statement, the Director shall establish a panel of 
     experts to review the project.
       (2) Membership.--A panel of experts established by the 
     Director for a project shall be composed of not less than 5 
     nor more than 9 independent experts (including 1 or more 
     biologists, hydrologists, engineers, and economists) who 
     represent a range of areas of expertise.
       (3) Limitation on appointments.--The Director shall not 
     appoint an individual to serve on a panel of experts for a 
     project if the individual has a financial interest in or 
     close professional association with any entity with a 
     financial interest in the project.
       (4) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with the 
     Academy in developing lists of individuals to serve on panels 
     of experts under this section.
       (5) Notification.--

[[Page 6026]]

       (A) In general.--To ensure that the Director is able to 
     effectively carry out the duties of the Director under this 
     section, the Secretary shall notify the Director in writing 
     not later than 90 days before the release of a draft 
     feasibility report, draft general reevaluation report, or 
     draft environmental impact statement, for every water 
     resources project.
       (B) Contents.--The notification shall include--
       (i) the estimated cost of the project; and
       (ii) a preliminary assessment of whether a panel of experts 
     may be required.
       (6) Compensation.--An individual serving on a panel of 
     experts under this section shall be compensated at a rate of 
     pay to be determined by the Inspector General of the Army.
       (7) Travel expenses.--A member of a panel of experts under 
     this section shall be allowed travel expenses, including per 
     diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an 
     employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or 
     regular place of business of the member in the performance of 
     the duties of the panel.
       (e) Duties of Panels.--
       (1) In general.--A panel of experts established for a water 
     resources project under this section shall--
       (A) review each draft feasibility report, draft general 
     reevaluation report, and draft environmental impact statement 
     prepared for the project;
       (B) assess the adequacy of the economic, scientific, and 
     environmental models used by the Secretary in reviewing the 
     project to ensure that--
       (i) the best available economic and scientific methods of 
     analysis have been used;
       (ii) the best available economic, scientific, and 
     environmental data have been used; and
       (iii) any regional effects on navigation systems have been 
     examined;
       (C) receive from the public written and oral comments 
     concerning the project;
       (D) not later than the deadline established under 
     subsection (f), submit to the Secretary a report concerning 
     the economic, engineering, and environmental analyses of the 
     project, including the conclusions of the panel, with 
     particular emphasis on areas of public controversy, with 
     respect to the feasibility report, general reevaluation 
     report, or environmental impact statement; and
       (E) not later than 30 days after the date of issuance of a 
     final feasibility report, final general reevaluation report, 
     or final environmental impact statement, submit to the 
     Secretary a brief report stating the views of the panel on 
     the extent to which the final analysis adequately addresses 
     issues or concerns raised by each earlier evaluation by the 
     panel.
       (2) Extensions.--
       (A) In general.--The panel may request from the Director a 
     30-day extension of the deadline established under paragraph 
     (1)(E).
       (B) Record of decision.--The Secretary shall not issue a 
     record of decision until after, at the earliest--
       (i) the final day of the 30-day period described in 
     paragraph (1)(E); or
       (ii) if the Director grants an extension under subparagraph 
     (A), the final day of the 60-day period beginning on the date 
     of issuance of a final feasibility report described in 
     paragraph (1)(E) and ending on the final day of the extension 
     granted under subparagraph (A).
       (f) Duration of Project Reviews.--
       (1) Deadline.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 
     later than 180 days after the date of establishment of a 
     panel of experts for a water resources project under this 
     section, the panel shall complete--
       (A) each required review of the project; and
       (B) all other duties of the panel relating to the project 
     (other than the duties described in subsection (e)(1)(E)).
       (2) Extension of deadline for report on project reviews.--
     Not later than 240 days after the date of issuance of a draft 
     feasibility report, draft general reevaluation report, or 
     draft environmental impact statement for a project, if a 
     panel of experts submits to the Director before the end of 
     the 180-day period described in paragraph (1), and the 
     Director approves, a request for a 60-day extension of the 
     deadline established under that paragraph, the panel of 
     experts shall submit to the Secretary a report required under 
     subsection (e)(1)(D).
       (g) Recommendations of Panel.--
       (1) Consideration by secretary.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary receives a report on a 
     water resources project from a panel of experts under this 
     section by the applicable deadline under subsection (e)(1)(E) 
     or (f), the Secretary shall, at least 14 days before entering 
     a final record of decision for the water resources project--
       (i) take into consideration any recommendations contained 
     in the report; and
       (ii) prepare a written explanation for any recommendations 
     not adopted.
       (B) Inconsistent recommendations and findings.--
     Recommendations and findings of the Secretary that are 
     inconsistent with the recommendations and findings of a panel 
     of experts under this section shall not be entitled to 
     deference in a judicial proceeding.
       (2) Public review; submission to congress.--After receiving 
     a report on a water resources project from a panel of experts 
     under this section (including a report under subsection 
     (e)(1)(E)), the Secretary shall--
       (A) immediately make a copy of the report (and, in a case 
     in which any written explanation of the Secretary on 
     recommendations contained in the report is completed, shall 
     immediately make a copy of the response) available for public 
     review; and
       (B) include a copy of the report (and any written 
     explanation of the Secretary) in any report submitted to 
     Congress concerning the project.
       (h) Public Access to Information.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that information relating to the 
     analysis of any water resources project by the Corps, 
     including all supporting data, analytical documents, and 
     information that the Corps has considered in the analysis, is 
     made available--
       (A) to any individual upon request;
       (B) to the public on the Internet; and
       (C) to an independent review panel, if such a panel is 
     established for the project.
       (2) Types of information.--Information concerning a project 
     that is available under paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) any information that has been made available to the 
     non-Federal interests with respect to the project; and
       (B) all data and information used by the Corps in the 
     justification and analysis of the project.
       (3) Exception for trade secrets.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall not make information 
     available under paragraph (1) that the Secretary determines 
     to be a trade secret of any person that provided the 
     information to the Corps.
       (B) Criteria for trade secrets.--The Secretary shall 
     consider information to be a trade secret only if--
       (i) the person that provided the information to the Corps--

       (I) has not disclosed the information to any person other 
     than--

       (aa) an officer or employee of the United States or a State 
     or local government;
       (bb) an employee of the person that provided the 
     information to the Corps; or
       (cc) a person that is bound by a confidentiality agreement; 
     and

       (II) has taken reasonable measures to protect the 
     confidentiality of the information and intends to continue to 
     take the measures;

       (ii) the information is not required to be disclosed, or 
     otherwise made available, to the public under any other 
     Federal or State law; and
       (iii) disclosure of the information is likely to cause 
     substantial harm to the competitive position of the person 
     that provided the information to the Corps.
       (i) Costs.--
       (1) Limitation on cost of review.--The cost of conducting a 
     review of a water resources project under this section shall 
     not exceed--
       (A) $250,000 for a project, if the total cost of the 
     project in current year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
       (B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current 
     year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
       (2) Treatment.--The cost of conducting a review of a 
     project under this section shall be considered to be part of 
     the total cost of the project.
       (3) Cost sharing.--A review of a project under this section 
     shall be subject to section 105(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)).
       (4) Waiver of limitation.--The Secretary may waive a 
     limitation under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines 
     that the waiver is appropriate.
       (j) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to 
     a panel of experts established under this section.

     SEC. 103. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS.

       Section 308(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semi-colon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) any projected benefit attributable to any change in, 
     or intensification of, land use arising from the draining, 
     reduction, or elimination of wetlands; and
       ``(4) any projected benefit attributable to an increase in 
     direct Federal payments or subsidies.''.

     SEC. 104. BENEFIT-COST RATIO.

       (a) Recommendation of Projects.--Beginning in fiscal year 
     2006, in the case of a water resources project that is 
     subject to a benefit-cost analysis, the Secretary may 
     recommend the project for authorization by Congress, and may 
     choose the project as a recommended alternative in any record 
     of decision or environmental impact statement, only if the 
     project, in addition to meeting any other criteria required 
     by law, has projected national benefits that are at least 1.5 
     times as great as the estimated total costs of the project, 
     based on current discount rates provided by the Office of 
     Management and Budget.
       (b) Deauthorization of Projects.--

[[Page 6027]]

       (1) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report identifying each water resources project (or 
     separable element of such a project) that is subject to a 
     benefit-cost analysis and authorized for construction, the 
     projected remaining benefits of which are less than 1.5 times 
     as great as the remaining projected costs.
       (2) Deauthorizations.--
       (A) In general.--Effective beginning on the date that is 3 
     years after the date of submission of the report under 
     paragraph (1), any project identified in the report shall be 
     deauthorized unless the project was reauthorized by Congress 
     during the preceding 3 years.
       (B) Construction in progress.--If construction (other than 
     preconstruction engineering or design) began on or before the 
     date of enactment of this Act for a project that is 
     deauthorized under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may take 
     such actions with respect to the project as the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary to protect public health and 
     safety and the environment.
       (c) Public Notification.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) publish in the Federal Register the report under 
     subsection (b)(1); and
       (2) make the report available to the public on the 
     Internet.
       (d) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a list of all projects 
     deauthorized under this section.

     SEC. 105. COST SHARING.

       (a) Operations and Maintenance of Inland Waterways.--
     Section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2212) is amended by striking subsections (b) and 
     (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Operation and Maintenance.--
       ``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     operation and maintenance shall be 100 percent in the case 
     of--
       ``(A) a project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (a); or
       ``(B) the portion of the project authorized by section 844 
     that is allocated to inland navigation.
       ``(2) Source of federal share.--
       ``(A) From the general fund.--In the case of a project 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) with 
     respect to which the cost of operation and maintenance is 
     less than or equal to 2 cents per ton mile, or in the case of 
     the portion of the project authorized by section 844 that is 
     allocated to inland navigation, the Federal share under 
     paragraph (1) shall be paid only from amounts appropriated 
     from the general fund of the Treasury.
       ``(B) From the general fund and inland waterways trust 
     fund.--In the case of a project described in paragraph (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (a) with respect to which the cost of 
     operation and maintenance is greater than 2 but less than or 
     equal to 10 cents per ton mile--
       ``(i) 75 percent of the Federal share under paragraph (1) 
     shall be paid only from amounts appropriated from the general 
     fund of the Treasury; and
       ``(ii) 25 percent of the Federal share under paragraph (1) 
     shall be paid only from amounts appropriated from the Inland 
     Waterways Trust Fund.
       ``(C) From the inland waterways trust fund.--In the case of 
     a project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) 
     with respect to which the cost of operation and maintenance 
     is greater than 10 cents per ton mile but less than 30 cents 
     per ton mile, 100 percent of the Federal share under 
     paragraph (1) shall be paid only from amounts appropriated 
     from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       ``(D) Non-federal responsibility.--In the case of a project 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) with 
     respect to which the cost of operation and maintenance is 
     greater than 30 cents per ton-mile, the cost of operations 
     and maintenance shall be a non-Federal responsibility.''.
       (b) Flood Damage Reduction.--Section 103 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsections (a)(2) and (b), by striking ``35'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``50'';
       (2) in the paragraph heading of subsection (a)(2), by 
     striking ``35 percent minimum''' and inserting ``Minimum'''; 
     and
       (3) in the paragraph heading of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``35'' and inserting ``50''.

                          TITLE II--MITIGATION

     SEC. 201. FULL MITIGATION.

       Section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--After November 17, 1986, the Secretary 
     shall not submit to Congress any proposal for the 
     authorization of any water resources project, and shall not 
     choose a project alternative in any final record of decision, 
     environmental impact statement, or environmental assessment, 
     unless the report contains--
       ``(i) a specific plan to fully mitigate losses of aquatic 
     and terrestrial resources and fish and wildlife created by 
     the project; or
       ``(ii) a determination by the Secretary that the project 
     will have negligible adverse impact on aquatic and 
     terrestrial resources and fish and wildlife.
       ``(B) Specific requirements.--Specific mitigation plans 
     shall ensure that impacts to bottomland hardwood forests and 
     other habitat types are mitigated in kind.
       ``(C) Consultation.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal and non-
     Federal agencies.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Standards for mitigation.--
       ``(A) In general.--To fully mitigate losses to fish and 
     wildlife resulting from a water resources project, the 
     Secretary shall, at a minimum--
       ``(i) acquire and restore 1 acre of superior or equivalent 
     habitat of the same type to replace each acre of habitat 
     adversely affected by the project; and
       ``(ii) replace the hydrologic functions and 
     characteristics, the ecological functions and 
     characteristics, and the spatial distribution of the habitat 
     adversely affected by the project.
       ``(B) Detailed mitigation plan.--The specific mitigation 
     plan for a water resources project under paragraph (1) shall 
     include, at a minimum--
       ``(i) a detailed and specific plan to monitor mitigation 
     implementation and ecological success, including the 
     designation of the entities that will be responsible for 
     monitoring;
       ``(ii) specific ecological success criteria by which the 
     mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful, 
     prepared in consultation with the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service;
       ``(iii) a detailed description of the land and interests in 
     land to be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a 
     determination that land and interests are available for 
     acquisition;
       ``(iv) sufficient detail regarding the chosen mitigation 
     sites and type and amount of restoration activities to permit 
     a thorough evaluation of the plan's likelihood of ecological 
     success and resulting aquatic and terrestrial resource 
     functions and habitat values; and
       ``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions if 
     monitoring demonstrates that mitigation efforts are not 
     achieving ecological success as described in the ecological 
     success criteria.
       ``(C) Applicable law.--A time period for mitigation 
     monitoring or for the implementation and monitoring of 
     contingency plan actions shall not be subject to the 
     deadlines described in section 202.
       ``(4) Determination of mitigation success.--
       ``(A) In general.--Mitigation shall be considered to be 
     successful at the time at which monitoring demonstrates that 
     the mitigation has met the ecological success criteria 
     established in the mitigation plan.
       ``(B) Requirements for success.--To ensure the success of 
     any attempted mitigation, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) consult yearly with the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service on each water resources project requiring 
     mitigation to determine whether mitigation monitoring for 
     that project demonstrates that the project is achieving, or 
     has achieved, ecological success;
       ``(ii) ensure that implementation of the mitigation 
     contingency plan for taking corrective action begins not 
     later than 30 days after a finding by the Secretary or the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service that the original 
     mitigation efforts likely will not result in, or have not 
     resulted in, ecological success;
       ``(iii) complete implementation of the contingency plan as 
     expeditiously as practicable; and
       ``(iv) ensure that monitoring of mitigation efforts, 
     including those implemented through a mitigation contingency 
     plan, continues until the monitoring demonstrates that the 
     mitigation has met the ecological success criteria.
       ``(5) Recommendation of projects.--The Secretary shall not 
     recommend a water resources project alternative or choose a 
     project alternative in any final record of decision, 
     environmental impact statement, or environmental assessment 
     completed after the date of enactment of this paragraph 
     unless the Secretary determines that the mitigation plan for 
     the alternative will successfully mitigate the adverse 
     impacts of the project on aquatic and terrestrial resources, 
     hydrologic functions, and fish and wildlife.
       ``(6) Implementation of mitigation before construction of 
     new projects.--The Secretary shall implement all mitigation 
     required by a record of decision for water resources projects 
     in a particular district of the Corps before beginning 
     physical construction of any new water resources project (or 
     separable element of such a project) in that district.''.

     SEC. 202. CONCURRENT MITIGATION.

       Section 906(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)(1) In the case'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Mitigation.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``interests--'' and all 
     that follows through

[[Page 6028]]

     ``losses),'' and inserting the following: ``interests shall 
     be undertaken or acquired--
       ``(A) before any construction of the project (other than 
     such acquisition) commences; or
       ``(B) concurrently with the acquisition of land and 
     interests in land for project purposes (other than mitigation 
     of fish and wildlife losses);'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) For the purposes'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Commencement of construction.--For the purpose''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Implementation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     to ensure concurrent mitigation, the Secretary shall 
     implement--
       ``(i) 50 percent of required mitigation before beginning 
     construction of a project; and
       ``(ii) the remainder of required mitigation as 
     expeditiously as practicable, but not later than the last day 
     of construction of the project or separable element of the 
     project.
       ``(B) Exception for physical impracticability.--In a case 
     in which the Secretary determines that it is physically 
     impracticable to complete mitigation by the last day of 
     construction of the project or separable element of the 
     project, the Secretary shall reserve or reprogram sufficient 
     funds to ensure that mitigation implementation is completed 
     as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than 
     the end of the next fiscal year immediately following the 
     last day of that construction.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--Funds made available for preliminary 
     engineering and design, construction, or operations and 
     maintenance shall be available for use in carrying out this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 203. MITIGATION TRACKING SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     recordkeeping system to track each water resources project 
     constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary, and 
     for each permit issued under section 404 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
       (1) the quantity and type of wetland and other habitat 
     types affected by the project, project operation, or 
     permitted activity;
       (2) the quantity and type of mitigation required for the 
     project, project operation or permitted activity;
       (3) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been 
     completed for the project, project operation or permitted 
     activity; and
       (4) the status of monitoring for the mitigation carried out 
     for the project, project operation or permitted activity.
       (b) Required Information and Organization.--The 
     recordkeeping system shall--
       (1) include information on impacts and mitigation described 
     in subsection (a) that occur after December 31, 1969; and
       (2) be organized by watershed, project, permit application, 
     and zip code.
       (c) Availability of Information.--The Secretary shall make 
     information contained in the recordkeeping system available 
     to the public on the Internet.

                  TITLE III--IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 301. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Construction.--The term ``construction'' includes any 
     physical work carried out under a construction contract 
     relating to a water resources project.
       (2) Physical work.--The term ``physical work'' does not 
     include any activity relating to--
       (A) project planning;
       (B) project engineering and design;
       (C) relocation; or
       (D) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
     way.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--On the third Tuesday of January of each 
     year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Chief of Engineers shall submit to the Committee of 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a fiscal transparency report describing--
       (A) the expenditures of the Corps during the preceding 
     fiscal year;
       (B) the estimated expenditures of the Corps for the fiscal 
     year during which the report is submitted; and
       (C) a list of projects that the Chief of Engineers expects 
     to complete during the fiscal year during which the report is 
     submitted.
       (2) Contents.--In addition to the information described in 
     paragraph (1), the report shall contain a detailed account 
     of--
       (A) for each general construction project that is under 
     construction on the date of submission of the report, or for 
     which there is a signed cost-sharing agreement, complete 
     information regarding planning, engineering, and design of 
     the project, including--
       (i) the primary purpose of the project;
       (ii) each allocation made to the project on or before the 
     date of submission of the report;
       (iii) a description of any construction carried out 
     relating to the project;
       (iv) the projected date of completion of construction of 
     the project;
       (v) the estimated annual Federal cost of completing 
     construction of the project on or before the projected date 
     under clause (iv); and
       (vi) the date of completion of the most recent feasibility 
     study, reevaluation report, and environmental review of the 
     project;
       (B) for each general investigation and reconnaissance and 
     feasibility study, information including--
       (i) the number of studies initiated on or before the date 
     of submission of the report;
       (ii) the number of studies in progress on the date of 
     submission of the report;
       (iii) the number of studies expected to be completed during 
     the fiscal year; and
       (iv) a list of any completed study of a project that is not 
     authorized for construction on the date of submission of the 
     report, and the date of completion of the study;
       (C) for each inland and intracoastal waterway operated and 
     maintained under section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue 
     Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804), information including--
       (i) the estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining 
     the reach of the waterway at the depth of the waterway;
       (ii) the actual cost of operating and maintaining the reach 
     of the waterway at the depth of the waterway during the 
     previous fiscal year; and
       (iii) the number of barges (including the number of loaded 
     barges) and the total tonnage shipped over each waterway 
     during the preceding fiscal year; and
       (D) for each water resources project (or separable element 
     of such a project) that is authorized for construction, for 
     which Federal funds have not been obligated for construction 
     during any of the 4 preceding fiscal years, information 
     including--
       (i) the primary purpose of the project;
       (ii) the date of authorization of the project;
       (iii) each allocation made to the project on or before the 
     date of submission of the report, including the amount and 
     type of the allocation;
       (iv) the percentage of construction of the project that has 
     been completed on the date of submission of the report;
       (v) the estimated cost of completing the project, and the 
     percentage of estimated total costs that has been obligated 
     to the project on or before the date of submission of the 
     report;
       (vi)(I) a benefit-cost analysis of the project, expressed 
     as a ratio using current discount rates;
       (II) the estimated annual benefits and annual costs of the 
     project; and
       (III) the date on which any economic data used to justify 
     the project was collected;
       (vii) the date of completion of the most recent feasibility 
     study, reevaluation report, and environmental review of the 
     project; and
       (viii) a brief explanation of any reason why Federal funds 
     have not been obligated for construction of the project.
       (c) Congressional and Public Notifications.--On submission 
     of a report under this section, the Secretary shall notify 
     each Senator in the State of whom, and each Member of the 
     House of Representatives in the district of whom, a project 
     identified in the report is located.
       (d) Publication.--For any report under this section, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) publish the report in the Federal Register; and
       (2) make the report available to--
       (A) any person, on receipt of a request of the person; and
       (B) the public on the Internet.

     SEC. 302. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       Section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 579a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Construction.--The term `construction' includes any 
     physical work carried out under a construction contract 
     relating to a water resources project.
       ``(2) Physical work.--The term `physical work' does not 
     include any activity relating to--
       ``(A) project planning;
       ``(B) project engineering and design;
       ``(C) relocation; or
       ``(D) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
     way.
       ``(b) Deauthorizations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Effective beginning on the date that is 
     30 months after the date of submission of a fiscal 
     transparency report under section 301 of the Corps of 
     Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2005, each 
     project identified under section 301(b)(2)(D) of that Act 
     shall be deauthorized unless Federal funds were obligated for 
     construction of the project during the preceding 30 months.
       ``(2) Effect of paragraph.--Paragraph (1) does not apply--
       ``(A) in the case of a beach nourishment project, beginning 
     on the date on which initial construction of the project is 
     completed; or
       ``(B) in the case of any other project, beginning on the 
     date on which construction of the project is completed.
       ``(c) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall 
     annually publish in the Federal Register a list of all 
     projects deauthorized under this section.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 754. A bill to ensure that the Federal student loans are delivered 
as efficiently as possible, so that there is more grant aid for 
students; to the

[[Page 6029]]

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. 754

       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 ``Student Aid Reward Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. STUDENT AID REWARD PROGRAM.

       Part G of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     489 the following:

     ``SEC. 489A. STUDENT AID REWARD PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
     Student Aid Reward Program to encourage institutions of 
     higher education to participate in the student loan program 
     under this title that is most cost-effective for taxpayers.
       ``(b) Program Requirements.--In carrying out the Student 
     Aid Reward Program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) provide to each institution of higher education 
     participating in the student loan program under this title 
     that is most cost-effective for taxpayers, a Student Aid 
     Reward Payment, in an amount determined in accordance with 
     subsection (c), to encourage the institution to participate 
     in that student loan program;
       ``(2) require each institution of higher education 
     receiving a payment under this section to provide student 
     loans under such student loan program for a period of 5 years 
     after the date the first payment is made under this section;
       ``(3) where appropriate, require that funds paid to 
     institutions of higher education under this section be used 
     to award students a supplement to such students' Federal Pell 
     Grants under subpart 1 of part A;
       ``(4) permit such funds to also be used to award need-based 
     grants to lower- and middle-income graduate students; and
       ``(5) encourage all institutions of higher education to 
     participate in the Student Aid Reward Program under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Amount.--The amount of a Student Aid Reward Payment 
     under this section shall be not less than 50 percent of the 
     savings to the Federal Government generated by the 
     institution of higher education's participation in the 
     student loan program under this title that is most cost-
     effective for taxpayers instead of the institution's 
     participation in the student loan program that is not most 
     cost-effective for taxpayers.
       ``(d) Trigger to Ensure Cost Neutrality.--
       ``(1) Limit to ensure cost neutrality.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall not distribute Student 
     Aid Reward Payments under the Student Aid Reward Program 
     that, in the aggregate, exceed the Federal savings resulting 
     from the implementation of the Student Aid Reward Program.
       ``(2) Federal savings.--In calculating Federal savings, as 
     used in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine Federal 
     savings on loans made to students at institutions of higher 
     education that participate in the student loan program under 
     this title that is most cost-effective for taxpayers and 
     that, on the date of enactment of the Student Aid Reward Act 
     of 2005, participated in the student loan program that is not 
     most cost-effective for taxpayers, resulting from the 
     difference of--
       ``(A) the Federal cost of loan volume made under the 
     student loan program under this title that is most cost-
     effective for taxpayers; and
       ``(B) the Federal cost of an equivalent type and amount of 
     loan volume made, insured, or guaranteed under the student 
     loan program under this title that is not most cost-effective 
     for taxpayers.
       ``(3) Distribution rules.--If the Federal savings 
     determined under paragraph (2) is not sufficient to 
     distribute full Student Aid Reward Payments under the Student 
     Aid Reward Program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) first make Student Aid Reward Payments to those 
     institutions of higher education that participated in the 
     student loan program under this title that is not most cost-
     effective for taxpayers on the date of enactment of the 
     Student Aid Reward Act of 2005; and
       ``(B) with any remaining Federal savings after making 
     Student Aid Reward Payments under subparagraph (A), make 
     Student Aid Reward Payments to the institutions of higher 
     education eligible for a Student Aid Reward Payment and not 
     described in subparagraph (A) on a pro-rata basis.
       ``(4) Distribution to students.--Any institution of higher 
     education that receives a Student Aid Reward Payment under 
     this section--
       ``(A) shall distribute, where appropriate, part or all of 
     such payment among the students of such institution who are 
     Federal Pell Grant recipients by awarding such students a 
     supplemental grant; and
       ``(B) may distribute part of such payment as a supplemental 
     grant to graduate students in financial need.
       ``(5) Estimates, adjustments, and carry over.--
       ``(A) Estimates and adjustments.--The Secretary shall make 
     Student Aid Reward Payments to institutions of higher 
     education on the basis of estimates, using the best data 
     available at the beginning of an academic or fiscal year. If 
     the Secretary determines thereafter that loan program costs 
     for that academic or fiscal year were different than such 
     estimate, the Secretary shall adjust by reducing or 
     increasing subsequent Student Aid Reward Payments rewards 
     paid to such institutions of higher education to reflect such 
     difference.
       ``(B) Carry over.--Any institution of higher education that 
     receives a reduced Student Aid Reward Payment under paragraph 
     (3)(B), shall remain eligible for the unpaid portion of such 
     institution's financial reward payment, as well as any 
     additional financial reward payments for which the 
     institution is otherwise eligible, in subsequent academic or 
     fiscal years.
       ``(e) Definition.--In this section:
       ``(1) Student loan program under this title that is most 
     cost-effective for taxpayers.--The term `student loan program 
     under this title that is most cost-effective for taxpayers' 
     means the loan program under part B or D of this title that 
     has the lowest overall cost to the Federal Government 
     (including administrative costs) for the loans authorized by 
     such parts.
       ``(2) Student loan program under this title that is not 
     most cost-effective for taxpayers.--The term `student loan 
     program under this title that is not most cost-effective for 
     taxpayers' means the loan program under part B or D of this 
     title that does not have the lowest overall cost to the 
     Federal Government (including administrative costs) for the 
     loans authorized by such parts.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. 
        Hatch):
  S. 756. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance 
public and health professional awareness and understanding of lupus and 
to strengthen the Nation's research efforts to identify the causes and 
cure of lupus; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lupus--
Research, Education, Awareness, Communication, Health Care--or REACH 
Amendments of 2005. This bill will strengthen the Nation's research 
efforts to identify the causes and cure of lupus, improve lupus data 
collection and epidemiology, and enhance public and health professional 
awareness and understanding of lupus--one of the Nation's most 
devastating, yet least understood autoimmune diseases. It has been 
almost 40 years since the FDA has approved a drug specifically to treat 
lupus.
  Lupus is a life-threatening, life diminishing autoimmune disease that 
can cause inflammation and tissue damage to virtually any organ system 
in the body, including the skin, joints, other connective tissue, blood 
and blood vessels, heart, lungs, kidney, and brain. It affects women 
nine times more often than men and 80 percent of newly diagnosed cases 
of lupus develop among women of child-bearing age.
  This disease is not well known or well understood despite the fact 
that according to the Lupus Foundation of America at least 1.5 to 2 
million Americans live with some form of lupus. Many are either 
misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. As the prototypical autoimmune 
disease, discoveries on lupus may apply to more than 20 other 
autoimmune diseases.
  Of serious concern is that this disease disproportionately affects 
women of color--it is two to three times more common among African-
Americans, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans--a health disparity 
that remains unexplained. According to the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention the rate of lupus mortality has increased since the late 
1970s and is higher among older African-American women. Comprehensive 
and definitive epidemiologic studies will help improve our 
understanding of these health disparities and move us toward closing 
the gaps.
  The symptoms of lupus make diagnosis difficult because they are 
sporadic and imitate the symptoms of many other illnesses. If diagnosed 
promptly and properly treated, the majority of lupus cases can be 
controlled. Unfortunately, because of the dearth of

[[Page 6030]]

medical research on lupus and the length of time it takes to make a 
diagnosis, many lupus patients suffer debilitating pain and fatigue. 
The resulting effects make it difficult, if not impossible, for these 
individuals to carry on normal everyday activities, including work. 
Thousands of these debilitating cases needlessly end in death each 
year. Our Nation must do more to ensure that health professionals are 
aware of its signs and symptoms so that people with lupus can receive 
the prompt, appropriate care they need and deserve.
  The Lupus REACH Amendments of 2005 seek to expand biomedical research 
and strengthen lupus epidemiology. This bill authorizes a study and 
report by the Institute of Medicine, IOM, evaluating various Federal 
and State activities and research. This legislation will raise public 
awareness of lupus and improve health professional education. It aims 
to promote increased awareness of early intervention and treatment, 
direct communication and education efforts, and target at-risk women 
and health professionals to help them quickly achieve a correct 
diagnosis of lupus.
  I would urge all my colleagues, to join me in sponsoring this 
legislation to increase research, education, and awareness of lupus.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Biden, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Durbin, 
        and Mr. Smith):
  S. 759. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
higher education more affordable, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. 759

       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 ``Make College Affordable Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DEDUCTION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES.

       (a) Amount of Deduction.--Subsection (b) of section 222 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to deduction for 
     qualified tuition and related expenses) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Dollar limitations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amount allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) with 
     respect to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed 
     the applicable dollar limit.
       ``(B) Applicable dollar limit.--The applicable dollar limit 
     for any taxable year shall be determined as follows:
``Taxable year:                               Applicable dollar amount:
2005.............................................................$8,000
2006 and thereafter............................................$12,000.
       ``(2) Limitation based on modified adjusted gross income.--
       ``(A) In general.--The amount which would (but for this 
     paragraph) be taken into account under subsection (a) shall 
     be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount determined 
     under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Amount of reduction.--The amount determined under 
     this subparagraph equals the amount which bears the same 
     ratio to the amount which would be so taken into account as--
       ``(i) the excess of--

       ``(I) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for 
     such taxable year, over
       ``(II) $65,000 ($130,000 in the case of a joint return), 
     bears to

       ``(ii) $15,000 ($30,000 in the case of a joint return).
       ``(C) Modified adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `modified adjusted gross income' means 
     the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for the taxable 
     year determined--
       ``(i) without regard to this section and sections 199, 911, 
     931, and 933, and
       ``(ii) after the application of sections 86, 135, 137, 219, 
     221, and 469.
     For purposes of the sections referred to in clause (ii), 
     adjusted gross income shall be determined without regard to 
     the deduction allowed under this section.
       ``(D) Inflation adjustments.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning in a calendar year after 2005, both of the dollar 
     amounts in subparagraph (B)(i)(II) shall be increased by an 
     amount equal to--

       ``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, by substituting `calendar year 2004' for 
     `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

       ``(ii) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under clause 
     (i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to 
     the nearest multiple of $50.''.
       (b) Qualified Tuition and Related Expenses of Eligible 
     Students.--
       (1) In general.--Section 222(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of deduction) is amended 
     by inserting ``of eligible students'' after ``expenses''.
       (2) Definition of eligible student.--Section 222(d) of such 
     Code (relating to definitions and special rules) is amended 
     by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as paragraphs (3) 
     through (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph 
     (1) the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Eligible student.--The term `eligible student' has 
     the meaning given such term by section 25A(b)(3).''.
       (c) Deduction Made Permanent.--Title IX of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to 
     sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply to the 
     amendments made by section 431 of such Act.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made in taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2004.

     SEC. 3. CREDIT FOR INTEREST ON HIGHER EDUCATION LOANS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 25B the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25C. INTEREST ON HIGHER EDUCATION LOANS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the 
     interest paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year on any 
     qualified education loan.
       ``(b) Maximum Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     credit allowed by subsection (a) for the taxable year shall 
     not exceed $1,500.
       ``(2) Limitation based on modified adjusted gross income.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the modified adjusted gross income of 
     the taxpayer for the taxable year exceeds $50,000 ($100,000 
     in the case of a joint return), the amount which would (but 
     for this paragraph) be allowable as a credit under this 
     section shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount 
     which bears the same ratio to the amount which would be so 
     allowable as such excess bears to $20,000 ($40,000 in the 
     case of a joint return).
       ``(B) Modified adjusted gross income.--The term `modified 
     adjusted gross income' means adjusted gross income determined 
     without regard to sections 199, 222, 911, 931, and 933.
       ``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning after 2005, the $50,000 and $100,000 amounts 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section (1)(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, by substituting `2004' for `1992'.
       ``(D) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under 
     subparagraph (C) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall 
     be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.
       ``(c) Dependents Not Eligible for Credit.--No credit shall 
     be allowed by this section to an individual for the taxable 
     year if a deduction under section 151 with respect to such 
     individual is allowed to another taxpayer for the taxable 
     year beginning in the calendar year in which such 
     individual's taxable year begins.
       ``(d) Limit on Period Credit Allowed.--A credit shall be 
     allowed under this section only with respect to interest paid 
     on any qualified education loan during the first 60 months 
     (whether or not consecutive) in which interest payments are 
     required. For purposes of this paragraph, any loan and all 
     refinancings of such loan shall be treated as 1 loan.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified education loan.--The term `qualified 
     education loan' has the meaning given such term by section 
     221(d)(1).
       ``(2) Dependent.--The term `dependent' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 152.
       ``(f) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No credit shall be allowed 
     under this section for any amount taken into account for any 
     deduction under any other provision of this chapter.
       ``(2) Married couples must file joint return.--If the 
     taxpayer is married at the close of the taxable year, the 
     credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) only if the 
     taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse file a joint return for 
     the taxable year.
       ``(3) Marital status.--Marital status shall be determined 
     in accordance with section 7703.''.

[[Page 6031]]

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 25B the following new item:

``Sec. 25C. Interest on higher education loans.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any qualified education loan (as defined in 
     section 25C(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     added by this section) incurred on, before, or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, but only with respect to any 
     loan interest payment due after December 31, 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        DeWine, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 760. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide a 
means for continued improvement in emergency medical services for 
children; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. Inouye. Mr. President, today I introduce ``The Wakefield Act,'' 
also known as the ``Emergency Medical Services for Children Act of 
2005'' along with my colleagues Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
DeWine, and Mr. Conrad. Since Senator Hatch and I worked toward 
authorization of EMSC in 1984, this program has been the driving force 
toward improving a wide range of children's emergency services. From 
specialized training for emergency care providers to ensuring 
ambulances and emergency departments have state-of-the-art pediatric-
sized equipment, EMSC has provided the vehicle for improving survival 
of our smallest citizens when accidents or medical emergencies 
threatened their lives.
  It remains no secret that children present unique anatomic, 
physiologic, emotional and developmental challenges to our primarily 
adult-oriented emergency medical system. As has been said many times 
before, children are not little adults. Evaluation and treatment must 
take into account their special needs, or we risk letting them fall 
through the gap between adult and pediatric care. EMSC has bridged that 
gap while fostering collaborative relationships among emergency medical 
technicians, paramedics, nurses, emergency physicians, surgeons, and 
pediatricians.
  Yet, with the increasing number of children with special healthcare 
needs, the looming prospect of bioterrorism and the increasing 
importance of disaster preparedness, gaps still remain in our emergency 
healthcare delivery system for children. Re-authorization of EMSC will 
ensure children's needs are given the attention and priority necessary 
to coordinate and expand services for victims of life-threatening 
illnesses and injuries.
  I join the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of 
Emergency Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, and thirty 
other supporting healthcare organizations in celebrating the 20th 
anniversary of the EMSC program. EMSC remains the only Federal program 
dedicated to examining the best ways to deliver various forms of care 
to children in emergency settings. I look forward to re-authorization 
of this important legislation and the continued advances in our 
emergency healthcare delivery system.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 760

       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 ``Wakefield Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) There are 31,000,000 child and adolescent visits to the 
     nation's emergency departments every year, with children 
     under the age of 3 years accounting for most of these visits.
       (2) Ninety percent of children requiring emergency care are 
     seen in general hospitals, not in free-standing children's 
     hospitals, with one-quarter to one-third of the patients 
     being children in the typical general hospital emergency 
     department.
       (3) Severe asthma and respiratory distress are the most 
     common emergencies for pediatric patients, representing 
     nearly one-third of all hospitalizations among children under 
     the age of 15 years, while seizures, shock, and airway 
     obstruction are other common pediatric emergencies, followed 
     by cardiac arrest and severe trauma.
       (4) Up to 20 percent of children needing emergency care 
     have underlying medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes, 
     sickle-cell disease, low birthweight, and bronchopulmonary 
     dysplasia.
       (5) Significant gaps remain in emergency medical care 
     delivered to children, with 43 percent of hospitals lacking 
     cervical collars (used to stabilize spinal injuries) for 
     infants, less than half (47 percent) of hospitals with no 
     pediatric intensive care unit having a written transfer 
     agreement with a hospital that does have such a unit, one-
     third of States lacking a physician available on-call 24 
     hours a day to provide medical direction to emergency medical 
     technicians or other non-physician emergency care providers, 
     and even those States with such availability lacking full 
     State coverage.
       (6) Providers must be educated and trained to manage 
     children's unique physical and psychological needs in 
     emergency situations, and emergency systems must be equipped 
     with the resources needed to care for this especially 
     vulnerable population.
       (7) The Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) 
     Program under section 1910 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300w-9) is the only Federal program that focuses 
     specifically on improving the pediatric components of 
     emergency medical care.
       (8) The EMSC Program promotes the nationwide exchange of 
     pediatric emergency medical care knowledge and collaboration 
     by those with an interest in such care and is depended upon 
     by Federal agencies and national organizations to ensure that 
     this exchange of knowledge and collaboration takes place.
       (9) The EMSC Program also supports a multi-institutional 
     network for research in pediatric emergency medicine, thus 
     allowing providers to rely on evidence rather than anecdotal 
     experience when treating ill or injured children.
       (10) States are better equipped to handle occurrences of 
     critical or traumatic injury due to advances fostered by the 
     EMSC program, with--
       (A) forty-eight States identifying and requiring all EMSC-
     recommended pediatric equipment on Advanced Life Support 
     ambulances;
       (B) forty-four States employing pediatric protocols for 
     medical direction;
       (C) forty-one States utilizing pediatric guidelines for 
     acute care facility identification, ensuring that children 
     get to the right hospital in a timely manner; and
       (D) thirty-six of the forty-two States having statewide 
     computerized data collection systems now producing reports on 
     pediatric emergency medical services using statewide data.
       (11) Systems of care must be continually maintained, 
     updated, and improved to ensure that research is translated 
     into practice, best practices are adopted, training is 
     current, and standards and protocols are appropriate.
       (12) Now celebrating its twentieth anniversary, the EMSC 
     Program has proven effective over two decades in driving key 
     improvements in emergency medical services to children, and 
     should continue its mission to reduce child and youth 
     morbidity and mortality by supporting improvements in the 
     quality of all emergency medical and emergency surgical care 
     children receive.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to reduce child 
     and youth morbidity and mortality by supporting improvements 
     in the quality of all emergency medical care children 
     receive.

     SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR 
                   CHILDREN PROGRAM.

       Section 1910 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300w-9) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``3-year period (with an 
     optional 4th year'' and inserting ``4-year period (with an 
     optional 5th year'';
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``and such sums'' and inserting ``such 
     sums''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: 
     ``$23,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (b) through (d) as 
     subsections (c) through (e), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b)(1) The purpose of the program established under this 
     section is to reduce child and youth morbidity and mortality 
     by supporting improvements in the quality of all emergency 
     medical care children receive, through the promotion of 
     projects focused on the expansion and improvement of such 
     services, including those in rural areas and those for 
     children with special healthcare needs. In carrying out this 
     purpose, the Secretary shall support emergency medical 
     services for children by supporting projects that--
       ``(A) develop and present scientific evidence;

[[Page 6032]]

       ``(B) promote existing and innovative technologies 
     appropriate for the care of children: or
       ``(C) provide information on health outcomes and 
     effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
       ``(2) The program established under this section shall--
       ``(A) strive to enhance the pediatric capability of 
     emergency medical service systems originally designed 
     primarily for adults; and
       ``(B) in order to avoid duplication and ensure that Federal 
     resources are used efficiently and effectively, be 
     coordinated with all research, evaluations, and awards 
     related to emergency medical services for children undertaken 
     and supported by the Federal Government.''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Inouye in 
introducing ``The Wakefield Act'', which reauthorizes the Emergency 
Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program. It has been 20 years 
since Senator Inouye and I first worked for passage of the original 
bill authorizing the EMSC program. We embarked upon this partnership 
after realizing that there was a critical gap in our Nation's ability 
to provide emergency medical services for the most precious segment of 
our population: our children.
  Since the Emergency Medical Services for Children Act was first 
passed, its programs have spread across the nation, enhancing the care 
received in the more than 31 million visits made by children and 
adolescents to our nation's emergency departments every year. In part 
due to this program, the pediatric death rate from injuries has fallen 
40 percent over the last 20 years. Imagine that--40 percent! In that 
light, it is extremely disappointing that President Bush would 
recommend eliminating funding for this very important program.
  More than 30 groups have endorsed this legislation, including the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Emergency 
Physicians, American College of Surgeons, Brain Injury Association of 
America, Emergency Nurses Association, Family Violence Prevention Fund, 
National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of 
Emergency Medical Technicians, Rural Metro Corporation, Society for 
Pediatric Research, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
  While much has been accomplished, more remains to be done. Children's 
physiology and response to illness and injury differ significantly from 
those of adults, necessitating specialized training to recognize and 
treat these patients properly. Ninety percent of the children who 
require emergency care receive it in general hospitals, not in free-
standing specialty children's hospitals. Of those hospitals that lack 
pediatric intensive care units, only 47 percent have appropriate 
written transfer agreements with hospitals that do have such 
specialized units. One-third of states do not have a physician 
available on-call 24 hours to provide medical direction to EMTs or 
other non-physician emergency care providers. Of those states that do, 
many do not have full state coverage.
  It is clear that despite the progress made since the Emergency 
Medical Services for Children Act was first enacted, deficiencies in 
our pediatric emergency care system remain. What is more, the need for 
a strong and healthy population, as well as a robust, prepared, and 
responsive health care system, has never been greater. This cannot 
occur in the absence of an emergency medical structure that is fully 
trained and ready to care for our nation's youth.
  The Wakefield Act fills this role by supporting states' efforts to 
improve the care of children within their emergency medical services 
systems. EMSC-supported projects include strengthening emergency care 
infrastructures, assessing local provider needs, and developing 
comprehensive education and training modules. The impact of this 
program is undeniable: in 2003, 78 percent of States reported that 
either all or some of their pediatric emergency training programs were 
dependent on EMSC grant funding.
  The EMSC program also ensures timely distribution of best practices 
and lessons learned in the area of pediatric emergency care, as well as 
facilitating the sharing of innovations through its national resource 
center. Furthermore, EMSC-supported projects have a proven record of 
success at the State and local level. For example, in 1997, no State 
disaster plan had specific pediatric components, but by 2003, 13 EMSC 
projects were working actively with their State's disaster preparedness 
offices to address children's needs in the event of a disaster.
  I am proud that my home State of Utah has played a vital role in 
advancing the level of emergency medical care for children and 
teenagers. Working with the Emergency Medical Services for Children 
program, Utah has participated in the Intermountain Regional Emergency 
Medical Services for Children Coordinating Council. The University of 
Utah is home to both the National Emergency Medical Services for 
Children Data Analysis Resource Center and the Central Data Management 
Coordinating Center for the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research 
Network. Utah-based projects also helped pioneer the development of 
training materials on caring for special needs pediatric patients.
  Over the course of its 20 year history, the Emergency Medical 
Services for Children program has made great strides in improving the 
lives of our Nation's children. It has largely eliminated discrepancies 
in regulations among States, establishing a national norm and making 
children's issues in emergency medical care a priority. The national 
EMSC program is a dynamic and flexible program that has proved to be 
responsive to both the Nation's and the individual States' needs. The 
program has funded pediatric emergency care improvement initiatives in 
every State, territory and the District of Columbia, as well as 
national improvement programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important and necessary 
legislation.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the introduction 
of the Wakefie1d Act, which will reauthorize the Emergency Medical 
Services for Children, EMSC, program. This program is the only Federal 
program that focuses specifically on improving the quality of 
children's emergency care. With more than 31 million child and 
adolescent visits to emergency rooms each year, the EMSC program is 
important to ensuring that our children receive the best trauma care 
available.
  As research shows, first responders cannot treat children as small 
adults, a different approach is needed. The EMSC program provides vital 
funding to States to improve the quality of pediatric emergency care. 
EMSC funds can be used for a variety of initiatives, including for the 
purchase of child appropriate equipment and training programs for 
nurses, physicians and emergency responders. These funds fill an 
important need. For example, 43 percent of hospitals in this country 
lack cervical collars for infants. The EMSC program is helping to 
address inadequacies in our Nation's EMS system.
  This bill is particularly important to me because it is named for the 
family of a dear friend of mine, Mary Wakefield, who suffered a 
horrible tragedy this past January. Mary lost her brother, Thomas 
Wakefield, and two of his children, Mikal and Nicole, in a car 
accident. This terrible tragedy highlights the importance of providing 
appropriate training and equipment for children involved in trauma 
cases, and I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important 
legislation.

                          ____________________