[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15661-15667]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Salazar):
  S. 3721. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 
establish the United States Emergency Management Authority, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 3721, the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. It contains a vital 
set of reforms and innovations for our emergency-management systems 
that are designed to save lives and ease suffering when disaster 
strikes. The crafting of this bill has benefited from the insights of 
my principal cosponsor, Senator Lieberman, and from the support of our 
other cosponsor, Senator Salazar.
  The Senate has already acted on one critical measure to apply the 
bitter lessons of Hurricane Katrina. The 87 to 11 vote on July 11, 
adding creation of the U.S. Emergency Management Authority to the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill, adopted a major element of 
today's bill. That was a great step forward.
  The Senate Homeland Security Committee conducted an 8-month 
investigation with 23 hearings, more than 325 formal interviews, and a 
review of more than 838,000 pages of documents to ascertain why the 
response to Hurricane Katrina was so inadequate at all levels of 
government. The investigation revealed serious failures of leadership. 
It also revealed an urgent need for broad reforms ranging from 
communication-technology standards to the structure and missions of 
entire Federal agencies.
  Some of the 88 recommendations that flowed from our investigation can 
be adopted by administrative action. The Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act comprises important steps that only Congress can 
take. I will outline the five key components of our bill.
  First, we strengthen FEMA and rename it as the United State Emergency 
Management Authority, or US-EMA, to signify a fresh start. We elevate 
US-EMA within DHS, restore its preparedness authority, and protect it 
from departmental reorganizations that could erode its budget and 
assets. These measures give the agency mission and asset protections 
like those of its DHS siblings, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service.
  These statutory protections are important. Securing the integrity of 
FEMA preserves the cooperative benefits of its operating within easy 
reach of other DHS agencies. It also avoids the duplication, cost, and 
confusion for State and local officials that would come from carving 
FEMA out as a weak, stand-alone agency for natural disasters. Keeping 
FEMA where it was placed by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 avoids 
the need for DHS to recreate a similar terror-response capability.
  Improving contact and coordination among Federal, State, and local 
agencies is essential. For that reason, our bill provides for 
regionally based, multi-agency Federal strike teams that will be ready 
to act and deploy in a region they will already know and understand 
before a disaster occurs.
  The bill also provides continued funding for the interstate Emergency 
Management Assistance Compact that proved so valuable in marshaling aid 
for the gulf coast last year. It commits the US-EMA to work with States 
and localities to develop a standardized credentialing system that will 
help responders and selected private-sector personnel move quickly into 
disaster areas anywhere in the country, and it requires the US-EMA to 
offer technical assistance to State and local governments.
  To help remedy the communications gaps revealed by Hurricane Katrina, 
we also improve the agency's organizational and technical 
communications systems. Our bill designates the Administrator of the 
US-EMA as the principal advisor to the President on emergency-
management issues. Meanwhile, national and regional advisory councils 
will ensure that the US-EMA has open channels of communication with 
State and local officials, emergency responders, key private-sector and 
nongovernmental entities, and with representatives of people with 
disabilities.

[[Page 15662]]

  On the equally important technical side, our bill consolidates 
several communications programs within a new Office of Emergency 
Communications within US-EMA. This office will devise a national 
emergency-communications strategy, administer grants for interoperable 
communications, and regularly assess the operability and 
interoperability of the communication systems that are essential for 
disaster response and that failed so widely during the Katrina 
catastrophe.
  This US-EMA portion of the bill has received a great deal of 
attention. But it is only one part of this package of essential 
reforms.
  The second part of our bill permits an enhanced Federal role in 
emergency management when major disasters require it. The Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, better known as 
the Stafford Act, authorizes a variety of Federal assistance measures 
to State and local governments when the President has declared a 
disaster.
  Congress has amended the Stafford Act over time to make it more 
effective. Our bill continues that process of improvement by applying 
lessons learned from Katrina.
  At the highest level, it directs the Federal Government to develop 
and maintain a national disaster-recovery strategy in coordination with 
the State and local governments which will lead each recovery. This 
fills a remarkable planning void in our current system, which focuses 
on response. When disaster overwhelms state and local governments and 
devastates large areas, recovery can be a long process requiring 
extended Federal assistance.
  We increase the potential for more effective Federal aid in several 
ways. For example, the legislation enhances Federal agencies' ability 
to respond when the President uses his authority to direct their 
assistance in major-disaster response and recovery.
  The bill requires a national-disaster housing strategy and authorizes 
making semipermanent housing units a part of Stafford Act assistance. 
In many cases, the modular ``Katrina cottages,'' for example, would be 
less costly, safer, more livable, more easily sited, and more durable 
than the notorious trailers FEMA purchased.
  A new title VII for the Stafford Act gives the President discretion 
to offer increased Federal assistance when disaster overwhelms state 
and local governments. This discretionary--but limited--authority for 
catastrophes includes raising the cap on individual assistance, 
assisting victims with rent or mortgage costs, extending disaster-
unemployment benefits, increasing community loans, and raising the 
reimbursement to communities for the cost of food, clothes, and other 
essential goods they distribute to victims.
  Among other Stafford Act revisions, our bill clarifies that Federal 
mitigation efforts can extend to man-made hazards like the Mississippi 
River Gulf Outlet that funneled deadly storm-surge waters toward New 
Orleans. It establishes a missing-child location system and a database 
to help reunite families, a major problem in the aftermath of Katrina. 
And it requires that planning and training exercises, as well as 
evacuation and sheltering plans, give consideration to people with 
disabilities or special needs, or who are not fluent in English, or who 
have pets.
  These improvements to the Stafford Act would be a major 
accomplishment by themselves. But the demonstrated need for reforms 
goes deeper still.
  The third key element of our bill will provide more and better-
trained emergency professionals. The US-EMA will establish a 
contingency cadre to meet surge workforce needs; implement a human-
capital strategy to improve recruitment, development, and retention; 
and make quarterly reports to Congress on staffing levels. These 
actions should reduce the chronic workforce shortfalls--at times as 
great as 25 percent--that have hobbled FEMA in the past.
  Looking to staffing quality across the full spectrum, our bill 
creates a National Homeland Security Academy. The academy will offer 
both classroom and distance-learning instruction and training to DHS, 
state, and local homeland-security professionals.
  The fourth element in our reform bill will correct the confusion and 
lack of training on incident management and unified-command operations 
that frustrated a fully effective response to Katrina. Our bill 
mandates a comprehensive review of the National Response Plan, and 
requires that the DHS Secretary employ the NRP and the National 
Incident Management System to guide Federal actions in a natural or 
manmade disaster.
  The Secretary is also directed to work with the US-EMA Administrator 
and with the National Advisory Committee to implement a national 
training-and-exercise program to ensure that vital knowledge and skills 
are in place and are kept sharp.
  The fifth key aspect of our bill targets the waste, fraud, and abuse 
that outraged both our compassion for disaster victims and our sense of 
stewardship for taxpayer dollars. Based on the investigations by our 
committee, the GAO, and the DHS inspector general, I believe far more 
than a billion dollars has been lost to waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
aftermath of Katrina. The purchase of unusable mobile homes, long-
distance moving and storage of unneeded ice, and abuse of debit cards 
indicate that DHS has lacked even rudimentary controls to safeguard tax 
dollars.
  Our bill directs the Department to identify emergency-response 
requirements that can be contracted in advance with pre-screened 
vendors, so that vital commodities and services can be secured and 
delivered promptly. This simple change could curtail the waste of time 
and money as officials scramble to make ad-hoc purchase and 
distribution arrangements, often paying excessive prices. We also 
provide for a contingency corps of Federal contracting officers who can 
work in the field for an extended period following a disaster, so that 
response and recovery spending is better directed and controlled than 
with Katrina.
  Our bill also faces the unfortunate reality that thieves and con 
artists will try to abuse even programs for disaster victims. Our bill 
imposes civil and criminal penalties for misrepresentation, requires 
fraud-awareness training for contracting officers and for the relief 
workforce, mandates systems to verify identities and addresses, and 
requires issuing explicit directions on legitimate uses of purchase 
cards.
  Our bill is no single-issue, silver-bullet exercise but a careful and 
comprehensive program of improvement and innovation. It takes on each 
of the vital areas that our Hurricane Katrina investigation determined 
require action by Congress: reconstituting FEMA, updating and expanding 
the Stafford Act, improving emergency staffing, enhancing planning and 
preparedness, and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Floods, earthquakes, storms, fires, and other natural disasters are 
abiding threats that exempt no one living on this planet. And the 
threat of manmade disasters has, perhaps permanently, forced itself 
into our plans for sustaining this great Nation.
  Hurricane Katrina showed us in tragic terms that our mechanisms for 
disaster mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery urgently need 
many improvements. If we leave untouched the gaps, the confusions, and 
the missteps revealed during Katrina, we will see more unnecessary loss 
of life and prolonged misery. We do not know when the next great 
disaster will strike, or what form it will take. But we know it will 
come. We know what needs to be done. The Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act gives us the tools to do it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for 
and cosponsorship of this comprehensive piece of legislation that 
Chairman Collins and I are proposing based on our investigation into 
the failed preparations and response to Hurricane Katrina.
  About 1 month ago, we introduced a bill to transform FEMA into the 
U.S. Emergency Management Authority to guarantee that our national 
emergency response system can handle a catastrophe--whether it is a 
hurricane the size and scope of Katrina or a terrorist attack. U.S. EMA 
would have special,

[[Page 15663]]

protected status--much like the Coast Guard has within the Department 
of Homeland Security. The Senate overwhelmingly adopted that 
legislation by a vote of 87 to 11 as part of the Department of Homeland 
Security fiscal year 2007 Appropriations Act.
  Today, we reintroduce that legislation backed up by additional 
reforms to improve emergency communications, planning, training, and to 
make necessary changes to the Stafford Act, which governs relief and 
emergency assistance to victims of disasters.
  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, at the 
request of the Senate leadership, spent 7 months culling through 
hundreds of thousands of documents, interviewing hundreds of witnesses, 
and holding scores of hearings into the botched Government response to 
that catastrophic hurricane.
  We found that at all levels, our Government was ill-equipped to deal 
with the massive human suffering all along the gulf coast that followed 
the storm's landfall, suffering that shocked and angered the American 
people who expect more from their government when fellow Americans are 
in need. These failings were the result of many things--negligence, 
lack of resources, lack of capability. But most of all they were the 
result of a failure of leadership--by the White House, DHS, FEMA, the 
Louisiana Governor's office, and the New Orleans mayor's office.
  To this day, the Department of Homeland Security does not make 
sufficient distinction between everyday problems that States must deal 
with on a seasonal basis and the larger catastrophes which, as Katrina 
demonstrated, quickly overwhelm local and State authorities.
  The legislation we are introducing today is an effort to get the 
Department of Homeland Security to understand that distinction better 
and to target its preparedness and response to cope better with normal 
disasters as well as with those rarer but truly catastrophic events. It 
addresses--to the extent possible--many of the Federal shortcomings 
exposed by our investigation. And it reflects many of the 88 
recommendations the committee reached in its final report on the 
Katrina investigation.
  Let me briefly summarize the bill. First and foremost, we are 
concerned about our first responders who rush into the middle of 
catastrophes to save lives. First responders must have the tools they 
need to protect and save our communities. Think back to September 11. 
Hundreds of firefighters lost their lives that day for many reasons. 
Among them was that their radio equipment was not compatible with the 
police force radios, making it more difficult to learn of the warnings 
others had that the Twin Towers were going to fall.
  During Hurricane Katrina, first responders not only lacked compatible 
radio equipment, but they lost communication completely when power 
lines and sub stations were knocked out of operation.
  Whether responding to a terrorist attack, natural disaster, fire, a 
missing child, or a fleeing suspect, police, firefighters, emergency 
medical technicians, and other responders too frequently cannot share 
crucial, lifesaving information at the scene of a disaster.
  Senator Collins and I introduced a bill, reported out of committee 
last year, to improve emergency communications, the Assure Emergency 
and Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005, 
S.1725. We have borrowed liberally from it. For example, today's 
legislation, like S.1725, would require the development of a national 
strategy for emergency communications; the establishment of an 
emergency communications research and development program; and 
dedicated funding for State and local communications and 
interoperability grants, authorized at $3.3 billion over 5 years.
  We would also establish a new Office of Emergency Communications 
within U.S. EMA by combining existing offices at the Department of 
Homeland Security that deal with various aspects of emergency 
communications. Among the offices to be combined are SAFECOM within the 
Science and Technology Directorate and the National Communications 
System, which was under the Infrastructure Protection Office during 
Katrina. This office will make sure that DHS actually has someone in 
charge of leading the Department's splintered efforts to fix these 
persistent communications problems.
  This legislation also makes changes to the Stafford Act and improves 
upon other recovery and assistance benefits for the victims of 
disaster. Among other things, we would require U.S. EMA to develop 
housing and recovery strategies; we would increase the assistance 
provided under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program from 7.5 percent of 
funds paid out under title IV of the Stafford Act up to 15 percent, 
depending on the size of the disaster; and we would expand FEMA's 
authority so that in addition to providing temporary housing it could 
provide permanent or semipermanent housing, giving it greater 
flexibility to meet the needs of those affected by a disaster. Unlike 
FEMA, U.S. EMA would not have to reflexively rely on travel trailers to 
house victims when other types of housing make more sense.
  Victims would be aided further under this legislation by elimination 
of the subcaps that limited the amount of specific assistance for 
repairs and home replacement during Katrina and by increased 
transportation benefits. We would clarify the statute by reinforcing 
Congress's intent to allow for the use of rental assistance to pay for 
utility costs and to provide treatment of mental health problems 
resulting from or aggravated by a disaster. And we would allow U.S. EMA 
to provide temporary residences to all parts of a household that 
necessarily must split following a disaster--because of multiple 
relocations or cases of domestic violence, for example.
  If the President finds ``catastrophic damages'' to a locale hit by 
disaster, he would be able to provide even more assistance under our 
legislation. The President would be able to double the cap for 
individual assistance from $26,000 to $52,000, provide unemployment 
benefits for 52 weeks instead of 26 weeks, provide help with mortgage 
and rental assistance, and waive maximum limitations on the amount of 
assistance that can be provided under the Community Disaster Loan 
Program.
  Other provisions in our bill call for increased planning for people 
with special needs, better ways to get disaster information to those 
who need it, and measures to assist with family reunification. We would 
also require government contractors to hire more local firms and local 
workers.
  This legislation also has an extensive section dedicated to saving 
money for the taxpayers while preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. For 
example, we would require the U.S. EMA Director to establish an 
identity verification process to ensure that victims who apply for 
benefits under the Individuals and Households Program are who they say 
they are and are in true need. We would create a registry of 
contractors able to perform common postdisaster work and use advance, 
competitively awarded contracts for predictably required goods and 
services. And we would create a contingent of volunteer contracting 
officers from throughout the Federal Government to assist with 
additional contracting needs during emergencies.
  Our bill would also require U.S. EMA to plan for a disaster far more 
extensively than it has previously. It requires the development of a 
national training and exercise program, involving both Federal and 
State officials, to prepare for natural and manmade disasters. And the 
U.S. EMA Administrator would have to review the National Response Plan 
and clarify overlapping or confusing law enforcement, search and 
rescue, and medical responsibilities.
  Mr. President, we are approaching the 1-year anniversary of Katrina--
August 29. Much has changed since that time. Certainly, the gulf coast 
is better prepared to meet a disaster this hurricane season. Yet many 
victimized by Hurricane Katrina, as well as those

[[Page 15664]]

vulnerable to natural disasters or terrorist attacks elsewhere, still 
face uncertain futures.
  We cannot forget those still struggling to rebuild their lives from 
the devastation wrought by Katrina almost a year ago. This legislation 
was designed to address specific problems exposed by Katrina, so as it 
moves through the legislative process, we must do all that we can to 
ensure that the President has the authority he needs to provide 
assistance to past victims, as well as to victims of future disasters. 
We must also make certain that, unlike FEMA, U.S. EMA has all of the 
resources it needs to lead a national preparedness effort and to 
respond to whatever occurs in a manner that the American people have a 
right to expect.
  The committee's investigation found that FEMA had never been prepared 
for a catastrophic event but also that it had budget shortages that 
hindered its preparedness and impeded its performance. Scott Wells, 
FEMA's Deputy Federal Coordinating Officer in Lousiana, summed it up. 
He said, ``This was a catastrophic disaster. We don't have the 
structure; we don't have the people for catastrophic disaster. It's 
that simple . . . If you want a big capability, you've got to make a 
big investment. And there is no investment in response operations for a 
catastrophic disaster. It's not there.''
  Clearly, if the Federal Government is to improve its performance in 
the next disaster, we must give it sufficient resources. This 
legislation takes an important step in that direction by providing a 
$49 million increase for FEMA's two key operating accounts in fiscal 
year 2008 and an additional $53 million in fiscal year 2009. However, I 
believe even more is necessary, and I will work to secure additional 
resources as U.S. EMA becomes a reality.
  The Department of Homeland Security was established not to address 
average disasters--the hurricanes that reliably strike certain parts of 
the country each year or flooding from heavy rains. DHS was established 
to prevent, prepare for, and if necessary respond to horrific 
catastrophes that demand all the resources our Federal Government has 
to offer in times of need or when local and State governments are 
overwhelmed by what has befallen them.
  This legislation is a reminder of that original purpose, an effort to 
get the Department of Homeland Security back to where Congress 
originally envisioned it should be. This bill will help the Department 
be as prepared for and able to respond to catastrophes as the American 
public expects it to be.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 3723. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 
certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as 
components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator 
Lieberman to introduce the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act to 
designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of 
Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System.
  The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 
1968 to create a ``Hall of Fame'' for exceptional rivers. Eligible 
rivers or river segments must meet two criteria; first, the river 
corridor must be free flowing and, second, it must contain at least one 
outstanding remarkable resource deserving special recognition, such as 
a prominent natural, cultural, scenic, or recreational resource.
  Over the course of the past few years, the National Park Service has 
responded to interest and inquiries from local advocates and town 
officials regarding a potential Wild and Scenic River designation for 
the Eightmile River located in south central Connecticut. While a local 
management plan has been developed, studies have shown that fifteen 
miles of the Eightmile River and its East Branch through the 
communities of Lyme, East Haddam, and Salem, CT, were already included 
on the National Park Service's Nationwide Rivers Inventory of potential 
Wild and Scenic River segments. Both segments have great recreational 
value and are included on the inventory for outstanding scenic, 
geologic, and fish and wildlife values. More than 80 percent of the 
Connecticut River watershed is still forested, including large tracts 
of unfragmented hardwood forests that are home to a diverse assemblage 
of plants and animals including bobcats, great horned owls, red foxes 
and roughly 180 other species of birds, plants, fish, and reptiles.
  The impetus for gaining wild and scenic designation of segments of 
the Eightmile River originated locally in 1995 when local officials and 
citizens began working on protection efforts. A variety of local, 
State, and Federal watershed protection programs were considered, and a 
Wild & Scenic River study and designation were determined to be the 
best way to achieve the local vision of a protected watershed. It was 
found that six special ``resource values'' are present in the Eightmile 
River Watershed. These resource values are: Watershed hydrology, water 
quality, unique species and natural communities, geology, the watershed 
ecosystem, and the cultural landscape. Preserving and enhancing these 
values is the basis of the Eightmile River Management Plan and 
ultimately the pursuit of wild and scenic designation. Earlier this 
year I joined with residents of East Haddam, CT, to endorse the 
management plan.
  Connecticut is a small State in area, but it is densely populated and 
it is essential that balance is achieved between conservation and 
economic growth. As one of the most diverse and thriving ecosystems in 
the lower Connecticut River Valley, it is essential that we work to 
preserve this river while all parties, local, State and Federal, are 
willing and able to support this ecosystem. The Eightmile River, like 
many other rivers in America, can still be stewarded for future 
generations of Americans as both a recreational treasure and an 
unblemished ecological haven.
  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. 3723

       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 ``Eightmile Wild and Scenic 
     River Act''.

     SEC. 2. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION, EIGHTMILE RIVER, 
                   CONNECTICUT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 
     2001 (Public Law 107-65; 115 Stat. 484) required the 
     Secretary to complete a study of the Eightmile River in the 
     State of Connecticut from its headwaters downstream to its 
     confluence with the Connecticut River for potential inclusion 
     in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System;
       (2) the segments of the Eightmile River that were assessed 
     in the study continue to be in a free-flowing condition;
       (3) the segments of the Eightmile River contain outstanding 
     resource values relating to--
       (A) cultural landscapes;
       (B) water quality;
       (C) watershed hydrology;
       (D) unique species;
       (E) natural communities;
       (F) geology; and
       (G) watershed ecosystems;
       (4) the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee has 
     determined that--
       (A) the outstanding resource values of those segments of 
     the Eightmile River depend on the continued integrity and 
     quality of the Eightmile River watershed;
       (B) those resource values that are manifested throughout 
     the entire watershed; and
       (C) the continued protection of the entire watershed is 
     intrinsically important to the designation of the Eightmile 
     River under this Act;
       (5) the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee 
     took a watershed approach in studying and recommending 
     management options for the river segments and the Eightmile 
     River watershed as a whole;
       (6) during the study, the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic 
     Study Committee prepared the Eightmile River Management Plan 
     to establish objectives, standards, and action programs to 
     ensure long-term protection of the

[[Page 15665]]

     outstanding values of the river, and compatible management of 
     the land and water resources of the Eightmile River and its 
     watershed, without Federal management of affected land not 
     owned by the United States;
       (7) the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee--
       (A) voted in favor of including the Eightmile River in the 
     National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and
       (B) included that recommendation as an integral part of the 
     Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan;
       (8) the residents of the towns located adjacent to the 
     Eightmile River and comprising most of its watershed, 
     including Salem, East Haddam, and Lyme, Connecticut, as well 
     as the boards of selectmen and land use commissions of those 
     towns, voted--
       (A) to endorse the Eightmile River Watershed Management 
     Plan; and
       (B) to seek designation of the river as a component of the 
     National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
       (9) the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut 
     enacted Public Act 05-18--
       (A) to endorse the Eightmile River Watershed Management 
     Plan; and
       (B) to seek the designation of the Eightmile River as a 
     component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
       (b) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Eightmile river.--The term ``Eightmile River'' means 
     segments of the main stem and certain tributaries of the 
     Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut that are 
     designated as components of the National Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers System by the amendment made by subsection (c).
       (2) Management plan.--The term ``Management Plan'' means 
     the plan prepared by the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic 
     Study Committee, with assistance from the National Park 
     Service, known as the ``Eightmile River Watershed Management 
     Plan'', and dated December 8, 2005.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (c) Designation.--Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic 
     Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended--
       (1) by designating the undesignated paragraph relating to 
     the White Salmon River, Washington, following paragraph (166) 
     as paragraph (167); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(168) Eightmile River, Connecticut.--The following 
     segments in the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut, 
     totaling approximately 25.3 miles, to be administered by the 
     Secretary of the Interior:
       ``(A) The 10.8-mile segment of the main stem of the 
     Eightmile River, from Lake Hayward Brook to the Connecticut 
     River at the mouth of Hamburg Cove, as a scenic river.
       ``(B) The 8.0-mile segment of the East Branch of the 
     Eightmile River from Witch Meadow Road to the main stem of 
     the Eightmile River, as a scenic river.
       ``(C) The 3.9-mile segment of Harris Brook from the 
     confluence of an unnamed stream lying 0.74 miles due east of 
     the intersection of Hartford Road (State Route 85) and Round 
     Hill Road to the East Branch of the Eightmile River, as a 
     scenic river.
       ``(D) The 1.9-mile segment of Beaver Brook from Cedar Pond 
     Brook to the main stem of the Eightmile River, as a scenic 
     river.
       ``(E) The 0.7-mile segment of Falls Brook from Tisdale 
     Brook to the main stem of the Eightmile River at Hamburg 
     Cove, as a scenic river.''.
       (d) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the Eightmile 
     River in accordance with the Management Plan and such 
     amendments to the Plan as the Secretary determines to be 
     consistent with this section.
       (2) Management plan.--The Management Plan shall be 
     considered to satisfy each requirement for a comprehensive 
     management plan that is required by section 3(d) of the Wild 
     and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(d)).
       (e) Committee.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     management responsibilities of the Secretary relating to the 
     Eightmile River with the Eightmile River Coordinating 
     Committee, as described in the Management Plan.
       (f) Cooperative Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Pursuant to sections 10(e) and 11(b)(1) of 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1281(e), 
     1282(b)(1)), the Secretary may enter into a cooperative 
     agreement with--
       (A) the State of Connecticut;
       (B) the towns of--
       (i) Salem, Connecticut;
       (ii) Lyme, Connecticut; and
       (iii) East Haddam, Connecticut; and
       (C) appropriate local planning and environmental 
     organizations.
       (2) Consistency with management plan.--Each cooperative 
     agreement authorized by this subsection--
       (A) shall be consistent with the Management Plan; and
       (B) may include provisions for financial or other 
     assistance from the United States.
       (g) Relation to National Park System.--Notwithstanding 
     section 10(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1281(c)), the Eightmile River shall not--
       (1) be administered as part of the National Park System; or
       (2) be subject to laws (including regulations) that govern 
     the National Park System.
       (h) Land Management.--
       (1) Zoning ordinances.--With respect to the Eightmile 
     River, each zoning ordinance adopted by the towns of Salem, 
     East Haddam, and Lyme, Connecticut, in effect as of December 
     8, 2005 (including provisions for conservation of 
     floodplains, wetland and watercourses associated with the 
     segments), shall be considered to satisfy each standard and 
     requirement under section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1277(c)).
       (2) Acquisition of land.--The authority of the Secretary to 
     acquire land for the purpose of managing the Eightmile River 
     as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 
     shall be--
       (A) limited to acquisition--
       (i) by donation; or
       (ii) with the consent of the owner of the land; and
       (B) subject to the additional criteria set forth in the 
     Management Plan.
       (i) Watershed Approach.--
       (1) Statement of policy.--In furtherance of the watershed 
     approach to resource preservation and enhancement articulated 
     in the Management Plan, the tributaries of the Eightmile 
     River watershed specified in paragraph (2) are recognized as 
     integral to the protection and enhancement of the Eightmile 
     River and that watershed.
       (2) Covered tributaries.--The tributaries referred to in 
     paragraph (1) include--
       (A) Beaver Brook;
       (B) Big Brook;
       (C) Burnhams Brook;
       (D) Cedar Pond Brook;
       (E) Cranberry Meadow Brook;
       (F) Early Brook;
       (G) Falls Brook;
       (H) Fraser Brook;
       (I) Harris Brook;
       (J) Hedge Brook Lake Hayward Brook;
       (K) Malt House Brook;
       (L) Muddy Brook;
       (M) Ransom Brook;
       (N) Rattlesnake Ledge Brook;
       (O) Shingle Mill Brook;
       (P) Strongs Brook;
       (Q) Tisdale Brook;
       (R) Witch Meadow Brook; and
       (S) all other perennial streams within the Eightmile River 
     watershed.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Cochran, 
        and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 3724. A bill to enhance scientific research and competitiveness 
through the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I introduce the EPSCoR 
Research and Competitive Act of 2006, and I am proud to have the 
bipartisan support of my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Inouye, Cochran 
and Johnson.
  The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, 
at the National Science Foundation, NSF, is designed to help states 
that historically do not receive much NSF funding to compete more 
effectively for grants. NSF maintains it high standards, but it also 
provides help to States to meet such standards. Such an investment is 
fundamental to help promote our country's competitiveness nationwide. 
Twenty-six States are eligible for the EPSCoR program, and these States 
represent 20 percent of our population, 25 percent of our doctoral and 
research universities, and 18 percent of our academic scientists and 
engineers. The EPSCoR states also represent unique environments for 
scientific research with Hawaii and Alaska having unique features. 
Montana is a major area for paleontology. Six of the top ten energy 
producing States are EPSCoR States. It is common sense to invest in 
building research capacity in our EPSCoR States.
  We also know that EPSCoR works. More than one-half of the researchers 
supported by NSF's EPSCoR program during the first 10 years later were 
successful in competing for non-EPSCoR funding. Also, 75 percent of new 
technology companies started by university research are based in the 
States where the original research was done. To strengthen our research 
and enhance competitiveness EPSCoR is a smart investment.
  Within the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006, is a 
provision authorizing the EPSCoR program at $125 million, and stating 
that EPSCoR funding should increase in

[[Page 15666]]

proportion with the overall NSF budget. This package was marked up by 
the Senate Commerce Committee on May 18, 2006 with bipartisan support.
  Clearly, there is agreement that EPSCoR needs to be part of our 
national strategy for competitiveness. This legislation adds some 
specifics to that goal. The bill proposes that the Research 
Infrastructure Improvements Grant increase to $75 million. It seeks 20 
percent of the EPSCoR budget for the co-funding program, an innovative 
initiative to help encourage each of the NSF directorates to 
collaborate and fund meritorious projects from the EPSCoR States. It 
encourages the NSF Director to develop creative ways to ensure that the 
EPSCoR States are part of the new major initiatives of the foundation, 
including cyber-infrastructure and major research instrumentation.
  West Virginia has truly benefited from the EPSCoR program. Since 
2001, competitive Federal research in West Virginia has risen from 
$35.8 million to $60.1 million which is a 68 percent increase. In 2005 
alone, research created more than $147 million in economic activity and 
supported 4,432 jobs. EPSCoR has also been the catalyst for enhanced 
cooperation between West Virginia's leading universities, West Virginia 
University and Marshall University.
  This legislation will add to the American Innovation and 
Competitiveness Act's goal of promoting competitiveness in the EPSCoR 
States which helps our entire country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 3727. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for an adjustment to the reduction of Medicare resident 
positions based on settled cost reports; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare 
Residency Program Fairness Act of 2006. This bill would provide for an 
adjustment to the reduction of Medicare resident positions based on 
settled cost reports. The reason I am introducing this bill is because 
unintended consequences of Section 422 of the Medicare Modernization 
Act of 2003 have resulted in a decrease of residents slots in 
Wisconsin's Fox Valley and potentially in other small urban and rural 
family medicine practices across the Nation.
  For more than a year, I have been working with the University of 
Wisconsin School of Medicine and the Fox Valley Fami1y Medicine 
Residency Program to urge CMS to restore funding for its residency 
training positions that was taken away as a result of an audit that 
incorrectly determined that the positions were not used. Now, a Final 
Mediation Agreement between Appleton Medical Center and United 
Government Services demonstrates that the positions were being used and 
that the program met the Medicare requirement for those positions. I 
believe it is only fair that Appleton Medical Center's residency 
positions be reinstated.
  The Fox Valley Family Practice Residency Program is an important 
contributing member to the Fox Valley and surrounding community, 
providing health care services to some 10,000 families. This is exactly 
the type of program that we should be supporting, not reducing. My 
legislation will right this wrong and provide for the same opportunity 
for any other small urban or rural program that can demonstrate that 
its residency slots were erroneously de-funded by CMS. I ask that my 
Senate colleagues join me by supporting this 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. 3727

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Residency Program 
     Fairness Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT TO THE REDUCTION OF MEDICARE RESIDENT 
                   POSITIONS BASED ON SETTLED COST REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1886(h)(7) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Adjustment based on settled cost report for rural and 
     small urban hospitals.--In the case of a hospital located in 
     a rural area (as defined in subsection (d)(2)(D)) or in an 
     urban area that is not a large urban area (as so defined) for 
     which--
       ``(i) the otherwise applicable resident limit was reduced 
     under subparagraph (A)(i)(I); and
       ``(ii) such reduction was based on a reference resident 
     level that was determined using a cost report that was 
     subsequently settled, whether as a result of an appeal or 
     otherwise, and the reference resident level under such 
     settled cost report is higher than the level used for the 
     reduction under subparagraph (A)(i)(I);

     the Secretary shall apply subparagraph (A)(i)(I) using the 
     higher resident reference level and make any necessary 
     adjustments to the reduction described in subclause (II). Any 
     such necessary adjustments shall be effective for portions of 
     cost reporting periods occurring on or after July 1, 2005.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     422 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Brownback, 
        Mr. Biden, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Akaka, and Mrs. Dole):
  S. 3728. A bill to promote nuclear nonproliferation in North Korea; 
considered and passed.
  Mr. FRIST. 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. 3728

       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 ``North Korea Nonproliferation 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       (a) In view of --
       (1) North Korea's manifest determination to produce 
     missiles, nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass 
     destruction and to proliferate missiles, in violation of 
     international norms and expectations; and
       (2) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1695, 
     adopted on July 15, 2006, which requires all Member States, 
     in accordance with their national legal authorities and 
     consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and 
     prevent--
       (A) missile and missile-related items, materials, goods, 
     and technology from being transferred to North Korea's 
     missile or weapons of mass destruction programs; and
       (B) the procurement of missiles or missile-related items, 
     materials, goods, and technology from North Korea, and the 
     transfer of any financial resources in relation to North 
     Korea's missile or weapons of mass destruction programs,

     it should be the policy of the United States to impose 
     sanctions on persons who transfer such weapons, and goods and 
     technology related to such weapons, to and from North Korea 
     in the same manner as persons who transfer such items to and 
     from Iran and Syria currently are sanctioned under United 
     States law.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO IRAN AND SYRIA NONPROLIFERATION ACT.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 2 of the Iran and 
     Syria Nonproliferation Act (Public Law 106-178; 50 U.S.C. 
     1701 note) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``, NORTH KOREA,'' after 
     ``IRAN''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Iran, or'' and inserting ``Iran,''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``Syria'' the following: ``, or on 
     or after January 1, 2006, transferred to or acquired from 
     North Korea'' after ``Iran''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, North Korea,'' after 
     ``Iran''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Such Act is further amended--
       (1) in section 1, by inserting ``, North Korea,'' after 
     ``Iran'';
       (2) in section 5(a), by inserting ``, North Korea,'' after 
     ``Iran'' both places it appears; and
       (3) in section 6(b)--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``, North Korea,'' after 
     ``Iran''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, North Korea,'' after ``Iran'' each 
     place it appears.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

       Congress urges all governments to comply promptly with 
     United Nations Security

[[Page 15667]]

     Council Resolution 1695 and to impose measures on persons 
     involved in such proliferation that are similar to those 
     imposed by the United States Government pursuant to the Iran, 
     North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Public Law 106-
     178; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note), as amended by this Act.

                          ____________________