[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13111-13133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 3598. A bill to clarify the effective date of the modification of 
treatment for retirement annuity purposes of part-time service before 
April 7, 1986, of certain Department of Veterans Affairs health-care 
professionals; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation 
to correct an unfair decision that hurts aging, retired VA nurses. This 
legislation is designed to correct a problem from a bill we passed in 
2001, to help VA nurses. That legislation improved nurses' pensions, 
and Congress intended it to be retroactive. Unfortunately, 
administrative officials took a very narrow view of that law. Currently 
VA nurses who retired between 1986 and 2002, do not get the full 
pension benefits as current retirees do.
  In the 1980s, VA aggressively recruited nurses to fill a huge need at 
VA medical centers by promising full retirement for part-time work. 
Sadly, the VA and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, does not 
want to fulfill that promise. This legislation would explicitly require 
the Federal Government to honor its commitment to our retired VA 
nurses. Pension benefits are a vital promise. It is disturbing when we 
do not fulfill our obligations, and we simply must correct this error.
  Nurses play a critical role in our health care system, including the 
VA. Recruiting and retaining nurses is important, and this pension 
shortfall does not help. It is time to deliver full pension benefits to 
the nurses who cared for our veterans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 3599. A bill to establish the Prehistoric Trackways National 
Monument in the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today to protect a site of worldwide scientific significance in the 
Robledo Mountains in New Mexico. The bill, which is cosponsored by my 
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, would create a national 
monument to preserve and allow for the continuing scientific 
investigation of a remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 280,000,000 year-old 
fossils and trackways.
  The vast tidal mudflats that made up much of modern New Mexico 60 
million years before the first dinosaurs preserved the marks of some of 
the earliest life on our planet to make its way out of the ocean. The 
fossil record of this time is scattered throughout New Mexico but, 
until this discovery, there were few places where the range of life and 
their interactions with each other could be studied.
  Las Cruces resident and paleontologist Jerry MacDonald first brought 
the find to light in 1988 when he revealed that there was far more to 
be found in the Robledos than the occasional fossil that local 
residents had been seeing for years. The trackways he hauled out on his 
back, some over 20 feet long, showed that there was a great deal of 
useful information buried in the rock there. The trackways include 
footprints of numerous amphibians, reptiles, and insects, including 
previously unknown species. These trackways help complete the puzzle of 
how these ancient creatures lived in a way that we cannot understand 
from only studying their fossilized bones.
  Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen joined me in sponsoring 
legislation, passed in 1990, to protect the area and study its 
significance. In 1994, the Bureau of Land Management, along with 
scientists from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science, the 
University of Colorado, and the Smithsonian Institution, completed 
their study and documented the importance of the find. Particularly 
owing to the quality of the specimens and the wide range of animals 
that had left their imprint there, the study found that the site was of 
immense scientific value. The study concluded, in part, ``[t]he 
diversity, abundance and quality of the tracks in the Robledo Mountains 
is far greater than at any other known tracksite or aggregation of 
tracksites.'' The study also described the site as containing ``the 
most scientifically significant Early Permian tracksites'' in the 
world. However, despite the recognition of the significance of the 
site, it has remained essentially unprotected, and many of the 
trackways and fossils have been lost or damaged. This bill would take 
the next logical step to follow up from these efforts and set in place 
permanent protections and allow for scientific investigation of these 
remarkable resources.
  In addition to permanently protecting the fossils, the bill would 
authorize the continuation of existing uses in the area, such as 
motorized recreation, as long as the trackway resources aren't harmed. 
The bill would also help ensure that local residents get the 
opportunity to see these unique specimens and participate in their 
curation. This should provide a unique scientific and educational 
opportunity to Las Cruces and the surrounding community.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect these 
important resources and allow for their continuing contribution to our 
understanding of life on the ancient Earth.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3599

       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 ``Prehistoric Trackways 
     National Monument Establishment Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Monument.--The term ``Monument'' means the Prehistoric 
     Trackways National Monument established by section 4(a).
       (2) Public land.--The term ``public land'' has the meaning 
     given the term ``public lands'' in section 103 of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) in 1987, a major deposit of Paleozoic Era fossilized 
     footprint megatrackways was discovered in the Robledo 
     Mountains in southern New Mexico;
       (2) the trackways contain footprints of numerous 
     amphibians, reptiles, and insects (including previously 
     unknown species), plants, and petrified wood dating back 
     approximately 280,000,000 years, which collectively provide 
     new opportunities to understand animal behaviors and 
     environments from a time predating the dinosaurs;
       (3) title III of Public Law 101-578 (104 Stat. 2860)--
       (A) provided interim protection for the site at which the 
     trackways were discovered; and
       (B) directed the Secretary of the Interior to--
       (i) prepare a study assessing the significance of the site; 
     and
       (ii) based on the study, provide recommendations for 
     protection of the paleontological resources at the site;
       (4) the Bureau of Land Management completed the Paleozoic 
     Trackways Scientific Study Report in 1994, which 
     characterized the site as containing ``the most 
     scientifically significant Early Permian tracksites'' in the 
     world;
       (5) despite the conclusion of the study and the 
     recommendations for protection, the site remains unprotected 
     and many irreplaceable trackways specimens have been lost to 
     vandalism or theft; and
       (6) designation of the trackways site as a National 
     Monument would protect the unique fossil resources for 
     present and future generations while allowing for public 
     education and continued scientific research opportunities.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--In order to conserve, protect, and enhance 
     the unique and nationally important paleontological, 
     scientific, educational, scenic, and recreational resources 
     and values of the public land described in subsection (b), 
     there is established the Prehistoric Trackways National 
     Monument in the State of New Mexico.
       (b) Description of Land.--The Monument shall consist of 
     approximately 5,367 acres of public land in Dona Ana County, 
     New Mexico, as generally depicted on the map entitled 
     ``Prehistoric Trackways National Monument'' and dated June 1, 
     2006.

[[Page 13112]]

       (c) Map; Legal Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit 
     to Congress an official map and legal description of the 
     Monument.
       (2) Corrections.--The map and legal description submitted 
     under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as 
     if included in this Act, except that the Secretary may 
     correct any clerical or typographical errors in the legal 
     description and the map.
       (3) Conflict between map and legal description.--In the 
     case of a conflict between the map and the legal description, 
     the map shall control.
       (4) Availability of map and legal description.--Copies of 
     the map and legal description shall be on file and available 
     for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
     Bureau of Land Management.
       (d) Minor Boundary Adjustments.--If additional 
     paleontological resources are discovered on public land 
     adjacent to the Monument after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary may make minor boundary adjustments to the 
     Monument to include the resources in the Monument.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the Monument--
       (A) in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the 
     resources and values of the Monument, including the resources 
     and values described in section 4(a); and
       (B) in accordance with--
       (i) this Act;
       (ii) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (iii) other applicable laws.
       (2) National landscape conservation system.--The Monument 
     shall be managed as a component of the National Landscape 
     Conservation System.
       (3) Protection of resources and values.--The Secretary 
     shall manage public land adjacent to the Monument in a manner 
     that is consistent with the protection of the resources and 
     values of the Monument.
       (b) Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a 
     comprehensive management plan for the long-term protection 
     and management of the Monument.
       (2) Components.--The management plan under paragraph (1)--
       (A) shall--
       (i) describe the appropriate uses and management of the 
     Monument, consistent with the provisions of this Act; and
       (ii) allow for continued scientific research at the 
     Monument during the development of the management plan; and
       (B) may--
       (i) incorporate any appropriate decisions contained in any 
     current management or activity plan for the land described in 
     section 4(b); and
       (ii) use information developed in studies of any land 
     within or adjacent to the Monument that were conducted before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Authorized Uses.--The Secretary shall only allow uses 
     of the Monument that the Secretary determines would further 
     the purposes for which the Monument has been established.
       (d) Interpretation, Education, and Scientific Research.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for public 
     interpretation of, and education and scientific research on, 
     the paleontological resources of the Monument, with priority 
     given to exhibiting and curating the resources in Dona Ana 
     County, New Mexico.
       (2) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with appropriate public entities to 
     carry out paragraph (1).
       (e) Special Management Areas.--
       (1) In general.--The establishment of the Monument shall 
     not change the management status of any area within the 
     boundary of the Monument that is--
       (A) designated as a wilderness study area and managed in 
     accordance with section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)); or
       (B) managed as an area of critical environment concern.
       (2) Conflict of laws.--If there is a conflict between the 
     laws applicable to the areas described in paragraph (1) and 
     this Act, the more restrictive provision shall control.
       (f) Motorized Vehicles.--
       (1) In general.--Except as needed for administrative 
     purposes or to respond to an emergency, the use of motorized 
     vehicles in the Monument shall be allowed only on roads and 
     trails designated for use by motorized vehicles under the 
     management plan prepared under subsection (b).
       (2) Permitted events.--The Secretary may issue permits for 
     special recreation events involving motorized vehicles within 
     the boundaries of the Monument, including the ``Chile 
     Challenge''--
       (A) to the extent the events do not harm paleontological 
     resources; and
       (B) subject to any terms and conditions that the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary.
       (g) Withdrawals.--Subject to valid existing rights, any 
     Federal land within the Monument and any land or interest in 
     land that is acquired by the United States for inclusion in 
     the Monument after the date of enactment of this Act are 
     withdrawn from--
       (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land 
     laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) operation of the mineral leasing laws, geothermal 
     leasing laws, and minerals materials laws.
       (h) Grazing.--The Secretary may allow grazing to continue 
     in any area of the Monument in which grazing is allowed 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, subject to 
     applicable laws (including regulations).
       (i) Hunting.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this Act diminishes the 
     jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico with respect to fish 
     and wildlife management, including regulation of hunting on 
     public land within the Monument.
       (2) Regulations.--The Secretary, after consultation with 
     the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, may issue 
     regulations designating zones in which and establishing 
     periods during which hunting shall not be allowed for reasons 
     of public safety, administration, or public use and 
     enjoyment.
       (j) Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act constitutes an 
     express or implied reservation by the United States of any 
     water or water rights with respect to the Monument.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the fossilized trackways near the 
Robledo Mountains in Dona Ana County came to my attention in the early 
1990s. During the 101st Congress, I cosponsored Senator Bingaman's 
legislation that directed the Bureau of Land Management to study and 
report on the prehistoric sites.
  I understand the very difficult challenge we face in managing our 
public lands in a responsible and environmentally sensitive manner. I 
believe our Federal lands are truly National treasures that demand our 
most thoughtful management. Local leaders, special interest groups, 
multiple users, New Mexico State University, and the Bureau of Land 
Management, BLM, have identified numerous land issues in the Las Cruces 
area that need to be addressed. The trackways are but one of these 
issues that can and should be addressed in the context of a broader 
lands bill. I believe that introduction of comprehensive or omnibus 
legislation is a preferable approach, rather than the introduction of 
individual bills to deal each separate issue.
  I support the intent of this bill, as the trackways are remarkable 
artifacts that need and deserve protection. While I am very supportive 
of the overall goal to protect these prehistoric trackway sites, there 
are several particulars in this bill that I do not fully embrace and on 
which I want to continue to work with Senator Bingaman, such as 
ensuring that we authorize all uses in the area that are not 
inconsistent with the purposes of the bill, and reworking the section 
regarding BLM authority with respect to hunting activities. As we work 
through the committee process, I look forward to working with Senator 
Bingaman to accomplish the objective of protecting the prehistoric 
trackway sites, while at the same time addressing some of the broader 
Federal land issues that need to be addressed in Dona Ana County.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 3600. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the allocation of the alternative fuel vehicle refueling property 
credit to patrons of agricultural cooperatives; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Agricultural 
Cooperative Renewable Fuel Stations Act of 2006. This legislation 
closes a gap in the existing tax incentive for installing alternative 
refueling stations. The bill extends the existing alternative fuel 
vehicle refueling property credit to patrons of agricultural 
cooperatives.
  Our continued dependence on foreign oil is extremely worrisome. 
Today, about 60 percent of our oil comes from overseas. Last year, 
Americans imported almost 5 billion barrels of oil. Our Nation's 
overreliance on oil-derived gasoline poses a threat to National 
security and places a heavy economic burden on the citizens of our 
Nation. In addition, this heavy dependence on oil negatively impacts 
the environment.

[[Page 13113]]

  That is why Senator Lugar and I, with strong bipartisan support, have 
pushed to replace foreign oil with more home-grown biofuels and 
biobased products. We recently introduced the Biofuels Security Act to 
aggressively ramp up the production and use of ethanol and biodiesel, 
ensure greater E-85 availability as well as what are known as flex-fuel 
cars, those that can run on E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 
percent gasoline. Last year I authored critically important biomass 
research, development and deployment provisions to the energy bill. 
This new measure complements such efforts.
  Cooperatives play an important role in the marketing of agricultural 
products. According to the USDA, there are over 3,000 agricultural 
cooperatives in America today representing millions of American farmers 
and investors. The production and distribution of bioenergy offers a 
new and lucrative economic opportunity for these organizations.
  This year the ethanol industry alone will add more than 5 billion 
gallons of clean burning, renewable fuel to our energy supply. Between 
now and 2012 ethanol is expected to contribute $200 billion to the GDP. 
Not surprisingly, many cooperatives are eager to participate in the 
budding bioeconomy. One way for them to do this is to offer E-85 to 
their customers. This is a natural fit for farmer cooperatives, given 
that they already often produce the feedstocks as well as the ethanol 
itself that goes into E-85.
  Section 30C of the Internal Revenue Code--26 U.S.C. Sec. 30C--
provides a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of qualified 
alternative fuel vehicle refueling properties up to $30,000. This 
legislation would simply allow agricultural cooperatives to pass the 
section 30C tax credit through to their members. It parallels pass-
through provisions we have enacted previously, such as the small-
producer ethanol tax credit and the wind power tax credit of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. The section 30C credit is fostering the creation 
and expansion of alternative fueling infrastructure and this 
legislation would bolster its effectiveness.
  The benefits of this legislation are clear. By supporting the 
production, distribution and use of renewable fuels such as E-85 we can 
help reduce pollution, increase farm income, create jobs, bolster 
economic growth and promote energy and national security. Farmer owned 
agricultural cooperatives can and will be leading the way in the months 
and years ahead.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING:
  S. 3602. A bill to provide duty-free treatment for certain parts of 
motor vehicles; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
provide for relief from duties on the import of certain parts of motor 
vehicles. It is my intention that this duty suspension bill will be 
considered for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, MTB, that 
the Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider this year.
  As the Members of the Senate are aware, Congress on occasion passes a 
bill, known as the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill or MTB, as a vehicle for 
enacting pending noncontroversial duty suspensions. The rules for the 
inclusion of a duty suspension in the MTB are straight forward. First 
and foremost, in order to be included in the MTB, a bill must be 
noncontroversial. A bill will be controversial if it is objected to by 
a domestic producer of the product for which the duty reduction is 
being sought. Secondly, the cost for each bill must amount to less than 
$500,000 of lost revenue per year.
  As my colleagues are aware, the MTB provides an opportunity to 
temporarily eliminate or reduce duties on narrowly defined products 
that are imported into the United States because there is not available 
domestic source for the products. These duty suspensions reduce input 
costs for U.S. businesses and thus ultimately increase the 
competitiveness of their products.
  I have been approached by a number of manufacturers in Kentucky that 
use imported inputs while making their products. These manufacturers 
have represented to me that, to their knowledge, there currently exists 
no American-made source for these inputs.
  In an effort to assist these Kentucky manufacturers, I have 
introduced in the past month a number of these duty suspension bills so 
that the items they address will be able to be considered for inclusion 
in the MTB prepared by the Senate Finance Committee.
  My intention in introducing these bills is to begin the process of 
public comment and technical analysis by the International Trade 
Commission, ITC, on the items addressed by the bills. During this 
review, the ITC will determine which of these bills are necessary and 
meet the selection criteria. My support for a duty suspension for the 
items is contingent on a determination by the ITC analysts that the 
items in question are proper candidates for inclusion in the 
noncontroversial MTB.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member 
Baucus and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee as the process 
for assembling a final MTB package continues.
                                 F_____
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 3605. A bill to enable the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to 
investigate the effects of migratory birds on sustained productivity of 
stocks of fish of common concern in the Great Lakes; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow, in 
introducing the Great Lakes Migratory Bird Research and Management Act 
to learn more about a potential problem regarding double-crested 
cormorants.
  Cormorants are dark-feathered water birds with voracious appetites 
for alewives, perch and other fish in the Great Lakes. The double-
crested cormorants reside throughout North America, but according to 
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the largest concentration of double-
crested cormorants is in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes cormorant 
population migrates south, along the Atlantic coast and Mississippi 
River drainage to the southeastern States and Gulf of Mexico.
  The Great Lakes population of cormorants was once in great jeopardy. 
By the early 1970s, the population had been severely harmed by chemical 
exposure and human contact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports 
that around that time the Great Lakes population fell sharply, with few 
birds remaining or breeding successfully. Since then, however, there 
has been a huge turnaround due to conservation and pollution reduction 
efforts. And today the Great Lakes population of double-crested 
cormorants is at an historically high level.
  Double-crested cormorants are very skilled at diving for fish. The 
increased population have led many people to believe that cormorants 
are at least partly responsible for declining fish populations near 
several northern Michigan communities.
  To help provide better information on the impact of cormorants on the 
fish populations in the Great Lakes, we are introducing this 
legislation, which authorizes the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to 
develop a coordinated double-crested cormorant research program. As 
part of that research program, the Commission will recommend measures 
that will provide maximum sustained productivity of fishery stocks.
  Under this legislation, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would 
establish a committee that represents the multiple jurisdictions 
engaged in cormorants management to identify all of the existing 
control tactics and strategies in the Great Lakes region, determine the 
effectiveness of those tactics and strategies, and compare the tactics 
and strategies to the known life history of cormorant populations in 
the Great Lakes. In determining the effectiveness of existing control 
practices, the Commission will examine the impact that cormorants have 
on the Great Lakes fisheries.
  Congress has authorized tens of millions of dollars for programs 
designed to restore and protect fish in the Great Lakes. Those efforts 
are in jeopardy because of our ignorance about the impact of double-
crested cormorants on

[[Page 13114]]

the Great Lakes fisheries. Having the best possible information about 
this unique problem is critical for ensuring a healthy balance between 
the cormorant and the fish populations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 3606. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide fair payments for care provided in a hospital emergency 
department; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
entitled the Save Our Safety--SOS--Net Act of 2006. This legislation 
will help repair the fraying safety net that provides critical health 
care to patients throughout the United States. This legislation is 
important to the continued survival of many of our Nation's emergency 
departments and rural hospitals that provide services to millions of 
American's on a daily basis. It is these facilities that are there for 
us in the most remote regions of the country, it is these facilities 
that are there for us at all times of day and night, and it is these 
facilities that will be there for us in time of disaster. We need to 
take the steps to ensure the survival of this safety net.
  This week, The Institute of Medicine's--IOM--Committee on the Future 
of Emergency Care in the United States Health System released a series 
of reports detailing the problems facing emergency care in the U.S. 
These reports make it clear that emergency departments--EDs--struggle 
daily with overcrowding, ambulance diversion, the boarding of admitted 
patients in the ED, limited staffing, and poor reimbursement. They face 
all of these challenges while continuing to provide access to safe, 
high-quality care without regard to ability of the patient to pay for 
their care. Similarly, rural hospitals face shortages of staff and 
specialists, poor reimbursement, and the isolation that sometimes 
complicates medical care. This system is stressed and is poorly 
prepared to accept the additional burdens that could occur in a 
disaster or terrorist attack. These safety net systems and the people 
who work within them deserve our support and yet the trends are not 
promising.
  The demand for emergency departments has been growing fast. In the 
recent study conducted by the Institute of Medicine, emergency 
department visits grew by 26 percent between 1993 and 2003, but due to 
lack of funding 425 emergency departments have closed resulting in 
almost 200,000 less hospital beds in the U.S. In my own State of New 
Mexico, we have seen a decrease from 4.2 to 3.6 beds per 1,000 
population from 1990 to 2002. Ambulances are frequently diverted from 
overcrowded emergency departments an average of once every minute. With 
the growth of the number of elderly patients and the growth of 
uninsured patients seeking care in the ED, these statistics will only 
worsen if nothing is done.
  There are approximately 535 sole community hospitals in 46 States. 
Congress has long recognized the special role of these facilities, 
because they serve as safety net providers offering hospital services 
to isolated communities and regions. These hospitals struggle with poor 
reimbursement and difficulty finding staff. Despite the service they 
provide, these facilities face the possibility of closing on a yearly 
basis.
  To improve the ability of our safety net facilities to function, this 
bill proposes several steps. By improving Medicare payments for 
emergency department services, this bill would provide SOS payments to 
physicians and hospitals for the care that is provided in the emergency 
department. It would improve reimbursement to emergency departments by 
an additional 10 percent for outpatient services delivered to Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  This legislation will also permanently extend outpatient hold 
harmless payment protections to some of the Nation's most vulnerable 
institutions, small rural hospitals and sole community hospitals that 
serve as safety net providers in rural communities.
  Finally, to further strengthen the rural hospital safety net, this 
bill will improve disproportionate share hospital--DSH--payments to 
these facilities. Congress has historically provided additional 
payments to health care providers who treat large numbers of indigent 
patients. Disproportionate share hospital payments are made in addition 
to the base payments hospitals receive from the Medicare and Medicaid 
Programs for inpatient services. This bill will eliminate the cap that 
is present on DSH add-on payments to rural hospitals. This will remove 
some of the inequities between urban and rural hospitals.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3606

       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 ``Save Our 
     Safety Net 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. Ensuring adequate physician payment for emergency department 
              visits.
Sec. 3. Ensuring adequate hospital outpatient fee schedule amounts for 
              clinic and emergency department visits.
Sec. 4. Permanent extension of adjustment to limit decline in payments 
              for certain hospitals under hospital outpatient PPS.
Sec. 5. Fairness in the Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) 
              adjustment for rural hospitals.

     SEC. 2. ENSURING ADEQUATE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT FOR EMERGENCY 
                   DEPARTMENT VISITS.

       Section 1833 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(v) Save Our Safety Net Payments for Physicians' Services 
     Provided in an Emergency Department.--In the case of 
     physicians' services furnished to an individual covered under 
     the insurance program established by this part in an 
     emergency department on or after January 1, 2006, in addition 
     to the amount of payment that would otherwise be made for 
     such services under this part, there also shall be paid to 
     the physician or other person (or to an employer or entity in 
     the cases described in clause (A) of section 1842(b)(6)) from 
     the Federal Supplementary Insurance Trust Fund an amount 
     equal to 10 percent of the payment amount for the service 
     under this part.''.

     SEC. 3. ENSURING ADEQUATE HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT FEE SCHEDULE 
                   AMOUNTS FOR CLINIC AND EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT 
                   VISITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(C)(ii), by striking ``paragraph 
     (8)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (8)(B), (11)(B), and 
     (13)(A)(i)'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(C)(iii), by inserting ``(but not the 
     conversion factor computed under paragraph (13)(B))'' after 
     ``this subparagraph'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)(D)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``conversion factor computed 
     under subparagraph (C) for the year'' and inserting 
     ``applicable conversion factor computed under subparagraph 
     (C), paragraph (11)(B), or paragraph (13)(B) for the year''; 
     and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, paragraph (9)(A), or 
     paragraph (13)(C)'' after ``paragraph (2)(C)'';
       (4) in paragraph (9), by amending subparagraph (B) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(B) Budget neutrality adjustment.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Secretary makes revisions under 
     subparagraph (A), then the revisions for a year may not cause 
     the estimated amount of expenditures under this part for the 
     year to increase or decrease from the estimated amount of 
     expenditures under this part (including expenditures 
     attributable to the special rules specified in paragraph 
     (13)) that would have been made if the revisions had not been 
     made.
       ``(ii) Exemption from reduction.--The relative payment 
     weights determined under paragraph (13)(C) and the conversion 
     factor computed under paragraph (13)(B) shall not be reduced 
     by any budget neutrality adjustment made pursuant to this 
     subparagraph.''; and
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (13) through (16) as 
     paragraphs (14) through (17), respectively, and by inserting 
     after paragraph (12) the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) Special rules for calculating medicare opd fee 
     schedule amount for clinic and emergency visits.--
       ``(A) In general.--In computing the medicare OPD fee 
     schedule amount under paragraph (3)(D) for covered OPD 
     services that are furnished on or after January 1, 2006, and 
     classified within a group established or revised under 
     paragraph (2)(B) or (9)(A), respectively, for clinic and 
     emergency visits (as described in subparagraph (D)), the 
     Secretary shall--

[[Page 13115]]

       ``(i) substitute for the conversion factor calculated under 
     paragraph (3)(C) the conversion factor calculated under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) substitute for the relative payment weight 
     established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or (9)(A), 
     respectively, the relative payment weight determined under 
     subparagraph (C) for such group.
       ``(B) Calculation of conversion factor.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(i), the conversion factor calculated under 
     this subparagraph is--
       ``(i) for services furnished during 2006, an amount equal 
     to the product of--

       ``(I) the conversion factor specified for such year in the 
     final rule published on November 10, 2005, increased by the 
     percentage by which such conversion factor is reduced for 
     such year pursuant to paragraph (2)(E), and not taking into 
     account any subsequent amendments to such final rule; and
       ``(II) 1.10; and

       ``(ii) for services furnished in a year beginning on or 
     after January 1, 2007, the conversion factor computed under 
     this subparagraph for the previous year increased by the OPD 
     fee schedule increase factor specified under paragraph 
     (3)(C)(iv) for the year involved.
       ``(C) Determination of relative payment weights.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the relative payment weight 
     determined under this subparagraph for a covered OPD service 
     that is classified within such a group is--
       ``(i) for services furnished during 2006, the relative 
     payment weight specified for such group for such period in 
     the final rule published November 10, 2005, and not taking 
     into account any subsequent amendments to such final rule; 
     and
       ``(ii) for services furnished in a year beginning on or 
     after January 1, 2007--

       ``(I) for ambulatory patient classification group 0601 
     (relating to mid-level clinic visits), or a successor to such 
     group, the relative payment weight specified for such group 
     in the final rule referred to in clause (i); and
       ``(II) for other ambulatory patient classification groups 
     described in subparagraph (D), the relative payment weight 
     established or revised under paragraph (2)(C) or (9)(A), 
     respectively, for such group for such year (but without 
     regard to any budget neutrality adjustment under paragraph 
     (9)(B)).

       ``(D) Groups for clinic and emergency visits.--For purposes 
     of this paragraph, the groups established or revised under 
     paragraph (2)(B) or (9)(A), respectively, for clinic and 
     emergency visits are ambulatory patient classification groups 
     0600, 0601, 0602, 0610, 0611, 0612, and 0620 as defined for 
     purposes of the final rule referred to in subparagraph (C)(i) 
     (and any successors to such groups).''.
       (b) Limitation on Secretarial Authority.--Notwithstanding 
     section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(t)), as amended by subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services may not make any adjustment under--
       (1) paragraph (2)(F), (3)(C)(iii), (9)(B), or (9)(C) of 
     section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     l(t)); or
       (2) any other provision of such section;

     to ensure that the amendments made by subsection (a) do not 
     cause the estimated amount of expenditures under part B of 
     title XVIII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.) to exceed 
     the estimated amount of expenditures that would have been 
     made under such part but for such amendments.

     SEC. 4. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF ADJUSTMENT TO LIMIT DECLINE IN 
                   PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN HOSPITALS UNDER HOSPITAL 
                   OUTPATIENT PPS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(7)(D)(i) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)(D)(i)), as amended by 
     section 5105 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 
     109-171), is amended--
       (1) in the clause heading--
       (A) by striking ``Temporary'' and inserting ``Permanent''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``Rural''
       (2) by striking subclause (II);
       (3) by striking ``(I) In the case'' and inserting ``In the 
     case'';
       (4) by striking ``located in a rural area, for'' and 
     inserting ``, for''; and
       (5) by striking ``furnished before January 1, 2006''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to covered OPD services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 2006.

     SEC. 5. FAIRNESS IN THE MEDICARE DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE 
                   HOSPITAL (DSH) ADJUSTMENT FOR RURAL HOSPITALS.

       Section 1886(d)(5)(F)(xiv)(II) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(xiv)(II)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or, in the case'' and all that follows 
     through ``subparagraph (G)(iv)''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to any hospital with 
     respect to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 
     2006.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. Obama):
  S. 3607. A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to 
ensure funding for grants to promote responsible fatherhood and 
strengthen low-income families, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, I wish to join my good friend, 
Senator Bayh, in introducing the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy 
Families Act of 2006. This bill addresses a crisis afflicting too many 
communities and shortchanging the opportunities of too many kids in 
America: the absence of supportive fathers.
  If we are serious about breaking the cycle of poverty in America and 
raising healthy kids, we have to get serious about the breakdown of 
families. We can do that without blame or fingerpointing. We can do it 
an openness to new ideas.
  It is the same story all across America. More than a quarter of all 
families with children have only one parent present, and more than a 
third live without their father. And 40 percent of children who live 
without their father have not seen him their father in over a year.
  Many single mothers are doing a heroic job raising their kids. They 
are working two and three jobs, dropping the kids off at school and 
daycare, and, quite simply, being both a mother and a father to their 
children. I appreciate the work of single mothers, because my own 
father was not around during my life, and my mother and grandparents 
had to step up to the plate to fill my father's role. But most people 
would agree that children are almost always better off with a father 
contributing his fair share, and the data shows this. Children are more 
likely to be poor and to do worse in school without a father in their 
life. And a healthy relationship between children and their father is 
important to healthy growth and development.
  The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act addresses these 
problems by removing government barriers to healthy relationships and 
responsible fatherhood. It improves the economic stability of parents 
who accept their parenting responsibility. Our bill sets a high 
standard for parents and helps them to reach it with incentives, 
support, and tougher enforcement of child support obligations.
  We can't simply legislate healthy families and expect all parents to 
get and stay married. We can't legislate good parenting skills or good 
behavior role models. We can't legislate economic success for all 
families. But we can eliminate some of the roadblocks that parents 
face, roadblocks often created by the government. And we can provide 
some tools to help these parents succeed.
  The first way this act removes governmental roadblocks is by 
eliminating a perverse disincentive to marriage in the Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families Program. Congress is now telling States 
that they may be penalized for serving married couples. That is the 
wrong message to send. There should be equality for two-parent families 
receiving TANF, and States should not be required to meet a separate 
work participation rate for the two-parent families in their caseload.
  Second, this act makes important improvements to the child support 
system which affects noncustodial fathers as much or more than any 
other government program. We restore funding for child support 
enforcement and we require States to pass the full amount of child 
support collected along to the family. A father is more likely to pay 
child support if he knows that the money is going to his kids. Research 
from States that have implemented a ``full pass through'' confirm this.
  We also require States to review the amount of child support arrears 
that are owed to the State and we clarify existing State authority to 
forgive such arrearages. A father who earns only $10,000 per year, and 
who has $20,000 of child support debt because the State billed him for 
the Medicaid birthing costs of his child, is probably going to work 
underground and avoid paying child support altogether. He needs an 
incentive to get a legitimate job and to begin taking care of his 
family. It is in everybody's best interest.
  States are also providing funding to assess any other barriers to 
healthy

[[Page 13116]]

family formation or sustainable employment created by their child 
support and criminal justice systems. They are encouraged to establish 
commissions to propose State law changes that would be in the best 
interest of children.
  Another important aspect of this act is fostering economic stability 
for fathers and their families. This act establishes three employment 
demonstration programs. One program is supervised by courts or State 
child support agencies that serve parents who are determined to be in 
need of employment services in order to pay child support obligations. 
The court can arrange temporary employment services for the father 
rather than throwing him in jail for nonpayment of support. The second 
is a transitional jobs program that combines temporary subsidized 
employment with activities that help fathers develop skills and remove 
barriers to employment. The third program establishes public-private 
partnerships to provide fathers with ``career pathways'' that help them 
advance from jobs at low skill levels to jobs that require greater 
skills and provide family-sustaining wages and benefits.
  These programs are modeled on successful initiatives in Indiana and 
Illinois and will be subject to rigorous evaluations to ensure the 
goals are being achieved.
  This bill fixes the earned-income tax credit to increase the 
incentive for fathers to engage in full-time work and paying child 
support obligations. The EITC is one of the most successful anti-
poverty programs because it rewards work and supplements wages that may 
be too low to support a family. Our bill ensures that the work 
incentives under the EITC also apply to noncustodial parents who pay 
child support. To be eligible for the enhanced credit, a low-income 
parent must be working and current on all child support obligations. We 
also accelerate marriage penalty relief for families who receive the 
earned-income tax credit. Perversely under the U.S. Tax Code, these 
families have been the last to get such relief.
  Finally, this bill improves the Responsible Fatherhood and Marriage 
Promotion Programs that were funded by the Deficit Reduction Act. 
Funding is increased and all fatherhood and marriage programs are 
required to coordinate with domestic violence prevention services to 
reduce instances of domestic violence and promote healthy, nonviolent 
relationships.
  This bill takes these steps because Congress needs to get serious 
about the problem of family breakdown. This is a problem that cuts 
across all income levels, religions, races and ethnicities, and 
communities across this country. There is no segment of our population 
that is immune to these challenges.
  But some segments of the population are worse off than others. I 
would like to speak specifically, for a moment, about family breakdown 
in the African-American community--and not just because I, myself, am 
an African American. I am addressing this because I know, as Senator 
Bayh knows, and as most of my colleagues know, that a problem for one 
community is a problem for all of America. Hope deferred for one group 
is hope delayed for us all.
  Around 70 percent of Black children are born outside of marriage. Of 
the 30 percent born to married parents, more than half experience a 
divorce. That means that about 85 percent of Black children spend some 
or all of their childhood in a home without their father. Fewer than 6 
of every 10 young Black men are employed, and in some of our urban and 
rural areas the rate of unemployment is over 50 percent. Roughly one-
third of young Black men are involved in some way with the criminal 
justice system. And young Black men have the lowest educational 
attainment among Black and White men and women.
  These factors contribute to low marriage rates among African-American 
men. But by age 34, nearly half of Black men are fathers. And roughly 
two-thirds of all Black men leaving prison are fathers. I could quote 
statistics all day, but the bottom line is, as hard as some of these 
men try, it is likely that their children will also be denied the 
advantages of healthy parental relationships and married families. 
Their children will be more likely to live in poverty and to become 
young, unmarried parents themselves. Their children's life chances will 
be limited. The cycle of despair will continue.
  But there is reason for hope. At the time of the birth of the child, 
most fathers are close to both the mother and their child. The 
challenge is to maintain healthy relationships between parents and to 
strengthen the early bonds between fathers and their children. The 
challenge is to improve economic opportunity for all parents so they 
can support themselves and their families. The challenge is to break 
the cycle by strengthening America's most vulnerable and fragile 
families.
  That is what this bill does, and it is fully paid for by revenue 
raised by closing abusive corporate tax loopholes and blocking the 
exploitation of tax havens. This is a solid first step forward in 
removing government barriers to healthy family formation, and 
addressing the crisis of fatherhood among our Nation's low-income 
populations. I urge you to support the Responsible Fatherhood and 
Healthy Families Act of 2006.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 3608. A bill to modify the boundary of Mesa Verde National Park, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today on the 100th anniversary of 
Mesa Verde National Park to offer legislation that would expand the 
boundary of this national treasure. Mesa Verde is one of our Nation's 
most impressive national parks. In addition to its role preserving the 
home of some of our Nation's earliest inhabitants, it also serves as an 
impressive educational resource. The park also acts as the preeminent 
example of heritage tourism in the Nation. Allowing visitors to 
actively experience the rich historical and cultural history our Nation 
has to offer. The park is able to draw people with over 4,400 recorded 
archeological sites, including the impressive cliff dwellings which 
number more than 600. People travel from all around the world to see 
what we in Colorado are fortunate to have at our fingertips: one of the 
most well preserved and exhibited active archeological sites in the 
world. Mesa Verde also represents an impressive example of 
collaboration; they work with everyone from local elementary school 
students to international scholars. Mesa Verde, like its former 
inhabitants who flourished here for more than 700 years, has displayed 
an impressive resiliency and mystique over the years. The fire the park 
experienced a few years ago even revealed to us more of the area's 
secrets with newly discovered archeological sites.
  I am pleased to be able to introduce this legislation today, because 
this legislation shows how the Government should preserve public lands. 
This is a good example of finding public support and working with 
outside groups and private property owners to find mutually beneficial 
ways to preserve our land. The majority of the land that will be added 
to the park will come from the Henneman family, who has owned this land 
for generations. During this time the Henneman family have been great 
stewards of their land. I commend them for their work as land managers. 
I would also like to commend the Conservation Fund for their willingess 
to work with the Henneman's and the park to protect this land. In 
addition I would like to thank the Mesa Verde Park Foundation for the 
land that they are generously donating to the park.
  Mesa Verde National Park protects some of the best preserved and 
notable archeological sites in the world and this legislation will not 
only expand its boundaries but also its ability to preserve an 
important part of our history.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 3612. A bill to amend the Federal antitrust laws to provide 
expanded coverage and to eliminate exemptions from such laws that are 
contrary to the

[[Page 13117]]

public interest with respect to railroads; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Railroad Antitrust 
Enforcement Act of 2006. This legislation will eliminate obsolete 
antitrust exemptions that protect freight railroads from competition. 
The unneeded exemptions stand in stark contrast to the historical basis 
for antitrust law and once again allow railroads to abuse their 
dominant market power and raise rates for those who rely on them.
  Antitrust law was born out of these same circumstances. Rail barons 
abused the power they had over shippers--especially farmers. Any 
American history student can describe the anti-consumer policies that 
led to the birth of the Sherman Act and later the Clayton Act--the 
building blocks of today's antitrust law.
  The historical ties between the railroads and the birth of antitrust 
law make the situation we face today remarkable. I have heard from a 
growing number of shippers in Wisconsin--and I know many of my 
colleagues have heard from their shippers in their States--about the 
monopolistic practices in which the freight railroads are currently 
engaged. Consolidation in the railroad industry, allowed under 
antitrust exemptions my legislation would repeal, has resulted in only 
four class I railroads providing over 90 percent of the Nation's rail 
transportation.
  Many industries--known as ``captive shippers''--are served by only 
one railroad. These captive shippers face constantly rising rail rates. 
They are the victims of monopolistic practices and price gouging by the 
single railroad that serves them, price increases which they are forced 
to pass along into the price of their products and, ultimately, to 
consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections of antitrust law 
are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, the railroads are 
protected by a series of exemptions from the normal rules of antitrust 
law to which all other industries must abide.
  In Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition abound. In 
fact, a coalition has formed, consisting of more than thirty affected 
organizations--Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La 
Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my State are 
feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. The reliability, 
efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all declined, and 
Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch.
  There is no better example than Wisconsin's electric utilities. 
Dairyland Power serves the electricity needs of more than 575,000 
people. As of January of this year, they faced a 93 percent average 
increase in rail rates. According to Dairyland, it will now cost about 
$80 million to ship $35 million worth of coal, costs that Wisconsin 
consumers will absorb if Congress does not take action soon. And this 
problem is not unique to Wisconsin--shippers across the Nation suffer 
from monopolistic practices of the dominant railroads in their regions.
  That is why I am introducing the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act 
of 2006. This legislation will force railroads to play by the rules of 
free competition like all other businesses.
  The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad 
industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers. 
Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are 
reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that 
engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. 
Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board 
are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination 
of anti-competitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will 
eliminate these exemptions.
  No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent 
decades including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980--
deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the 
Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions 
remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the 
rules of fair competition.
  Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the 
purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal Government, state 
attorneys general, and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti-
competitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of 
these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice 
Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It 
will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad 
common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad 
collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other 
private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive 
relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that 
leads to excessive and unreasonable rates.
  In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust 
exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of 
the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools 
to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. 
Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to 
deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.
  As ranking member on the Antitrust Subcommittee, I have found--in 
industry after industry--that vigorous application of our Nation's 
antitrust laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to 
end monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service 
high. The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on 
railroads to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for 
its coal, a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw 
materials or ship out its finished product--deserve the full 
application of the antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses 
all too prevalent in this industry today. I urge my colleagues support 
the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2006.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3612

       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 ``Railroad Antitrust 
     Enforcement Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST RAILROAD COMMON CARRIERS.

       The proviso in section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 26) 
     ending with ``Code.'' is amended to read as follows: 
     ``Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed 
     to entitle any person, firm, corporation, or association, 
     except the United States, to bring suit for injunctive relief 
     against any common carrier that is not a railroad subject to 
     the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board under 
     subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 3. MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF RAILROADS.

       The sixth undesignated paragraph of section 7 of the 
     Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18) is amended to read as follows:
       ``Nothing contained in this section shall apply to 
     transactions duly consummated pursuant to authority given by 
     the Secretary of Transportation, Federal Power Commission, 
     Surface Transportation Board (except for agreements described 
     in section 10706 of title 49, United States Code, and 
     transactions described in section 11321 of that title), the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission in the exercise of its 
     jurisdiction under section 10 (of the Public Utility Holding 
     Company Act of 1935), the United States Maritime Commission, 
     or the Secretary of Agriculture under any statutory provision 
     vesting such power in the Commission, Board, or Secretary.''.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION.

       The Clayton Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``Sec. 29.  In any civil action against a common carrier 
     railroad under section 4, 4C, 15, or 16 of this Act, the 
     district court shall not be required to defer to the primary 
     jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board.''.

     SEC. 5. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Clayton Act.--Section 11(a) of the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 21(a)) is amended by striking ``subject to 
     jurisdiction'' and all that follows through the first 
     semicolon and inserting ``subject to jurisdiction under 
     subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code (except for 
     agreements described in section 10706 of that title and 
     transactions described in section 11321 of that title);''.

[[Page 13118]]

       (b) FTC Act.--Section 5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44(a)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``common carriers subject'' and inserting ``common carriers, 
     except for railroads, subject''.

     SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF TREBLE DAMAGES TO RAIL COMMON CARRIERS.

       Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15) is amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively; and
       (2) inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Subsection (a) shall apply to common carriers by rail 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation 
     Board under subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, 
     without regard to whether such railroads have filed rates or 
     whether a complaint challenging a rate has been filed.''.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTIONS IN TITLE 49.

       (a) In General.--Section 10706 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``, and the Sherman 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),'' and all that follows through 
     ``or carrying out the agreement'' in the third sentence;
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking the second sentence; and
       (ii) by striking ``However, the'' in the third sentence and 
     inserting ``The''; and
       (C) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``, and the antitrust 
     laws set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection do not 
     apply to parties and other persons with respect to making or 
     carrying out the agreement''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a 
     proposed agreement described in subsection (a) from the 
     application of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the 
     Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of 
     the Wilson Tariff Act (15 U.S.C. 8 and 9), or the Act of June 
     19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, 21a).
       ``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing 
     any such proposed agreement for the purpose of any provision 
     of law described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other 
     reviewing agency shall take into account, among any other 
     considerations, the impact of the proposed agreement on 
     shippers, on consumers, and on affected communities.''.
       (b) Combinations.--Section 11321 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``The authority'' in the first sentence and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in sections 4 (15 U.S.C. 15), 
     4C (15 U.S.C. 15c), section 15 (15 U.S.C. 25), and section 16 
     (15 U.S.C. 26) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 21(a)), the 
     authority''; and
       (B) by striking ``is exempt from the antitrust laws and 
     from all other law,'' in the third sentence and inserting 
     ``is exempt from all other law (except the antitrust laws 
     referred to in subsection (c)),''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a 
     transaction described in subsection (a) from the application 
     of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of the Wilson Tariff Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 8-9), or the Act of June 19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13, 
     13a, 13b, 21a).
       ``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing 
     any such transaction for the purpose of any provision of law 
     described in paragraph (1), the Board and any other reviewing 
     agency shall take into account, among any other 
     considerations, the impact of the transaction on shippers and 
     on affected communities.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for section 10706 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows: ``Rate 
     agreements''.
       (2) The item relating to such section in the chapter 
     analysis at the beginning of chapter 107 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``10706. Rate agreements.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON:
  S. 3613. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, 
as the ``Major George Quamo Post Office Building''; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation 
which would designate the United States Postal Service located at 2951 
New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, NY, as the Major George Quamo Post 
Office Building.
  MAJ. George Quamo was a highly decorated Green Beret who served in 
the Special Forces Unit of the Army in the Vietnam war. In the years 
George Quamo served, he established himself as one of the Army's most 
highly respected field commanders. Quamo commanded three reconnaissance 
teams, leading a number of covert missions and saving the lives of 14 
of his men. During his distinguished career he was awarded 26 medals 
which included the Distinguished Service Cross, Two Silver Stars, 
Bronze Star, Legion of Merit and Presidential Unit Citations. While 
conducting a mission in Vietnam, Major Quamo's helicopter crashed. He 
was killed at the young age of 27. He was the youngest major ever to 
have served in the Special Forces Unit.
  MAJ. George Quamo was a Class of 1958 graduate of Averill Park High 
School in upstate New York. A natural leader, he was president of his 
high school junior class and a quarterback on the football team. After 
joining the Army he attended Officer Candidate School. While he died at 
a young age, it is clear that his presence was profound on those around 
him. ``I still receive phone calls from guys who served under him,'' 
said his brother James Quamo, now of Spencerport, Monroe County, NY. 
``Some of them even cry telling me how they felt about my brother.''
  I ask that the Senate come together and honor this brave American 
hero for his service to our Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 3614. A bill to provide comprehensive procedures for the 
adjudication of cases involving unprivileged combatants; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the 
case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which was decided by the Supreme Court of 
the United States today and to address the question as to where we go 
from here. There have already been many inquiries as to what is the 
import of this Supreme Court decision and what are the next steps in 
order to establish a framework to deal with the people who are detained 
at Guantanamo Bay.
  Since the opinions were released this morning, my staff and I have 
been reviewing them: 177 pages, 6 opinions. The essence of the decision 
of the Supreme Court of the United States on a 5-to-3 vote is that the 
President did not have the authority to establish the military 
commissions and that the authority rests with the Congress under the 
Constitution.
  The Court dealt with the issue of the resolution that authorizes the 
use of military force, a resolution which the administration has sought 
as authority for amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
and when the Court dealt with the resolution authorizing the use of 
military force, the Court said that it did not give the President the 
authority to establish the military commissions. The Court did not deal 
with any issue of inherent authority. But the decision that the 
President lacked the authority to establish the military commissions 
makes it obvious that the conclusion of the Supreme Court is that there 
is no inherent authority, an inference and a proposition which may have 
some weight as we consider collateral matters, for example, on the 
electronic surveillance under NSA.
  The Constitution of the United States is explicit in article I, 
section 8, which states, and I am leaving out some of the irrelevant 
language: Congress has the authority ``to make rules concerning 
captures on land and water.'' So it is a congressional matter.
  In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court of the United States 
found that the military commissions violated the Code of Military 
Justice and also violated the terms of the Geneva Convention. The Court 
found that the military commissions violated the Code of Military 
Justice because they did not provide for very basic due process 
considerations. The Court said that the military commissions violated 
the Geneva Convention, which the Court found applicable, reversing the 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia where the Supreme Court 
said: The Geneva Convention, common article 3, plainly affords some 
minimal protection to individuals, associated with a signatory or even 
a nonsignatory, who are involved in a conflict.
  The Court dealt with the issue of jurisdiction by saying the 
Government

[[Page 13119]]

contention that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction was wrong. The 
Supreme Court referred to a provision of the Detainee Treatment Act of 
2005, which provides:

       No court shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an 
     application for habeas corpus filed by an alien detained at 
     Guantanamo Bay. . . .

  There was a reference to the statutory provision which gave exclusive 
jurisdiction, according to the statute, to the District of Columbia 
court.
  The statute provided specifically:

        . . . the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to 
     determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant 
     Status Review Tribunal which determines that an alien is 
     properly detained as an enemy combatant.

  I argued as forcefully as I could when that amendment was considered, 
that it was really atrocious--without any hearings, without any 
extended floor debate, and I had 2 minutes to speak under the rules 
governing the amendment--that we would be taking away jurisdiction of 
the Federal courts except for the District of Columbia. On its face, 
that language would say that the Supreme Court of the United States had 
no jurisdiction.
  The Supreme Court made short shrift of that point, saying that it did 
have jurisdiction. When you deal with a constitutional issue, it is 
hard for this lawyer to understand how you can take away jurisdiction 
from the Supreme Court of the United States. How can you do that, when 
we know since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that the Supreme Court of the 
United States is final arbiter of the Constitution? But this language, 
this clumsy language sought to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court made short 
shrift of that.
  On a personal note, and relevant to this consideration as well, in 
Justice Scalia's dissent he cites my floor argument in a footnote 
saying, at page 12 of his opinion:

       An earlier part of the amendment provides that no court, 
     justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider the 
     application for writ of habeas corpus. . . .Under the 
     language of exclusive jurisdiction in the D.C. Circuit, the 
     U.S. Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to hear the 
     Hamdan case. . . . Id., at [Senate Congressional Record] 
     S12796 (statement of Sen[ator] Specter).

  Interesting that Justice Scalia, who doesn't believe in congressional 
intent or congressional deliberation, would make that citation. But 
when I made the point that the statute, on its face, took away 
jurisdiction from the Supreme Court of the United States, I made it 
plain that I did not think it had any validity. A statute can not do 
that.
  What the statute was trying to do, in part, was to look to a 
favorable court. The DC Circuit was a favorable court--they engaged in 
a little court shopping--and there was an effort to take away the 
jurisdiction of the district court from habeas corpus proceedings.
  Under the logic of Hamdan, where you have a statutory provision that 
the DC Circuit has sole jurisdiction and the Supreme Court interprets 
that as not taking away jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 
inferentially the same conclusion would follow for the district court.
  It doesn't say the district court does not have jurisdiction, just 
like it does not say the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction. It 
just says exclusive jurisdiction is in the DC circuit. It is a little 
hard to see how that would work out if you filed a petition for a writ 
of habeas corpus in the DC Circuit. That would be anomalous. Those 
petitions are filed in the district court.
  In any case, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over the case and 
found that the procedures which the administration has prescribed do 
not comport with law.
  The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Guantanamo and made a field 
trip there. A number of us, including myself, went to take a look at 
Guantanamo, to see it firsthand and to question people there. I had 
gone there with the expectation of having a field hearing there. I 
wanted to hear from the officials at Guantanamo. When I got to 
Guantanamo, after the flight in, I was told there would be no field 
hearing--which was a disappointment, and really contrary to what I had 
understood the arrangement to be. But we held a hearing and devoted a 
considerable amount of work to the issue. Knowing, or thinking that, 
the administration's military commissions would be struck down because 
they did so little and had no real relationship to due process, we 
prepared legislation.
  I had it put in final form last week when we considered the 
Department of Defense authorization bill, and one Senator did talk 
about legislation. I considered offering it at that time but decided 
that it was not a good time to do so. But we have it ready to go, ready 
for introduction.
  Senator Durbin and I introduced a bill to handle the Guantanamo 
detainees on February 13, 2002. The issue was not picked up again until 
the Judiciary Committee held hearings last June, and this bill, which I 
am introducing today, I believe, will satisfy the requirements of the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  This bill provides for two divisions. One is for the people who are 
charged with specific offenses. We retain the description of a military 
commission. We provide that there would be three officers on the 
commission, one president--a presiding judge from the Judge Advocate 
General's Office. Also an attorney will be provided for the accused, 
there will be competent evidence, there will be cross-examination and a 
unanimous verdict.
  In the event of the use of classified information, we prescribe that 
the provisions of the Confidential Information Protection Act would 
govern, which is a statute which has been used in our courts for many 
years, which authorizes the presiding judge to sift through the 
information and make available to the defense whatever is appropriate 
and not classified. And if it is classified, then to make it available 
at the discretion of the judge to the attorney.
  The attorney for the accused would be cleared through regular 
channels to deal with classified information so that we would be 
protecting the classified information by having it viewed only by 
someone authorized to take a look at it, so that the defense lawyer 
would be able to use it in the defense of his client. That is not a 
perfect situation, but that is the way we have dealt with confidential 
information under the so-called Confidential Information Protection 
Act.
  In our legislation, we also deal with the enemy combatants. These are 
the individuals who have been detained at Guantanamo under an 
arrangement where there is no limit as to the length of their 
detention. That has caused considerable angst, considerable objection. 
But it is a very difficult matter. When we are in a war, fighting 
terrorists--and we should never lose our focus that we are in that war 
and that there are continuing dangers and we have to protect 
Americans--until somebody has a better idea, they are going to be 
detained. Some have been released and some of those released have been 
found on the battlefields killing Americans, so the detention of enemy 
combatants is an ongoing issue.
  Our legislation provides that there would be a classification 
tribunal so that there would be a review of their status, to make a 
determination on a periodic basis that they continue to be a threat to 
the United States, either on the continent or because they will go back 
and fight a war. We provide for an attorney, again, an attorney who 
would be cleared to view classified information.
  The issue of evidence is much more difficult because these enemy 
combatants are frequently taken into custody in a battlefield situation 
where competent evidence is not present, so we allow for hearsay.
  In the Supreme Court opinion, if there is a showing of necessity, 
there is leeway granted in terms of defining sufficient due process. 
The Supreme Court found, for example, that the President had 
demonstrated sufficiently that there could not be trials in the U.S. 
Federal district courts, so ruling that out was fine. It was 
acceptable. And leeway, too, for some deviation from all of the 
generalized rules might be acceptable. The Supreme

[[Page 13120]]

Court really didn't reach the issue of granting leeway because they 
didn't have a specific situation, but there would have to be a showing 
of necessity, a showing that no other system would work.
  So in dealing with the enemy combatants, we are still struggling with 
how to handle the issue of indefinite detention, recognizing that they 
continue to be a threat.
  The legislation which I am introducing today has received 
considerable thought and considerable analysis. As I say, it picks up 
on legislation which Senator Durbin and I introduced on February 13, 
2002. But it still requires a great deal more analysis and a great deal 
more thought, which we will give it in due course on the legislative 
process. We have altered our schedule in the Judiciary Committee to 
reserve July 11 for a hearing, the second day we are back--on that 
Tuesday we really swing into action--we will take up an analysis of 
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in greater detail than we could do this afternoon in 
a short floor statement and with only a few hours to digest the 6 
opinions and 177 pages. We will consider this legislation at that time.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my comments, and a short 
summary of the bill, which will enable the reader to follow without 
going through the extended text.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3614

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AUTHORITY; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Unprivileged Combatant Act of 2006''.
       (b) Authority.--The requirements, conditions, and 
     restrictions established by this Act are made under the 
     authority of Congress under clauses 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 
     and 18 of article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the 
     United States.
       (c) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Article I, section 8, of the Constitution provides that 
     the Congress has the power to ``constitute Tribunals inferior 
     to the Supreme Court; ... define and punish ... Offenses 
     against the Law of Nations; ... make Rules concerning 
     Captures on Land and Water; ... make all Laws which shall be 
     necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the 
     foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this 
     Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in 
     any Department or Officer thereof''.
       (2) The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized military 
     tribunals, as stated in Madsen v. Kinsella 343 U.S. 341, 
     1952, ``[s]ince our nation's earliest days, such tribunals 
     have been constitutionally recognized agencies for meeting 
     many urgent governmental responsibilities related to 
     war....They have taken many forms and borne many names. 
     Neither their procedure nor their jurisdiction has been 
     prescribed by statute. It has been adapted in each instance 
     to the need that called it forth.'' Madsen, citing In re 
     Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946).
       (3) The President has inherent authority to convene 
     military tribunals arising from his role as Commander and 
     Chief of the Armed Forces under article II of the 
     Constitution and from title 10 of the United States Code. Due 
     to the extraordinary circumstances of the ongoing war on 
     terrorism, it is appropriate for Congress to provide 
     additional and explicit authorization of and procedures for 
     military tribunals to adjudicate and punish offenses relating 
     to the war on terrorism.
       (4) This Act is in direct response to the United State 
     Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush. With the passage of 
     this Act, the 109th Congress will have addressed the concerns 
     of the Supreme Court's Rasul majority, and therefore alien 
     enemy combatants detained or prosecuted under this Act may 
     not challenge their detentions in the Federal courts of the 
     United States via the habeas or any other statute.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Classification tribunal.--The term ``classification 
     tribunal'' means any tribunal conducted under section 9 or 
     any related proceeding.
       (2) Classification tribunal board.--The term 
     ``classification tribunal board'' means a board established 
     pursuant to section 9(d).
       (3) Classified information.--The term ``classified 
     information'' has the meaning given that term in section 1(a) 
     of the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. 
     App.).
       (4) Commission.--The term ``commission'' means a military 
     commission established pursuant to section 3.
       (5) Criminal prosecution.--The term ``criminal 
     prosecution'' means a prosecution for a violation of any 
     criminal law, including subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 
     10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) 
     or pursuant to the Department of Defenses Military Commission 
     Instruction number two.
       (6) Detainee.--The term ``detainee'' means a person who is 
     in the custody of the Department of Defense at Guantanamo 
     Bay, Cuba, and who has not been charged with a criminal 
     offense during that period.
       (7) International terrorism.--The term ``international 
     terrorism'' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1801).
       (8) Judge.--The term ``judge'' means a United States 
     military judge designated by the Secretary of Defense to hear 
     cases under this Act.
       (9) Protected information.--The term ``protected 
     information'' means information--
       (A) that is classified information;
       (B) protected by law or rule from unauthorized disclosure;
       (C) the disclosure of which may endanger the physical 
     safety of participants in Commission proceedings, including 
     prospective witnesses;
       (D) concerning intelligence and law enforcement sources, 
     methods, or activities; or
       (E) the disclosure of which would otherwise jeopardize 
     national security interests.
       (10) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1801).
       (11) Unprivileged combatant.--The term ``unprivileged 
     combatant'' means an individual--
       (A) who has been designated as an enemy combatant by a 
     Combatant Status Review Tribunal prior to the enactment of 
     this Act; or
       (B) who a Field Tribunal conducted by the United States 
     military as provided in this Act determines--
       (i) is not entitled to the protections set out in the 
     Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 
     done at Geneva, August 12, 1948 (6 UST 3516) (referred to in 
     this Act as the ``Geneva Convention''); and
       (ii) has--

       (I) knowingly assisted, conspired with, or solicited for a 
     group or an individual hostile to the United States;
       (II) knowingly attempted to assist others in taking up arms 
     against the United States;
       (III) conspired with or solicited others to take up arms 
     against the United States; or
       (IV) has taken up arms against, or intentionally assisted 
     combat operations against, the United States.

       (12) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term 
     ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means the Committee on 
     the Judiciary and the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZING MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

       The President is authorized to establish military 
     commissions for the trial of individuals for offenses as 
     provided in this Act.

     SEC. 4. JURISDICTION.

       (a) Unprivileged Combatants.--This Act establishes 
     exclusive jurisdiction to hear any matter involving an 
     unprivileged combatant who has been detained by the 
     Department of Defense for not less than 180 consecutive days 
     at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (b) Offenses.--
       (1) Criminal prosecutions.--A commission shall have 
     jurisdiction to hear any criminal prosecution involving 
     international terrorism, including any offense under chapter 
     113B of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Offenses against the laws of war.--A commission shall 
     have exclusive jurisdiction over violations of the laws of 
     war committed by unprivileged combatants.
       (3) Other offenses.--A commission shall have jurisdiction 
     over other offenses traditionally triable by military 
     commissions or pursuant to the Department of Defense's 
     Military Commission Instruction Number Two.

     SEC. 5. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

       (a) Final Decisions.--The United States Court of Military 
     Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from all 
     final decisions of a classification tribunal board or 
     commission under this Act.
       (b) Review by Supreme Court.--
       (1) Certiorari.--The decisions of the United States Court 
     of Military Appeals are subject to review by the Supreme 
     Court by writ of certiorari.
       (2) Exemption from certain petition requirements.--A person 
     who files a petition for a writ of certiorari under paragraph 
     (1) shall not be required to submit--
       (A) prepayment of any fees and costs or security therefor; 
     or
       (B) the affidavit required by section 1915(a) of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act 
     of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (e), by striking paragraphs (2) through 
     (4); and
       (B) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:

[[Page 13121]]

       ``(h) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.''.
       (2) Habeas.--Section 2241(e) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005'' and 
     inserting ``the Unprivileged Combatant Act of 2006'';
       (B) by striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) has been determined by a classification tribunal to 
     meet the requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of section 9(a) 
     of the Unprivileged Combatant Act of 2006.''.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION.

       (a) Commission Personnel.--
       (1) Members.--
       (A) Appointment.--The Secretary of Defense shall designate 
     no less than 12 United States military judges to serve as 
     members of a commission and to assume other duties assigned 
     in this Act.
       (B) Number of members.--Each commission shall consist of at 
     least 3 military officers, at least one of whom shall be a 
     military judge.
       (C) Alternate members.--For each such commission, there 
     shall also be 1 or 2 alternate members. The alternate member 
     or members shall attend all sessions of the commission. In 
     case of incapacity, resignation, or removal of any member, an 
     alternate member shall take the place of that member.
       (D) Qualifications.--Each member and alternate member of 
     the commission shall be a military officer.
       (E) Presiding officer.--
       (i) In general.--From among the members of the commission, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall designate a presiding officer 
     who is a military judge to preside over the proceedings of 
     that commission.
       (ii) Duties.--The duties of the presiding officer shall be 
     as follows:

       (I) The presiding officer shall admit or exclude evidence 
     at trial in accordance with the rules of this Act. The 
     presiding officer shall have authority to close proceedings 
     or portions of proceedings in accordance with this Act or for 
     any other reason necessary for the conduct of a full and fair 
     trial.
       (II) The presiding officer shall ensure that the 
     discipline, dignity, and decorum of the proceedings are 
     maintained, shall exercise control over the proceedings to 
     ensure proper implementation of the President's Military 
     Order and this Act, and shall have authority to act upon any 
     contempt or breach of commission rules and procedures. Any 
     attorney authorized to appear before a commission who is 
     thereafter found not to satisfy the requirements for 
     eligibility or who fails to comply with laws, rules, 
     regulations, or other orders applicable to the commission 
     proceedings or any other individual who violates such laws, 
     rules, regulations, or orders may be disciplined as the 
     presiding officer deems appropriate, including revocation of 
     eligibility to appear before that commission. The Court may 
     further revoke that attorney's or any other person's 
     eligibility to appear before any other commission convened 
     under this Act.
       (III) The presiding officer shall ensure the expeditious 
     conduct of the trial. In no circumstance shall accommodation 
     of counsel be allowed to delay proceedings unreasonably.
       (IV) The presiding officer may certify interlocutory 
     questions to the Military Commission Review Panel for the 
     Armed Forces as the presiding officer deems appropriate.

       (b) Powers of a Commission.--A commission shall have the 
     following powers:
       (1) To summon witnesses to the trial and to require their 
     attendance and testimony and to put questions to them.
       (2) To require the production of documents and other 
     evidentiary material.
       (3) To administer oaths to witnesses.
       (4) To appoint officers for the carrying out of any task 
     designated by the commission, including the power to have 
     evidence taken.

     SEC. 7. PERSONS IN CUSTODY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     develop--
       (1) a complete listing of all persons who--
       (A) are being detained by the Department of Defense at 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
       (B) the Government wishes to continue to detain as an 
     unprivileged combatant; and
       (2) a detailed summary of the evidence upon which the 
     determination to keep a person described in paragraph (1) in 
     custody was made.
       (b) Congressional Oversight.--Not later than 10 days after 
     developing the list described in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit an unclassified version of 
     that list to the appropriate committees of Congress. A 
     classified, unredacted version of that list shall also be 
     submitted to the appropriate committees of Congress for 
     review.
       (c) Updated List.--
       (1) In general.--Not less than once every 60 days after the 
     date the list described in subsection (a) is completed, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall update the list of the persons 
     described in subsection (a) and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a detailed report for each person on 
     such list that includes--
       (A) the name and nationality of each such person; and
       (B) with respect to each such person--
       (i) a detailed statement of why such person has not been 
     charged, repatriated, or released;
       (ii) a statement of when the United States intends to 
     charge, repatriate, or release such person;
       (iii) a description of the procedures to be employed by the 
     United States to determine whether to charge, repatriate, or 
     release such person and a schedule for the employment of such 
     procedures; and
       (iv) if the Secretary of Defense has transferred or has 
     plans to transfer such person from the custody of the 
     Secretary to another agency or department of the United 
     States, a description of such transfer.
       (2) Form of reports.--Each report required by this 
     subsection shall be submitted in an unclassified form, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, and may include a classified 
     annex, if necessary.
       (3) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (d) Congressional Oversight.--Not later than 10 days after 
     updating the list of persons under subsection (c), the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit that updated list to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress in both unclassified and 
     unredacted, classified form.

     SEC. 8. FIELD TRIBUNALS.

       (a) In General.--Not more than 30 days after a suspected 
     unprivileged combatant has been detained by United States 
     forces, the Department of Defense shall conduct a field 
     tribunal in order to determine whether the detainee is an 
     unprivileged combatant and whether the detainee is entitled 
     to the rights afforded under the Geneva Convention.
       (b) Procedures.--The procedures governing a field tribunal 
     shall be promulgated by the Department of Defense

     SEC. 9. CLASSIFICATION TRIBUNALS.

       (a) In General.--A detainee shall be released and 
     repatriated to an appropriate country unless a classification 
     tribunal board finds by a preponderance of the evidence 
     that--
       (1) the detainee is a threat to the national security 
     interest of the United States; or
       (2) there are reasonable grounds to believe that if 
     released the detainee would take up arms against the United 
     States.
       (b) Compliance With Geneva Conventions.--If a detainee is 
     found to be a privileged combatant entitled to provisions 
     under the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners 
     of War, done at Geneva, August 12, 1948 (6 UST 3516), then 
     the detainee must be treated in accordance with that 
     convention.
       (c) Citizen of the United States.--If a detainee is found 
     to be a citizen of the United States of America, the detainee 
     shall not be held or tried under this Act.
       (d) Classification Tribunal Board.--A classification 
     tribunal shall be conducted by a board appointed by the 
     Secretary of Defense and consist solely of line officers, one 
     of whom shall be an attorney.
       (e) Determination.--
       (1) In general.--If a classification tribunal board finds 
     that a detainee meets the requirements of subsection (a), the 
     classification tribunal board shall order that the detainee 
     shall continue to be detained by the Department of Defense, 
     subject to periodic review under subsection (h).
       (2) Time period.--The time period for the detention of a 
     detainee under paragraph (1) may not exceed the time period 
     that United States forces are engaged in combat operations as 
     defined by the Department of Defense in the nation or theater 
     where the detainee was captured so long as the detainee is 
     found to be a privileged combatant.
       (3) Conclusion of combat.--At the conclusion of combat 
     operations within a given theater or nation--
       (A) a privileged combatant that was captured in that area 
     shall be either indicted under this Act or repatriated to the 
     appropriate country; and
       (B) an unprivileged combatant may continue to be detained 
     pursuant to subsection (a).
       (f) Considerations.--
       (1) In general.--In making a determination under subsection 
     (a), a classification tribunal board shall consider any 
     information brought to its attention regarding the need for 
     continued detention, including--
       (A) the detainee's alleged position or rank in any hostile 
     organization;
       (B) the activities of that hostile organization;
       (C) any statements made by the detainee in response to 
     interrogation; and
       (D) the detainee's history of violence or terrorist 
     activity.
       (2) Prima facie evidence.--If the Government represents 
     that a detainee was captured during a military engagement 
     while taking up arms against, or supporting military 
     operations against, the Armed Forces of the United States or 
     its allies, there shall be prima facie evidence that, if 
     released, the detainee would take up arms against the United 
     States.

[[Page 13122]]

       (g) Timing.--A detainee shall be afforded a classification 
     tribunal as soon as is reasonably practicable but not later 
     than 180 days after the detainee's capture and not later than 
     30 days after the detainee is listed under section 7, unless 
     continued.
       (h) Periodic Review.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Semiannual review.--The classification tribunal shall 
     conduct a classification hearing for each detainee not less 
     frequently than every 180 days, in accordance with the 
     procedures established under this section and section 10.
       (B) Action period.--A detainee apprehended during a 
     military engagement while taking up arms against, or 
     supporting military operations against, the Armed Forces of 
     the United States or its allies may be detained until the 
     cessation of armed hostilities in the nation or region in 
     which they were captured.
       (2) Argument.--The Government and the detainee may be heard 
     regarding the review under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 10. CLASSIFICATION TRIBUNAL PROCEDURES.

       (a) Detainees.--
       (1) In general.--A detainee shall not be required to 
     testify or present any evidence at a classification tribunal.
       (2) Presence.--A detainee shall be entitled to be present 
     at the classification tribunal, unless the head of the 
     tribunal has decided to admit classified information.
       (b) Counsel.--
       (1) In general.--A detainee is entitled to the assistance 
     of counsel admitted to practice under this Act at every stage 
     of the classification tribunal, including the periodic review 
     of orders under subsection (e).
       (2) Right to appointed counsel.--A detainee who is unable 
     to obtain counsel is entitled to have counsel admitted to 
     practice before a commission under this Act.
       (3) Refusal of counsel.--A detainee may waive counsel but 
     shall not be entitled to protected information.
       (c) Discovery.--
       (1) Government's disclosure.--Not later than 3 days prior 
     to the classification tribunal, the Government shall make 
     available for inspection by counsel for the detainee any 
     affidavit or affirmation the Government intends to offer in 
     support of continuing to detain the detainee. A 
     classification tribunal board shall maintain a copy of any 
     submissions made by the Government for inspection by the 
     detainee and for transmittal, if necessary, to that tribunal.
       (2) Detainee's disclosure.--If the detainee chooses to 
     submit any evidence, such evidence, including a list of any 
     witnesses the detainee intends to call, shall be made 
     available to the Government for inspection not later than 3 
     days prior to the classification tribunal.
       (d) Evidence.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Rules of Evidence shall not 
     apply to a classification tribunal.
       (2) Admissibility standard.--Evidence shall be admitted if 
     the classification tribunal board determines the evidence 
     would have probative value to a reasonable person.
       (3) Affidavit or affirmation.--The Government may proceed 
     by proffer and submit any relevant information by affidavit 
     or affirmation, unless decided unreliable by the members of 
     the classification tribunal board.
       (4) Cross-examination.--
       (A) Government witnesses.--If a Government chooses to call 
     witnesses, the detainee may cross-examine those witnesses on 
     all relevant facts.
       (B) Detainee witnesses.--If a detainee calls any witnesses, 
     they shall be subject to cross examination.
       (C) Detainee.--If the detainee chooses to testify, the 
     detainee shall be subject to cross-examination.
       (e) Defenses.--A detainee may challenge whether the 
     detainee satisfies the elements required under subsection 
     (a).
       (f) Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--A classification tribunal shall be closed 
     to the public.
       (2) Security clearances.--Each person present at a 
     classification tribunal, other than the detainee, shall 
     possess a security clearance appropriate to the level of any 
     classified information being presented.
       (3) Public information regarding proceedings.--After the 
     classification tribunal board rules in the classification 
     tribunal, the parties shall propose a nonclassified summary 
     to that board. The board shall publicly release a summary, 
     containing any information generated at the tribunal which 
     can be disclosed in a manner consistent with the Classified 
     Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.) and the national 
     security of the United States.
       (g) Reinstituting Classification Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--If a matter involving the classification 
     tribunal of a detainee is dismissed without prejudice by the 
     classification tribunal or withdrawn by the Government at, or 
     prior to, the classification tribunal, the Government may 
     reinstitute the matter with the tribunal board that dismissed 
     or permitted the withdrawal of the matter.
       (2) Time limit.--A complaint reinstituting proceedings 
     under paragraph (1) shall be filed not later than 10 days 
     after the dismissal or withdrawal of the matter.
       (3) Number.--The Government may reinstitute proceedings 
     under paragraph (1) not more than twice and only if approved 
     by the ranking member on the classification tribunal board.

     SEC. 11. CONTINUANCE OF CLASSIFICATION TRIBUNALS.

       (a) Continuances.--
       (1) In general.--A classification tribunal board may, for 
     cause shown, grant a continuance of a classification 
     tribunal.
       (2) Continuance.--
       (A) In general.--Upon motion of the Government, the 
     classification tribunal board may grant a continuance for as 
     long as necessary, but no longer than a 6-month period, under 
     paragraph (1) if the classification tribunal board determines 
     that the detainee is a high level individual in the planning 
     or financing of terrorist activities or the individual 
     possess information vital to the safety of the United States 
     or its citizens.
       (B) Subsequent continuances.--The Government may obtain 
     subsequent continuances for additional 6-month periods so 
     long as the classification tribunal board finds such 
     continuances are necessary to the informational gathering 
     purposes as it related to the national security of the United 
     States.
       (3) Ex parte applications.--
       (A) In general.--The Government may move for a continuance 
     under paragraph (1) ex parte.
       (B) Detainee rights.--A detainee--
       (i) is not entitled to representation by counsel in 
     connection with any such ex parte motion; and
       (ii) shall not be given notice of the request for a hearing 
     prior to the ruling of the classification tribunal board on 
     the Government's request for a continuance pursuant to 
     paragraph (2).
       (b) Grant of Continuance.--For each continuance granted 
     under subsection (a), the classification tribunal board shall 
     note on the record of the proceedings--
       (1) the grounds for granting each such continuance;
       (2) the identity of the party requesting the continuance;
       (3) the new date and time for the tribunal hearing; and
       (4) the reasons that the date under paragraph (3) was 
     chosen.

     SEC. 12. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PROCEDURES GENERALLY.

       (a) Counsel.--
       (1) In general.--A defendant in a criminal proceeding under 
     this Act has a right to be represented by counsel admitted to 
     practice before a commission under this Act.
       (2) Appointed counsel.--
       (A) In general.--A defendant who is unable to obtain 
     counsel is entitled to have counsel appointed and to be 
     represented by such counsel at every stage of the proceeding 
     subsequent to being indicted.
       (B) Appointment procedure.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     determine the rules for appointing counsel to practice before 
     the commission.
       (b) Discovery.--
       (1) Classified documents and objects.--The Government shall 
     provide the defense with access to evidence the Government 
     intends to introduce at trial and with access to evidence 
     known to the Government or which should be known to the 
     Government that tends to exculpate the accused. Information 
     disclosed to the defense may not be disclosed to the 
     defendant if it is classified as defined by this Act. The 
     defense may submit classified information for review under 
     section 12(b)(2).
       (2) Separate commission concerning classified 
     information.--The Secretary of Defense shall appoint a 
     commission to conduct a thorough review of the classification 
     system for national security information, including the 
     policy, procedures, and practices of the system. The 
     Secretary of Defense shall determine what level of security 
     clearance is necessary to conduct the review under this 
     paragraph. No person shall be appointed as a member of the 
     commission who does not have a security clearance at or above 
     the level of clearance so designated by the Secretary. The 
     commission shall make recommendations to the Secretary of 
     Defense as to the declassification of information relevant to 
     the trial of detainees.
       (3) Regulating discovery.--
       (A) In general.--A commission may, for good cause, deny, 
     restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other 
     appropriate relief.
       (B) Ex parte request.--A party may make an ex parte request 
     in writing that a commission deny, restrict, or defer 
     discovery or inspection under subparagraph (A). If the a 
     commission grants a request under this subparagraph, the 
     Commission shall preserve the entire text of the party's 
     request under seal.
       (C) Failure to comply.--If a party fails to comply with the 
     rules of discovery applicable to a commission, the commission 
     may--
       (i) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection, 
     specify its time, place, and manner, and prescribe other just 
     terms and conditions; or
       (ii) grant a continuance.
       (c) Open Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), a proceeding before a commission shall be open to the 
     public.

[[Page 13123]]

       (2) Classified information.--
       (A) In general.--Upon motion by the Government, a 
     proceeding before a commission shall be closed to the public 
     if necessary to avoid disclosure of classified information.
       (B) Nondisclosure.--A priority under subparagraph (A) shall 
     not disclose any information presented during a closed 
     session to individuals excluded from such proceeding or part 
     thereof including the defendant.
       (3) Other bases.--A commission may order that a hearing be 
     held, in whole or in part, in camera, if the commission 
     determines--
       (A) it is appropriate for the security of a witness or a 
     Government employee or to protect public safety; or
       (B) that an open hearing would deter a witness from 
     testifying freely or prevent the witness from testifying at 
     all.
       (4) Extrajudicial statements.--At the discretion of a 
     commission, the commission may issue an order limiting 
     extrajudicial statements by the parties.
       (d) Protected Information.--
       (1) In general.--A commission may issue protective orders 
     as necessary to safeguard protected information in a 
     proceeding before that commission.
       (2) Notification.--As soon as practicable, a party shall 
     notify a commission of any intent to offer evidence including 
     protected information .
       (3) Trial record.--
       (A) In general.--All exhibits admitted as evidence but 
     containing protected information shall be sealed and annexed 
     to the record of trial.
       (B) Protected information not admitted.--Any protected 
     information not admitted as evidence, but reviewed by a 
     commission in camera and withheld from the defendant's 
     counsel over objection shall be sealed and annexed to the 
     record of the trial, with any associated motions and 
     responses and any materials submitted in support thereof, as 
     additional exhibits.
       (e) Record of Trial.--
       (1) Requirement for record.--A record of each proceeding by 
     a commission shall be prepared promptly after the conclusion 
     of the trial.
       (2) Verbatim transcript.--The record of trial shall include 
     a verbatim written transcript of all sessions of the trial.
       (3) Exhibits and other evidence.--The record of trial shall 
     also include all exhibits and other real or demonstrative 
     evidence, except that photographs may be substituted for any 
     large written or graphic exhibits and any other real or 
     demonstrative evidence. If a photograph is substituted for an 
     exhibit or other evidence, the Government shall retain the 
     original exhibit or other evidence, respectively, until no 
     further appeal of the results of the trial is authorized.
       (4) Classified information.--In the case of a conviction of 
     a charge on which classified information is admitted as 
     evidence by a commission, the copy of the record of trial 
     submitted to the commission shall include the classified 
     information.

     SEC. 13. TRIAL PROCEDURES FOR UNPRIVILEGED COMBATANTS.

       (a) Specialized Procedures.--
       (1) Standard of proof.--All 3 members of a commission shall 
     agree that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt 
     for a defendant to be found guilty.
       (2) Rules of procedure.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Secretary of Defense shall draft supplementary rules to 
     govern all proceedings under this section.
       (B) Standard.--Evidence is admissible if the Secretary of 
     Defense determines that the evidence would have probative 
     value to a reasonable person.
       (3) Form of trial.--Any trial under this subsection shall 
     take place before 2 military officers or attorneys and at 
     least one military judge.
       (4) Bad acts.--Other bad acts may be considered if they 
     would have fallen within the definition under this Act of 
     either terrorism or terrorist activity and they are deemed to 
     be relevant by a commission including propensity.
       (b) Custody.--The Department of Defense shall retain 
     custody of any person determined by a commission to be 
     unprivileged combatants after the person has been either 
     convicted or sentenced in accordance with this Act, unless 
     the Department of Defense deems otherwise. Decisions made by 
     a commission in regards to a detainee's guilt or innocence 
     may be considered by a tribunal when assessing the need to 
     continue the detention of a detainee.

     SEC. 14. COMMUNICATION WITH PERSONS IN CUSTODY.

       An individual detained, indicted, or convicted under this 
     Act shall only be permitted to communicate with the 
     interpreter assigned to the individual, the counsel 
     representing the individual, prison personnel, and any other 
     individual approved by the Secretary of Defense.

     SEC. 15. COMMISSION COUNSEL.

       (a) In General.--A person shall be admitted to practice 
     before a commission if the person--
       (1) is a United States citizen;
       (2) has been admitted to the practice of law in a State, 
     district, territory, or possession of the United States, or 
     before a Federal court;
       (3) has not been sanctioned or otherwise the subject of 
     disciplinary action by any court, bar, or other competent 
     governmental authority for misconduct;
       (4) is eligible for access to information classified at the 
     level of secret as defined by the Department of Defense; and
       (5) signs a written agreement to comply with all applicable 
     regulations or instructions for counsel, including any rules 
     of court for conduct during the course of proceedings.
       (b) Consultation With Colleagues.--Any person admitted 
     under subsection (a) shall not confer with any colleague who 
     does not have the appropriate clearance.
       (c) Security Clearance.--
       (1) Expedited consideration.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall ensure that a person seeking to be admitted under 
     subsection (a) is timely processed for the security clearance 
     required for access to materials necessary for providing a 
     defendant with effective assistance of counsel.
       (2) Counsel ineligible for clearance.--If the Secretary of 
     Defense determines a person is not eligible for the necessary 
     security clearance, the person shall not be permitted to 
     represent an individual in any proceeding before the 
     Commission. The determination of the Secretary of Defense 
     shall be final and is not subject to appeal to, or other 
     review by, any court of the United States.
       (d) Travel Expenses.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     reimburse any person not employed by the Government who is 
     representing an individual before the Commission for travel 
     away from the home or regular place of business of the person 
     in connection with such representation. The rates for the 
     payment of travel expenses under this subsection shall be 
     those authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I 
     of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
                                  ____

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

       The Unprivileged Combatants Act of 2006 is a follow-up to 
     the Military Commissions Procedures Act of 2002 (S. 1937, 
     107th Congress) which you cosponsored with Senator Durbin in 
     February 2002. The goal of this bill is to balance the need 
     for national security (interrogations and detention of 
     combatants) with the need to afford detainees with sufficient 
     due process so that nations such as Great Britain and 
     Australia will not place undue pressure on the United States 
     to release their citizens from Guantanamo Bay. This bill 
     addresses only those combatants currently held at Guantanamo 
     Bay. The Act clarifies the procedures used in Combatant 
     Status Review Tribunals and establishes procedures for the 
     trial of detainees. These procedures constitute ``a 
     meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that 
     detention before a neutral decisionmaker.'' (Hamdi v. 
     Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, O'Connor, J.) This bill does not 
     address the issue of unprivileged combatants contesting their 
     detentions through habeas appeals. Although the Graham-Kyl-
     Levin amendment to the 2005 DoD appropriations bill has 
     addressed this issue, a forthcoming Supreme Court decision 
     (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-5393) will probably require 
     additional legislation on this matter.
       Section 301: Findings: This title is in direct response to 
     the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush.
       Section 302: Definition Section: Definition section of the 
     bill which defines primary terms such as field tribunal, 
     classification tribunal, military commission, and 
     unprivileged combatant.
       Section 303: Authorizing Military Commissions: The 
     President is authorized to establish military commissions for 
     the trial of individuals for offenses as provided in this 
     title.
       Section 304: Jurisdiction Over Unprivileged Combatants: 
     This title establishes exclusive jurisdiction to hear any 
     matter involving an unprivileged combatant who has been 
     detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, 
     Cuba. These detainees may be tried via laws of war or 
     pursuant to the Department of Defense's Military Commission 
     Instruction Number Two.
       Section 305: Appellate Jurisdiction: The U.S. Courts of 
     Military Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction over 
     appeals from all final decisions of a classification tribunal 
     board or military commission under this tide. These decisions 
     are then subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of 
     certiorari.
       Section 306: Military Commission: The Commissions shall 
     consist of three military officers, at least one of whom is a 
     Judge Advocate General. These Commissions shall decide the 
     guilt or innocence of detainees charged under section 304 of 
     this Act. This is basically what happens now.
       Section 307: Persons in Custody: Not more than 60 days 
     after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense is 
     required to develop a list of all persons who are being 
     detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and whom the government 
     wishes to continue to detain as an unprivileged combatant. 
     The Act requires that the original list and subsequent lists, 
     updated at least once every 60 days, be submitted to the 
     appropriate House and Senate committees.
       Section 308: Field Tribunals: Not more than 30 days after a 
     suspected unprivileged combatant has been detained by United

[[Page 13124]]

     States forces, the Department of Defense shall conduct a 
     field tribunal (``FT'') in order to determine whether the 
     detainee is an unprivileged combatant and whether the 
     detainee is entitled to the rights afforded under the Geneva 
     Convention. The procedures governing a field tribunal shall 
     be promulgated by the Department of Defense.
       Section 309: Classification Tribunals: A Classification 
     Tribunal (``CT'') is very similar to the current Combatant 
     Status Review Tribunal. The CT shall be composed of three 
     military officers, one of whom shall be an attorney. Pursuant 
     to a hearing before a CT, a designee shall be released and 
     repatriated to an appropriate country unless a CT finds by a 
     preponderance of the evidence that--(l) the detainee is a 
     threat to the national security interest of the United 
     States; or (2) there are reasonable grounds to believe that 
     if released the person would take up arms against the United 
     States. Decisions of the CT shall be repeated every six 
     months. Detainees may be released only when the CT or the 
     Administrative Board determines the detainee is no longer a 
     threat to national security. This section also expressly 
     states that a detainee who is also a United States citizen 
     may not be held or tried under this act.
       Section 310: Classification Tribunal Procedures: Procedures 
     for CT's are the same as those of Combatant Status Review 
     Tribunals except detainees shall be represented by counsel 
     and are permitted to view unclassified discovery that the 
     prosecution plans to present before the tribunal.
       Section 311: Continuance of Classification Tribunals: 
     Classification tribunals may be continued in order for the 
     government to continue their interrogation of a detainee. 
     Upon a motion from the Government, the classification 
     tribunal board may grant a continuance for up to a 6-month 
     period, if the classification tribunal board determines that: 
     1) the individual being detained is a high level individual 
     in the planning or financing of terrorist activities, or 2) 
     the individual possesses information vital to the safety of 
     the United States or its citizens. The Government may obtain 
     more than one continuance if it demonstrates that such 
     continuances are necessary for information gathering purposes 
     as it relates to national security. Said applications for 
     Continuances shall be made ex parte and before a detainee is 
     given an attorney. Accordingly, a detainee is only given an 
     attorney once the tribunal is informed that the interrogation 
     efforts have been exhausted.
       Section 312 & 313: Criminal Prosecution Procedures: 
     Military Commission procedures will be the same as the 
     current procedures afforded detainees under the current 
     system.
       Section 314: Communication with Persons in Custody: Limits 
     communications by any detainee indicted or convicted under 
     this Act to the individual's interpreter, assigned counsel, 
     prison personnel, and any other individual(s) approved by the 
     Secretary of Defense.
       Section 315: Commission Counsel: Provides the following 
     criteria for persons to be admitted to practice before a 
     commission: 1) U.S. Citizen, 2) has been admitted to practice 
     law in a State, district, territory or possession of the 
     United States or before Federal Court, 3) has not been 
     disciplined by any court, bar or other competent governmental 
     authority for misconduct, 4) maintains a minimum of 
     ``secret'' clearance and 5) signs a written agreement to 
     comply with all applicable regulations aid instructions for 
     counsel during the course of proceedings. It further provides 
     persons admitted to practice will not confer with any 
     colleague who does not have at least a ``secret'' clearance. 
     This section provides that individuals seeking to practice 
     before a commission will be expedited in consideration for 
     obtaining the necessary security clearance. The decision of 
     the Secretary of Defense regarding the granting or not of the 
     security clearance is final and is not eligible for appeal or 
     review. Finally, this section provides that persons 
     practicing before the commission are eligible to have their 
     travel expenses reimbursed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 3615. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
to provide for improved public health and food safety through enhanced 
enforcement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Safe and Fair 
Enforcement and Recall for Meat, Poultry, and Food--SAFER--Act. This 
legislation will protect consumers from contaminated meat and poultry 
by giving the Department of Agriculture, USDA, and the Department of 
Health and Human Service's Food and Drug Administration, FDA, greater 
authority to remove unsafe products from the market.
  If enacted, the bill would give USDA and FDA the following three key 
tools in keeping food safe for consumers: authority to mandate that a 
company recall unsafe meat, poultry, and food products if a company 
fails to voluntarily recall unsafe or unwholesome food; require 
companies to notify USDA or FDA if they know a product is adulterated 
or misbranded; and authority to USDA and FDA to levy civil penalties if 
a company violates federal meat, poultry, or food laws. USDA and FDA 
are lacking fundamental authorities to maintain a safe and secure food 
supply. This legislation would change that.
  Foodborne illness continues to be a far too common problem in the 
United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 
estimate that each year 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, 
and 1,800 deaths can be attributed to foodborne diseases. USDA's 
Economic Research Service estimates that the cost of foodborne illness 
is $6.9 billion a year in medical costs, productivity losses, and 
premature deaths. Even in the face of such numbers, companies say USDA 
and FDA do not need more effective tools to enforce food safety 
standards. They say the food industry is compliant with voluntary 
recalls. It is true most companies do comply, but there have been 
problems and delays in recalls. The problem is, USDA and FDA have no 
backup authority to order a recall if the company refuses. What happens 
then? Without this legislation, USDA and FDA have to lose precious time 
to get unsafe product off the shelves. Another criticism of this 
legislation is that it would give USDA too much power to mandate 
recalls, and may even push the Department to go too far. However, the 
bill has a procedure for due process, so that if a company has evidence 
that a recall or civil penalties are unjustified, they are appealable 
before an administrative law judge.
  In addition to mandatory recall authority, the authority to levy a 
financial penalty if a company does not comply with our food safety 
laws is crucial to enforcing the standards. Civil penalties are an 
effective deterrent to stop violators and are already used to enforce 
analogous federal safety standards. Currently, USDA and FDA can only 
withdraw inspectors and shut down a plant that repeatedly or willfully 
violates our meat, poultry and food laws, which can often be a lengthy 
and costly process. Such drastic action is very seldom even taken. The 
ability to levy civil penalties gives USDA and FDA a much-needed tool 
for ensuring compliance with our food safety laws.
  USDA recently proposed a rule to provide the public with valuable 
information about meat and poultry that is voluntarily recalled. The 
rule will disclose the names and locations of stores where such 
products have been sold. While I believe this is a step in the right 
direction, it is not enough to protect consumers. This USDA rule does 
little more than place the burden on consumers to protect their 
families or themselves from foodborne illnesses. The SAFER Meat, 
Poultry, and Food Act would act as a complement to this USDA proposal, 
and would give USDA, as well as FDA, the power to enforce the food 
safety standards they have set. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation to protect the American consumer.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bond, Mr. Reed, Mrs. 
        Murray, and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 3616. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
an incentive to preserve affordable housing in multifamily housing 
units which are sold or exchanged; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce mine and 
Senator Gordon Smith's bill, The Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 
2006. Our bill provides a solution to preserve federally assisted 
affordable multifamily housing.
  I want to thank all of our colleagues-- Senators Bond, Reed, Murray, 
and Sarbanes--for realizing the importance of this issue and agreeing 
to cosponsor our legislation.
  I have often said that few Federal programs have helped mothers and 
fathers keep their families together more

[[Page 13125]]

than our low income and public housing programs. And while I always 
fight to make sure New York and the country at large gets all the money 
it can from Washington, frankly I am not the kind of elected official 
who believes that all government programs are equally good. But low 
income housing programs are some of the best things our government has 
ever done to help families, mothers, the elderly, and the disabled.
  Unfortunately--the current housing climate has reached a crisis point 
and the good that we are doing just is not enough anymore. Consider 
that in 2001, 95 million people--a whopping one third of the nation--
had housing problems: ranging from high cost burden, to overcrowding, 
to poor quality, or worse to homelessness.
  In the same year, 41 million people, 14.6 percent of the U.S. 
population, were without health insurance and 12 percent of all people 
in the U.S.--33.6 million--lacked food security. These are all 
interrelated. If rent is too high--you go without health insurance. 
Maybe you trim down spending on groceries.
  Sixty-five million Americans with housing problems are low income, 
and 87 percent of them face high housing cost burdens. In New York, the 
numbers are even worse. New York State ranks 47th out of the 50 States 
in renter affordability.
  Across the board, housing problems are plaguing low income people who 
live in both renter and owner households, and by people in all age 
groups, including children and seniors.
  The bottom line is that twice as many people who lack health 
insurance and three times more people who struggle on a regular basis 
to put food on their table have housing problems.
  But for whatever reason, the housing issue does not attract the same 
level of public concern and political attention as other programs. And 
that's why housing programs have been cut back by more than just about 
any other program over the last decade.
  Whenever I speak to New Yorkers--there is a common refrain: from gas 
prices to milk costs to rent hikes, the cost of living in New York 
keeps going up and up.
  It is a demonstrated pattern and we have worked diligently to try to 
defend every penny. We have had some successes but it is a yearly 
battle and I unfortunately have no doubt that we will continue to fight 
to defend every penny of funding for housing programs.
  But scraping our pockets for money is not enough. I served on the 
Housing Subcommittee for my entire 25 years in Congress and I'm tired 
of just playing defense and preventing things from happening.
  If we want to actually get something done to improve the housing 
market and prospects for millions of low income families we've got to 
not just be satisfied with a good defense.
  What we need right now is a good offense. As the newest member on the 
Senate Finance Committee in addition to my current post on the Banking, 
Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, I intend to use this position to 
help fight for housing and particularly new funding for housing for New 
York and America.
  Today I am introducing legislation with my fellow Finance Committee 
member, Senator Gordon Smith--proposing that we bring this fight to a 
playing field many more are comfortable on. We should focus on housing 
tax incentives rather than just relying solely on new spending to 
expand the number of affordable housing units.
  Since its inception the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the low-income 
housing tax credit, for example, has helped build and convert 1.6 
million apartments with rents affordable to low income families, by 
providing investors in affordable housing developments with a dollar-
for-dollar reduction in their Federal tax liability.
  We anticipate that the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2006 
will afford renters and developers similar benefits. Our legislation 
will work to ensure that we can preserve the current supply of 
affordable housing by providing tax relief to owners.
  At the moment the inadequate present stock of affordable housing 
might shrink even further--much of it was built in the 60s and 70s and 
is aging and needs to be rehabilitated.
  Under normal circumstances--developers who own this housing and have 
no interest in rehabilitating it themselves would sell it to another 
developer who would refinance and rehabilitate it for affordable 
housing.
  But because a so called ``exit tax'' is placed on any developer who 
plans to sell their subsidized property--more and more are deciding not 
to sell and to just sit on the property until they die.
  Let's say back in the 70s Developer Dan purchased a plot of land in 
Queens for $200,000 and built $800,000 worth of affordable housing on 
it--for a total investment of $1 million.
  At the time, Developer Dan was able to secure tax benefits as part of 
the accelerated tax depreciation program and was able to deduct 70 
cents on every dollar invested in affordable housing over a 15-year 
period.
  So now in 2004 his accelerated depreciation has expired and Dan is 
getting on in his years and wants to sell the property--simply to break 
even and get out of the business.
  But he can't do it very easily. If Dan sells the property for $1 
million he must then pay an exit tax. The exit tax for Dan will be 25 
percent applied to the building that was subsidized. So Dan must pay a 
$200,000 tax when he sells the building. That is not a very appealing 
situation for our friend Dan.
  So Dan entertains two other options--instead of keeping the units as 
affordable housing he sells his property into the traditional housing 
market where he can garner a greater price which includes the amount of 
the exit tax but removes the units from the affordable housing market.
  Or even more likely, Dan holds onto the property and neglects its 
upkeep at a detriment to his tenants and waits until he dies because 
then the tax consequence is erased. The property is likely sold in the 
traditional market and lost to the affordable housing community.
  The Local Initiatives Support Coalition estimates that there are 1 
million housing units held in this manner because owners are unwilling 
to sell and take on the new tax burden.
  That is 1 million housing units--many of which are rapidly 
deteriorating and not providing good homes for the people who are 
living in them and one million units that will eventually be removed 
from the affordable market if we don't do something to make it easier 
and more attractive for affordable housing owners to sell their 
properties to other affordable housing developers.
  So today, we are proposing a plan to waive exit taxes for owners who 
sell their properties to buyers who agree to keep the properties 
affordable for no less than 30 years. It is a simple fix--and one that 
could save us 1 million affordable housing units.
  While we await a full scoring of our proposal from the CBO, our back 
of the envelope estimate shows that waiving the exit taxes to preserve 
this supply of affordable housing represents a $422 million incentive 
program over a 10-year period.
  We hope this bill will move quickly, especially since we have clear 
support in both the House and the Senate. Congressman Jim Ramstad has 
introduced a similar bill on the House side. In addition, we have 
widespread support from the housing, real estate and investment 
community
  Before I close I want to make clear--this and similar types of 
housing tax proposals are not meant to replace funding for current 
housing programs. We will still fight for full funding of every housing 
program--from section 8 to CDBG. We just need to modify our strategy 
and operate more on the offense rather than the defense.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Schumer in offering 
legislation that will help maintain our Nation's affordable housing 
inventory. Our country's stock of affordable rental housing is 
shrinking. Every day, we lose affordable units to rent increases, 
deterioration, and conversions to market-rate housing or commercial 
use. For millions of Americans, this means

[[Page 13126]]

that it is getting harder to put a roof over their family's heads and 
food on the table.
  In 2000--recognizing that we had a looming crisis--Congress 
established the bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission. The 
Commission was tasked with studying the importance of affordable 
housing to the infrastructure of the United States as well as the 
various methods to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
private sector's role in providing affordable housing.
  The bill Senator Schumer and I are introducing is based on a 
recommendation by the Millennial Housing Commission. Our bill would 
waive the depreciation recapture tax liability if investors sell their 
property to owners who will preserve the property as affordable housing 
for 30 years. Through a simple change in the Tax Code, our bill will 
help preserve the federally assisted affordable housing stock of the 
United States at a minimal cost to the Federal Government. This 
proposal is supported by a broad coalition of affordable housing 
advocates, including the National Housing Conference, the National 
Housing Trust, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, and the 
National Council of State Housing Agencies.
  According to Oregon Housing and Community Services, OHCS, there are 
approximately 4,000 households at risk of losing their homes in the 
OHCS portfolio alone. There are another 6,000 households at risk in 
section 8 projects not currently in the OHCS portfolio. All of these 
properties could benefit from the change Senator Schumer and I are 
proposing.
  The Neighborhood Partnership Fund of Portland estimates that an 
additional 215 Rural Housing Service properties with more than 6,000 
units in Oregon could also benefit.
  I thank the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for working with me 
on this bill. I believe this is important legislation and will help 
stem affordable housing losses in the United States. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to see the legislation passed and signed 
into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 3618. A bill to establish the Champlain Quadricentennial 
Commemoration Commission, the Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemoration 
Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, it gives me pride and pleasure to 
introduce revised legislation to establish the Champlain 
Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission and the Hudson-Fulton 400th 
Commemoration Commission.
  I began this effort with legislation I introduced 4 years ago during 
the 107th Congress. Because my colleagues in the other body and I were 
not able to enact our bill that time, we returned in the 108th Congress 
with new legislation including needed revisions. I now lay down the 
next version of the bill that incorporates welcomed input and reflects 
a consensus reached among key leaders who share the goal of honoring 
important events in our Nation's and New York State's history.
  The United States of America has long been celebrated for its 
leadership in innovation, exploration, and ingenuity. These qualities 
have been evident dating back as far as 1609 when Englishman Henry 
Hudson became the first European to sail up the river later named for 
him in the vessel Half Moon. Also in 1609, French explorer Samuel de 
Champlain became the first European to see the lake later named for 
him, as well as the shores in Northern New York and Vermont.
  These explorations led to the establishment of trading posts, 
military posts, and settlements as far south as Lake George. From these 
early establishments came trade, commerce, cultural, and religious 
impact deep into the Mohawk Valley and as far west as Lake Erie. These 
settlements influenced our Nation's history, culture, law, commerce, 
and traditions of liberty that extend to the present day.
  Almost 200 years later, in 1807, Robert Fulton navigated the Hudson 
River from the city of New York to Albany in the steamboat Clermont, 
successfully inaugurating steam navigation on a commercial basis. This 
event helped revolutionize waterborne commerce on the great rivers of 
the United States and fostered international relations through 
transoceanic travel and trade.
  We are now almost 400 years removed from the voyages of Hudson and 
Champlain and 200 years removed from the voyage of Fulton. If America 
intends to continue in its role as a world leader in innovation, 
exploration, and ingenuity, it is important that we provide a suitable 
observance of those before us who have contributed to what our nation 
is today.
  The Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission and the 
Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemoration Commission represents a unique 
opportunity to celebrate New York, Vermont and America's glorious 
heritage. In 1909, Americans celebrated the 300th anniversaries of 
these events with maritime celebrations and art exhibitions. The Dutch 
built the first replica of Hudson's ship, the Half Moon, and sent it up 
the Hudson River for the observance. In 1959, Congress recognized the 
350th anniversary by establishing a similar commission to coordinate 
federal participation in the celebrations.
  I ask that the Senate come together not only to honor these events 
that have contributed to our past, but to celebrate the effects they 
will have on our future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Reed, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Voinovich, and Mr. Martinez):
  S. 3620. A bill to facilitate the provision of assistance by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the cleanup and 
economic redevelopment of brownfields; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduced the Brownfields 
Redevelopment Enhancement Act of 2006 with Senators Dole, Reed, 
Jeffords, Voinovich, and Martinez. This bill would allow the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist communities in 
transforming idle brownfield sites into productive uses. Brownfields 
are abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties where 
redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental 
contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our Nation and 
limit the economic growth of communities. Brownfields redevelopment can 
provide new opportunities for businesses, housing, and recreational 
spaces such as urban parks.
  Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally sound way to bring investment 
back to neglected neighborhoods, clean up the environment and maximize 
use of existing infrastructure. My home State of Michigan has benefited 
from hundreds of brownfields redevelopment projects, and this bill 
would help to ensure that federal tools are in place to continue with 
these successes in Michigan and throughout the Nation.
  The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act would provide the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development with new tools to spur 
brownfields redevelopment. This bill would provide local governments 
with increased accessibility to HUD's Brownfields Economic Development 
Initiative grants by allowing HUD to make brownfields grants without 
requiring that communities pledge their future community development 
block grant funds as collateral. Removing this restriction from the HUD 
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative program would allow many 
more communities, especially smaller communities, to participate in the 
program. The bill also adopts the definition of brownfields used by the 
EPA, which would bring greater consistency and clarity to the federal 
government's brownfields programs.
  The bill authorizes $50 million annually for this important Federal 
program, which provides funding for a wide variety of brownfield 
redevelopment activities--from site remediation to construction. 
Supporters of this bill

[[Page 13127]]

include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Home 
Builders, the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, 
the Real Estate Roundtable, the National Association of Development 
Organizations, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the National 
Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the 
Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of 
Real Estate Investment Trusts, and the Environmental Bankers 
Association.
  I want to thank my Senate colleagues for working with me on this 
bill, and I want to especially thank Jack Reed who played a key role in 
the early drafting of the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3620

       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 ``Brownfields Redevelopment 
     Enhancement Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) grants under the Brownfields Economic Development 
     Initiative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     provide local governments with a flexible source of funding 
     to pursue brownfields redevelopment through land acquisition, 
     site preparation, economic development, and other activities;
       (2) to be eligible for such grant funds, a community must 
     be willing to pledge community development block grant funds 
     as partial collateral for a loan guarantee under section 108 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and 
     this requirement is a barrier to many local communities that 
     are unable or unwilling to pledge such block grant funds as 
     collateral; and
       (3) by providing grants for the economic development of 
     brownfield sites independent from section 108 loan guarantees 
     and the related pledge of community development block grant 
     funds, more communities will have access to funding for 
     redevelopment of brownfield sites.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide units 
     of general local government and Indian tribes with increased 
     accessibility to brownfields redevelopment funds by 
     permitting the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to 
     make grants for brownfields development independent from 
     section 108 loan guarantees.

     SEC. 3. BROWNFIELDS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.

       Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 123. BROWNFIELDS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants under this 
     section, on a competitive basis as specified in section 102 
     of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act 
     of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545), only to eligible public entities 
     (as such term is defined in section 108(o) of this title) and 
     Indian tribes for carrying out projects and activities to 
     assist the development and redevelopment of brownfield sites, 
     which shall include mine-scarred lands.
       ``(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Amounts from grants under this 
     section--
       ``(1) shall be used, as provided in subsection (a) of this 
     section, only for activities specified in section 105(a) in 
     connection with a brownfield site;
       ``(2) shall be subject to the same requirements that, under 
     section 101(c) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 104(b), 
     apply to grants under section 106; and
       ``(3) shall not be provided or used in a manner that 
     reduces the financial responsibility of any nongovernmental 
     party that is responsible or potentially responsible for 
     contamination on any real property and the provision of 
     assistance pursuant to this section shall not in any way 
     relieve any party of liability with respect to such 
     contamination, including liability for removal and 
     remediation costs.
       ``(c) Availability of Assistance.--The Secretary shall not 
     require, for eligibility for a grant under this section, that 
     such grant amounts be used only in connection or conjunction 
     with projects and activities assisted with a loan guaranteed 
     under section 108.
       ``(d) Applications.--Applications for assistance under this 
     subsection shall be in the form and in accordance with the 
     procedures established by the Secretary.
       ``(e) Selection Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish criteria 
     for awarding assistance under this subsection.
       ``(2) Criteria.--The criteria established under paragraph 
     (1) shall include--
       ``(A) the extent of need for such assistance;
       ``(B) the level of distress in the community to be served 
     and in the jurisdiction applying for assistance;
       ``(C) the quality of the plan proposed and the capacity or 
     potential capacity of the applicant to successfully carry out 
     the plan; and
       ``(D) such other factors as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(f) Definition of Brownfield Site.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `brownfield site'--
       ``(1) has the meaning given such term in section 101(39) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(39)); and
       ``(2) includes a site that meets the requirements under 
     subparagraph (D) of such section for inclusion as a 
     brownfield site for purposes of section 104(k) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 9604(k)).
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section 
     $50,000,000, for each of fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 
     and 2011.''.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW USE OF CDBG FUNDS TO 
                   ADMINISTER RENEWAL COMMUNITIES.

       Section 105(a)(13) of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(13)) is amended by inserting 
     ``and renewal communities'' after ``enterprise zones''.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply only with 
     respect to amounts made available for fiscal year 2007 and 
     fiscal years thereafter for use under the provisions of law 
     amended by this Act.

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, across North Carolina and our Nation, many 
local communities face the challenge of what to do with blighted lands 
where factories and businesses once thrived. Though abandoned, these 
sites still hold great promise for prosperity. In fact, around the 
country, deserted, contaminated industrial facilities, called 
brownfields, are being reclaimed, cleaned up and redeveloped. 
Communities are partnering with the private sector and State and 
Federal agencies to turn brownfields into productive sites that promote 
economic growth and job creation.
  With nearly 1 million brownfields remaining in the United States, we 
need to strengthen these important public-private partnerships. That is 
why I am very pleased to introduce the Brownfields Redevelopment 
Enhancement Act with my colleagues, Senators Martinez, Levin, Reed, 
Voinovich, and Jeffords. This legislation will enable more local 
communities to use grant funding from the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, BEDI, 
program to literally unearth opportunity.
  For several years, HUD has provided more than $200 million to local 
governments in BEDI grants of up to $3 million to support demolition, 
site clearance, site preparation, infrastructure upgrades, and 
redevelopment activities that are needed to transform brownfields into 
productive sites once again. This HUD support for brownfields projects 
is critical because redevelopment requires more than the environmental 
assessment and cleanup funding that is provided by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  BEDI grants generate tremendous private investment in brownfields 
redevelopment. In fact, every dollar in BEDI grant funding generates 10 
dollars in private sector support for brownfields projects. Still, 
these funds could be provided in a much more effective way. Currently 
BEDI grants are available only if they are coupled with HUD section 108 
loan guarantees, typically in a high loan-to-grant ratio. These section 
108 loans must be backed and collateralized by the local government's 
future allocations of HUD community development block grant, CDBG, 
funds. This requirement is unworkable for many communities. For smaller 
localities that do not have an entitlement to CDBG funds, BEDI funds 
are very difficult to obtain. And larger CDBG entitlement communities 
also have great difficulty in obtaining BEDI funding, either because 
they have reached their allowable CDBG borrowing limit or because the 
demand for scarce CDBG funding is so great.
  The legislation we introduce today would amend the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974 by untying the BEDI program from the 
requirement to obtain Section 108 loans, thus making BEDI funding more 
accessible for communities large and small. The legislation also would 
authorize

[[Page 13128]]

$50 million in annual HUD grant funding for brownfields projects.
  Communities around the country, including many in my home State of 
North Carolina, would benefit tremendously from this adjustment in BEDI 
grant requirements. For example, Wilson, N.C. wants to clean up and 
redevelop 30 acres of vacant tobacco warehouses in the downtown 
district. But because Wilson is not a CDBG entitlement community, these 
BEDI funds currently are unattainable under the section 108 
requirement. And in Winston-Salem, city leaders seek to make a corridor 
of underutilized brownfield land into part of the Piedmont Triad 
Research Park, a global center for life science and medical technology. 
Winston-Salem, though a CDBG entitlement city, cannot access any 
additional BEDI funding because the city is nearing its CDBG debt 
guarantee limit. The legislation we propose today would remove these 
barriers for places like Wilson and Winston-Salem and enable our 
communities to turn great visions for economic development into 
reality.
  The House of Representatives has already approved a similar measure 
to spur brownfields cleanup, and this legislation is broadly supported 
by many localities and private sector organizations, including the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Development 
Organizations, the National Association of Local Government 
Environmental Professionals, the National Association of Homebuilders, 
the Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association 
of Industrial and Office Properties, the National Brownfield 
Association, the Real Estate Roundtable, the National Association of 
Real Estate Investment Trusts, and North Carolina-based Cherokee 
Investment Partners.
  With such strong support--in Congress and in communities across the 
Nation--for this improvement to the BEDI program, I urge the Senate to 
act swiftly on this legislation. Brownfields revitalization projects 
are models of successful public-private partnering, and we at the 
Federal level must do our part to encourage and enable these endeavors 
to continue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 3621. A bill to permit certain local law enforcement officers to 
carry firearms on aircraft; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation I 
originally introduced last Congress, a bill to make air travel safer by 
allowing local law enforcement to carry their firearms on aircrafts, 
the Safer Skies Act of 2006.
  This legislation is needed to increase the safety of our airplanes, 
as well as to make it easier for local law enforcement to travel across 
the county. Whether on official travel or personal travel, Federal law 
enforcement officers are allowed to carry firearms with them throughout 
their flights. The legislation I am introducing today would extend the 
same privilege--and responsibility--to local law enforcement officers.
  Ever since the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred on September 
11, 2001, we have seen how our local emergency responders, including 
local law enforcement officers, play a vital role in protecting not 
just their local communities, but the entire Nation. Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita are the most recent examples. We think of local law 
enforcement officers as our Nation's first responders, but they are 
also the Nation's early preventers. They are the first to identify 
local crimes that could turn into national attacks. They are the first 
to report suspicious behavior that could thwart a future terrorist 
attack. And they are the ones who can keep our nation safe by stopping 
a terrorist threat before it becomes an attack. Their eyes, ears and 
experience are critical to our national security, and that includes on 
airplanes.
  Hundreds, thousands of police officers use the Nation's airlines each 
day. Authorizing certain qualified local police officers to carry their 
weapons onto planes, whether on or off duty, will give airline personal 
access to additional assistance if needed. The unique, long-term 
training in handling various disturbances including hostage situations, 
barricaded subjects, drunken persons and the mentally ill will provide 
added security to our Nation's flights and enhance passenger safety. 
Authorizing qualified local officers to carry their duty weapons on 
aircrafts is a way to be proactive in enhancing the security of our 
Nation's air travel. It will also have a deterrent effect on potential 
hijackers, knowing their may be more armed law enforcement on any given 
flight.
  A terrorist attack in any city is a national concern. Local law 
enforcement officers are a crucial element of the plan to protect our 
Nation. I want to thank the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and 
the National Association of Police Organizations for their support of 
this important legislation. In particular, I would like to thank 
Detective David Kallas, Executive Director Las Vegas Police Protective 
Association, Detectives Chris Collins and Michelle Jotz, and John Dean 
Harper for their input and advice.
  With their help, we have produced legislation that will keep our 
country safe, by giving law enforcement the standing they deserve as 
they continue to protect our hometowns and the nation. I ask unanimous 
consent that both this letter of support from the National Association 
of Police Organizations and the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3621

       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 ``Safer Skies Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO CARRY 
                   FIREARMS ON AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 44926. Authority of local law enforcement officers to 
       carry firearms on aircraft

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of the Safer Skies Act of 2006, the Under 
     Secretary of Transportation for Security shall prescribe 
     regulations that permit qualified local law enforcement 
     officers to carry accessible weapons while onboard an 
     aircraft to the same extent and subject to the same limits as 
     Federal law enforcement officers are permitted under section 
     1544.219 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, or any 
     successor regulation.
       ``(b) Qualified Local Law Enforcement Officer.--In this 
     section, the term `qualified local law enforcement officer' 
     means any full-time State or local enforcement officer, 
     whether or not on official travel, who--
       ``(1) is a direct employee of a government agency that--
       ``(A) employs more than 400 employees; and
       ``(B) is accredited by a nationally recognized law 
     enforcement accreditation program;
       ``(2) is armed in accordance with an agency-wide policy 
     established by the employing agency by directive or policy 
     statement; and
       ``(3) otherwise complies with the requirements relating to 
     Federal law enforcement officers.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     449 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item related to section 44925 the following:

``Sec. 44926. Authority of local law enforcement officers to carry 
              firearms on aircraft.''.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                   Police Organizations, Inc.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 2006.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: On behalf of the National Association of 
     Police Organizations (NAPO), representing 238,000 rank-and-
     file police officers from across the United States, I would 
     like thank you for introducing the ``Safer Skies Act of 
     2006,'' and advise you of our support for the legislation. If 
     enacted, this legislation would provide additional protection 
     to those flying our nation's skies by permitting qualified 
     local law enforcement officers to carry accessible weapons 
     while onboard an aircraft.
       NAPO was actively involved in fighting for the passage of 
     the ``Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act,'' which rightly 
     allows off-duty and retired police officers to carry their 
     firearms for the protection of themselves, their families and 
     our nation's communities. NAPO stands by this law and firmly 
     believes that allowing an officer the right to carry an 
     accessible weapon on a plane is a natural and appropriate 
     extension of this law.

[[Page 13129]]

       ``Safer Skies Act of 2006'' is necessary and beneficial for 
     the general welfare of the public, especially after the 
     events of September 11, 2001. NAPO supports the bill and 
     looks forward to working with you to expand its coverage in 
     the future. Ultimately, we feel it is important to include 
     all of our nation's law enforcement officers in order to 
     provide greater protection to the officers and our nation's 
     citizens flying the American skies. If you have any 
     questions, please feel free to contact me, or NAPO's 
     Legislative Assistant, Andrea Mournighan.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Johnson,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 3622. A bill to authorize the President to negotiate the creation 
of a North American Investment Fund between the Governments of Canada, 
of Mexico, and of the United States to increase the economic 
competitiveness of North America in a global economy; to the Committee 
on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation--
previously introduced in the 108th Congress--which I believe is 
important to the long-term competitiveness of North America. And I 
would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. Coleman, for his 
support and recognition of the value of this legislation. He is an 
original co-sponsor of the bill, and I look forward to working with him 
and others to ensure its success.
  Currently, a significant development gap exists between Mexico and 
the United States and Canada. I believe it is in our best interests to 
find creative ways to bridge this development gap.
  As my colleagues undoubtedly are aware, Mexico will elect a new 
President this weekend. When President Fox was elected in 2000 it was a 
watershed event for Mexico because the election was fair and the 
transfer of power was peaceful. I hope that the same fair, peaceful 
process takes place this weekend. So I wish all the candidates well and 
I look forward to working with the new Administration and the new 
Congress on issues of mutual importance to our countries.
  Considered in the context of history, Mexico has--particularly within 
the past decade--made significant strides related to its system of 
government and its trade policies. However, much work remains to be 
done, and I think it is important that we explore ways to help our 
neighbor move their development efforts to the next level, to assist 
them as they continue on a path of prosperity and growth.
  I have come to view the creation of a North American Investment Fund 
as both central to our relationship with Mexico and necessary to ensure 
the economic prosperity of North America as part of an ever-changing 
and growing global economy. I hope that this legislation will be a 
useful vehicle to help jump-start discussions on this very important 
topic.
  My bill authorizes the President to negotiate the creation of a North 
American Investment Fund with the governments of Canada and Mexico. The 
fund can only be created if Mexico satisfies two conditions.
  First, the Government of Mexico must raise tax revenue to 18 percent 
of the gross domestic product of Mexico. Their current tax rate is 
approximately 9 percent.
  Second, Mexico must develop and execute a program of economic reforms 
to increase private investment and economic growth, while also 
maintaining economic stability in Mexico.
  These steps are of the utmost importance because any lasting changes 
in Mexico must start from within.
  The purpose of this fund is to reinforce efforts already underway in 
Mexico to ensure their own economic development. The funding would make 
grants available for projects to construct roads in Mexico to 
facilitate trade, to develop and expand their education programs, to 
build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and 
to improve job training and workforce development for high-growth 
industries.
  As I have mentioned on several occasions, I have heard from Mexico 
leaders who say they want desperately to ``export goods and services, 
not people'' to our country. Well, I think we all recognize that 
opportunity in one's home country and immigration are linked, and I 
believe we should be more involved in helping to promote the strength 
and stability of our neighbors.
  Development provides a positive and stabilizing influence on 
economies, on government institutions, and also on immigration. We've 
seen, in past years, a steady flow of immigrants--particularly 
undocumented workers--coming across our borders. A vast number of these 
immigrants are here to work hard so they can send money home to their 
families and relatives. They may be well-intentioned, but at the same 
time, these hard workers are doing nothing to help their own economies.
  Mexico does not want the most entrepreneurial members of its society 
to permanently leave. What it wants most of all is for economic 
development to grow in their region, so that citizens would have real 
opportunities to stay and grow the economy there. But with the 
entrepreneurs and risk-takers coming to the United States, Mexico 
cannot hope to improve its own economy.
  Economic growth creates new jobs and raises incomes. This growth 
lifts people out of poverty even as it spurs positive economic reform. 
The potential for good is nearly limitless; as with such a fund we 
could spur sustainable development, strengthen private property rights, 
while also encouraging competition, regional integration, the open flow 
of technology.
  So the best solution for all of us is a Mexico economy that is 
vibrant--and one important way is to ensure its continued development 
of infrastructure and resources. The legislation I am proposing today 
would encourage this development, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  I have no illusions that Congress will move quickly to approve the 
idea of a North American Investment Fund. In fact, I think it will 
likely take some time to make our case regarding the important role 
this fund would play in helping spur much-needed reforms in Mexico. But 
this investment in Mexico's future will only serve to contribute to a 
more stable and prosperous North America, which should be a goal we all 
work to actively support.
  It is important that we consider not only what is immediately 
feasible, but also what is ultimately desirable--the ultimate goal--in 
terms of the relationship between our three countries, and so I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 3626. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
estate tax relief and reform, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a bill that will reduce the 
estate tax and reform a system that needs to be reformed. It is an 
issue that many of us have been working on for several--not only 
several months but for several years. Leaders on both sides of the 
aisle and Members on both sides of the aisle have been trying to come 
up with a compromise position that would be respectful of the fiscal 
situation of our country and also mindful that this tax in its current 
form, at least the rates and the way it is applied in its current form, 
can simply not be sustained. It makes no sense for this tax to be in 
place 1 year and go completely away the next year and then come back in 
the next year at a completely different rate.
  We have been trying to make this much more simple for taxpayers who 
have to comply with it and much more fair so that it is not a 
discouragement for people who want to start businesses at later years. 
We want to try to be fair to the Federal Treasury and to the many 
demands.
  At one point, I supported the total repeal of this tax. That one time 
was when we were running a surplus and before we were engaged in the 
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Iraq is costing this country 
approximately $4 billion to $6 billion a month. It has been going on 
for 3 years. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an end in sight 
because things are not going as well as many of us had hoped. We must 
continue to make a priority of this Nation supporting our men and women 
in uniform--whether they are here at home or in Iraq in the frontline

[[Page 13130]]

or in Afghanistan in the frontline or other frontlines around the 
world. So we simply cannot afford to repeal this tax. It takes too much 
money out of the Treasury at a time when we need it to support our 
troops. Most Americans, regardless of how they feel about the war, 
realize we need the money to support our troops and keep them safe and 
help bring them home as soon as possible.
  I offer this bill in the spirit of compromise. Hopefully, it will 
give some guidance to those who may be looking for something they can 
support, that costs significantly less than what Chairman Thomas has 
proposed, what Senator Kyl has proposed, and what others have proposed, 
yet gives that assurance to businesses that they will not have to pay a 
fluctuating rate.
  The most important thing I think my bill does is it completely 
eliminates the estate tax for 99.9 percent of the people in Louisiana 
and a great percentage of people throughout the country. If you are an 
estate of less than $10 million, you will pay no tax. If you are a 
single person with $5 million or an estate worth $10 million, you have 
to pay income tax, you will pay capital gains tax, you will pay payroll 
tax, you will pay a lot of other taxes that come with the rights and 
privileges of being an American citizen, but you will not pay an estate 
tax. Only those estates over $10 million will pay the tax. And those 
over $100 million--which I would call superstates--would pay a little 
more than those that are in the middle.
  As a Democrat and as a Senator, I believe in a free enterprise system 
where people can make money and benefit from their hard work. We need 
to balance between the individual's right to keep as much money as they 
can make and the Nation's needs to conduct wars, to protect our 
borders, to protect our coasts, to build our highway system--which is 
50 years old today and certainly did not get built on a wish and a 
prayer. It got built with good design, good political will, and a lot 
of money that went into building that highway system that we can be 
proud of. It needs to be improved.
  So for those who say every American should be able to keep all the 
money they make, I don't know who would keep the public sector that 
does so much good--from the men and women in uniform, to building the 
highways, to keeping our air clean and water clean, and other things 
that we depend on Government to help operate and collect in a sensible 
way.
  I offer this in a spirit of compromise. It is something I certainly 
can support, and I look forward to working with my colleagues as we 
move through this recess to come to terms with something that is 
fiscally responsible and also cognizant of trying to get this tax 
leveled so people can plan on what they are going to have to pay and it 
will not become a burden on anyone and so everyone can plan, even those 
with a great deal of money.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA:
  S. 3627. A bill to prohibit the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Energy from selling, distributing, or transferring 
elemental mercury, to prohibit the export of elemental mercury, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, last December, the Chicago Tribune 
published an in-depth report on the extent of mercury contamination in 
the fish eaten by the American people.
  As I am sure my colleagues know, mercury is a potent neurotoxin that 
can cause serious developmental problems in children, ranging from 
severe birth defects to mental retardation. As many as 630,000 children 
born annually in the U.S. are at risk of neurological problems related 
to mercury.
  In adults, mercury can cause major neurological problems affecting 
vision, motor skills, blood pressure and fertility. As many as 10 
percent of women in the U.S. of childbearing age have mercury in their 
blood at a level that could put a baby at risk.
  Mercury, in short, is a poison, and it often reaches humans through 
the fish that we eat.
  Sampling conducted by the Tribune showed surprisingly high levels of 
mercury concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish purchased by 
Chicago area consumers--fish like tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, and 
walleye. The Tribune series also reported on how existing programs at 
the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection 
Agency have failed to adequately test and evaluate mercury levels in 
fish.
  As someone who regularly eats fish, I was surprised at the range of 
species with high mercury levels in the Tribune tests. Fish is an 
excellent source of nutrients and other compounds indispensable for 
good health. More of us should eat more fish. But for all Americans--
and especially pregnant women and other at-risk groups--there are risks 
to eating fish with high mercury levels. That's why we need to work 
harder to get at the root causes of mercury contamination.
  You see, the long-term solution isn't eating less fish, or issuing 
consumption advisories, or printing labels on tuna cans, or posting 
placards at the supermarket. If we're really serious about making fish 
safer to eat, we need to reduce the amount of mercury in fish, which 
means reducing the amount of mercury used in industry.
  But, the solution can't be just a U.S. one. Half of mercury settles 
near where it is emitted and the other half gets transported around the 
globe--often settling in oceans, lakes, and rivers nowhere near mercury 
sources. For that reason, we need a comprehensive, global strategy, and 
the two bills I am introducing today are designed to be part of that 
strategy.
  My first bill, the Mercury Market Minimization Act, or M3 Act, 
establishes a ban on U.S. exports of mercury by the year 2010. Such a 
ban, when coupled with a European Union proposal to ban mercury exports 
by 2011, will constrain global supply of commercially available mercury 
in sufficient quantities that developing nations that still use mercury 
will be compelled to switch to affordable alternatives to mercury that 
are already widespread in industrialized nations.
  My second bill, the Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and 
Mitigation Act, or M5 Act, requires the remaining eight of more than 30 
chlor-alkali plants in the United States to complete the transition 
from mercury to alternative technologies.
  Chlor-alkali facilities manufacture chlorine gas and caustic soda, 
important chemicals that serve as the building blocks of many of the 
products and plastics essential to modem everyday life. For decades, 
mercury was a key component in the chlorine process, but today, more 
than 90 percent of the chlor-alkali industry has switched to an 
alternative catalyst. Only eight chlor-alkali plants remain in the U.S. 
that still use mercury. The chlorine industry has instituted voluntary 
policies to help capture and reduce mercury missions into the 
atmosphere--with laudable success. The time has come, however, to 
finish these upgrades and end the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali 
process.
  The amount of mercury emitted or lost by these eight chlor-alkali 
plants rivals the amount of mercury emitted by all of the coal-fired 
plants in the United States. In 2003, the average chlor-alkali facility 
released 1,055 lbs. of mercury into the air--six times as much as the 
183 lbs. of mercury released by the average coal-fired powerplant. And 
it is likely that the actual amount of mercury released by chlor-alkali 
plants is even higher because of emissions that escape through 
unmonitored ventilation systems and other leaks.
  The M5 Act also solves another gap in the current system; it puts 
procedures in place to track and report mercury input and output 
statistics in the chlor-alkali industry. The evidence suggests that 
between 2000 and 2004, the industry could not account for more than 130 
tons of mercury, in addition to the 29 tons that were released into the 
environment. The EPA calls this ``an enigma.'' The M5 Act puts an end 
to this enigma and requires documented tracking of mercury.
  Although this bill deals with chlor-alkali plants, it's important to 
acknowledge that coal-fired powerplants

[[Page 13131]]

are a significant contributor to the mercury in our atmosphere. We must 
continue to pursue balanced policies that address those emissions, but 
our policy approaches on mercury cannot single out coal-fired power 
plants alone. In truth, the largest source of global mercury 
contamination is the continued worldwide use of mercury in developing 
countries, particularly in gold mining and general industry, even 
thought there are proven and economically viable mercury substitutes.
  Mr. President, I believe these two bills will go a long ways towards 
improving the health of the American people. I urge the swift enactment 
of these bills.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3627

       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 ``Mercury Market Minimization 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) mercury and mercury compounds are highly toxic to 
     humans, ecosystems, and wildlife;
       (2) as many as 10 percent of women in the United States of 
     childbearing age have mercury in the blood at a level that 
     could put a baby at risk;
       (3) as many as 630,000 children born annually in the United 
     States are at risk of neurological problems related to 
     mercury;
       (4) the most significant source of mercury exposure to 
     people in the United States is ingestion of mercury-
     contaminated fish;
       (5) the Environmental Protection Agency reports that, as of 
     2004--
       (A) 44 States have fish advisories covering over 13,000,000 
     lake acres and over 750,000 river miles;
       (B) in 21 States the freshwater advisories are statewide; 
     and
       (C) in 12 States the coastal advisories are statewide;
       (6) the long-term solution to mercury pollution is to 
     minimize global mercury use and releases to eventually 
     achieve reduced contamination levels in the environment, 
     rather than reducing fish consumption since uncontaminated 
     fish represents a critical and healthy source of nutrition 
     worldwide;
       (7) mercury pollution is a transboundary pollutant, 
     depositing locally, regionally, and globally, and affecting 
     water bodies near industrial sources (including the Great 
     Lakes) and remote areas (including the Arctic Circle);
       (8) the free trade of mercury and mercury compounds on the 
     world market, at relatively low prices and in ready supply, 
     encourages the continued use of mercury outside of the United 
     States, often involving highly dispersive activities such as 
     artisinal gold mining;
       (9) the intentional use of mercury is declining in the 
     United States as a consequence of process changes to 
     manufactured products (including batteries, paints, switches, 
     and measuring devices), but those uses remain substantial in 
     the developing world where releases from the products are 
     extremely likely due to the limited pollution control and 
     waste management infrastructures in those countries;
       (10) the member countries of the European Union 
     collectively are the largest source of mercury exports 
     globally;
       (11) the European Union is in the process of enacting 
     legislation that will prohibit mercury exports by not later 
     than 2011;
       (12) the United States is a net exporter of mercury and, 
     according to the United States Geologic Survey, exported 506 
     metric tons of mercury more than the United States imported 
     during the period of 2000 through 2004; and
       (13) banning exports of mercury from the United States will 
     have a notable affect on the market availability of mercury 
     and switching to affordable mercury alternatives in the 
     developing world.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON SALE, DISTRIBUTION, OR TRANSFER OF 
                   MERCURY BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT 
                   OF ENERGY.

       Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2605) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Mercury.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on sale, distribution, and transfer by 
     department of defense.--Effective as of the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, the Secretary of Defense may not convey, 
     sell, distribute, or otherwise transfer to any other 
     department or agency of the Federal Government, any State or 
     local government, or any private person or entity any 
     elemental mercury under the control or jurisdiction of the 
     Department of Defense.
       ``(2) Prohibition on sale, distribution, and transfer by 
     department of energy.--Effective as of the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, the Secretary of Energy may not convey, 
     sell, distribute, or otherwise transfer to any other 
     department or agency of the Federal Government, any State or 
     local government, or any private person or entity any 
     elemental mercury under the control or jurisdiction of the 
     Department of Energy.
       ``(3) Exception.--The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) shall not apply to the transfer of elemental mercury to 
     any storage or other facility established under section 
     12(c)(3).''.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT OF MERCURY.

       Section 12 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2611) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and 
     inserting ``subsections (b) and (c)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Prohibition on Export of Mercury.--
       ``(1) Elemental mercury.--Effective January 1, 2010, the 
     export of elemental mercury from the United States is 
     prohibited.
       ``(2) Extension of prohibition to mercury compounds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Beginning on January 1, 2010, the 
     President may prohibit the export of any mercury compound 
     from the United States as necessary--
       ``(i) to avoid subversion of the mercury ban; and
       ``(ii) to achieve the full force and effect of the 
     prohibition under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Notice to congress.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the President exercises the authority 
     in subparagraph (A), the President shall notify Congress.
       ``(ii) Requirements.--A notification under clause (i) shall 
     describe--

       ``(I) each mercury compound the export of which from the 
     United States will be prohibited; and
       ``(II) a justification of the prohibition of export of each 
     compound.

       ``(3) Storage of excess mercury.--
       ``(A) Establishment of storage capacity.--In order to 
     implement the prohibition on the export of elemental mercury 
     under paragraph (1) and the prohibition, if any, on the 
     export of mercury compounds under paragraph (2), the 
     President shall establish the capacity (including 1 or more 
     storage facilities) to store safely such elemental mercury 
     and mercury compounds covered by the prohibitions as are in 
     excess of quantities necessary for domestic consumption.
       ``(B) Regulations.--The establishment and operation of 
     facilities to provide the capacity required by subparagraph 
     (A) shall be governed by such regulations as the President 
     may prescribe for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(4) Inapplicability of unreasonable risk requirement.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply to this subsection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 3628. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve 
and extend certain energy-related tax provisions, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing another piece of 
legislation with Senator Feinstein that addresses the critical issue of 
the Nation's energy policy, the EXTEND the Energy Efficiency Incentives 
Act of 2006. The Senator from California and I have come together once 
again--given where we are as a Nation in terms of reliance on foreign 
oil, the historically high costs of energy, the state of our 
environment, and the status of our technological know-how--to introduce 
realistic, doable legislation that represents one of the best 
opportunities for developing bipartisan consensus on tax policy to 
further securing our Nation and its future.
  The EXTEND Act, also cosponsored by Senator Kerry, takes a 
comprehensive and practical approach to assure that America gets the 
maximum possible energy savings and relief from high energy prices at 
the lowest cost. It builds on the incentives for efficient buildings 
adopted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPAct 2005, and modifies them 
where necessary to achieve these policy goals.
  The bill extends the temporary tax incentives for energy efficiency 
buildings established in EPAct 2005, providing 4 years of assured 
incentives for most situations, and some additional time for projects 
with particularly long lead times, such as commercial buildings. A 
sufficient length of time is needed by the business community to make 
rational investments. The bill is meant to incentivize not discourage. 
I want to encourage businesses to make investments to qualify for 
energy efficiency tax incentives. Commercial buildings and large 
residential subdivisions have lead times for planning and construction 
of 2 to 4 years. This is why the EXTEND Act provides 4 years

[[Page 13132]]

of assured incentives for most situations, and some additional time for 
projects with long lead times.
  I am pleased to have the support of Finance Committee Chairman 
Grassley for crafting the correct policy for large-scale commercial 
projects, recognizing that these large commercial building projects 
take years to design and build. As a mater of fact, I entered into a 
colloquy with the chairman the day EPAct 2005 passed the Senate and 
received his assurance that he will continue to work with me to make 
this a long-term policy of the Tax Code.
  Also, the EXTEND Act makes modifications to the EPAct 2005 incentives 
so that the incentives are not based on cost but based on actual 
performance. These are measured by on-site ratings for whole buildings 
and factory ratings for products like solar water heaters and 
photovoltaic systems as well as air conditioners, furnaces, and water 
heaters. The EXTEND bill provides a transition from the EPAct 2005 
retrofit incentives, which are based partially on cost and partially on 
performance, to a new system that can provide larger dollar amounts of 
incentives based truly on performance.
  The Snowe-Feinstein legislation also extends the applicability of the 
EPAct 2005 incentives so that the entire commercial and residential 
building sectors are covered. The current EPAct 2005 incentives for new 
homes are limited to owner-occupied properties or high rise buildings. 
Our bill extends these provisions to rental property and offers 
incentives whether the owner is an individual taxpayer or a 
corporation. This extension does not increase costs significantly, but 
it does provide greater fairness and clearer market signals to builders 
and equipment manufacturers.
  I have worked hard over the past 5 years for performance-based energy 
tax incentives for commercial buildings--one-third of energy usage is 
from the building sector, so there are great energy savings to be made 
with the extension of these incentives. My energy efficiency tax 
incentives provisions for commercial buildings that came to fruition in 
the EPAct 2005 were tasked to Treasury to promulgate regulations to 
harmonize with the law. On June 2, 2006, the Internal Revenue Service 
issued guidance on how to comply with section 179D of the Internal 
Revenue Code establishing a deduction for commercial buildings that 
achieve a reduction in energy consumption of 50 percent.
  Unfortunately, the guidance is inadequate, according to energy 
efficiency experts, which may stem from the fact that we are into some 
uncharted territory and there may be a basic lack of understanding of 
what it takes to make energy efficiency tax incentives work, and 
specifically those based on performance, not cost. It is critical that 
the IRS guidance is written correctly so as to actually incentivize 
greater energy efficiencies while making sure any guidance promotes the 
best use of taxpayer dollars. I brought these issues to the attention 
of the now Secretary of the Treasury Paulson at his nomination hearing 
in the Senate Finance Committee on June 27, and I look forward to 
working with his people at Treasury to resolve these important issues 
relating to the IRS guidance.
  It is reasonable to expect many annual benefits after 10 years if we 
put into place the appropriate incentives. For instance, direct savings 
of natural gas would amount to 2 quads per year or 7 percent of total 
projected natural gas use in 2017. And, to this figure must be added 
the indirect gas savings from reduced use of gas as an electricity 
generation fuel. Total natural gas savings would be 35 quads per year, 
or 12 percent of natural gas supply. Total electric peak power savings 
would be 115,000 megawatts; almost 12 percent of projected nationwide 
electric capacity for the year 2017.
  In addition, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be 330 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, about 16 percent of the 
carbon emissions reductions compared to the base case necessary to 
bring the U.S. into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol; or roughly 5 
percent of projected U.S. emissions in 2017. Also, importantly, the 
bill will result in the creation, on net, of over 800,000 new jobs.
  The value of energy savings should not be overlooked as both business 
and residential consumers will be saving over $50 billion annually in 
utility bills by 2017, as a direct result of the reductions in energy 
consumption induced by the appropriate incentives. Also, the projected 
decrease in natural gas prices will be saving businesses and households 
over an additional $30 billion annually.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the 
Feinstein-Snowe 10 in 10 CAFE standards legislation introduced this 
past week as the bill is yet another piece for solving the Nation's 
energy crisis.
  The ten in ten measure is straightforward--we increase the average 
mileage of each company's vehicles fleet by 10 miles per gallon in 10 
years--10 in 10. This would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 
2025--the same amount we currently import daily from the Persian Gulf--
while eliminating 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, 
a climate change-causing greenhouse gas, from entering the atmosphere.
  Certainly, we ought to be able to at least meet these goals. Yet, 
thus far, Congress and the administration have regrettably sent exactly 
the wrong message at a time when we have already witnessed a crisis--
and that is, a ``can't do'' attitude, rather than the ``can do'' spirit 
that has defined progress in America since our fledgling days as a 
nation. We have the means, we have seen the demonstrated necessity, we 
possess the entrepreneurial spirit, what exactly is there left not to 
get?
  There should be no question that increasing fuel economy standards an 
average of 1 mile per gallon across a manufacturer's fleet for the next 
10 years is a challenge to which this country can rise--in fact, it is 
long overdue. We are long past the point of watching and waiting it out 
while the U.S. auto makers dither--Congress has a responsibility to 
provide leadership on this issue by refusing to accept the notion that 
``this is as good as it gets.''
  We must reject the administration's request that we just cede to the 
Department of Transportation our statutory authority to reform CAFE 
standards for passenger cars--especially as DOT has had the opportunity 
to increase CAFE standards for SUVs, minivans, and light pickups, but 
only incrementally increased the miles per gallon to 22.2 mpg by model 
year 2007 that is an increase of less than 1 mile per gallon. This 
minimal increase will save less than 2 weeks worth of gasoline each 
year for the next 2 decades. We can do better and under our legislation 
we will do better.
  A wide variety of experts, including some of those who took part in 
the 2001 congressionally mandated National Academy of Sciences report 
on CAFE standards, agree that the most effective action we could take 
today to decrease the price of gasoline is to increase fuel economy 
standards for all vehicles--passenger cars and light trucks. Yet the 
only time we raised fuel economy standards for passenger cars was back 
in 1976. Think about it--in 1976, our computers were about the size of 
cars--and now we hold them in the palm of our hand--are we really 
saying the United States of America doesn't have the technological 
wherewithal to provide 10 more miles-per-gallon over the next 10 years, 
at a time when the transportation sector accounts for fully 40 percent 
of all the Nation's fossil fuel consumption?
  Morever, we give manufacturers the flexibility to develop an entire 
fleet that accomplishes the overall fuel economy standard in the most 
cost-effective manner--it can be done and it must be done. And with a 
third of American drivers now considering trading their current vehicle 
for another that gets great fuel economy, frankly, if our auto makers 
had embraced higher fuel economy standards when our SUV loophole bill 
was first introduced in 2001, or way back in the early 1990s when an 
increase in CAFE was a compelling argument for that decade's energy 
bill, perhaps the U.S. industry would be in better shape today. 
Consumers certainly would be.

[[Page 13133]]

  And how can there be any question--at this time when our reliance on 
foreign oil has skyrocketed from 44 percent 3 decades ago to 72 percent 
this year--and prices hover at near historic highs of $70 per barrel--
that we must take a page from America's greatest quests--like putting a 
man on the Moon--to finally reduce our consumption of precious fossil 
fuels. We are financing the ambitions of radical leaders in some of the 
most volatile regions of the world to supply the energy to power 
America's future. This makes no sense--not when our bill, through its 
resulting fuel savings, would effectively develop Middle Eastern oil 
production within our own country within just the next 19 years.
  Mr. President, these two bills, the EXTEND Act and the 10 in 10 Act, 
are synonymous with the security of America's future. These bills are 
two pieces of an overall national energy picture that we need to 
address now. Consumers throughout the United States, from small 
businesses to families, are demanding leadership on energy prices. 
Congress should advance past rhetoric, gimmicks, and photo-ops and move 
to substantive legislation such as the EXTEND Act and the 10 in 10 CAFE 
bill. It is imperative that Congress begin these policy discussions--we 
cannot wait for yet another crisis.
  I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the 
administration to provide the American people the leadership they 
deserve on these issues.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Byrd):
  S.J. Res. 40. A joint resolution authorizing the printing and binding 
of a supplement to, and revised edition of, Senate Procedure; 
considered and passed.

                              S.J. Res. 40

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PRINTING OF SUPPLEMENT TO, AND REVISED EDITION OF, 
                   SENATE PROCEDURE.

       (a) In General.--Each of the following documents shall be 
     prepared under the supervision of Alan Frumin, 
     Parliamentarian and Parliamentarian Emeritus of the Senate, 
     and shall be printed and bound as a Senate document:
       (1) A supplement to ``Riddick's Senate Procedure'', to be 
     styled ``Frumin's Supplement to Riddick's Senate Procedure''.
       (2) A revised edition of ``Riddick's Senate Procedure'', to 
     be styled ``Frumin's Senate Procedure''.
       (b) Copies.--One thousand five hundred copies of each 
     document described in subsection (a) shall be printed for 
     distribution to Senators and for the use of the Senate.

                          ____________________