[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5553-5591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 2557. A bill to improve competition in the oil and gas industry, 
to strengthen antitrust enforcement with regard to industry mergers, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am sending to the desk today 
legislation captioned as the ``Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 
2006,'' legislation on behalf of myself and Senator DeWine, Senator 
Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin. The 
Judiciary Committee has held hearings on the escalating price of 
gasoline, which has risen some 25 percent in the past year, from $1.85 
per gallon nationally in January of 2005 to $2.38 a gallon early this 
year.
  We have seen rapid consolidation in the oil and gas industry, with 
many mergers which are specified in the written statement I will have 
included in the Record and enormous profits characterized by the 
profits reported by ExxonMobil, which earned over $36 billion in 2005, 
the largest corporate profit in U.S. history.
  The legislation we are introducing will do a number of things. First, 
it will eliminate the judge-made doctrines that prevent OPEC's members 
from being sued for violating the antitrust laws. There is no doubt 
that they take joint action when deciding how much oil to sell, actions 
would normally constitute unlawful price fixing. This legislation would 
make them subject to our antitrust laws.
  With fewer players in the industry, anticompetitive acts, including 
the withholding of supply and information sharing, become easier. The 
bill would prohibit oil and gas companies from diverting, exporting, or 
refusing to sell existing supplies with the specific intention of 
raising prices.
  The bill also requires the FTC and the Attorney General to consider 
whether future oil and gas mergers should receive closer scrutiny. It 
requires the GAO to evaluate whether the divestitures required by the 
antitrust agencies for past mergers were adequate to preserve 
competition. There is significant evidence that the concentration in 
the industry has been a contributing factor to increasing gasoline and 
oil prices. There are other factors, but it is not explained simply by 
the increase in the cost of crude oil. This bill takes a firm stand to 
protect the American consumer from enormous increases in gasoline 
prices and in oil prices--something very serious when we have 
insufficient funds in LIHEAP to take care of people who are unable to 
pay for the increasing costs of heating oil.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Consolidation in the Oil and Gas Industry: Raising Prices?

       Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce new 
     legislation, the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2005.
       Average gasoline prices nationwide have risen by 25 percent 
     in the past year alone, from $1.85 per gallon in January 2005 
     to $2.38 per gallon at the beginning of this year.
       Prices for heating oil, other petroleum products and 
     natural gas--products that are important to the lives of 
     American consumers--have risen to similar heights.
       While Americans are paying more for the products they use 
     to get to work and heat their homes, the mammoth integrated 
     oil companies that dominate the industry have earned record 
     profits. ExxonMobil reported that it earned over $36 billion 
     in 2,005, the largest corporate profit in U.S. history.
       Although rising crude oil prices are one factor influencing 
     gasoline prices, it is not the only factor. Increased prices 
     simply cannot be entirely explained by higher crude oil 
     prices.
       In a hearing last month and another one next week, the 
     Judiciary Committee is I exploring a likely cause for higher 
     prices--the consolidation that has occurred in the industry 
     over the past decade, and that continues today.
       Over 2,600 mergers have occurred in the U.S. petroleum 
     industry since the 1990s, including transactions involving 
     the largest oil and gas companies in the nation.
       Last summer, the FTC approved Chevron's acquisition of 
     Unocal.
       In 2002, Valero acquired Ultramar Diamond Shamrock and 
     Phillips merged with Conoco.
       The year 2000 saw the merger of British Petroleum and ARCO.
       The largest transaction occurred in 1999 when Exxon merged 
     with Mobil.
       Other transactions included British Petroleum's acquisition 
     of Amoco, Marathon's joint venture with Ashland Petroleum and 
     another joint venture that combined the refining assets of 
     Shell and Texaco.

[[Page 5554]]

       Last month the Department of Justice just approved Conoco-
     Phillips' acquisition of Burlington Resources, a merger that 
     creates the nation's largest natural gas company and the 
     third largest integrated oil company.
       These transactions have resulted in significantly increased 
     concentration in the oil and gas industry, particularly in 
     the downstream refining and wholesale gasoline markets.
       Fewer competitors in a market conveys market power on 
     remaining players, and with it, the opportunity to increase 
     prices. As we have learned in Committee, there is some 
     evidence that consolidation in the industry has increased 
     wholesale gasoline prices.
       Fewer competitors in a market also makes collusion easier. 
     Recent events suggest that increased concentration may be 
     creating a ``collusive environment'' in the industry.
       A number of experts have pointed to limited refinery 
     capacity as a cause for price spikes in recent years. No new 
     refineries have been built in the U.S. for-30 years. While 
     some existing refineries have expanded in recent years, other 
     refineries have closed. From 1998 through 2004, total 
     refinery capacity nationwide grew by less than one percent. 
     Today, U.S. refineries routinely operate at over 90 percent 
     of capacity. Critics have alleged that tacit collusion among 
     industry players has restrained the growth of refinery 
     capacity.
       ExxonMobil and British Petroleum were recently sued by the 
     Alaska Gasoline Port Authority for allegedly conspiring to 
     withhold natural gas from customers who wished to transport 
     the gas via pipeline to an Alaskan port. An agreement between 
     Exxon and British Petroleum not to sell their natural gas to 
     the Alaskan project would violate the antitrust laws.
       The Judiciary Committee has held two hearings this year to 
     consider the effects of concentration in the industry. The 
     most recent hearing in March considered whether concentration 
     had resulted, in increased prices for gasoline, other 
     petroleum-based fuels and natural gas.
       The witnesses at that hearing--two experienced and 
     respected antitrust lawyers, the attorney general of Iowa, an 
     economist from the University of California at Berkeley and 
     the Senior Assistant Attorney General from California--all 
     agreed that there were problems with market power in the 
     industry.
       Most of these witnesses testified that there was a serious 
     problem with tacit coordination and information sharing in 
     the industry made possible by having fewer players in the oil 
     and gas industry. Such conduct unquestionably leads to higher 
     prices.
       Based on the testimony the Committee heard, it is pretty 
     clear that increased concentration in the industry has led to 
     higher prices. In part, the antitrust agencies need to adjust 
     their enforcement posture to reflect existing conditions in 
     the industry, but I believe there is a need for legislation. 
     The Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006, which I am 
     introducing today, would require the antitrust enforcement 
     agencies, as well as the GAO, to take a close look at their 
     past merger enforcement and whether the standard for 
     reviewing mergers should be changed. The original draft of 
     this legislation would have increased the standard of review 
     for mergers in the industry, but we would like to give GAO 
     and the enforcement agencies a chance to look at how the 
     standard should be changed. The legislation:
       Amends the Clayton Act by prohibiting oil and gas companies 
     from diverting, exporting or refusing to sell existing 
     supplies with the specific intention of raising prices or 
     creating a shortage.
       Requires the FTC and the Attorney General to consider 
     whether the standard of review for mergers contained in 
     Section 7 of the Clayton Act needs to be modified for mergers 
     in the oil and gas industry to take into account the 
     concentration that has already occurred in this industry.
       Requires the Government Accountability Office to evaluate 
     whether . divestitures required by the antitrust agencies in 
     oil and gas industry mergers have been effective in restoring 
     competition. Once the study is complete, the antitrust 
     agencies must consider whether any additional steps are 
     necessary to restore competition, including further 
     divestitures or possibly unraveling some mergers.
       Requires the antitrust agencies to establish a joint 
     federal-state task force to examine information sharing and 
     other anticompetitive results of consolidation in the oil and 
     gas industry. Economic studies show that sharing price and 
     production information in a concentrated market will result 
     in increased prices. Oil companies frequently supply each 
     other with gasoline in areas where they have no source of 
     supply through so-called ``exchange agreements.'' Refiners 
     also frequently share terminals and pipelines, which 
     facilitates the exchange of information. These practices 
     alone do not violate the antitrust laws, but parallel conduct 
     in combination with information sharing could be enough to 
     establish a violation of the antitrust laws.
       Eliminates the judge-made doctrines that prevent OPEC 
     members from being sued for violating the antitrust laws by 
     conspiring to fix the price of crude oil.
       It is my hope that this legislation will help reverse the 
     trend toward less competition and higher prices. The 
     cosponsors of this legislation--Senator Kohl, Senator DeWine, 
     Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein--deserve 
     enormous credit for having the courage to take on this issue 
     and for helping to develop this important legislation. I urge 
     other members that are concerned about consolidation in the 
     industry--and about the prices that consumers are paying to 
     drive to work and heat their homes--to support this important 
     legislation.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Specter, 
Kohl, DeWine and others on a new bill, the Oil and Gas Industry 
Antitrust Act of 2006, which includes, as its centerpiece, our NOPEC 
legislation, which many of us have worked together on for years.
  This measure--The No Oil Producing And Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC--
would make OPEC accountable for its anticompetitive behavior and allow 
the Justice Department to crack down on illegal price manipulation by 
oil cartels. It will allow the Federal Government to take legal action 
against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing 
and other anticompetitive activities. The tools this bill would provide 
to law enforcement agencies are necessary to immediately counter OPEC's 
anticompetitive practices, and these tools would help reduce gasoline 
prices now.
  The Congress should pass this measure immediately instead of waiting 
until the price of gasoline at the pump is $4 a gallon. OPEC has 
America over a barrel, and we should fight back. If OPEC were simply a 
foreign business engaged in this type of behavior, it would already be 
subject to American antitrust law. It is wrong to let OPEC producers 
off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the 
seal of approval of this cartel's member nations.
  It is time for the President to join the bipartisan majority in the 
Senate which already said ``NO'' to OPEC by passing NOPEC and by 
sending it to the other body, where it was killed.
  The Senate has already passed this bill, which would make OPEC 
subject to our antitrust laws. In fact, the Judiciary Committee has 
approved the NOPEC bill three times. Regrettably, even though President 
Bush promised in 2000 that he would ``jawbone OPEC,'' the Bush 
administration and its friends in the House have scuttled the NOPEC 
bill and the direct and daily relief it would bring to millions of 
Americans.
  In addition, this bill makes it unlawful to divert petroleum or 
natural gas products from their local market to a distant market with 
the primary intention of increasing prices or creating a shortage in a 
market. This solves a real problem where products are being shipped for 
sale in that market but are later diverted and sold for less in another 
market.
  We have an obligation to address these and other issues caused by oil 
cartels and by greedy companies who have money--that they have 
extracted from the American people--to burn. That is why I am also 
pleased that the bill includes provisions to conduct several studies 
that address serious competition, information sharing, and other 
antitrust problem areas related to the oil and natural gas industries. 
The American people deserve answers, and this bill also provides a path 
to getting those answers.
  Authorizing tough legal action against illegal oil price fixing, and 
taking that action without delay, is one thing we can do without 
additional obstruction or delay.
  The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, not 
the least of whom are hardworking Vermont farmers. The overall increase 
in fuel costs for an average Vermont farmer last year was 43 percent, 
meaning that each farmer is estimated to pay an additional $700 in fuel 
surcharges in 2006 alone. Vermonters know what the terrible 
consequences of these high prices can be: forcing many farmers to make 
unfair choices between running their farms or heating their homes. No 
one should be forced to make these choices, certainly not our hard-
working farmers.
  In summary, this bill will provide law enforcement with the tools 
necessary to fight OPEC's anticompetitive practices immediately, and 
help reduce

[[Page 5555]]

gasoline prices now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and to 
say ``NO'' to OPEC as we have done in the past.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Specter to 
introduce the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006. This 
legislation will make several important and overdue reforms to our 
antitrust laws to give our Federal Government more of the tools it 
needs to take action to combat anti-competitive conduct in the oil and 
gas industry. It will also direct that our antitrust enforcement 
agencies undertake several actions to ensure that they are enforcing 
our current antitrust laws properly.
  We have all seen the suffering felt by consumers and our national 
economy resulting from rising energy prices. Gasoline prices are once 
again on the rise, with the national average price increasing more than 
thirty cents in the last month alone. Many industry experts fear, if 
current trends continue, that last summer's record levels of more than 
three dollars per gallon will be exceeded this coming summer. And 
prices for other crucial energy products--such as natural gas and home 
heating oil--have undergone similar sharp increases. These price 
increases are a silent tax that steals hard earned money away from 
American consumers every time they visit the gas pump and every time 
they raise their thermostat to keep their family warm.
  There is much debate about the causes of these gas prices. The role 
of increasing worldwide demand and supply limitations obviously play a 
role. But our investigation in the Judiciary Committee--including two 
hearings in the last several months--have made plain the facts that 
make many of us suspect that oil and gas markets are not behaving in a 
truly competitive fashion. The GAO has found that there were over 2600 
mergers and acquisitions in the oil industry since 1990, and that these 
mergers have caused the price of gasoline to increase from one to seven 
cents per gallon. Despite a substantial growth in demand, no new 
refineries have been opened in the United States in 25 years. Instead, 
more than half have been closed, so that overall national refining 
capacity declined by more than 9 percent from 1981 to 2004 while demand 
for gasoline rose 37 percent. Many argue that limiting refining 
capacity is actually in the oil companies' interest, as it enables them 
to gain market power over supply to raise price.
  And the oil industry has unquestionably enriched itself during this 
period of high prices. Oil industry profits reached record high levels 
last year, led by Exxon Mobil's record high profits of over $36 
billion. An independent study by the consumers group Public Citizen 
found that U.S. oil refiners increased their profits on each gallon of 
gasoline they refined by 79 percent in the five-year period ending in 
2004. While it is true that the world price of crude oil has 
substantially increased, the fact that the oil companies can so easily 
pass along all of these price increases to consumers of gasoline and 
other refined products--and compound their profits along the way--
demonstrates to many of us that that there is a failure of competition 
in our oil and gas markets.
  Indeed, at our hearing last month, the chief executives of our 
Nation's largest oil companies admitted they had no difficulty in 
passing along crude oil price increases to consumers. Rex Tillerson of 
ExxonMobil forthrightly testified that ``[t]he high price of crude oil 
has been passed ultimately along to the consumer of whatever the 
finished product may be . . . .'' David O'Reilly of Chevron agreed.
  It also seems clear that there has been a failure of our antitrust 
enforcement agencies to take action to restore competition to this 
vital industry. Vigorous antitrust enforcement is essential to restore 
competition to these markets, and it is now time to strengthen our 
antitrust laws to ensure that they are up to the job. This bill that 
Senator Specter and I are introducing today will significantly enhance 
our antitrust laws to ensure that the government has the necessary 
tools to take action to restore competition in this industry, and also 
direct that the government examine its enforcement policy to determine 
if additional changes are needed.
  Our bill has five elements, each essential to strengthening antitrust 
enforcement in the petroleum industry. It contains two important 
changes to existing antitrust law. First, it will amend the Clayton Act 
to prohibit withholding supplies of petroleum, gasoline or any other 
fuel for the primary purpose of increasing prices or creating a 
shortage. This provision will prevent the ability of oil producers and 
refiners to limit supply to manipulate price. Second, it incorporates 
our NOPEC bill--legislation I have introduced each Congress since 
2000--to make the actions of the OPEC oil cartel subject to U.S. 
antitrust law. This provision will, for the first time, establish 
clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like 
the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they 
are violating U.S. law. This provision will authorize the Attorney 
General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress, and will 
remove the protections of sovereign immunity and the act of state 
doctrine from nations that participate in the oil cartel. Our NOPEC 
provision passed the Senate last year as an amendment to the energy 
bill, but was subsequently dropped by the House-Senate Conference 
Committee without explanation. It is past time to pass this much needed 
anti-cartel measure finally into law.
  Our bill also will direct that the antitrust enforcement agencies 
undertake several important actions to promote competition. The first 
two of these measures will address the government's response to the 
huge wave of consolidation in the oil industry. First, the bill will 
direct that the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission conduct 
a study and report their findings to us in nine months, as to whether 
the Clayton Act needs to be amended to ensure that mergers which truly 
lessen competition in the petroleum industry are prohibited. Second, 
the bill directs a study by the GAO to be completed within six months 
to examine whether the consent decrees and divestitures obtained by the 
Justice Department or FTC in the oil industry have been effective in 
protecting competition. The Attorney General and FTC are directed to 
consider additional action be required to restore competition upon 
completion of this report. Finally, the bill directs that the Attorney 
General and FTC Chairman establish a joint Federal-State task force to 
investigate information sharing among companies producing, refining, or 
marketing petroleum, gasoline or any other refined product.
  As Ranking Member on the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe 
that this bill is an important step to reforming our antitrust laws and 
restoring competition to the oil and gas industry. All of us can agree 
that anticompetitive conduct leading to higher prices for gasoline and 
other energy products simply cannot be tolerated. It is essential that 
we give our government the necessary tools to do the job, and I am 
certain our bill is a long overdue measure to do just that.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust 
Act of 2006.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join as a co-sponsor of 
Senator Specter's Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act. This bill should 
help us curb the skyrocketing energy prices that have been an 
increasing burden on our Nation's consumers and businesses. It also 
should help us figure out how we can address these problems in the 
future.
  High fuel costs are affecting every family, whether they are driving 
across town or heating their homes, and we must continue our efforts to 
do something about it. This bill would take immediate steps to help 
decrease possible price manipulation by oil companies and allow 
government enforcement agencies to take action to prevent price-fixing 
by oil producing nations.
  I have been working on this problem for a long time. In fact, Senator 
Kohl and I have worked hard in our Subcommittee on Antitrust, 
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights to encourage FTC monitoring of 
gas prices and

[[Page 5556]]

their careful investigation of oil industry behavior. I believe that 
those efforts have helped limit the fuel price increases; 
unfortunately, we still face enormous problems in this area, and we are 
all paying higher and higher prices for gas and heating oil. So, we 
need to continue our efforts and try some different approaches, and 
this legislation does just that.
  Specifically, this bill calls for the Government Accountability 
Office to undertake a thorough study of the past enforcement actions 
taken by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice in 
prior oil industry merger investigations. This study will provide much-
needed information on how effective the antitrust agencies' actions 
have been in preventing harm to consumers from mergers within the 
petroleum industry. Even more important, this bill also will call on 
the FTC and DOJ to use the findings from that study to examine those 
specific mergers and determine if they need to take further enforcement 
action regarding those deals. In addition, the antitrust agencies will 
utilize this information to take a close look at the petroleum industry 
and to determine whether they require special antitrust rules--
applicable specifically to the oil industry--to give the agencies the 
tools they need to promote competition in the oil industry. This would 
be a very significant step, of course, but it is something they will 
consider.
  Another important provision of this legislation creates a Joint 
Federal and State Task Force to investigate information sharing in the 
oil industry that may lead to artificially high prices for gasoline, 
electricity, and heating oil. The Federal Government and the various 
States have worked very effectively in the past to look into price 
spikes, supply disruptions, and a host of commercial arrangements that 
can harm consumers, and this bill provides a valuable framework for 
continuing and increasing this very effective cooperation.
  Moreover, this bill will put an end to certain types of activities 
that oil companies may use to drive up prices or create shortages for 
all types of fuels. Specifically, this bill makes sure that oil 
companies cannot manipulate prices by refusing to sell their products 
in particular markets or diverting oil products away from American 
shores to artificially create a shortage and pad their profits. I am 
particularly pleased that the bill includes a provision that Senator 
Kohl and I have pursued since 2000--a provision that would make it 
clear that the Antitrust Division can prosecute OPEC for its price-
fixing.
  I believe that some of the provisions of this bill will help right 
away, like limiting the ability of the oil companies to refuse to sell 
petroleum in markets that need it and putting OPEC on notice that they 
can be prosecuted if they violate our laws. These provisions should 
help in the short-term. And, the other provisions, which require 
studies and review of past enforcement actions and analysis of possible 
changes in the antitrust laws, may help us address this problem in the 
long-run.
  This bill will make a difference and help consumers. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to join in support of its passage.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Specter, 
Kohl, DeWine and others on a new bill, the Oil and Gas Industry 
Antitrust Act of 2006, which includes, as its centerpiece, our NOPEC 
legislation, which many of us have worked together on for years.
  This measure--The No Oil Producing And Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC--
would make OPEC accountable for its anticompetitive behavior and allow 
the Justice Department to crack down on illegal price manipulation by 
oil cartels. It will allow the Federal Government to take legal action 
against any foreign state, including members of OPEC, for price fixing 
and other anticompetitive activities. The tools this bill would provide 
to law enforcement agencies are necessary to immediately counter OPEC's 
anticompetitive practices, and these tools would help reduce gasoline 
prices now.
  The Congress should pass this measure immediately instead of waiting 
until the price of gasoline at the pump is $4 a gallon. OPEC has 
America over a barrel, and we should fight back. If OPEC were simply a 
foreign business engaged in this type of behavior, it would already be 
subject to American antitrust law. It is wrong to let OPEC producers 
off the hook just because their anticompetitive practices come with the 
seal of approval of this cartel's member nations.
  It is time for the President to join the bipartisan majority in the 
Senate which already said ``NO'' to OPEC by passing NOPEC and by 
sending it to the other body, where it was killed.
  The Senate has already passed this bill, which would make OPEC 
subject to our antitrust laws. In fact, the Judiciary Committee has 
approved the NOPEC bill three times. Regrettably, even though President 
Bush promised in 2000 that he would ``jawbone OPEC,'' the Bush 
administration and its friends in the House have scuttled the NOPEC 
bill and the direct and daily relief it would bring to millions of 
Americans.
  In addition, this bill makes it unlawful to divert petroleum or 
natural gas products from their local market to a distant market with 
the primary intention of increasing prices or creating a shortage in a 
market. This solves a real problem where products are being shipped for 
sale in that market but are later diverted and sold for less in another 
market.
  We have an obligation to address these and other issues caused by oil 
cartels and by greedy companies who have money--that they have 
extracted from the American people--to burn. That is why I am also 
pleased that the bill includes provisions to conduct several studies 
that address serious competition, information sharing, and other 
antitrust problem areas related to the oil and natural gas industries. 
The American people deserve answers, and this bill also provides a path 
to getting those answers.
  Authorizing tough legal action against illegal oil price fixing, and 
taking that action without delay, is one thing we can do without 
additional obstruction or delay.
  The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, not 
the least of whom are hardworking Vermont farmers. The overall increase 
in fuel costs for an average Vermont farmer last year was 43 percent, 
meaning that each farmer is estimated to pay an additional $700 in fuel 
surcharges in 2006 alone. Vermonters know what the terrible 
consequences of these high prices can be: forcing many farmers to make 
unfair choices between running their farms or heating their homes. No 
one should be forced to make these choices, certainly not our hard-
working farmers.
  In summary, this bill will provide law enforcement with the tools 
necessary to fight OPEC's anticompetitive practices immediately, and 
help reduce gasoline prices now. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill, and to say ``NO'' to OPEC as we have done in the past.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 2559. A bill to make it illegal for anyone to defraud and deprive 
the American people of the right to the honest services of a Member of 
Congress and to instill greater public confidence in the United States 
Congress; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Honest 
Services Act of 2006,''--a bill to provide new tools for Federal 
prosecutors to combat public corruption in our government. The purpose 
of this bill is to strengthen the tools available to Federal 
prosecutors to combat public corruption. This bill articulates more 
clearly for lobbyists, members of Congress, and Congressional staff the 
line that cannot be crossed regarding links between gifts or special 
favors and official acts, without incurring criminal liability.
  Just recently, the Senate passed the Legislative Transparency and 
Accountability Act of 2006, S. 2349--the first lobbying reform bill in 
Congress in over a decade. I voted for the lobbying reform bill and I 
believe that this legislation takes an important step toward restoring 
the public's confidence in Congress.

[[Page 5557]]

  I was disappointed, however, that I did not have an opportunity to 
offer the bill that I now propose as an amendment to the lobbying 
reform bill because cloture was invoked very early in the floor debate. 
My amendment would have offered an important and needed new dimension 
to the lobbying reform bill by strengthening our criminal public 
corruption laws.
  Although it is certainly important to have high ethical standards 
within Congress and more transparency in the lobbying process, vigorous 
enforcement of our Federal public corruption laws is also an important 
component of this effort to restore public confidence in government. 
Indeed, it was only with the indictments of Jack Abramoff, Michael 
Scanlon, and Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham that Congress took note of the 
serious ethics scandals that have grown over the last years. If we are 
serious about restoring public confidence in Congress, we need to do 
more than just reform the lobbying disclosure laws and ethics rules. 
Congress must send a signal that it will not tolerate this type of 
public corruption by providing better tools Federal prosecutors to 
combat it.
  This bill will do exactly that. The bill creates a better legal 
framework for combating public corruption than currently exists under 
our criminal laws. It specifies the crime of Honest Services Fraud 
Involving Members of Congress and prohibits defrauding or depriving the 
American people of the honest services of their elected 
representatives.
  Under this bill, lobbyists who improperly seek to influence 
legislation and other official matters by giving expensive gifts, 
lavish entertainment and travel, and inside advice on investments to 
Members of Congress and their staff would be held criminally liable for 
their actions. The law also prohibits Members of Congress and their 
staff from accepting these types of gifts and favors, or holding hidden 
financial interests, in return for being influenced in carrying out 
their official duties. Violators are subject to a criminal fine and up 
to 20 years imprisonment, or both.
  This legislation strengthens the tools available to Federal 
prosecutors to combat public corruption, by removing some of the legal 
hurdles to public corruption prosecutions. Under current law, Federal 
prosecutors often have great difficulty bringing public corruption 
cases because it is difficult to prove a specific quid pro quo under 
the Federal bribery statute. In addition, the current honest services 
fraud statute--18 U.S.C. 1346--requires that prosecutors must also show 
that misconduct occurred via the mail or wire, even when there is clear 
evidence of an improper link between gifts and an official act. My bill 
makes it possible for Federal prosecutors to bring public corruption 
cases without having to first overcome these hurdles.
  The bill also provides lobbyists, Members of Congress, and other 
individuals with much-needed notice and clarification as to what kind 
of conduct triggers this criminal offense. For much of the 20th 
Century, honest services fraud was a common law offense which courts 
read into the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. In 1987, the 
Supreme Court invalidated this common law concept in the case of 
McNally v. United States. In response to the McNally case, Congress 
subsequently added an honest services mail and wire fraud statute--18 
U.S.C. 1346--to the Federal criminal code. Section 1346 has been 
regularly relied upon by prosecutors in public corruption cases ever 
since. However, that provision is often criticized for being too vague 
or for failing to give public officials sufficient notice about what 
type of conduct is covered by the statute. Courts have also disagreed 
about exactly what this statute means. My bill will help to resolve the 
confusion about honest services fraud in the legislative context, by 
setting out a well-defined honest services fraud offense for violations 
involving Members of Congress. In addition, the bill's intent 
requirements ensure that corrupt conduct can be appropriately 
prosecuted, but that innocuous actions will not be inappropriately 
targeted.
  Lastly, my bill authorizes $25 million in additional federal funds 
over each of the next four years to give federal prosecutors needed 
resources to investigate public corruption. According to the FBI's 
2004-2009 Strategic Plan, reducing public corruption in our country's 
Federal, State, and local governments is one of the FBI's top 
investigative priorities--behind only terrorism, espionage, and cyber 
crimes. However, an August 2005 report by the Department of Justice's 
Inspector General, found that, since 2000, there has been an overall 
reduction in the number of public corruption matters investigated by 
the FBI. That report noted that, in 2004, the FBI referred 63 fewer 
public corruption cases to the United States Attorney's offices across 
the Nation than it referred in 2000. My bill will give the FBI and the 
Public Integrity Section within the Department of Justice new resources 
to hire additional public corruption investigators and public 
corruption prosecutors.
  If we are serious about addressing the egregious misconduct that we 
have recently witnessed, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to 
strengthen our public corruption laws and give investigators and 
prosecutors the resources they need to enforce these laws.
  The unfolding public corruption investigations involving lobbyist 
Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham 
demonstrate that unethical conduct by public officials has broad 
ranging impact. Just last month, the Washington Post reported that, as 
an outgrowth of the Cunningham investigation, federal investigators and 
the Pentagon are now looking into contracts awarded by the Pentagon's 
new intelligence agency--the Counterintelligence Field Activity--to 
MZM, Inc., a company run by Mitchell J. Wade, who recently pleaded 
guilty to conspiring to bribe Mr. Cunningham. The Cunningham case 
demonstrates that our democracy and national security depend upon a 
healthy, efficient, and ethical government.
  The American people expect--and deserve--to be confident that their 
representatives in Congress perform their legislative duties in a 
manner that is beyond reproach and that is in the public interest.
  Because I strongly believe that Congress must do more to restore the 
public's trust in their Congress, I urge all Senators to support 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. 2559

       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 ``Honest Services Act of 
     2006''.

     SEC. 2. HONEST SERVICES FRAUD INVOLVING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1351. Honest services fraud involving members of 
       Congress

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly and willfully 
     executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice to 
     defraud and deprive the United States, the Congress, or the 
     constituents of a Member of Congress, of the right to the 
     honest services of a Member of Congress by--
       ``(1) offering and providing to a Member of Congress, or an 
     employee of a Member of Congress, anything of value or a 
     series of things of value, with the intent to influence the 
     performance an official act or series of official acts; or
       ``(2) being a Member of Congress, or an employee of a 
     Member of Congress, accepting anything of value or a series 
     of things of value or holding an undisclosed financial 
     interest, with the intent to be influenced in performing an 
     official act or series of official acts;

     shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 
     20 years, or both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Honest services.--The term `honest services' includes 
     the right to conscientious, loyal, faithful, disinterested, 
     and unbiased service, to be performed free of deceit, undue 
     influence, conflict of interest, self-enrichment, self-
     dealing, concealment, bribery, fraud, and corruption.
       ``(2) Official act.--The term `official act'--

[[Page 5558]]

       ``(A) has the meaning given that term in section 201(a)(3) 
     of this title; and
       ``(B) includes supporting and passing legislation, placing 
     a statement in the Congressional Record, participating in a 
     meeting, conducting hearings, or advancing or advocating for 
     an application to obtain a contract with the United States 
     Government.
       ``(3) Undisclosed financial interest.--The term 
     `undisclosed financial interest' includes any financial 
     interest not disclosed as required by statute or by the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate.
       ``(c) No Inference and Scope.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to--
       ``(1) create any inference with respect to whether the 
     conduct described in section 1351 of this title was already a 
     criminal or civil offense prior to the enactment of this 
     section; or
       ``(2) limit the scope of any existing criminal or civil 
     offense.''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 63 
     of title 18, United States Code is amended by adding at the 
     end, the following:

``1351. Honest services fraud involving Members of Congress.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO INVESTIGATE 
                   AND PROSECUTE HONEST SERVICES FRAUD, BRIBERY, 
                   GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OFFENSES.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Justice, including the Public Integrity Section of the 
     Criminal Division, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, 
     $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, 
     and 2010, to increase the number of personnel to investigate 
     and prosecute violations of section 1351 and sections 201, 
     203 through 209, 1001, 1341, 1343, and 1346 of title 18, 
     United States Code, as amended by this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, 
        and Mr. Levin):
  S. 2560. A bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I further introduce the reauthorization 
for the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act of 2006. Senators 
Hatch, Biden, and Grassley have worked with me on this issue. This is 
the office to establish our drug policy. Since 2001, according to the 
ONDCP--the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the combined use of 
illicit drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders has decreased by some 19 
percent. We have seen a serious problem with methamphetamine. This 
agency is very important to carry out the administration's policy to 
try to reduce drug usage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement 
be printed in the Record.

   Introductory Statement--``Office of National Drug Control Policy 
                     Reauthorization Act of 2006''

       Mr. President, to reiterate I seek recognition today to 
     introduce the ``Office of National Drug Control Policy 
     Reauthorization Act of 2006'' and ask for the support of my 
     colleagues for this important legislation concerning the war 
     on illegal drugs.
       This bill re-authorizes the Office of National Drug Control 
     Policy--(``ONDCP'')--the Administration's office responsible 
     for establishing policy and objectives to reduce illicit drug 
     use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and 
     violence, and drug-related health consequences. Senators 
     Biden, Hatch and Grassley have worked diligently with me in 
     crafting this bill to provide authorization for ONDCP and its 
     programs, and maintain a high level of Congressional 
     oversight. I appreciate their consistent leadership.
       Since 2001, according to ONDCP, the combined use of illicit 
     drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders has decreased 19 
     percent. This amounts to roughly 700,000 students who are not 
     using drugs. ONDCP has prepared a National Drug Control 
     Strategy that seeks to build on this progress and attain the 
     President's goal of a 25 percent reduction in 5 years. I want 
     to see the President's 25 percent reduction goal become a 
     reality, and this bill will assist the Administration meet 
     this objective.
       Drug use and abuse--particularly among our youth--has a 
     profoundly negative impact that spreads among our society 
     like ripples made in water. Drug use leads to increased crime 
     and violence, lowers educational standards, and has a 
     destructive impact on the family unit. We need to take 
     affirmative steps to provide the Executive Branch with the 
     tools it needs to confront the problem of drugs and the 
     negative consequences that follow from their abuse. This bill 
     seeks to do just that.
       We have seen over the last few years an epidemic involving 
     the abuse of methamphetamine--a highly addictive drug that 
     has been particularly damaging to our youth. This is a drug 
     that can be cooked in low-tech labs with ingredients that can 
     be purchased at most convenience stores. As a result, we 
     included in the USA Patriot Act--which was recently signed 
     into law--provisions that: (1) restrict the sale and 
     distribution of chemical ingredients that make 
     methamphetamine; (2 ) provides critical resources to state 
     and local law enforcement; and (3) enhances international law 
     enforcement of methamphetamine trafficking. Congress 
     affirmatively responded to this problem and acted by passing 
     the Combat Meth Act. We seek to continue these efforts with 
     this legislation.
       Once again, the President's 2007 budget seeks to shift 
     funding of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA's) 
     from ONDCP to the Department of Justice as a separate entity 
     within the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force--
     (OCDETF). The HIDTA program was created by Congress to exist 
     within ONDCP, and has successfully grown from 5 HIDTA's in 
     1990 to 28 HIDTA's that currently exist across the United 
     States. HIDTA's enhance and coordinate drug control efforts 
     among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and 
     provides agencies with equipment, technology, and additional 
     resources to combat drug trafficking and their harmful 
     consequences in critical regions of the United States. This 
     bill keeps the HIDTA program within ONDCP where Congress 
     intended it to remain.
       I am hopeful the provisions in this bill meet the goals set 
     by the President and reduce the overall use and abuse of 
     illegal drugs in our country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 2561. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make 
available cost-shared grants and enter into cooperative agreements to 
further the goals of the Water 2025 Program by improving water 
conservation, efficiency, and management in the Reclamation States, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, an excerpt from John Steinbeck's classic 
The Grapes of Wrath recounting the conditions preceding the great Dust 
Bowl is eerily similar to the conditions currently faced by the 
Southwestern United States. ``The sky grew pale and the clouds that had 
hung in high puffs for so long in the spring were dissipated. The sun 
flared down on the growing corn each day until a line of brown spread 
along the edge of each green bayonet. The clouds appeared, and went 
away, and in a while they did not try any more. The weeds grew darker 
green to protect themselves, and they did not spread any more. The 
surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust, and as the sky became 
pale, so the earth became pale, pink in the red country and white in 
the gray country . . . Every moving thing lifted the dust into the air. 
. . . The dust was long in settling back again.''
  As of April 5, 2006, statistics provided by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Department of 
Agriculture indicate that my home State of New Mexico is facing one of 
the worst droughts in the past 100 years. Historic snow pack data 
indicates the 2005-2006 snow season is the worst in more than 50 years. 
Several river basins in New Mexico, including the Rio Hondo and Mimbres 
river basins currently have no snow pack. This fact is particularly 
troubling when one considers that we rely on spring run-off for our 
surface water. Moreover, lack of snow pack indicates that our 
reservoirs, already depleted after years of drought, will remain at 
alarmingly low levels. According to the NRCS, ``Record low snow packs 
in several of the major basins have water managers scratching their 
heads, wondering how best to manage the water resource, with no real 
hopes of realizing any significant runoff to refill the reservoirs.'' 
These facts, taken together, are particularly ominous.
  Unseasonably warm temperatures in New Mexico have resulted in the 
start of the runoff season in early March, something that usually 
starts in middle to late April. The early beginning of the run-off 
season will be particularly damaging to the agriculture industry which 
relies on spring run-off for irrigation during the early growing 
season. The lack of precipitation will also be devastating to our 
ranchers and dairymen. Because drought has hindered local production of 
hay, it has to be hauled from great distances. As a result, hay is 
approximately twice as expensive as usual, placing a great economic 
strain on the ranching and dairy industries. I fully anticipate that 
the

[[Page 5559]]

drought will interrupt municipal water service. Although early in the 
year, the Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico has contacted my office 
seeking emergency Federal assistance to address looming water 
shortages. In addition, numerous New Mexico communities are under 
severe water restrictions.
  The current drought illustrates how perilously close we are coming to 
having serious and widespread water shortages and the need to make more 
efficient use of the water we do have. The competing demands of 
agriculture, industry, municipalities and environmental needs have 
placed an enormous strain on available supplies of water. This is 
particularly true with respect to our interstate rivers that are 
governed by compacts. These interstate agreements require that a 
certain amount of water be delivered to downstream States. Meanwhile, 
enormous amounts of water are lost because of antiquated water 
infrastructure. In many instances, relatively cheap water 
infrastructure upgrades can minimize water losses. For example, by 
lining dirt canals, large amount of water can be saved that otherwise 
would have been lost to seepage. For the past 3 years, Congress has 
made available efficiency and conservation grants through the 
Administration's Water 2025 program. The goal of this program is to 
make more water available in water-short river systems through 
infrastructure conservation and efficiency upgrades. The bill I 
introduce today would authorize the Water 2025 program. While not a 
panacea to our water woes, I believe that this legislation will help us 
maximize the water available to us during times of drought.
  I would like to thank Representative Heather Wilson, our 
Congresswoman from the First Congressional District of New Mexico for 
introducing the House companion to this measure. She fully appreciates 
the breadth of this problem and I look forward to working with her on 
this critically important issue.
  Ensuring adequate water supplies for the Southwestern United States 
is as important a matter as any I can contemplate. As Chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over 
this legislation, I assure it will receive prompt Committee 
consideration.
  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. 2561

       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 ``Bureau of Reclamation Water 
     Conservation, Efficiency, and Management Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Non-federal entity.--The term ``non-Federal entity'' 
     means a State, Indian tribe, irrigation district, water 
     district, or any other organization with water delivery 
     authority.
       (2) Reclamation state.--The term ``Reclamation State'' 
     means each of the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, 
     Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North 
     Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 
     Washington, and Wyoming.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may, in accordance with the 
     criteria published under subsection (b), provide grants to, 
     and enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal 
     entities to pay the Federal share of the cost of a project to 
     plan, design, construct, or otherwise implement improvements 
     to conserve water, increase water use efficiency, facilitate 
     water markets, enhance water management, or implement other 
     actions to prevent water-related crises or conflicts in 
     watersheds that have a nexus to Federal water projects within 
     the Reclamation States.
       (b) Eligibility Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, consistent with 
     this Act, publish in the Federal Register criteria developed 
     by the Secretary for--
       (A) determining the eligibility of a non-Federal entity for 
     assistance under subsection (a); and
       (B) prioritizing requests for assistance under subsection 
     (a).
       (2) Factors.--The criteria developed under paragraph (1) 
     shall take into account such factors as--
       (A) the extent to which a project under subsection (a) 
     would reduce conflict over water;
       (B) the extent to which a project under subsection (a) 
     would--
       (i) increase water use efficiency; or
       (ii) enhance water management;
       (C) the extent to which unallocated water is available in 
     the area in which a project under subsection (a) is proposed 
     to be conducted;
       (D) the extent to which a project under subsection (a) 
     involves water marketing;
       (E) the likelihood that the benefit of a project under 
     subsection (a) would be attained;
       (F) whether the non-Federal entity has demonstrated the 
     ability of the non-Federal entity to pay the non-Federal 
     share;
       (G) the extent to which the assistance provided under 
     subsection (a) is reasonable for the work proposed under the 
     project;
       (H) the involvement of the non-Federal entity and 
     stakeholders in a project under subsection (a);
       (I) whether a project under subsection (a) is related to a 
     Bureau of Reclamation project or facility; and
       (J) the extent to which a project under subsection (a) 
     would conserve water.
       (c) Federal Facilities.--If a grant or cooperative 
     agreement under subsection (a) provides for improvements to a 
     Federal facility--
       (1) the Federal funds provided under the grant or 
     cooperative agreement may be--
       (A) provided on a nonreimbursable basis to an entity 
     operating affected transferred works; or
       (B) determined to be nonreimbursable for non-transferred 
     works; and
       (2) title to the improvements to the Federal facility shall 
     be held by the United States.
       (d) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out a project assisted under subsection (a) shall be 
     not more than 50 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--In calculating the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out a project under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary--
       (A) may include any in-kind contributions that the 
     Secretary determines would materially contribute to the 
     completion of proposed project; and
       (B) shall exclude any funds received from other Federal 
     agencies.
       (e) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--The non-Federal share 
     of the cost of operating and maintaining improvements 
     assisted under subsection (a) shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Mutual Benefit.--Grants or cooperative agreements made 
     under this section or section 4 may be for the mutual benefit 
     of the United States and the entity that is provided the 
     grant or enters into the cooperative agreement.
       (g) Liability.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     United States shall not be liable under Federal or State law 
     for monetary damages of any kind arising out of any act, 
     omission, or occurrence relating to any non-Federal facility 
     constructed or improved under this Act.
       (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the United 
     States may be held liable for damages to non-Federal 
     facilities caused by acts of negligence committed by the 
     United States or by an employee or agent of the United 
     States.
       (3) No additional liability.--Nothing in this section 
     increases the liability of the United States beyond that 
     provided in chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code 
     (commonly known as the ``Federal Torts Claim Act'').

     SEC. 4. RESEARCH AGREEMENTS.

       The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with 
     institutions of higher education, nonprofit research 
     institutions, or organizations with water or power delivery 
     authority to fund research to conserve water, increase water 
     use efficiency, or enhance water management under such terms 
     and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

     SEC. 5. EFFECT.

       Nothing in this Act--
       (1) affects any existing project-specific funding 
     authority; or
       (2) invalidates, preempts, or creates any exception to 
     State water law, State water rights, or any interstate 
     compact governing water.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 2562. A bill to increase, effective as of December 1, 2006, the 
rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities 
and the rates of

[[Page 5560]]

dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain 
disabled veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I join Senator Akaka in introducing 
legislation that would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to the rates 
of disability compensation provided to our Nation's disabled veterans 
and to the compensation provided to survivors of veterans and 
servicemembers who died, or who will die, as a result of military 
service. Every year since 1976 Congress has enacted an annual COLA 
adjustment for veterans with disabilities and survivors. The regularity 
of Congress's action on COLA legislation underscores its importance. 
Without it, inflation would erode the purchasing power of millions of 
beneficiaries.
  According to its fiscal year 2007 budget, VA estimates that it will 
provide disability compensation to 2,867,013 veterans with service-
connected disabilities in the upcoming fiscal year. Among the veterans 
estimated to receive such compensation are 5 World War I veterans; 
335,180 World War II veterans; 160,889 Korean-conflict veterans; 
992,360 Vietnam-era veterans; and 762,230 veterans of the Persian Gulf 
war era. The COLA legislation will also benefit an estimated 348,479 
survivors.
  The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that inflation, at 
the close of this fiscal year, will be at 2.2 percent as measured by 
the consumer price index published by the Department of Labor's Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. Once the actual inflation level is known, this 
legislation would adjust payment rates in effect on November 30, 2006, 
and be applied to payments made to veterans and survivors effective 
December 1, 2006. CBO also estimates that the legislation will increase 
direct spending by $530 million in fiscal year 2007. Again, because of 
the importance accorded to annual COLA legislation, all of this 
spending is assumed in the budget baseline and, thus, requires no 
offset.
  In summary, this legislation is critical to the lives of over 3 
million beneficiaries who have served our country well and faithfully. 
I ask my colleagues for their continued support for our nation's 
veterans. And I ask for their support of the Veterans' Compensation 
Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 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. 2562

       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 ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-
     of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN RATES OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND 
                   DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

       (a) Rate Adjustment.--Effective on December 1, 2006, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase, in accordance 
     with subsection (c), the dollar amounts in effect on November 
     30, 2006, for the payment of disability compensation and 
     dependency and indemnity compensation under the provisions 
     specified in subsection (b).
       (b) Amounts to Be Increased.--The dollar amounts to be 
     increased pursuant to subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Wartime disability compensation.--Each of the dollar 
     amounts under section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
       (2) Additional compensation for dependents.--Each of the 
     dollar amounts under sections 1115(1) of such title.
       (3) Clothing allowance.--The dollar amount under section 
     1162 of such title.
       (4) Dependency and indemnity compensation to surviving 
     spouse.--Each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a) 
     through (d) of section 1311 of such title.
       (5) Dependency and indemnity compensation to children.--
     Each of the dollar amounts under sections 1313(a) and 1314 of 
     such title.
       (c) Determination of Increase.--
       (1) Percentage.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     dollar amount described in subsection (b) shall be increased 
     by the same percentage as the percentage by which benefit 
     amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 2006, 
     as a result of a determination under section 215(i) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)).
       (2) Rounding.--Each dollar amount increased under paragraph 
     (1), if not a whole dollar amount, shall be rounded to the 
     next lower whole dollar amount.
       (d) Special Rule.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may 
     adjust administratively, consistent with the increases made 
     under subsection (a), the rates of disability compensation 
     payable to persons under section 10 of Public Law 85-857 (72 
     Stat. 1263) who have not received compensation under chapter 
     11 of title 38, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. PUBLICATION OF ADJUSTED RATES.

       The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall publish in the 
     Federal Register the amounts specified in section 2(b), as 
     increased under that section, not later than the date on 
     which the matters specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) are required to 
     be published by reason of a determination made under section 
     215(i) of such Act during fiscal year 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Talent):
  S. 2563. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
require prompt payment to pharmacies under part D, to restrict pharmacy 
co-branding on prescription drug cards issued under such part, and to 
provide guidelines for Medication Therapy Management Services programs 
offered by prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans under such part; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, The Medicare prescription drug plan is a 
tremendous success with more than 27 million Medicare beneficiaries now 
enrolled in the program. Seniors are realizing significant decreases in 
the cost of their prescription drugs and the savings are even greater 
than expected. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and 
health care providers worked together to plan and implement this 
program. In particular, community pharmacists played an important role 
in making this benefit successful. Prior to the January 1 start of the 
program, pharmacists assisted their Medicare patients in the selection 
and enrollment process. This process was new and challenging, but 
pharmacists were diligent in serving their patients and providing much-
needed medications while the program became functional.
  We are introducing a bill today to assist pharmacists as they 
continue to serve their patients and as they help to continue the 
success of the Medicare drug benefit. This bill will allow pharmacists 
to achieve efficiencies in reimbursement for the products they have 
provided to new beneficiaries. This is especially needed by small, 
rural independent pharmacies. This legislation will also provide 
incentives for pharmacists and other providers to help beneficiaries 
better utilize their medications, adhere to their drug regimens, and 
utilize cost saving medication therapy management programs.
  I am pleased to offer this legislation that will help continue the 
success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  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. 2563

       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 ``Pharmacist Access and 
     Recognition in Medicare (PhARM) Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. PROMPT PAYMENT BY PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS AND MA-PD 
                   PLANS UNDER PART D.

       (a) Prompt Payment by Prescription Drug Plans.--Section 
     1860D-12(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     112(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Prompt payment of clean claims.--
       ``(A) Prompt payment.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each contract entered into with a PDP 
     sponsor under this section with respect to a prescription 
     drug plan offered by such sponsor shall provide that payment 
     shall be issued, mailed, or otherwise transmitted with 
     respect to all clean claims submitted under this part within 
     the applicable number of calendar days after the date on 
     which the claim is received.
       ``(ii) Clean claim defined.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `clean claim' means a claim that has no apparent defect or 
     impropriety (including any lack of any required 
     substantiating documentation) or particular circumstance 
     requiring special treatment that prevents timely payment from 
     being made on the claim under this part.

[[Page 5561]]

       ``(B) Applicable number of calendar days defined.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `applicable number of calendar days' 
     means--
       ``(i) with respect to claims submitted electronically, 14 
     days; and
       ``(ii) with respect to claims submitted otherwise, 30 days.
       ``(C) Interest payment.--If payment is not issued, mailed, 
     or otherwise transmitted within the applicable number of 
     calendar days (as defined in subparagraph (B)) after a clean 
     claim is received, interest shall be paid at a rate used for 
     purposes of section 3902(a) of title 31, United States Code 
     (relating to interest penalties for failure to make prompt 
     payments), for the period beginning on the day after the 
     required payment date and ending on the date on which payment 
     is made.
       ``(D) Procedures involving claims.--
       ``(i) In general.--A contract entered into with a PDP 
     sponsor under this section with respect to a prescription 
     drug plan offered by such sponsor shall provide that, not 
     later than 10 days after the date on which a clean claim is 
     submitted, the PDP sponsor shall provide the claimant with a 
     notice that acknowledges receipt of the claim by such 
     sponsor. Such notice shall be considered to have been 
     provided on the date on which the notice is mailed or 
     electronically transferred.
       ``(ii) Claim deemed to be clean.--A claim is deemed to be a 
     clean claim if the PDP sponsor involved does not provide 
     notice to the claimant of any deficiency in the claim within 
     10 days of the date on which the claim is submitted.
       ``(iii) Claim determined to not be a clean claim.--

       ``(I) In general.--If a PDP sponsor determines that a 
     submitted claim is not a clean claim, the PDP sponsor shall, 
     not later than the end of the period described in clause 
     (ii), notify the claimant of such determination. Such 
     notification shall specify all defects or improprieties in 
     the claim and shall list all additional information or 
     documents necessary for the proper processing and payment of 
     the claim.
       ``(II) Determination after submission of additional 
     information.--A claim is deemed to be a clean claim under 
     this paragraph if the PDP sponsor involved does not provide 
     notice to the claimant of any defect or impropriety in the 
     claim within 10 days of the date on which additional 
     information is received under subclause (I).
       ``(III) Payment of clean portion of a claim.--A PDP sponsor 
     shall pay any portion of a claim that would be a clean claim 
     but for a defect or impropriety in a separate portion of the 
     claim in accordance with subparagraph (A).

       ``(iv) Obligation to pay.--A claim submitted to a PDP 
     sponsor that is not paid or contested by the provider within 
     the applicable number of days (as defined in subparagraph 
     (B)) shall be deemed to be a clean claim and shall be paid by 
     the PDP sponsor in accordance with subparagraph (A).
       ``(v) Date of payment of claim.--Payment of a clean claim 
     under such subparagraph is considered to have been made on 
     the date on which full payment is received by the provider.
       ``(E) Electronic transfer of funds.--A PDP sponsor shall 
     pay all clean claims submitted electronically by electronic 
     transfer of funds.''.
       (b) Prompt Payment by MA-PD Plans.--Section 1857(f) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27(f)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Incorporation of certain prescription drug plan 
     contract requirements.--The provisions of section 1860D-
     12(b)(4) shall apply to contracts with a Medicare Advantage 
     organization in the same manner as they apply to contracts 
     with a PDP sponsor offering a prescription drug plan under 
     part D.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after 
     the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 3. RESTRICTION ON PHARMACY CO-BRANDING ON MEDICARE 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUG CARDS ISSUED BY PRESCRIPTION 
                   DRUG PLANS AND MA-PD PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1860D-4 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395w-104) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking ``The PDP 
     sponsor'' and inserting ``Subject to subsection (l), the PDP 
     sponsor''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Co-Branding Prohibited.--A card that is issued under 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) for use under a prescription drug plan 
     offered by a PDP sponsor shall not display the name, brand, 
     or trademark of any pharmacy.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to cards distributed on or after the date that is 
     90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. PROVISION OF MEDICATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES 
                   UNDER PART D.

       (a) Provision of Medication Therapy Management Services 
     Under Part D.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1860D-4(c)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C.1395w-104(c)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i)--

       (I) by inserting ``or other health care provider with 
     advanced training in medication management'' after 
     ``furnished by a pharmacist''; and
       (II) by striking ``targeted beneficiaries described in 
     clause (ii)'' and inserting ``targeted beneficiaries 
     specified under clause (ii)''

       (ii) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Targeted beneficiaries.--The Secretary shall specify 
     the population of part D eligible individuals appropriate for 
     services under a medication therapy management program based 
     on the following characteristics:

       ``(I) Having a disease state in which evidence-based 
     medicine has demonstrated the benefit of medication therapy 
     management intervention based on objective outcome measures.
       ``(II) Taking multiple covered part D drugs or having a 
     disease state in which a complex combination medication 
     regimen is utilized.
       ``(III) Being identified as likely to incur annual costs 
     for covered part D drugs that exceed a level specified by the 
     Secretary or where acute or chronic decompensation of disease 
     would likely increase expenditures under the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal Supplementary Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund under sections 1817 and 1841, 
     respectively, such as through the requirement of emergency 
     care or acute hospitalization.'';

       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Elements.--
       ``(i) Minimum defined package of services.--The Secretary 
     shall specify a minimum defined package of medication therapy 
     management services that shall be provided to each enrollee. 
     Such package shall be based on the following considerations:

       ``(I) Performing necessary assessments of the health status 
     of each enrollee.
       ``(II) Providing medication therapy review to identify, 
     resolve, and prevent medication-related problems, including 
     adverse events.
       ``(III) Increasing enrollee understanding to promote the 
     appropriate use of medications by enrollees and to reduce the 
     risk of potential adverse events associated with medications, 
     through beneficiary and family education, counseling, and 
     other appropriate means.
       ``(IV) Increasing enrollee adherence with prescription 
     medication regimens through medication refill reminders, 
     special packaging, and other compliance programs and other 
     appropriate means.
       ``(V) Promoting detection of adverse drug events and 
     patterns of overuse and underuse of prescription drugs.
       ``(VI) Developing a medication action plan which may alter 
     the medication regimen, when permitted by the State licensing 
     authority. This information should be provided to, or 
     accessible by, the primary health care provider of the 
     enrollee.
       ``(VII) Monitoring and evaluating the response to therapy 
     and evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the therapy, 
     which may include laboratory assessment.
       ``(VIII) Providing disease-specific medication therapy 
     management services when appropriate.
       ``(IX) Coordinating and integrating medication therapy 
     management services within the broader scope of health care 
     management services being provided to each enrollee.

       ``(ii) Delivery of services.--

       ``(I) Personal delivery.--To the extent feasible, face-to-
     face interaction shall be the preferred method of delivery of 
     medication therapy management services.
       ``(II) Individualized.--Such services shall be patient-
     specific and individualized and shall be provided directly to 
     the patient by a pharmacist or other health care provider 
     with advanced training in medication management.
       ``(III) Distinct from other activities.--Such services 
     shall be distinct from any activities related to formulary 
     development and use, generalized patient education and 
     information activities, and any population-focused quality 
     assurance measures for medication use.

       ``(iii) Opportunity to identify patients in need of 
     medication therapy management services.--The program shall 
     provide opportunities for health care providers to identify 
     patients who should receive medication therapy management 
     services.'';
       (C) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) Pharmacy fees.--
       ``(i) In general.--The PDP sponsor of a prescription drug 
     plan shall pay pharmacists and others providing services 
     under the medication therapy management program under this 
     paragraph based on the time and intensity of services 
     provided to enrollees.
       ``(ii) Submission along with plan information.--Each such 
     sponsor shall disclose to the Secretary upon request the 
     amount of any such payments and shall submit a description of 
     how such payments are calculated along with the information 
     submitted under section 1860D-11(b). Such description shall 
     be submitted at the same time and in a similar manner to the 
     manner

[[Page 5562]]

     in which the information described in paragraph (2) of such 
     section is submitted.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) Pharmacy access requirements.--The PDP sponsor of a 
     prescription drug plan shall secure the participation in its 
     network of a sufficient number of retail pharmacies to assure 
     that enrollees have the option of obtaining services under 
     the medication therapy management program under this 
     paragraph directly from community-based retail pharmacies.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to medication therapy management services 
     provided on or after January 1, 2008.
       (b) Medication Therapy Management Demonstration Program.--
     Section 1860D-4(c) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C.1395w-104(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Community-based medication therapy management 
     demonstration program.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--
       ``(i) In general.--By not later than January 1, 2008, the 
     Secretary shall establish a 2-year demonstration program, 
     based on the recommendations of the Best Practices Commission 
     established under subparagraph (B), with both PDP sponsors of 
     prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage Organizations 
     offering MA-PD plans, to examine the impact of medication 
     therapy management furnished by a pharmacist in a community-
     based or ambulatory-based setting on quality of care, 
     spending under this part, and patient health.
       ``(ii) Sites.--

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), the Secretary 
     shall designate not less than 10 PDP sponsors of prescription 
     drug plans or Medicare Advantage Organizations offering MA-PD 
     plans, none of which provide prescription drug coverage under 
     such plans in the same PDP or MA region, respectively, to 
     conduct the demonstration program under this paragraph.
       ``(II) Designation consistent with recommendations of best 
     practices commission.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     designation of sites under subclause (I) is consistent with 
     the recommendations of the Best Practices Commission under 
     subparagraph (B)(ii).

       ``(B) Best practices commission.--
       ``(i) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a Best 
     Practices Commission composed of representatives from 
     pharmacy organizations, health care organizations, 
     beneficiary advocates, chronic disease groups, and other 
     stakeholders (as determined appropriate by the Secretary) for 
     the purpose of developing a best practices model for 
     medication therapy management.
       ``(ii) Recommendations.--The Commission shall submit to the 
     Secretary recommendations on the following:

       ``(I) The minimum number of enrollees that should be 
     included in the demonstration program, and at each 
     demonstration program site, to determine the impact of 
     medication therapy management furnished by a pharmacist in a 
     community-based setting on quality of care, spending under 
     this part, and patient health.
       ``(II) The number of urban and rural sites that should be 
     included in the demonstration program to ensure that 
     prescription drug plans and MA-PD plans offered in urban and 
     rural areas are adequately represented.
       ``(III) A best practices model for medication therapy 
     management to be implemented under the demonstration program 
     under this paragraph.

       ``(C) Reports.--
       ``(i) Interim report.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     commencement of the demonstration program, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress an interim report on such program.
       ``(ii) Final report.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     completion of the demonstration program, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a final report on such program, together 
     with recommendations for such legislation and administrative 
     action as the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(D) Waiver authority.--The Secretary may waive such 
     requirements of titles XI and XVIII as may be necessary for 
     the purpose of carrying out the demonstration program under 
     this paragraph.''.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Pharmacist Access 
and Recognition in Medicare Act. I have enjoyed working closely with 
Chairman Cochran and Senator Talent on this bill that will help protect 
the valuable role that pharmacists play in our communities.
  I have spent a lot of time over the past few months traveling around 
my home State of Wyoming talking to seniors about the new Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. This new voluntary benefit represents the 
most significant improvement to Medicare since its inception in 1965. 
Because of this new benefit, more seniors have prescription drug 
coverage and are able to purchase the medicines they need. Since the 
benefit took effect on January 1, 2006, 17,700 beneficiaries in Wyoming 
have signed up for prescription drug coverage and 27 million 
beneficiaries nationwide have drug coverage. I encourage all 
beneficiaries to enroll in a prescription drug plan before May 15, 
2006.
  I strongly support our community pharmacists. The changeover to 
Medicare Part D hasn't been easy and has produced several obstacles 
they have had to deal with as they have worked to serve Medicare 
beneficiaries. In traveling around my State over the past few months, I 
have talked to a few pharmacists who mentioned a few key problems they 
are facing with this new Medicare program that I believe we should 
address.
  The first is an issue of cash flow management. As the only accountant 
in the United States Senate, I understand this problem. Most 
pharmacists have to pay their wholesalers like clockwork two times a 
month, but they are not receiving their reimbursement from the 
prescription drug plans in a similar timely fashion. This bill changes 
that. The bill states that plans have to reimburse all ``clean claims'' 
every 14 days. The bill also facilitates a quicker reimbursement by 
specifying that claims submitted electronically shall be paid by 
electronic transfer of funds. This is a small change in the law that I 
believe will play a large role in helping ease the transition to the 
new program for our local and community pharmacists.
  The second issue I have heard about is called co-branding. Some of 
the prescription drug plans have partnered with some of the larger 
pharmacies and the plans are putting pharmacy logos on the benefit 
cards the beneficiaries use to get their prescriptions filled. Some 
people have told me that this is very confusing, because beneficiaries 
think that they must go to the pharmacy listed on the card. My bill 
says that co-branding is no longer allowed and all newly issued cards 
will not have pharmacy logos on them.
  The final thing this bill does is expand upon what was in the 
Medicare bill that passed in 2003 regarding medication therapy 
management programs. I am pleased to say that Wyoming is ahead of the 
curve in this area. A few years ago, the Wyoming Department of Health 
partnered with the University of Wyoming to provide a service called 
Wyoming PharmAssist, which directly connects patients with registered 
pharmacists to review their medications for possible drug interactions 
and duplications. I was pleased to learn that this service is more 
advanced than systems in other States, providing patients with ways to 
reduce their monthly medication costs while improving safety. The 
Wyoming PharmAssist program can save clients $152 per month and $1,844 
a year. Wyoming Pharm-Assist pays registered pharmacists for these 
unique services and is a model for the Nation. My bill tries to make 
the Federal program more like the very successful program in Wyoming.
  I commend all the pharmacists across the country who are working so 
hard to make this new Medicare program work. They are getting life 
saving drugs to seniors who may not have been able to afford them 
before. I am proud to say I voted for this program back in 2003 and I 
am pleased with all the progress we are making.
  I believe the Senate operates under what I call the 80/20 rule. 80 
percent of the things that get done around here are non-contentious 
issues with support from both parties. The other 20 percent are the 
contentious issues that we seem to spend all our time talking about. I 
think this bill falls into the 80 percent category. This is a small 
bill that will do a lot of good for our pharmacists. It has wide 
support and I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley to help 
move this bill through his Committee.
  I invite my colleagues to join me and Senators Cochran and Talent as 
sponsors of this bill to allow pharmacists to continue to provide the 
best quality care for seniors and the disabled who rely on them for 
their medications.
  I ask that the text of the bill following my statement be placed in 
the Record.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
        Alexander, and Mrs. Dole):

[[Page 5563]]

  S. 2564. A bill to prepare and strengthen the biodefenses of the 
United States against deliberate, accidental, and natural outbreaks of 
illness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2564

       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 ``Biodefense and Pandemic 
     Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; 
              National Biodefense Science Board.
Sec. 4. Clarification of countermeasures covered by Project BioShield.
Sec. 5. Orphan drug market exclusivity for countermeasure products.
Sec. 6. Technical assistance.
Sec. 7. Collaboration and coordination.
Sec. 8. Procurement.
Sec. 9. Rule of construction.

     SEC. 3. BIOMEDICAL ADVANCED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   AUTHORITY; NATIONAL BIODEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 241 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     319K the following:

     ``SEC. 319L. BIOMEDICAL ADVANCED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) BARDA.--The term `BARDA' means the Biomedical 
     Advanced Research and Development Authority.
       ``(2) Fund.--The term `Fund' means the Biodefense Medical 
     Countermeasure Development Fund established under subsection 
     (d).
       ``(3) Other transactions.--The term `other transactions' 
     means transactions, other than procurement contracts, grants, 
     and cooperative agreements, such as the Secretary of Defense 
     may enter into under section 2371 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       ``(4) Qualified countermeasure.--The term `qualified 
     countermeasure' has the meaning given such term in section 
     319F-1.
       ``(5) Qualified pandemic or epidemic product.--The term 
     `qualified pandemic or epidemic product' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 319F-3.
       ``(6) Advanced research and development.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `advanced research and 
     development' means, with respect to a product that is or may 
     become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or 
     epidemic product, activities that predominantly--
       ``(i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical 
     development of the product; and
       ``(ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a 
     commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory 
     requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     or under section 351 of this Act.
       ``(B) Activities included.--The term under subparagraph (A) 
     includes--
       ``(i) testing of the product to determine whether the 
     product may be approved, cleared, or licensed under the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or under section 351 of 
     this Act for a use that is or may be the basis for such 
     product becoming a qualified countermeasure or qualified 
     pandemic or epidemic product, or to help obtain such 
     approval, clearance, or license;
       ``(ii) design and development of tests or models, including 
     animal models, for such testing;
       ``(iii) activities to facilitate manufacture of the product 
     on a commercial scale with consistently high quality, as well 
     as to improve and make available new technologies to increase 
     manufacturing surge capacity;
       ``(iv) activities to improve the shelf-life of the product 
     or technologies for administering the product; and
       ``(v) such other activities as are part of the advanced 
     stages of testing, refinement, improvement, or preparation of 
     the product for such use and as are specified by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(7) Security countermeasure.--The term `security 
     countermeasure' has the meaning given such term in section 
     319F-2.
       ``(8) Research tool.--The term `research tool' means a 
     device, technology, biological material (including a cell 
     line or an antibody), reagent, animal model, computer system, 
     computer software, or analytical technique that is developed 
     to assist in the discovery, development, or manufacture of 
     qualified countermeasures or qualified pandemic or epidemic 
     products.
       ``(9) Program manager.--The term `program manager' means an 
     individual appointed to carry out functions under this 
     section and authorized to provide project oversight and 
     management of strategic initiatives.
       ``(10) Person.--The term `person' includes an individual, 
     partnership, corporation, association, entity, or public or 
     private corporation, and a Federal, State, or local 
     government agency or department.
       ``(b) Strategic Plan for Countermeasure Research, 
     Development, and Procurement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug 
     Development Act of 2006, the Secretary shall develop and make 
     public a strategic plan to integrate biodefense and emerging 
     infectious disease requirements with the advanced research 
     and development, strategic initiatives for innovation, and 
     the procurement of qualified countermeasures and qualified 
     pandemic or epidemic products.
       ``(2) Content.--The strategic plan under paragraph (1) 
     shall guide--
       ``(A) research and development, conducted or supported by 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, of qualified 
     countermeasures and qualified pandemic or epidemic products 
     against possible biological, chemical, radiological, and 
     nuclear agents and to emerging infectious diseases;
       ``(B) innovation in technologies that may assist advanced 
     research and development of qualified countermeasures and 
     qualified pandemic or epidemic products (such research and 
     development referred to in this section as `countermeasure 
     and product advanced research and development'); and
       ``(C) procurement of such qualified countermeasures and 
     qualified pandemic or epidemic products by such Department.
       ``(c) Biomedical Advanced Research and Development 
     Authority.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Health and Human Services the Biomedical 
     Advanced Research and Development Authority.
       ``(2) In general.--Based upon the strategic plan described 
     in subsection (b), the Secretary shall coordinate and oversee 
     the acceleration of countermeasure and product advanced 
     research and development by--
       ``(A) facilitating collaboration among the Department of 
     Health and Human Services, other Federal agencies, relevant 
     industries, academia, and other persons, with respect to such 
     advanced research and development;
       ``(B) promoting countermeasure and product advanced 
     research and development;
       ``(C) facilitating contacts between interested persons and 
     the offices or employees authorized by the Secretary to 
     advise such persons regarding requirements under the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under section 351 of this 
     Act; and
       ``(D) promoting innovation to reduce the time and cost of 
     countermeasure and product advanced research and development.
       ``(3) Director.--The BARDA shall be headed by a Director 
     (referred to in this section as the `Director') who shall be 
     appointed by the Secretary and to whom the Secretary shall 
     delegate such functions and authorities as necessary to 
     implement this section.
       ``(4) Duties.--
       ``(A) Collaboration.--To carry out the purpose described in 
     paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) facilitate and increase the expeditious and direct 
     communication between the Department of Health and Human 
     Services and relevant persons with respect to countermeasure 
     and product advanced research and development, including by--

       ``(I) facilitating such communication regarding the 
     processes for procuring such advanced research and 
     development with respect to qualified countermeasures and 
     qualified pandemic or epidemic products of interest; and
       ``(II) soliciting information about and data from research 
     on potential qualified countermeasures and qualified pandemic 
     or epidemic products and related technologies;

       ``(ii) at least annually--

       ``(I) convene meetings with representatives from relevant 
     industries, academia, other Federal agencies, international 
     agencies as appropriate, and other interested persons;
       ``(II) sponsor opportunities to demonstrate the operation 
     and effectiveness of relevant biodefense countermeasure 
     technologies; and
       ``(III) convene such working groups on countermeasure and 
     product advanced research and development as the Secretary 
     may determine are necessary to carry out this section; and

       ``(iii) carry out the activities described in section 7 of 
     the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act 
     of 2006.
       ``(B) Support advanced research and development.--To carry 
     out the purpose described in paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(i) conduct ongoing searches for, and support calls for, 
     potential qualified countermeasures and qualified pandemic or 
     epidemic products;
       ``(ii) direct and coordinate the countermeasure and product 
     advanced research and development activities of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services;

[[Page 5564]]

       ``(iii) establish strategic initiatives to accelerate 
     countermeasure and product advanced research and development 
     and innovation in such areas as the Secretary may identify as 
     priority unmet need areas; and
       ``(iv) award contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and 
     enter into other transactions, for countermeasure and product 
     advanced research and development.
       ``(C) Facilitating advice.--To carry out the purpose 
     described in paragraph (2)(C) the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) connect interested persons with the offices or 
     employees authorized by the Secretary to advise such persons 
     regarding the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under section 351 of this Act 
     related to the approval, clearance, or licensure of qualified 
     countermeasures or qualified pandemic or epidemic products; 
     and
       ``(ii) ensure that, with respect to persons performing 
     countermeasure and product advanced research and development 
     funded under this section, such offices or employees provide 
     such advice in a manner that is ongoing and that is otherwise 
     designated to facilitate expeditious development of qualified 
     countermeasures and qualified pandemic or epidemic products 
     that may achieve such approval, clearance, or licensure.
       ``(D) Supporting innovation.--To carry out the purpose 
     described in paragraph (2)(D), the Secretary may award 
     contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, or enter into 
     other transactions, such as prize payments, to promote--
       ``(i) innovation in technologies that may assist 
     countermeasure and product advanced research and development;
       ``(ii) research on and development of research tools and 
     other devices and technologies; and
       ``(iii) research to promote strategic initiatives, such as 
     rapid diagnostics, broad spectrum antimicrobials, and vaccine 
     manufacturing technologies.
       ``(5) Transaction authorities.--
       ``(A) Other transactions.--In carrying out the functions 
     under subparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (4), the Secretary 
     shall have authority to enter into other transactions for 
     countermeasure and product advanced research and development.
       ``(B) Expedited authorities.--
       ``(i) In general.--In awarding contracts, grants, and 
     cooperative agreements, and in entering into other 
     transactions under subparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (4), 
     the Secretary shall have the expedited procurement 
     authorities, the authority to expedite peer review, and the 
     authority for personal services contracts, supplied by 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 319F-1.
       ``(ii) Application of provisions.--Provisions in such 
     section 319F-1 that apply to such authorities and that 
     require institution of internal controls, limit review, 
     provide for Federal Tort Claims Act coverage of personal 
     services contractors, and commit decisions to the discretion 
     of the Secretary shall apply to the authorities as exercised 
     pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(iii) Authority to limit competition.--For purposes of 
     applying section 319F-1(b)(1)(D) to this paragraph, the 
     phrase `BioShield Program under the Project BioShield Act of 
     2004' shall be deemed to mean the countermeasure and product 
     advanced research and development program under this section.
       ``(iv) Availability of data.--The Secretary shall require 
     that, as a condition of being awarded a contract, grant, 
     cooperative agreement, or other transaction under 
     subparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (4), a person make 
     available to the Secretary on an ongoing basis, and submit 
     upon request to the Secretary, all data related to or 
     resulting from countermeasure and product advanced research 
     and development carried out pursuant to this section.
       ``(C) Advance payments; advertising.--The authority of the 
     Secretary to enter into contracts under this section shall 
     not be limited by section 3324(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, or by section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (41 U.S.C. 5).
       ``(D) Milestone-based payments allowed.--In awarding 
     contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, and in 
     entering into other transactions, under this section, the 
     Secretary may use milestone-based awards and payments.
       ``(E) Foreign nationals eligible.--The Secretary may under 
     this section award contracts, grants, and cooperative 
     agreements to, and may enter into other transactions with, 
     highly qualified foreign national persons outside the United 
     States, alone or in collaboration with American participants, 
     when such transactions may inure to the benefit of the 
     American people.
       ``(F) Establishment of research centers.--The Secretary may 
     establish one or more federally-funded research and 
     development centers, or university-affiliated research 
     centers in accordance with section 303(c)(3) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     253(c)(3)).
       ``(6) Vulnerable populations.--In carrying out the 
     functions under this section, the Secretary may give priority 
     to the advanced research and development of qualified 
     countermeasures and qualified pandemic or epidemic products 
     that are likely to be safe and effective with respect to 
     children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations.
       ``(7) Personnel authorities.--
       ``(A) Specially qualified scientific and professional 
     personnel.--In addition to any other personnel authorities, 
     the Secretary may--
       ``(i) without regard to those provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, appoint highly qualified individuals to scientific 
     or professional positions in BARDA, such as program managers, 
     to carry out this section; and
       ``(ii) compensate them in the same manner in which 
     individuals appointed under section 9903 of such title are 
     compensated, without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
     and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       ``(B) Special consultants.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary may--
       ``(i) appoint special consultants pursuant to section 
     207(f); and
       ``(ii) accept voluntary and uncompensated services.
       ``(d) Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established the Biodefense 
     Medical Countermeasure Development Fund, which shall be 
     available to carry out this section.
       ``(2) Funds.--
       ``(A) First fiscal year.--
       ``(i) Authorization and appropriation.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated and there are appropriated to 
     the Fund $340,000,000 to carry out this section for fiscal 
     year 2007. Such funds shall remain available until expended.
       ``(ii) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated, in addition to the amounts 
     appropriated under clause (i), $160,000,000 to carry out this 
     section for fiscal year 2007. Such funds shall remain 
     available until expended.
       ``(B) Subsequent fiscal years.--
       ``(i) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section--

       ``(I) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(II) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2009 
     through 2012.

       ``(ii) Availability of funds.--Such sums authorized under 
     clause (i) shall remain available until expended.
       ``(e) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions.--
       ``(1) Disclosure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall withhold from 
     disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, 
     specific technical data or scientific information that is 
     created or obtained during the countermeasure and product 
     advanced research and development funded by the Secretary 
     that reveal vulnerabilities of existing medical or public 
     health defenses against biological, chemical, nuclear, or 
     radiological threats. Such information shall be deemed to be 
     information described in section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(B) Oversight.--Information subject to nondisclosure 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be reviewed by the Secretary 
     every 5 years to determine the relevance or necessity of 
     continued nondisclosure.
       ``(2) Federal advisory committee act.--Section 14 of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to a working group of BARDA or to the National 
     Biodefense Science Board under section 319M.

     ``SEC. 319M. NATIONAL BIODEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD AND WORKING 
                   GROUPS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Establishment and function.--The Secretary shall 
     establish the National Biodefense Science Board (referred to 
     in this section as the `Board') to provide expert advice and 
     guidance to the Secretary on scientific, technical and other 
     matters of special interest to the Department of Health and 
     Human Services regarding current and future chemical, 
     biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether 
     naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate.
       ``(2) Membership.--The membership of the Board shall be 
     comprised of individuals who represent the Nation's 
     preeminent scientific, public health, and medical experts, as 
     follows--
       ``(A) such Federal officials as the Secretary may determine 
     are necessary to support the functions of the Board;
       ``(B) four individuals representing the pharmaceutical, 
     biotechnology, and device industries;
       ``(C) four individuals representing academia; and
       ``(D) five other members as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Term of appointment.--A member of the Board described 
     in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (2) shall serve 
     for a term of 3 years, except that the Secretary may adjust 
     the terms of the initial Board appointees in order to provide 
     for a staggered term of appointment for all members.
       ``(4) Consecutive appointments; maximum terms.--A member 
     may be appointed to serve not more than 3 terms on the Board 
     and may serve not more than 2 consecutive terms.
       ``(5) Duties.--The Board shall--

[[Page 5565]]

       ``(A) advise the Secretary on current and future trends, 
     challenges, and opportunities presented by advances in 
     biological and life sciences, biotechnology, and genetic 
     engineering with respect to threats posed by naturally 
     occurring infectious diseases and chemical, biological, 
     radiological, and nuclear agents;
       ``(B) at the request of the Secretary, review and consider 
     any information and findings received from the working groups 
     established under subsection (b); and
       ``(C) at the request of the Secretary, provide 
     recommendations and findings for expanded, intensified, and 
     coordinated biodefense research and development activities.
       ``(6) Meetings.--
       ``(A) Initial meeting.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and 
     Drug Development Act of 2006, the Secretary shall hold the 
     first meeting of the Board.
       ``(B) Subsequent meetings.--The Board shall meet at the 
     call of the Secretary, but in no case less than twice 
     annually.
       ``(7) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Board shall not affect 
     its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment.
       ``(8) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall appoint a 
     chairperson from among the members of the Board.
       ``(9) Powers.--
       ``(A) Hearings.--The Board may hold such hearings, sit and 
     act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Board considers advisable to 
     carry out this subsection.
       ``(B) Postal services.--The Board may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       ``(10) Personnel.--
       ``(A) Employees of the federal government.--A member of the 
     Board that is an employee of the Federal Government may not 
     receive additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of 
     the member's service on the Board.
       ``(B) Other members.--A member of the Board that is not an 
     employee of the Federal Government may be compensated at a 
     rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of 
     basic pay prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each 
     day (including travel time) during which the member is 
     engaged in the actual performance of duties as a member of 
     the Board.
       ``(C) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Board shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under 
     subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(D) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal 
     Government employee may be detailed to the Board with the 
     approval for the contributing agency without reimbursement, 
     and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of 
     civil service status or privilege.
       ``(b) Other Working Groups.--The Secretary may establish a 
     working group of experts, or may use an existing working 
     group or advisory committee, to--
       ``(1) identify innovative research with the potential to be 
     developed as a qualified countermeasure or a qualified 
     pandemic or epidemic product;
       ``(2) identify accepted animal models for particular 
     diseases and conditions associated with any biological, 
     chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent, any toxin, or any 
     potential pandemic infectious disease, and identify 
     strategies to accelerate animal model and research tool 
     development and validation; and
       ``(3) obtain advice regarding supporting and facilitating 
     advanced research and development related to qualified 
     countermeasures and qualified pandemic or epidemic products 
     that are likely to be safe and effective with respect to 
     children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations, 
     and other issues regarding activities under this section that 
     affect such populations.
       ``(c) Definitions.--Any term that is defined in section 
     319L and that is used in this section shall have the same 
     meaning in this section as such term is given in section 
     319L.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out this 
     section for fiscal year 2007 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.''.
       (b) Offset of Funding.--The amount appropriated under the 
     subheading ``Biodefense Countermeasures'' under the heading 
     ``Emergency Preparedness and Response'' in title III of the 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004 
     (Public Law 108-90) shall be decreased by $340,000,000.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF COUNTERMEASURES COVERED BY PROJECT 
                   BIOSHIELD.

       (a) Qualified Countermeasure.--Section 319F-1(a) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6a(a)) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(A) Qualified countermeasure.--The term `qualified 
     countermeasure' means a drug (as that term is defined by 
     section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1))), biological product (as that term is 
     defined by section 351(i) of this Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i))), or 
     device (as that term is defined by section 201(h) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h))), 
     that the Secretary determines to be a priority (consistent 
     with sections 302(2) and 304(a) of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002) to--
       ``(i) diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from any 
     biological agent (including organisms that cause an 
     infectious disease) or toxin, chemical, radiological, or 
     nuclear agent that may cause a public health emergency 
     affecting national security; or
       ``(ii) diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from a 
     condition that may result in adverse health consequences or 
     death and may be caused by administering a drug, biological 
     product, or device that is used as described in this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(B) Infectious disease.--The term `infectious disease' 
     means a disease potentially caused by a pathogenic organism 
     (including a bacteria, virus, fungus, or parasite) that is 
     acquired by a person and that reproduces in that person.''.
       (b) Security Countermeasure.--Section 319F-2(c)(1)(B) is 
     amended by striking ``treat, identify, or prevent'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``diagnose, mitigate, prevent, 
     or treat''.
       (c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Section 510(a) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 320(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``None of the funds made 
     available under this subsection shall be used to procure 
     countermeasures to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm 
     resulting from any naturally occurring infectious disease.''.

     SEC. 5. ORPHAN DRUG MARKET EXCLUSIVITY FOR COUNTERMEASURE 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 527 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360cc) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(c) Market Exclusivities for Countermeasures, 
     Antibiotics, and Antiin-
     fectives.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     with respect to a drug that is designated under section 526 
     for a rare disease or condition, the period referred to in 
     this section is deemed to be 10 years in lieu of 7 years if--
       ``(A) such rare disease or condition is directly caused by 
     a--
       ``(i)(I) biological agent (including an organism that 
     causes infectious disease);
       ``(II) toxin; or
       ``(III) chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent; and
       ``(ii) such biological agent (including an organism that 
     causes an infectious disease), toxin, or chemical, 
     radiological or nuclear agent, is identified as a material 
     threat under subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii) of section 319F-2 of 
     the Public Health Service Act;
       ``(B) such drug is determined by the Secretary to be a 
     security countermeasure under subsection (c)(1)(B) of such 
     section 319F-2 with respect to such agent or toxin;
       ``(C) no active ingredient (including a salt or ester of 
     the active ingredient) of the drug has been approved under an 
     application under section 505(b) prior to the submission of 
     the request for designation of the new drug under section 
     526; and
       ``(D) notice respecting the designation of a drug under 
     section 526 has been made available to the public.
       ``(2) Application of provision.--Paragraph (1) shall apply 
     with respect to an antibiotic drug or antiinfective drug 
     designated under section 526 only if--
       ``(A) no active ingredient (including a salt or ester of 
     the active ingredient) of such drug has been approved as a 
     feed or water additive for an animal in the absence of any 
     clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth promotion, 
     feed efficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention, or 
     other routine purpose;
       ``(B) no active ingredient (including a salt or ester of 
     the active ingredient) of such drug has been approved for use 
     in humans under section 505 or approved for human use under 
     section 507 (as in effect prior to November 21, 1997) prior 
     to the submission of the request for designation of the new 
     drug under section 526;
       ``(C) the Secretary has made a determination that--
       ``(i) such drug is not a member of a class of antibiotics 
     that is particularly prone to creating antibiotic resistance;
       ``(ii) sufficient antibiotics do not already exist in the 
     same class;
       ``(iii) such drug represents a significant clinical 
     improvement over other antibiotic drugs;
       ``(iv) such drug is for a serious or life-threatening 
     disease or conditions; and
       ``(v) such drug is for a countermeasure use; and
       ``(D) notice respecting the designation of a drug under 
     section 526 has been made available to the public.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--With respect to a drug to 
     which this subsection applies, and which is also approved for 
     additional uses to which this subsection does not apply, 
     nothing in section 505(b)(2) or 505(j) shall prohibit the 
     Secretary from approving a drug under section 505(b)(2) or 
     505(j) with different or additional labeling for the drug as 
     the Secretary deems necessary to ensure that the drug is safe 
     and effective for the uses to which this subsection does not 
     apply.

[[Page 5566]]

       ``(4) Study and report.--Not later than January 1, 2011, 
     the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     study and submit to Congress a report concerning the effect 
     of and activities under this subsection. Such study and 
     report shall examine all relevant issues including--
       ``(A) the effectiveness of this subsection in improving the 
     availability of novel countermeasures for procurement under 
     section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service Act;
       ``(B) the effectiveness of this subsection in improving the 
     availability of drugs that treat serious or life threatening 
     diseases or conditions and offer significant clinical 
     improvements;
       ``(C) the continued need for additional incentives to 
     create more antibiotics and antiinfectives;
       ``(D) the economic impact of the section on taxpayers and 
     consumers, including--
       ``(i) the economic value of additional drugs provided for 
     under this subsection, including the impact of improved 
     health care and hospitalization times associated with 
     treatment of nosocomial infections; and
       ``(ii) the economic cost of any delay in the availability 
     of lower cost generic drugs on patients, the insured, and 
     Federal and private health plans;
       ``(E) the adequacy of limits under subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (2) to maximize the useful period during 
     which antibiotic drugs or antiinfective drugs remain 
     therapeutically useful treatments; and
       ``(F) any recommendations for modifications to this 
     subsection that the Comptroller determines to be appropriate.
       ``(5) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply only to 
     products for which an applicant has applied for designation 
     under section 526 after the date of enactment of the 
     Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 
     2006.
       ``(6) Sunset.--This subsection shall not apply with respect 
     to any designation of a drug under section 526 made by the 
     Secretary on or after October 1, 2011.''.

     SEC. 6. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Subchapter E of chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb et seq.) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 565. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``The Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner of 
     Food and Drugs, shall establish within the Food and Drug 
     Administration a team of experts on manufacturing and 
     regulatory activities (including compliance with current Good 
     Manufacturing Practice) to provide both off-site and on-site 
     technical assistance to the manufacturers of qualified 
     countermeasures (as defined in section 319F-1 of the Public 
     Health Service Act), security countermeasures (as defined in 
     section 319F-2 of such Act), or vaccines, at the request of 
     such a manufacturer and at the discretion of the Secretary, 
     if the Secretary determines that a shortage or potential 
     shortage may occur in the United States in the supply of such 
     vaccines or countermeasures and that the provision of such 
     assistance would be beneficial in helping alleviate or avert 
     such shortage.''.

     SEC. 7. COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION.

       (a) Limited Antitrust Exemption.--
       (1) Meetings and consultations to discuss security 
     countermeasures, qualified countermeasures, or qualified 
     pandemic or epidemic product development.--
       (A) Authority to conduct meetings and consultations.--The 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (referred to in this 
     subsection as the ``Secretary''), in coordination with the 
     Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, may 
     conduct meetings and consultations with persons engaged in 
     the development of a security countermeasure (as defined in 
     section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247d-6b)) (as amended by this Act), a qualified 
     countermeasure (as defined in section 319F-1 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6a))) (as amended by this 
     Act), or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product (as defined 
     in section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247d-6d)) for the purpose of the development, manufacture, 
     distribution, purchase, or storage of a countermeasure or 
     product. The Secretary may convene such meeting or 
     consultation at the request of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, the Attorney General, the Chairman of the Federal 
     Trade Commission (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Chairman''), or any interested person, or upon initiation 
     by the Secretary. The Secretary shall give prior notice of 
     any such meeting or consultation, and the topics to be 
     discussed, to the Attorney General, the Chairman, and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (B) Meeting and consultation conditions.--A meeting or 
     consultation conducted under subparagraph (A) shall--
       (i) be chaired or, in the case of a consultation, 
     facilitated by the Secretary;
       (ii) be open to persons involved in the development, 
     manufacture, distribution, purchase, or storage of a 
     countermeasure or product, as determined by the Secretary;
       (iii) be open to the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, and the Chairman;
       (iv) be limited to discussions involving covered 
     activities; and
       (v) be conducted in such manner as to ensure that no 
     national security, confidential commercial, or proprietary 
     information is disclosed outside the meeting or consultation.
       (C) Limitation.--The Secretary may not require participants 
     to disclose confidential commercial or proprietary 
     information.
       (D) Transcript.--The Secretary shall maintain a complete 
     verbatim transcript of each meeting or consultation conducted 
     under this subsection, which shall not be disclosed under 
     section 552 of title 5, United States Code, unless such 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, determines that disclosure 
     would pose no threat to national security. The determination 
     regarding possible threats to national security shall not be 
     subject to judicial review.
       (E) Exemption.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), it shall not be a 
     violation of the antitrust laws for any person to participate 
     in a meeting or consultation conducted in accordance with 
     this paragraph.
       (ii) Limitation.--Clause (i) shall not apply to any 
     agreement or conduct that results from a meeting or 
     consultation and that is not covered by an exemption granted 
     under paragraph (4).
       (2) Submission of written agreements.--The Secretary shall 
     submit each written agreement regarding covered activities 
     that is made pursuant to meetings or consultations conducted 
     under paragraph (1) to the Attorney General and the Chairman 
     for consideration. In addition to the proposed agreement 
     itself, any submission shall include--
       (A) an explanation of the intended purpose of the 
     agreement;
       (B) a specific statement of the substance of the agreement;
       (C) a description of the methods that will be utilized to 
     achieve the objectives of the agreement;
       (D) an explanation of the necessity for a cooperative 
     effort among the particular participating persons to achieve 
     the objectives of the agreement; and
       (E) any other relevant information determined necessary by 
     the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman and 
     the Secretary.
       (3) Exemption for conduct under approved agreement.--It 
     shall not be a violation of the antitrust laws for a person 
     to engage in conduct in accordance with a written agreement 
     to the extent that such agreement has been granted an 
     exemption under paragraph (4), during the period for which 
     the exemption is in effect.
       (4) Action on written agreements.--
       (A) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Chairman, shall grant, deny, grant in part and deny in 
     part, or propose modifications to an exemption request 
     regarding a written agreement submitted under paragraph (2), 
     in a written statement to the Secretary, within 15 business 
     days of the receipt of such request. An exemption granted 
     under this paragraph shall take effect immediately.
       (B) Extension.--The Attorney General may extend the 15-day 
     period referred to in subparagraph (A) for an additional 
     period of not to exceed 10 business days.
       (C) Determination.--An exemption shall be granted regarding 
     a written agreement submitted in accordance with paragraph 
     (2) only to the extent that the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Chairman and the Secretary, finds that 
     the conduct that will be exempted will not have any 
     substantial anticompetitive effect that is not reasonably 
     necessary for ensuring the availability of the countermeasure 
     or product involved.
       (5) Limitation on and renewal of exemptions.--An exemption 
     granted under paragraph (4) shall be limited to covered 
     activities, and such exemption shall be renewed (with 
     modifications, as appropriate, consistent with the finding 
     described in paragraph (4)(C)), on the date that is 3 years 
     after the date on which the exemption is granted unless the 
     Attorney General in consultation with the Chairman determines 
     that the exemption should not be renewed (with modifications, 
     as appropriate) considering the factors described in 
     paragraph (4).
       (6) Authority to obtain information.--Consideration by the 
     Attorney General for granting or renewing an exemption 
     submitted under this section shall be considered an antitrust 
     investigation for purposes of the Antitrust Civil Process Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.).
       (7) Limitation on parties.--The use of any information 
     acquired under an agreement for which an exemption has been 
     granted under paragraph (4), for any purpose other than 
     specified in the exemption, shall be subject to the antitrust 
     laws and any other applicable laws.
       (8) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and biannually thereafter, the Attorney 
     General and the Chairman shall report to Congress on the use 
     of the exemption from the antitrust laws provided by this 
     subsection.
       (b) Sunset.--The applicability of this section shall expire 
     at the end of the 6-year period that begins on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Antitrust laws.--The term ``antitrust laws''--

[[Page 5567]]

       (A) has the meaning given such term in subsection (a) of 
     the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), 
     except that such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section 5 
     applies to unfair methods of competition; and
       (B) includes any State law similar to the laws referred to 
     in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Countermeasure or product.--The term ``countermeasure 
     or product'' refers to a security countermeasure, qualified 
     countermeasure, or qualified pandemic or epidemic product (as 
     those terms are defined in subsection (a)(1)).
       (3) Covered activities.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``covered activities'' includes any activity 
     relating to the development, manufacture, distribution, 
     purchase, or storage of a countermeasure or product.
       (B) Exception.--The term ``covered activities'' shall not 
     include, with respect to a meeting or consultation conducted 
     under subsection (a)(1) or an agreement for which an 
     exemption has been granted under subsection (a)(4), the 
     following activities involving 2 or more persons:
       (i) Exchanging information among competitors relating to 
     costs, profitability, or distribution of any product, 
     process, or service if such information is not reasonably 
     necessary to carry out covered activities--

       (I) with respect to a countermeasure or product regarding 
     which such meeting or consultation is being conducted; or
       (II) that are described in the agreement as exempted.

       (ii) Entering into any agreement or engaging in any other 
     conduct--

       (I) to restrict or require the sale, licensing, or sharing 
     of inventions, developments, products, processes, or services 
     not developed through, produced by, or distributed or sold 
     through such covered activities; or
       (II) to restrict or require participation, by any person 
     participating in such covered activities, in other research 
     and development activities, except as reasonably necessary to 
     prevent the misappropriation of proprietary information 
     contributed by any person participating in such covered 
     activities or of the results of such covered activities.

       (iii) Entering into any agreement or engaging in any other 
     conduct allocating a market with a competitor that is not 
     expressly exempted from the antitrust laws under subsection 
     (a)(4).
       (iv) Exchanging information among competitors relating to 
     production (other than production by such covered activities) 
     of a product, process, or service if such information is not 
     reasonably necessary to carry out such covered activities.
       (v) Entering into any agreement or engaging in any other 
     conduct restricting, requiring, or otherwise involving the 
     production of a product, process, or service that is not 
     expressly exempted from the antitrust laws under subsection 
     (a)(4).
       (vi) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, 
     entering into any agreement or engaging in any other conduct 
     to restrict or require participation by any person 
     participating in such covered activities, in any unilateral 
     or joint activity that is not reasonably necessary to carry 
     out such covered activities.
       (vii) Entering into any agreement or engaging in any other 
     conduct restricting or setting the price at which a 
     countermeasure or product is offered for sale, whether by bid 
     or otherwise.

     SEC. 8. PROCUREMENT.

       Section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247d-6b) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND SECURITY 
     COUNTERMEASURE PROCUREMENTS'' before the period; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Biomedical'';
       (B) in paragraph (5)(B)(i), by striking ``to meet the needs 
     of the stockpile'' and inserting ``to meet the stockpile 
     needs'';
       (C) in paragraph (7)(B)--
       (i) by striking the subparagraph heading and all that 
     follows through ``Homeland Security Secretary'' and inserting 
     the following: ``Interagency agreement; cost.--The Homeland 
     Security Secretary''; and
       (ii) by striking clause (ii);
       (D) in paragraph (7)(C)(ii)--
       (i) by amending clause (I) to read as follows:

       ``(I) Payment conditioned on delivery.--The contract shall 
     provide that no payment may be made until delivery of a 
     portion, acceptable to the Secretary, of the total number of 
     units contracted for, except that, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the contract may provide that, if the 
     Secretary determines (in the Secretary's discretion) that an 
     advance payment, partial payment for significant milestones, 
     or payment to increase manufacturing capacity is necessary to 
     ensure success of a project, the Secretary shall pay an 
     amount, not to exceed 10 percent of the contract amount, in 
     advance of delivery. The Secretary shall, to the extent 
     practicable, make the determination of advance payment at the 
     same time as the issuance of a solicitation. The contract 
     shall provide that such advance payment is required to be 
     repaid if there is a failure to perform by the vendor under 
     the contract. The contract may also provide for additional 
     advance payments of 5 percent each for meeting the milestones 
     specified in such contract. Provided that the specified 
     milestones are reached, these advanced payments of 5 percent 
     shall not be required to be repaid. Nothing in this subclause 
     shall be construed as affecting the rights of vendors under 
     provisions of law or regulation (including the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation) relating to the termination of 
     contracts for the convenience of the Government.''; and

       (ii) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(VII) Sales exclusivity.--The contract may provide that 
     the vendor is the exclusive supplier of the product to the 
     Federal Government for a specified period of time, not to 
     exceed the term of the contract, on the condition that the 
     vendor is able to satisfy the needs of the Government. During 
     the agreed period of sales exclusivity, the vendor shall not 
     assign its rights of sales exclusivity to another entity or 
     entities without approval by the Secretary. Such a sales 
     exclusivity provision in such a contract shall constitute a 
     valid basis for a sole source procurement under section 
     303(c)(1) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
     Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1)).
       ``(VIII) Surge capacity.--The contract may provide that the 
     vendor establish domestic manufacturing capacity of the 
     product to ensure that additional production of the product 
     is available in the event that the Secretary determines that 
     there is a need to quickly purchase additional quantities of 
     the product. Such contract may provide a fee to the vendor 
     for establishing and maintaining such capacity in excess of 
     the initial requirement for the purchase of the product. 
     Additionally, the cost of maintaining the domestic 
     manufacturing capacity shall be an allowable and allocable 
     direct cost of the contract.
       ``(IX) Contract terms.--The Secretary, in any contract for 
     procurement under this section, may specify--

       ``(aa) the dosing and administration requirements for 
     countermeasures to be developed and procured;
       ``(bb) the amount of funding that will be dedicated by the 
     Secretary for development and acquisition of the 
     countermeasure; and
       ``(cc) the specifications the countermeasure must meet to 
     qualify for procurement under a contract under this 
     section.''; and
       (E) in paragraph (8)(A), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Such agreements may allow other executive 
     agencies to order qualified and security countermeasures 
     under procurement contracts or other agreements established 
     by the Secretary. Such ordering process (including transfers 
     of appropriated funds between an agency and the Department of 
     Health and Human Services as reimbursements for such orders 
     for countermeasures) may be conducted under the authority of 
     section 1535 of title 31, United States Code, except that all 
     such orders shall be processed under the terms established 
     under this section for the procurement of countermeasures.''.

     SEC. 9. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, 
     shall be construed to affect any law that applies to the 
     National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program under title XXI 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 et seq.), 
     including such laws regarding--
       (1) whether claims may be filed or compensation may be paid 
     for a vaccine-related injury or death under such Program;
       (2) claims pending under such Program; and
       (3) any petitions, cases, or other proceedings before the 
     United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to such title.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2565. A bill to designate certain National Forest System land in 
the State of Vermont for inclusion in the National Wilderness 
Preservation system and designate a National Recreation Area; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from 
Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in introducing the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006. 
This legislation designates 48,051 acres within the Green Mountain 
National Forest for management under the 1964 Wilderness Act.
  The Green Mountain National Forest constitutes more than 400,000 
acres of woodlands in central and southern Vermont. The Forest hosts up 
to 3.4 million visitors each year and is capable of supporting a 
variety of uses, from timber production to snow-
mobiling to hiking, which contribute to Vermont's economy. The forest 
is also an important wildlife habitat and source of clean, fresh water. 
If well managed, the Green Mountain National Forest will remain one of 
Vermont's most precious environmental treasures, while continuing to 
support our

[[Page 5568]]

state's economic and recreational needs for generations to come.
  The National Forest Service is responsible for most aspects of 
national forest management but Congress reserved the authority to set 
aside undisturbed wilderness lands. Good stewardship of the forest 
requires leadership, and now is the time for us to accept this 
responsibility to designate additional wilderness areas.
  Twenty-two years ago, as a member of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, I joined my Senate colleagues, Mr. Stafford and Mr. 
Leahy, to introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984. That act 
designated 41,260 acres as wilderness. Since that time the Green 
Mountain National Forest has acquired over 110,000 additional acres, 
while the populations of the State and the region have increased. These 
changing demands, and the changing landscape, provide the opportunity 
and drive the need to designate additional land as wilderness.
  The Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984 directed Congress to consider 
additional wilderness designations in the Green Mountain National 
Forest only after 15 years had elapsed and the management plan for the 
Forest had been thoroughly reviewed. With last month's adoption of a 
completely revised Land Resource Management Plan for the Green Mountain 
National Forest, these conditions have been met and it is time to act.
  I have worked for the past 6 years with the other members of 
Vermont's Congressional delegation, the National Forest Service, and 
State leaders. I have reviewed comments from thousands of constituents, 
visited the forest on the ground and viewed it from the air, and spent 
countless hours studying maps. These new designations are the result of 
thorough analysis and thought, and we do not make them lightly.
  Many Vermonters disagree with the need for any wilderness 
designations, much less additional lands to be set aside at this time. 
I understand their concerns, but I also recognize the intent of the 
Wilderness Act of 1964, and I believe deeply in the benefits of 
managing some areas so that forces of nature hold sway.
  The Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006 designates two significant new 
wilderness areas: the 28,491-acre Glastenbury wilderness in southern 
Vermont, and the 12,437-acre Battell wilderness in central Vermont. 
These are pristine, remote forest lands, and would remain undisturbed 
for future generations.
  The recently completed Land and Resource Management Plan for the 
Green Mountain National Forest is a credit to everyone who worked on 
it, and reflects the hard work of the U.S. National Forest Service. 
This plan calls for additions to several existing wilderness areas 
including Peru Peak, Big Branch, Breadloaf and Lye Brook. These 
recommended additions are included in this legislation, with some 
modification.
  This legislation also calls for 16,890 acres of the Moosalamoo 
Recreation Area in Central Vermont to be designated a national 
recreation area. Moosalamoo exists today as a world-class destination 
for widely diverse outdoor recreation activities on both public and 
private land. Moosalamoo is managed cooperatively by a group of owners 
and it attracts visitors from far and wide for hiking, camping, Nordic 
and alpine skiing and other activities. From the Robert Frost 
interpretive trails to the blueberry management areas and oak clad 
escarpments, Moosalamoo is uniquely deserving of national recreation 
area designation.
  The Green Mountain National Forest is an important source of wood 
products and the timber industry is critically important to Vermont's 
economy. These wilderness and national recreation area designations are 
not meant to interfere with a robust timber management program within 
the forest, and I will work to support that program at every 
opportunity.
  As we introduce this legislation it is important to acknowledge the 
fine work of Supervisor Paul Brewster and the staff of the Green 
Mountain National Forest. They applied great skill and technical 
expertise in developing the new management plan for the forest. The 
same professionalism will certainly be applied to implement the plan. 
Our wilderness designations differ somewhat from those proposed by the 
Forest Service, which is the reason this authority is reserved for 
Congress, but the new management plan has helped to inform and guide 
our work.
  It is with great pride that I join my colleagues to introduce the 
Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006. Our great state has been blessed with a 
beautiful natural landscape, which Vermonters have worked hard to 
preserve. This bill will continue in that tradition by helping to 
secure areas of the unspoiled wilderness that Vermont is known and 
admired for.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join with Senator Jeffords today to 
introduce the Vermont Wilderness Act of 2006, to designate two new 
wilderness areas and to make a number of additions to existing 
wilderness areas in Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest. This 
legislation will also designate a new National Recreation Area (NRA) in 
the Green Mountain National Forest in the area commonly known as 
Moosalamoo.
  The U.S. Forest Service has recently released its Record of Decision 
(ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the revision 
of the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management 
Plan. This has been an effort encompassing several years, a lengthy 
process including significant public involvement, and a great deal of 
difficult and detailed work on the part of the Forest Service staff in 
Vermont and our region.
  I want to extend my appreciation and thanks to the staff of the Green 
Mountain National Forest for their perseverance and professionalism 
throughout the plan revision process. This has been by no means an easy 
task, with Vermonters and other interested citizens who care deeply 
about the National Forest weighing in with sincere and often 
conflicting views on land, resource and forest management decisions.
  While there is much of interest in such a comprehensive plan, the 
primary role of the Congress lies with wilderness and other related 
special designations, such as National Recreation Areas. The Vermont 
Congressional Delegation has taken this responsibility seriously as we 
have sought a compromise between those who would prefer significant 
additions in wilderness areas and those who would prefer none. If this 
recommendation were enacted, about a quarter of the current Green 
Mountain National Forest would be designated as wilderness.
  Just as the recently released Land and Resource Management Plan for 
the Green Mountain National Forest has elicited abundant feedback 
across the spectrum of interested citizens and organizations, we expect 
our proposal to do the same. We offer this legislation as a good-faith 
effort to find a middle ground, and once this proposal is referred to 
the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry--of which 
I am a member--we will welcome constructive comments and criticisms to 
improve the bill. Since the Vermont Congressional Delegation has long 
been on the public record in favor of additional wilderness 
designations within the Green Mountain National Forest, comments that 
are as specific as possible will be especially helpful in helping to 
refine our proposal.
  In specific terms, this legislation proposes a new wilderness area in 
the Glastenbury Mountain area of approximately 28,500 acres. In the 
Romance, Monastery and Worth Mountain areas the bill proposes adding 
approximately 12,500 acres, which together would become the Battell 
Wilderness in honor of Joseph Battell, who once owned some 9,000 acres 
in this area and bequeathed thousands of acres to Middlebury College, 
which eventually became the core of the north half of the Green 
Mountain National Forest.
  The bill also proposes designating approximately 4,200 acres for 
addition to the existing Breadloaf Wilderness, 2,200 acres to the Lye 
Brook Wilderness, 800 acres to the Peru Peak Wilderness, and 40 acres 
to the Big Branch Wilderness. The proposed Moosalamoo National 
Recreation Area covers approximately 17,000 acres.

[[Page 5569]]

  This legislation does not include additional acreage for the George 
D. Aiken Wilderness Area or the Bristol Cliffs Wilderness Area. It does 
not propose a wilderness designation for the area known as Lamb Brook, 
and it does not propose a new National Recreation Area in the Somerset 
region.
  Our legislation builds on the recommendations of the Forest Service. 
In many areas the Delegation bill closely tracks the Forest Service 
plan--Breadloaf, Big Branch and Peru Peak areas are nearly identical. 
In the Glastenbury area, the Forest Service added more than 8,000 acres 
to their original plan, and we have further increased the acreage of a 
proposed Glastenbury Wilderness Area. In addition, this legislation 
adds about 2,000 acres to the Lye Brook Wilderness, above the Forest 
Service recommendation. Finally, we are proposing the new Battell 
Wilderness Area, which encompasses lands the Forest Service included in 
a Remote Backcountry management category, which is essentially managed 
as a wilderness area.
  In the Moosalamoo area, this legislation codifies the Moosalamoo 
National Recreation Area, which has the strong support of the various 
communities and local partners in the area. We believe this designation 
best represents the actual goals of the various stakeholders and merits 
this national designation. Furthermore, we have included the Forest 
Service's Escarpment management category in the designated area and 
have also included previously agreed upon management guidelines in the 
bill.
  I would offer the following thoughts which we have returned to on 
those numerous occasions over recent years whenever this subject has 
been brought up for discussion in our State.
  In sponsoring this legislation today, the Vermont Congressional 
Delegation is demonstrating our commitment to additional wilderness 
designations on the Green Mountain National Forest. The Green Mountain 
National Forest is the largest contiguous public land area in Vermont 
and within a days drive for over 70 million people. We are committed to 
protecting some National Forest lands for future generations under the 
National Wilderness Preservation System.
  Our proposals have not been driven by acreage quotas, but rather by 
data supplied by the Forest Service and by interested Vermonters. 
Therefore, what is too much for some will be too little for others.
  The timing of this introduction was conditioned so as to allow the 
Forest Service process to reach its conclusion and, at the same time, 
to enable Vermonters and other interested parties to review both the 
Forest Service and the Delegation recommendations. Throughout our 
deliberations, we have appreciated the help of the Forest Service staff 
and have recognized their commitment to their planning regulations, 
guidelines and timetable. We invite all Vermonters to join us in 
thanking the Forest Service staff for all the hard work in their 
planning effort.
  While this legislation proposes to add significant wilderness to the 
Green Mountain National Forest, it bears noting that most of the lands 
designated in this bill are not suitable for timber harvesting. This 
legislation would retain many thousands of acres available for timber 
harvesting which will have to be managed in a fair, open and 
professional manner. We are committed to the development of such a 
process and we know the Forest Service shares this commitment. We 
invite all interested parties to join in this effort. It is our hope 
that given the superior manner in which the Forest Service conducted 
the Forest Plan Revision process, unnecessary appeals and litigation of 
the plan and future management activities can be avoided.
  The Green Mountain National Forest has expanded since the last 
wilderness designations were made. As Senator Stafford, then 
Congressman Jeffords and I remember, during the consideration of the 
last Vermont Wilderness bill in 1984 there were many perspectives on 
the use of our National Forest. We assume there will be again this 
time. As we were 1984, we remain committed to carrying on the strong 
conservation legacy that generations of Vermonters, like Senator Robert 
Stafford, have fostered over the decades.
  We urge anyone who is interested in the Green Mountain National 
Forest to review the whole Plan, as the Forest Service has recommended, 
and to look beyond their own primary areas of concern so that we can 
all do what we can to help implement the Plan.
  In closing, I would note that the Delegation knows that you cannot 
undertake every possible use on every acre of National Forest land, and 
we believe most Vermonters support our approach to this issue. In 
recognition of this fact, we are introducing this legislation as a 
vision for the Green Mountain Forest for this and future generations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Obama):
  S. 2566. A bill to provide for coordination of proliferation 
interdiction activities and conventional arms disarmament, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Cooperative 
Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional 
Threat Reduction Act of 2006. This bill is based upon the legislation 
that Senator Obama and I introduced last year by the same name. Over 
the last six months we have worked closely with the Administration and 
the Department of State on legislation to improve U.S. programs focused 
on conventional weapons dismantlement and counter-proliferation 
assistance more effective and efficient.
  The Lugar-Obama bill launches two major weapons dismantlement and 
counterproliferation initiatives. Modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, 
which dismantles weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union 
and beyond, our legislation seeks to build cooperative relationships 
with willing countries to secure vulnerable stockpiles of conventional 
weapons and strengthen barriers against WMD falling into terrorist's 
hands.
  The first part of our legislation energizes U.S. programs to 
dismantle MANPADS and large stockpiles of other conventional weapons, 
including tactical missile systems. There may be as many as 750,000 
MANPADS in arsenals worldwide. The State Department estimates that more 
than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 
1970's. In addition loose stocks of small arms and other weapons help 
fuel civil wars and provide ammunition for those who attack 
peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to help war-torn societies. Our 
bill would enhance U.S. capability to safely destroy munitions like 
those used in the improvised roadside bombs that have proved so deadly 
to U.S. forces in Iraq.
  In August Senator Obama and I traveled to Ukraine and saw stacks of 
thousands of mortars and other weapons, left over from the Soviet era. 
The scene there is similar to situations in other states of the former 
Soviet Union, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. In many cases, the 
security around these weapons is minimal. Every stockpile represents a 
theft opportunity for terrorists and a temptation for security 
personnel who might seek to profit by selling weapons on the black 
market. The more stockpiles that can be safeguarded or eliminated, the 
safer we will be. We do not want the question posed the day after an 
attack on an American military base, embassy compound, or commercial 
plane why we didn't do more to address these threats.
  Some foreign governments have already sought U.S. help in eliminating 
their stocks of lightweight antiaircraft missiles and excess weapons 
and ammunition. But low budgets and insufficient attention have 
hampered destruction efforts. Our legislation would require the 
Administration to develop a response commensurate with the threat, by 
requiring better coordination and a three-fold increase in spending in 
this area, to $25 million--a relatively modest sum that would offer 
large benefits to U.S. security.
  The other part of the Lugar-Obama legislation would strengthen the 
ability of America's friends and allies to detect and intercept illegal 
shipments

[[Page 5570]]

of weapons and materials of mass destruction. Stopping these weapons 
and materials of mass destruction in transit is an important complement 
to the Nunn-Lugar program, which aims to eliminate weapons of mass 
destruction at their source.
  We cannot do this alone. We need the vigilance of like-minded 
nations. The Proliferation Security Initiative has been successful in 
enlisting the help of other countries, but many of our partners lack 
the capability to detect and interdict hidden weapons. Lugar-Obama 
seeks to address this gap by providing $50 million to establish a 
coordinated effort to improve the capabilities of foreign partners by 
providing equipment, logistics, training and other support. Examples of 
such assistance may include maritime surveillance and boarding 
equipment, aerial detection and interdiction capabilities, enhanced 
port security, and the provision of hand-held detection equipment and 
passive WMD sensors.
  On February 9 the Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing to 
examine the State Department's efforts in these important areas. In 
response to a question on how important conventional weapons 
elimination and counter-proliferation is to U.S. security Under 
Secretary Joseph stated that ``other than stopping weapons of mass 
destruction (at their source), I personally do not think that there is 
. . . a higher priority.'' The Under Secretary also pointed out that 
with more resources he was confident additional progress could be 
achieved faster.
  We have worked closely with Secretary Rice and her staff to improve 
this legislation. The bill has been modified in a number of ways to 
improve its effectiveness and to provide the Department with the 
authority necessary to carry out important nonproliferation and 
counter-proliferation missions. At the Department's request, we provide 
authorization for the entire Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, 
and Related Programs account. We also authorize international ship-
boarding agreements under the Proliferation Security Initiative, the 
use of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund outside the former 
Soviet Union, and the use of funds for administrative purposes. In 
addition, we provide the Secretary with the authority to make a 
reprogramming request to use the funds required under this legislation 
for other nonproliferation and counter-proliferation activities in an 
emergency.
  Earlier this week, Secretary Rice appeared before the Committee on 
Foreign Relations. I took the opportunity to ask her opinion of Lugar-
Obama. She stated her personal support and that of the Department and 
the Administration. I am pleased that efforts to craft this important 
effort not only have bipartisan Congressional support but the support 
of the Administration as well.
  The U.S. response to conventional weapons threats and the lack of 
focus on WMD detection and interdiction assistance must be rectified if 
we are to provide a full and complete defense for the American people. 
Senator Obama and I understand that the United States cannot meet every 
conceivable security threat everywhere in the world. But filling the 
security gaps that we have described and that Secretary Rice and Under 
Secretary Joseph have confirmed, should be near the top of our list of 
priorities. We do not believe these problems have received adequate 
resources and look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate 
to rectify the situation.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, Senator Lugar has already outlined the 
legislation that we are reintroducing here today and the process that 
has led us to this point, so I will be brief.
  I don't want my brevity to be confused with indifference towards this 
legislation. I want to underscore the importance of this bill in 
establishing a broad framework to more effectively combat the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and heavy conventional 
weapons. As I have said before, these are two critical issues that 
directly impact the security of the United States.
  In some ways, the bill has already had its desired impact. There was 
a reorganization of the State Department that will improve the 
Department's ability to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction and heavy conventional weapons. Moreover, the legislation 
has focused additional high-level attention--the scarcest commodity in 
Washington--on these Issues.
  However, there is more that needs to be done. I believe the Senate 
can and should move this bill in an expeditious fashion. We have 
already held a hearing on the bill, worked with the State Department to 
update and improve the legislation, and have received endorsements from 
an array of non-governmental organizations that follow these issues.
  I will defer to the Chairman on the procedural issues, but my hope is 
that we can report this bill out of the Foreign Relations Committee as 
soon as possible and work for Senate passage shortly thereafter.
  In closing, I want to thank Senator Lugar for his steadfast 
commitment to these critical issues and look forward to collaborating 
with him in the coming months on this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2567. A bill to maintain the rural heritage of the Eastern Sierra 
and enhance the region's tourism economy by designating certain public 
lands as wilderness and certain rivers as wild and scenic rivers in the 
State of California, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``the Eastern 
Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic Enhancement Act,'' a bill that will 
provide protection for thousands of some of the most pristine, wild, 
and beautiful acres in California. I am glad to be joined in this 
effort by my colleague, Senator Feinstein. Representative McKeon, whose 
congressional districts contains these special lands, introduced 
companion legislation today in the House of Representatives.
  My bill will protect three very special California treasures in the 
Eastern Sierra. It makes considerable additions to existing Hoover 
Wilderness areas, which border on Yosemite National Park. These 
additions will protect the stunning High Sierra landscape of 11,000 
foot snow-capped peaks and valleys, lush meadows and deep forests that 
people around the world associate with the Eastern Sierra.
  These areas are also home to an abundance of wildlife, including 
black bear, mountain lion, mule deer, waterfowl, and bald eagles.
  This land provides more than just visual beauty, however--it is also 
a recreational paradise. Year after year, hikers enjoy the 
approximately nine miles of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 
that runs through this wilderness, and anglers enjoy the clear lakes 
and streams that support a number of species of wild trout. The bill 
will also protect areas adjacent to the Emigrant Wilderness area, 
including another two miles of the Pacific Crest Trail.
  My legislation will also designate about 24 miles of the Amargosa 
River as a Wild and Scenic River. As the only river flowing into Death 
Valley, the Amargosa is an ecologically-important river in a dry desert 
area. Birds--and birdwatchers--abound in this area, both coming from 
far and wide to enjoy the river area.
  In short, these areas are not just California's natural treasures--
they are America's natural treasures. And that is why they deserve the 
highest level of protection possible. That is what this bill does.
  I was proud to include most of these lands in my California Wild 
Heritage Act that I reintroduced last month. And I look forward to 
working with Senator Feinstein and Representative McKeon, and all my 
colleagues, to protect these special places forever.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Carper):
  S. 2568. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate 
the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page 5571]]


  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, 
together with Senators Warner, Allen, Mikulski, Biden and Carper to 
designate the route of Captain John Smith's exploration of the 
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as a National Historic Trail. The 
proposed Trail is of great historical importance to all Americans in 
that it represents the beginning of our Nation's story.
  Next year our Nation will commemorate the 400th anniversary of the 
founding of Jamestown and the beginning of John Smith's momentous 
explorations of the Chesapeake Bay. In April 1607, three ships, the 
Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery, arrived at the mouth 
of the Chesapeake Bay after a four-month voyage from England carrying 
the colonists who would establish the first permanent English 
settlement in North America and plant the seeds of our nation and our 
democracy. Under the leadership of Captain John Smith, the fledgling 
colony not only survived, but helped ignite a new era of discovery in 
the New World sparked by reports of Smith's voyages around the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  John Smith's explorations in the small, 30 foot shallop totaled some 
three thousand miles, reaching from present-day Jamestown, Virginia, to 
Smiths Falls on the Pennsylvania border with Maryland and from Broad 
Creek, in Delaware to the Potomac River and Washington, DC. His 
journeys brought the English into contact with many Native American 
tribes for the first time, and his observations of the region's people 
and its natural wonders are still relied upon by anthropologists, 
historians, and ecologists to this day.
  Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of the significance of Smith's 
explorations. ``When we contemplate the dangers, and the hardships he 
encountered, and the fortitude, courage and patience with which he met 
them; when we reflect on the useful and important additions which he 
made to the stock of knowledge respecting America, then possessed by 
his countrymen; we shall not hesitate to say that few voyages of 
discovery, undertaken at any time, reflect more honour on those engaged 
in them, than this does on Captain Smith.''
  What better way to commemorate this important part of our Nation's 
history and honor John Smith's courageous voyages than by designating 
the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail? The Congress 
established the National Trails System ``to provide for the ever-
increasing outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and in 
order to promote the preservation of, public access to, travel within, 
and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and 
historic resources of the Nation.'' National Historic Trails such as 
the Lewis and Clark Trail, the Pony Express Trail, the Trail of Tears, 
and the Selma to Montgomery Trail were authorized as part of this 
System to identify and protect historic routes for public use and 
enjoyment and to commemorate major events which shaped American 
history. In my judgment, the proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake 
National Historic Trail is a fitting addition to the 13 National 
Historic Trails administered by the National Park Service.
  Pursuant to legislation we enacted as part of the Fiscal 2006 
Interior Appropriations Act authorizing the National Park Service to 
study the feasibility of so designating this trail, on March 21, 2006 
the National Park System Advisory Board concluded that the proposed 
trail is ``nationally significant'' as a milestone for the English 
exploration of North America, contact between the English and the 
Native American tribes of the region, and in commerce and trade in 
North America. This finding is one of the principal criteria for 
qualifying as a National Historic Trail. Well documented by the 
remarkably accurate maps and charts that Smith made of his voyages, the 
trail also offers tremendous opportunities for public recreation and 
historic interpretation and appreciation. Similar in historic 
importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail, this new historic 
water trail will inspire generations of Americans and visitors to 
follow Smith's journeys, to learn about the roots of our Nation and to 
better understand the contributions of the Native Americans who lived 
within the Bay region. It would also help highlight the Chesapeake 
Bay's remarkable maritime history, the diversity of its peoples, its 
historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain 
the world's most productive estuary.
  As Jamestown's 400th anniversary quickly approaches, designating the 
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail will bring 
history to life. It would serve to educate visitors about the new 
colony at Jamestown, John Smith's journeys, the history of 17th century 
Chesapeake region, and the vital importance of the Native Americans 
that inhabited the Bay area. It would provide new opportunities for 
recreation and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 millions 
Americans living in the Chesapeake Bay's watershed, but for visitors to 
this area throughout the country and abroad.
  This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Congress and 
in the States through which the trail passes. The trail proposal has 
been endorsed by the Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and 
Maryland and numerous local governments throughout the Chesapeake Bay 
region. The measure is also strongly supported by the National 
Geographic Society, The Conservation Fund, The Garden Club of America, 
the Izaak Walton League of America, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and 
the Chesapeake Bay Commission as well as scores of businesses, tourism 
leaders, private groups, and intergovernmental bodies.
  The Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Act comes 
at a very timely juncture to educate Americans about historical events 
that occurred 400 years ago right here in Chesapeake Bay, which were so 
crucial to the formation of this great country and our democracy. I 
urge my colleagues to support this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 2569. A bill to authorize Western States to make selections of 
public land within their borders in lieu of receiving five per centum 
of the proceeds of the sale of public land lying within said States as 
provided by their respective Enabling Acts; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would 
restore balance to a system that disadvantages education funding in the 
West. The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2006 would 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture to grant Federal land to western States where large 
proportions of public land hamper the States ability to raise funding 
for public education. This is a product of the hard work and creativity 
of Representative Rob Bishop, and I am working with him on this 
important effort.
  Many of my colleagues may not know this, but 10 of the top 12 States 
with the largest student-teacher ratios are in the West. These States 
also have the lowest growth in per-pupil expenditures, and their 
enrollment growth is projected to increase dramatically.
  The West's education funding deficit is not due to lack of commitment 
or effort by the States. The fact is that Western States allocate as 
great a percentage of their budgets to public education as the rest of 
the Nation. Moreover, Western States pay on average 11.1 percent of 
their personal incomes to State and local taxes, whereas citizens of 
the remaining States pay 10.9 percent of their incomes to these same 
State and local taxes.
  The funding discrepancy for education in the West is due in large 
part to the lack of a sales tax base, which can only be generated on 
private land. On average, the Federal Government owns 52 percent of the 
land located in the 13 Western States, while the remaining States 
average just 4 percent Federal land. Sales tax is not collected on 
Federal land, and as we know, public education is funded largely 
through sales taxes.
  We all know, the school trust lands that are available to these 
States are

[[Page 5572]]

not sufficient to make up the education shortfall in the West. This 
legislation would remedy that by granting public land States 5 percent 
of federally-owned land within the State boundaries. The land would be 
held in trust to be sold or leased, and the proceeds used strictly for 
the support of public education.
  Again, I thank Representative Bishop for his excellent work on this 
bill. My colleagues and I know of the need to address the West's 
education funding problem. The Action Plan for Public Land and 
Education Act of 2006 is a solution to this problem, and I urge my 
colleagues to lend their support for this important proposal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. 
        McCain):
  S. 2570. A bill to authorize funds for the United States Marshals 
Service's Fugitive Safe Surrender Program; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Domenici, KYL, and 
McCain to introduce a bill to support the Fugitive Safe Surrender 
Program, which encourages those with outstanding arrest warrants to 
turn themselves in peacefully. This program--conducted under the 
auspices of the U.S. Marshal Service, with the cooperation of public, 
private, nonprofit and faith-based partners--involves using a local 
church or community center as a temporary courthouse, where fugitives 
can turn themselves in and have their cases adjudicated.
  This is not an amnesty program. Those who surrender are still held 
accountable for the original charges. However, by moving the 
prosecutors, public defenders, and judges to the new location, non-
violent cases can be resolved promptly on-site, in a setting where 
fugitives feel they can safely turn themselves in.
  In a pilot program implemented last August in Cleveland, over 800 
people turned themselves in during a four day period, including 324 who 
had outstanding felony warrants. Almost all the cases were adjudicated 
on the day of the surrender. As means of comparison, the Fugitive Task 
Force conducted a more traditional sweep for three days following the 
implementation of the Fugitive Safe Surrender program, resulting in the 
capture of 65 people with outstanding warrants. Clearly, the Fugitive 
Safe Surrender program was a tremendous success, and I'd like to offer 
my personal congratulations to Pete Elliott, the U.S. Marshal for the 
Northern District of Ohio, and Dr. C. Jay Matthews, the Senior Pastor 
of the Mt. Sinai Baptist Church in Cleveland, for their efforts in 
heading up this successful endeavor. This type of innovation and 
creative thinking is exactly what we need in the law enforcement 
community, and it has obviously paid off in Cleveland.
  The Fugitive Safe Surrender program has exceeded expectations and 
demonstrated its value to the community. The logical next step is for 
the U.S. Marshals to expand their initiative nationwide. They already 
have been working with law enforcement, community, and church groups in 
eight cities that have volunteered to be sites for Fugitive Safe 
Surrender in 2006: Albuquerque, NM; Phoenix, AZ; Washington, DC; 
Louisville, KY; Camden, NJ; Indianapolis, IN; Richmond, VA; and Akron, 
OH. They are hoping to expand to even more cities in 2007 and 2008. 
This expansion is worthy of federal support, and that is why I have 
joined Senators Domenici, Kyl, and McCAIN in sponsoring the Fugitive 
Safe Surrender Act of 2006, which authorizes $3 million for fiscal year 
07, $5 million for fiscal year 08, and $8 million for fiscal year 09. 
These funds will allow the U.S. Marshals Service to coordinate with the 
Fugitive Safe Surrender sites around the country, also providing for 
the cost of establishing secure courtrooms inside of a local church or 
community center.
  This is a good bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2570

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Fugitive Safe Surrender is a program of the United 
     States Marshals Service, in partnership with public, private, 
     and faith-based organizations, which temporarily transforms a 
     church into a courthouse, so fugitives can turn themselves 
     in, in an atmosphere where they feel more comfortable to do 
     so, and have nonviolent cases adjudicated immediately.
       (2) In the 4-day pilot program in Cleveland, Ohio, over 800 
     fugitives turned themselves in. By contrast, a successful 
     Fugitive Task Force sweep, conducted for 3 days after 
     Fugitive Safe Surrender, resulted in the arrest of 65 
     individuals.
       (3) Fugitive Safe Surrender is safer for defendants, law 
     enforcement, and innocent bystanders than needing to conduct 
     a sweep.
       (4) Based upon the success of the pilot program, Fugitive 
     Safe Surrender should be expanded to other cities throughout 
     the United States.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The United States Marshals Service shall 
     establish, direct, and coordinate a program (to be known as 
     the ``Fugitive Safe Surrender Program''), under which the 
     United States Marshals Service shall apprehend Federal, 
     State, and local fugitives in a safe, secure, and peaceful 
     manner to be coordinated with law enforcement and community 
     leaders in designated cities throughout the United States.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the United States Marshals Service to 
     carry out this section--
       (1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (c) Other Existing Applicable Law.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to limit any existing authority under any 
     other provision of Federal or State law for law enforcement 
     agencies to locate or apprehend fugitives through task forces 
     or any other means.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 2571. A bill to promote energy production and conservation, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a comprehensive 
energy bill, one that I call Breaking Our Long-Term Dependency, or the 
BOLD Energy Act.
  As President Bush has stated, our Nation is addicted to oil. Our 
economy requires over 20 million barrels of oil a day to fuel our cars, 
our trucks, heat our homes, and bring goods to market all across the 
country. Sixty percent of our consumption--60 percent--is from imports. 
Many of these imports are coming from the most volatile parts of the 
world, the most unstable parts of the world, and we have to take 
serious steps now to reduce our growing dependency. That is what this 
bill is all about.
  This legislation, which is comprehensive in nature and which we have 
worked on for over 6 months, I believe is a serious contribution to the 
discussion. Let me make clear: These are not tepid steps. This 
legislation is bold because that is what the situation requires if we 
are to seriously reduce our dependence.
  This legislation invests approximately $40 billion over the next 5 
years to meaningfully reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Much of 
our imported oil comes from unstable parts of the world. Forty-five 
percent of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and 
Iraq. A major disruption to oil supplies in any of those areas could 
send oil over $100 a barrel. Threats to oil supplies and surging demand 
have contributed to a 95-percent increase in oil prices over the past 2 
years.
  Imported oil now accounts for $266 billion of our trade deficit. That 
is more than a third of our total trade imbalance.
  Our Nation faces other challenges on the energy front as well. 
Fluctuating natural gas prices threaten the livelihood of our Nation's 
farmers and manufacturers. Electricity sales are projected to increase 
by 50 percent over the next 25 years. Transmission capacity constraints 
prevent development of power production in many parts of the country, 
including North Dakota.
  Fortunately, the United States has the domestic resources and the 
ingenuity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and meet our energy 
challenges. It is time, I believe, to look to the Midwest rather than 
turning to the

[[Page 5573]]

Middle East for our energy resources. We can turn to our farm fields to 
produce more ethanol and biodiesel.
  Brazil shows what can be done. Thirty years ago Brazil was 80 percent 
dependent on foreign energy. They have reduced that dependence to less 
than 10 percent. At the same time, our country has gone from 35-percent 
dependence to now 60-percent dependence. We have been going the wrong 
way. Brazil has demonstrated what can be done to dramatically reduce 
one's energy dependence. How did they do it? They did it by aggressive 
promotion of biodiesel, by aggressive promotion of ethanol, and by 
creating a fleet of flexible fuel vehicles.
  We could do that here. Brazilian officials are now predicting they 
will be completely energy independent this year--this year. We can use 
our abundant domestic reserve of coal to produce clean, clear fuel as 
part of a plan to reduce our dependence, in addition to the use of 
those renewables.
  Coal-to-liquid fuel technology has tremendous potential. Converting 
America's 273 billion tons of coal into transportation fuel would 
result in the equivalent of over 500 billion barrels of oil. That 
compares to Saudi Arabia's reserves of 262 billion barrels.
  Why are we continuing to be dependent and vulnerable to foreign 
sources of energy? It makes no sense. It is time to do more than talk 
about the threat; it is time to act. That is why I am introducing the 
BOLD Energy Act today.
  My legislation would accomplish the following: It would increase 
production of renewable energy and alternative fuels. It would reward 
conservation and energy efficiency. It would provide more research and 
development funding for new energy technologies. It would promote 
responsible development of domestic fossil fuel resources, and it would 
facilitate upgrades to our Nation's electricity grid.
  First, the BOLD Act takes aggressive steps to increase alternative 
fuel production and use. It extends the biodiesel and ethanol tax 
credit. It requires ethanol use in the United States to increase from 
4.7 billion gallons in 2007 to 30 billion gallons in 2025. It creates a 
new biodiesel standard. It promotes alternative fueling stations, and 
it establishes a $500 million grant program for the expensive front-end 
engineering and design of coal-to-liquid fuel plants. These steps will 
allow us to substitute home-grown fuels for foreign oil, dramatically 
reducing our dependence on imported oil.
  Second, the experts tell us the single most important thing we can do 
to reduce our reliance on foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of 
our cars and trucks. My legislation provides a new rebate program for 
cars and trucks that achieve above-average fuel economy. The most fuel-
efficient vehicles would qualify for rebates of up to $2,500. This will 
encourage consumers to buy, and manufacturers to produce, more fuel-
efficient cars. We don't do this with the command-and-control structure 
of CAFE standards; we do it with incentives for the marketplace.
  My bill also requires that all vehicles sold in the United States by 
2017 must include alternative fuel technologies, such as hybrid 
electric or flex-fuel systems. Auto makers will be eligible for a 35-
percent tax credit or retiree health care cost relief to make this 
transition. We have had extensive discussions with the automobile 
industry on how to design these incentives so they would be effective.
  North Dakota E85 fueling systems will allow drivers to dramatically 
reduce gasoline usage. And in urban areas such as Washington, D.C. 
where most drivers commute fewer than 20 miles a day, new plug-in 
hybrids will allow most trips to be fueled by electricity rather than 
gasoline.
  Third, the BOLD Energy Act promotes environmentally responsible 
energy development here at home. It increases the existing enhanced oil 
recovery tax credit to 20 percent for any new or expanded domestic 
drilling project that uses carbon dioxide to recover oil from aging 
wells. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry on what would be 
the most effective incentives to seriously increase domestic energy 
production.
  It also includes language authorizing energy development in the Lease 
Sale 181 area in the Gulf of Mexico that prohibits this development 
from occurring within 100 miles of the Florida coast or interfering 
with military activities in the gulf.
  These steps will allow us to substitute American oil and natural gas 
for imports, creating jobs here at home and improving our energy 
security.
  Fourth, my BOLD Energy Act promotes new technologies to improve 
energy efficiency and develop renewable energy, such as wind and solar. 
It extends the renewable energy tax credit for 5 years and establishes 
a national 10-percent renewable electricity standard.
  My energy bill also creates a clean coal energy bonds program to 
allow electric cooperatives, tribal governments, and other public power 
systems to finance new, advanced clean coal powerplants.
  Finally, my legislation will improve the electricity grid in the 
United States by making it easier for State governments to finance the 
construction of transmission lines through the issuance of tax exempt 
bonds. Again, we have consulted broadly with industry over an extended 
period to find the things that would make the greatest difference to 
dramatically reducing our energy dependence. That is what this 
legislation is about. That is why I call it the BOLD Energy Act. It is 
seriously designed to break our long-term dependency. That is why we 
called it the BOLD Energy Act.
  A few weeks ago I met with the President and a bipartisan group of 
Senators at the White House to talk about energy policy. I told the 
President he was right to identify our addiction to oil as one of our 
challenges. I also told him it is time to be bold. No more tepid plans, 
no more plans that fundamentally do not make a difference. It is time 
for the United States to stand up to this challenge of seriously 
reducing our dependence on foreign energy.
  Make no mistake, this is a bold plan. This plan calls for the 
investment of approximately $40 billion over the next 5 years. That is 
what it is going to take. If we are going to be serious about reducing 
our dependence, it is going to take more than half steps. It is time to 
put politics aside and assemble our best collective ideas into a new, 
comprehensive energy policy. I ask my colleagues and I urge them to 
look at this bill, to examine it. I urge them and hope that they could 
cosponsor it. If not, I welcome their constructive criticism about what 
could be done to make it better.
  I don't think we have any time to waste. There is no time to lose. We 
need bold action. We need this BOLD Energy Act.
  I send the bill to the desk for its assignment to the appropriate 
committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and assigned to the 
appropriate committee.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank very much the dozens of 
organizations that have contributed to writing this legislation. As I 
have indicated, we have spent 6 months in preparing this legislation. 
We have consulted with literally dozens and dozens of organizations 
across this country. We have consulted with Members in both the House 
and the Senate. We have consulted with Governors. We have consulted 
with every relevant energy group in the State of North Dakota and in 
the Midwest. I am delighted that so many of them have already endorsed 
this legislation.
  It is time for us to get serious about reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil. I am delighted today to be presenting this BOLD Energy 
Act. I believe it is the direction we should take. I again ask my 
colleagues to give it their close consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from North 
Dakota for thinking boldly and focusing on an urgent need for our 
country. I look forward to studying his proposal and working with him, 
especially in the areas of conservation and efficiency. There is a 
consensus within the

[[Page 5574]]

Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we can do more in 
conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus in the Senate, I 
believe, that we could do more in research and development. There is a 
consensus that we could do more in renewable fuels. So I look forward 
to looking at what he has to say.
  I think our goal should be within a generation to end our dependence 
on foreign oil. That wouldn't mean we wouldn't buy oil from Mexico or 
from Canada or from anyone, really, but it would mean that no other 
country could hold the United States of America hostage to the oil 
supply.
  That is a very constructive suggestion. There is one yellow flag I 
would wave a little bit, and we can talk about it as it makes its way 
through the process. The Senator mentioned wind power. In terms of the 
transportation sector, unless we begin to put these large, giant wind 
machines on the cars--which I fully expect someone to propose before 
very long, with a large subsidy--I think we ought to examine carefully 
just how much money we are already spending on giant windmills because 
it is a massive tax ripoff to the taxpayers of the United States.
  The last figures I saw showed that we were now, over the next 5 
years, about to spend $3 billion supporting these giant wind machines, 
which are twice as tall as the football stadium at the University of 
Tennessee and extend from 10-yard line to 10-yard line and only work 
when the wind is blowing. They deface the landscape of America.
  The Senator has suggested a comprehensive policy that sounds very 
attractive to me, but I would like us to examine carefully, as we go 
through this, whether it is wise, for example, to extend the renewable 
tax credit another 2 years because that is just code words for more 
billions of dollars to the wind industry. They have a very good lobby. 
They are very effective. But there are other forms of alternative 
energy, especially regarding fuels, which is what we are talking about 
when we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is 
where we use most of our oil, in the transportation sector. I hope we 
will spend our available money on research and development, as the 
Senator has suggested, on conservation and efficiency, as the Senator 
suggested, and on other kinds of fuels--biodiesel, as the Senator 
suggested--and be very cautious about adding to the wind subsidy before 
we clearly understand what we are doing.
  Perhaps the figures aren't right, but the last figures I saw from the 
Department of Treasury is that the Congress has now authorized $3 
billion for giant wind machines. We don't need a national windmill 
policy; we need a national energy policy.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I get the attention of the Senator 
for just a moment? I say to him, first of all, I appreciate very much 
his thoughtful remarks, as always. When you have a chance to look at 
this, this is a comprehensive bill. We have spent months talking to 
everyone we thought had a good idea. We have talked to people who 
sponsored legislation in the House and the Senate, trying to cull those 
legislative offerings for the best ideas. We have talked to the people 
who were sponsored by Hewlett-Packard to do a review of national energy 
policy in America.
  As you know, they spent several years in a serious effort to come to 
grips with what we could do that would dramatically reduce our energy 
dependence. The Senator is quite right. That is why so much of this 
legislation is focused on fuels; that is where a significant part of 
our imported energy is going--to fuel the fleets of our country.
  Let me say with respect to wind energy, I truly believe that is a 
component of a comprehensive bill. Let me put it in perspective. In 
terms of our legislation, it is a very small part because I think that 
is the appropriate level of commitment to make in terms of 
comprehensive energy policy. There are many other things that have much 
more prominence in terms of where the investment is being made. I would 
say to my colleague, in North Dakota we have extraordinary wind energy 
capacity. We have the ability to relieve our dependence on coal-fired 
plants and our dependence on plants that are fueled by natural gas, and 
we have extreme problems, long term, with natural gas in this country. 
That is why natural gas prices have had such a runup.
  Wind energy is a great part of an overall plan to reduce peaking 
load. Obviously, you cannot count on the wind blowing--although in 
North Dakota you almost always can. So you have to marry it with other 
energy-generating sources. That is what we have done with this 
legislation. I very much welcome my colleague's kind comments, and I 
look forward to his consideration of what we have tried to do.
  Let me just say, I gave my staff an assignment 6 months ago. I told 
them I wanted an energy bill that anybody could look at and objectively 
say: If this were enacted, it would make a serious contribution to 
reducing our energy dependence. I have supported the past energy bills 
that have come through here. I was pleased to do so. But I think we all 
know none of them make a dramatic change in our long-term dependence. 
That is what this bill is designed to do, I say to my colleague: make a 
dramatic reduction in our dependence.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the 
Senator's remarks. He has presented this the same way he dealt with the 
budget issues. He and Senator Gregg did a very good job with that and 
helped the Senate through a difficult area. The last energy bill, the 
one in July, was a very good bill because it began to shift our policy 
toward producing large amounts of low-carbon and no-carbon energy. It 
takes a while to do that. It is like turning a big ship around. But we 
are already beginning to see the results.
  There was more conservation and efficiency in that than we had 
before, which avoids building new natural gas plants, for example. But 
we could do much more.
  There was significant support for nuclear power, which we should do 
more of. All those who want to solve global warming in a generation 
should be helping to support nuclear power because 70 percent of our 
carbon-free energy in the United States today comes from nuclear power. 
Seventy percent of the carbon-free electricity that we produce comes 
from nuclear power. There is a growing consensus that we should begin 
to proceed with that in the United States, and even help India and 
China avoid dirty coal plants that pollute the area. If we want clean 
air and low-cost power that is reliable, the approach toward nuclear 
power is important. That was in the bill.
  I encourage steps towards clean coal, which would be coal 
gasification, which would limit the amount of nitrogen and sulphur and 
mercury that would come from the use of coal--we have a lot of coal in 
the United States--and research for carbon sequestration. If we could 
recapture the carbon, we could then use coal for large amounts of clean 
power.
  Then we had significant support for renewable energy, for ethanol. 
The President has now suggested that we extend that to different kinds 
of ethanol. I am sure there are appropriate places for wind power, but 
it doesn't amount to much. It is not very reliable. And there is no 
excuse for spending $3 billion over the next 5 years on gigantic 
windmills that give big subsidies to investors and scar the landscape 
when we could be spending it on conservation and efficiency. Of course, 
what I hope, finally, and in pursuit of Senator Conrad's goal, is that 
we redouble our interest in the hydrogen fuel cell economy. Major 
manufacturers are telling me they are investing hundreds of millions of 
dollars each year in hydrogen fuel cells which will have no emissions 
except water, and one major manufacturer said to me that his company, 
one of the largest in the world, would have a commercially available 
car on the market within 10 years, and that was last year. That seems 
soon to me. But the sooner that happens--the sooner that happens, the 
better.
  To reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we are not held 
hostage, and to make sure that we have clean air

[[Page 5575]]

and to make sure that we do our part not to add to global warming, we 
should do all these things. We do not need a national windmill policy. 
We need a comprehensive energy policy.
  I see the Senator from Massachusetts.
  We would have to put enough giant windmills to cover 70 percent of 
Massachusetts to equal the amount of energy in the oil we would get 
from ANWR.
  My main purpose is to say to Senator Conrad that I welcome his 
proposal. It is a serious, thoughtful effort, as is characteristic of 
his efforts.
  I wish to ask that we carefully consider where the tax subsidies go 
before we spend more billions of dollars on a source that is already 
oversubsidized, that scars the landscape, that only works when the wind 
blows, that requires large new power lines to be built and that can 
fend for its own in marketplaces where it is appropriate to be.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 2572. A bill to amend the Aviation and Transportation Security Act 
to extend the suspended service ticket honor requirement; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the 
Aviation Consumer Protection Extension Act. The bill is a 1-year 
extension of section 145 of the Aviation and Transportation Security 
Act, which passed in 2001. The current extension expires in November of 
this year.
  Currently, the aviation industry is going through a difficult time 
with numerous airline bankruptcies and overall uncertainty. In this 
environment, airline consumers deserve protection in the circumstance 
that their air service provider suspends service because of a 
bankruptcy.
  This extension provides that airline passengers holding tickets from 
a bankrupt carrier are entitled to a seat on a standby basis on any 
airline serving that route if arrangements are made within 60 days 
after the bankrupt airline suspends operations.
  Under the provision, the maximum fee that an airline can charge for 
providing standby transportation would not exceed $50 each way. The 
extension does not apply to charter flights but does cover frequent 
flyer tickets.
  Like all Members of this body, my State of Montana has a number of 
traveling families. In the unfortunate circumstance that an air carrier 
discontinues service, those families should not have to foot an 
outrageous bill to get back home.
  In these times of unease and uncertainty in the airline industry, we 
need to make sure hard-earned family vacations don't turn into 
unnecessarily costly expenditures. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on a timely passage of this important extension.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 2573. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 
interest rate reductions, to authorize and appropriate amounts for the 
Federal Pell Grant program, to allow for in-school consolidation, to 
provide the administrative account for the Federal Direct Loan Program 
as a mandatory program, to strike the single holder rule, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. 2573

       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 ``Reverse the Raid on Student 
     Aid Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE REDUCTIONS.

       (a) FFEL Interest Rates.--Section 427A(l) (20 U.S.C. 
     1077a(l)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``6.8 percent'' and inserting ``3.4 
     percent''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, except that for any loan made pursuant to 
     section 428H for which the first disbursement is made on or 
     after July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest shall be 
     6.8 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``8.5 percent'' and 
     inserting ``4.25 percent''.
       (b) Direct Loans.--Section 455(b)(7) (20 U.S.C. 
     1087e(b)(7)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford 
     Loans'';
       (B) by striking ``6.8 percent'' and inserting ``3.4 
     percent''; and
       (C) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and for any Federal Direct Unsubsidized 
     Stafford Loan made for which the first disbursement is made 
     on or after July 1, 2006, the applicable rate of interest 
     shall be 6.8 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the 
     loan''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``7.9 percent'' and 
     inserting ``4.25 percent''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL PELL GRANT AWARDS.

       Section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1070a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking clauses (i) through 
     (v) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) $4,500 for academic year 2007-2008;
       ``(ii) $4,800 for academic year 2008-2009;
       ``(iii) $5,200 for academic year 2009-2010;
       ``(iv) $5,600 for academic year 2010-2011; and
       ``(v) $6,000 for academic year 2011-2012,'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``an appropriation 
     Act'' and inserting ``this section''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``the appropriate 
     Appropriation Act for this subpart'' and inserting ``this 
     section'';
       (2) by striking subsection (g);
       (3) by redesignating subsections (h), (i), and (j), as 
     subsections (g), (h), and (i), respectively; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Authorization and Appropriation of Funds.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated, to 
     carry out this section--
       ``(1) for academic year 2007-2008, such sums as may be 
     necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell 
     Grant for such academic year not more than $4,500;
       ``(2) for academic year 2008-2009, such sums as may be 
     necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell 
     Grant for such academic year not more than $4,800;
       ``(3) for academic year 2009-2010, such sums as may be 
     necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell 
     Grant for such academic year not more than $5,200;
       ``(4) for academic year 2010-2011, such sums as may be 
     necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell 
     Grant for such academic year not more than $5,600;
       ``(5) for academic year 2011-2012, such sums as may be 
     necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal Pell 
     Grant for such academic year not more than $6,000; and
       ``(6) for each subsequent academic year, such sums as may 
     be necessary to award each student eligible for a Federal 
     Pell Grant for such subsequent academic year not more than 
     the amount that is equal to the maximum award amount for the 
     previous academic year increased by a percentage equal to the 
     estimated percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (as 
     determined by the Secretary) between such previous academic 
     year and such subsequent academic year.''.

     SEC. 4. IN-SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION.

       Section 428(b)(7)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(7)(A)) is amended by striking ``shall 
     begin'' and all that follows through the period and inserting 
     ``shall begin--
       ``(i) the day after 6 months after the date the student 
     ceases to carry at least one-half the normal full-time 
     academic workload (as determined by the institution); or
       ``(ii) on an earlier date if the borrower requests and is 
     granted a repayment schedule that provides for repayment to 
     commence at an earlier date.''.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNT FOR DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM.

       Section 458 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1087h) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 458. FUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       ``(a) Administrative Expenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each fiscal year there shall be 
     available to the Secretary, from funds not otherwise 
     appropriated, funds to be obligated for--
       ``(A) administrative costs under this part and part B, 
     including the costs of the direct student loan programs under 
     this part; and
       ``(B) account maintenance fees payable to guaranty agencies 
     under part B and calculated in accordance with subsection 
     (b),

     not to exceed (from such funds not otherwise appropriated) 
     $904,000,000 in fiscal year 2007, $943,000,000 in fiscal year 
     2008, $983,000,000 in fiscal year 2009, $1,023,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2010, $1,064,000,000 in fiscal year 2011, and 
     $1,106,000,000 in fiscal year 2012.
       ``(2) Account maintenance fees.--Account maintenance fees 
     under paragraph (1)(B) shall be paid quarterly and deposited 
     in the Agency Operating Fund established under section 422B.
       ``(3) Carryover.--The Secretary may carry over funds made 
     available under this section to a subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(b) Calculation Basis.--Account maintenance fees payable 
     to guaranty agencies

[[Page 5576]]

     under subsection (a)(1)(B) shall not exceed the basis of 0.10 
     percent of the original principal amount of outstanding loans 
     on which insurance was issued under part B.
       ``(c) Budget Justification.--No funds may be expended under 
     this section unless the Secretary includes in the Department 
     of Education's annual budget justification to Congress a 
     detailed description of the specific activities for which the 
     funds made available by this section have been used in the 
     prior and current years (if applicable), the activities and 
     costs planned for the budget year, and the projection of 
     activities and costs for each remaining year for which 
     administrative expenses under this section are made 
     available.''.

     SEC. 6. SINGLE HOLDER RULE.

       Subparagraph (A) of section 428C(b)(1) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-3(b)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``and (i)'' and all that follows through ``so 
     selected for consolidation)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR:
  S. 2584. A bill to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 
to help reduce the increased risk of severe wildfires to communities in 
forested areas affected by infestations of bark beetles and other 
insects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. 2584, 
``The Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and Support 
Act,'' or ``Rocky Mountain FIRES Act,'' which I introduced earlier 
today.
  I am introducing this bill because we are facing an extremely 
dangerous wildfire situation in the West, including my home State of 
Colorado, maybe worse than we have ever faced.
  Below-average snowfalls, protracted drought, and a massive bark 
beetle infestation have created fuel loads that threaten forest health, 
property, and human life. I fear that we are facing a perfect storm of 
conditions for devastating fires this summer in Colorado.
  The southern half of Colorado, and much of the Southwest, has been 
hit by yet another year of below-average precipitation. With the 
exception of a few areas in Colorado's northern mountains, 
precipitation levels this winter were 25-50 percent of average. 
Colorado is now in its 7th consecutive year of drought.
  This drought has been so severe and so long that even the healthiest 
trees have become fuel for disease, fire, and insect infestations.
  Mr. President, the bark beetle, a pest that normally kills only a few 
weak trees in a stand, has fed off entire forests of drought-weakened 
trees. It is a plague that is sweeping through the Rockies.
  The bark beetle problem in Colorado is of unprecedented magnitude. 
The infestation is killing trees over hundreds of thousands of acres, 
leaving huge, dry fuel loads in its wake.
  Across the State, but particularly in the Arapaho National Forest in 
northern Colorado, bark beetles are turning entire forests into brown, 
dead stands. In 2004, bark beetles killed an estimated 7 million trees 
over 1.5 million acres in Colorado.
  When you see pictures that show the stands that have been hit by the 
bark beetle, you can see why people who live nearby are so concerned. 
You can imagine what a fire would look like if it got into a stand of 
beetle-infested timber--it would jump from crown to crown, racing up 
ridges and through the forest faster than we could respond.
  Beetle-kill stands are everywhere in Grand County and Larimer County, 
Summit and Eagle, Saguache and San Miguel. They are increasingly 
visible in pockets along the Front Range, among houses and communities 
in the wildland-urban interface.
  The areas with smaller outbreaks, like those in the Pike National 
Forest and the Gunnison National Forest, are just as worrisome as the 
massive outbreaks in northern Colorado. When we see even a handful of 
beetle-kill trees, it usually means that the insects are already 
attacking the surrounding trees.
  Private land owners and local governments are doing all they can to 
combat this problem--they are using their chainsaws to protect their 
homes, they are spraying trees, and they are devising protection plans. 
They wonder, though, if they aren't alone in this fight. They wonder if 
the Federal Government is asleep at the wheel in the face of potential 
disaster.
  The people who see the browned-out, dead forests from their kitchen 
windows wonder why Washington isn't moving faster to curb this 
onslaught on our public lands--why is the government not clearing out 
the dead trees, creating buffers to prevent the beetle from spreading, 
or providing more resources and expertise to help local communities 
protect themselves?
  I have pressed Secretary Johanns to find funds to deal with this 
emergency in Colorado and across the West. At the current budget 
levels, we are simply not able to curb the bark beetle problem and 
prepare for the upcoming fire season. We could be treating 2 or 3 times 
as many acres this year if we only had adequate funds.
  We must also give local communities and land managers the tools they 
need to combat the bark beetle infestation. That is what S2584, the 
``Rocky Mountain Fires Act,'' will do.
  My bill will facilitate a swifter response by the Forest Service and 
BLM to widespread insect infestations in our forests; provide 
additional money to communities that are preparing or revising their 
wildfire protection plans; make grant funding available for enterprises 
that use woody biomass for energy production and other commercial 
purposes, so that we can put beetle-kill trees and wood from hazard 
fuels-reduction projects to good use; and allow the Forest Service and 
the BLM to award stewardship contracts to nearby landowners, so that 
residents can do hazard fuels reduction on federal lands to protect 
their homes.
  Coloradans are anxious for Congress to take action on the bark beetle 
issue because they know the dangers they face. They remember the fire 
storms of 2002, when the Hayman Fire burned 138,000 acres on the Front 
Range, the Missonary Ridge Fire burned 70,000 acres near Durango, and 
scores of other fires across the State chewed up resources and claimed 
property and lives.
  This year could be as bad, or worse, if we don't take action right 
now.
  We must find funds or provide emergency funding so that we can gear 
up for the fire season. We must also pass bark beetle legislation that 
gives communities and land managers the tools they need to protect 
property and lives.
  We must take action right now. As I am reminded by the reports of 
fires in Colorado just this past week: this summer's fire season is 
already upon us.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 2585. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 
military death gratuities to be contributed to certain tax-favored 
accounts; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. America's service men and women continue to make the 
ultimate sacrifices for our Nation. In the tragic cases where brave 
soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors lose their lives in support of 
Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, we must honor 
their service by ensuring that their families are not forced to 
shoulder undue financial strain. Therefore, I am honored to introduce 
the Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act.
  This legislation will increase the flexibility given to families 
while managing the death gratuity payment to the survivors of fallen 
service men and women. This bill will provide these families expanded 
financial options to invest the $100,000 death gratuity payment in 
health, education, and retirement savings accounts. Allowing families 
to transfer these funds will help them save money for a college 
education, medical expenses, or to finance a future retirement.
  Allowing military families increased financial flexibility is the 
least we can do to honor the legacy our troops have worked so hard to 
create. It is my hope that this legislation will assist the families of 
fallen service men and women in their time of grief and allow them to 
plan for their future.
  I ask for unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
following letter from the Military Officers Association of America in 
support of this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 5577]]


                                     Military Officers Association


                                                   of America,

                                    Alexandria, VA, April 6, 2006.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: I am writing on behalf of the 360,000 
     members of the Military Officers Association of America 
     (MOAA) in support of your planned legislation, the Fallen 
     Heroes Family Savings Act. This important bill would help 
     military survivors manage the increased death gratuity 
     amounts permanently authorized in the FY2006 National Defense 
     Authorization Act.
       The new $100,000 death gratuity provides greatly improved 
     compensation for military survivors and their families but 
     also presents a challenge as to where to safely invest such 
     sizeable sums to provide for future financial security. Your 
     bill would allow survivors to invest death gratuity lump sums 
     in Roth IRA's and other savings accounts, above the 
     contribution limits now allowed. This makes perfect sense and 
     is a logical extension of efforts to increase benefits to 
     widows.
       MOAA is grateful for your leadership on this and other 
     issues important to our servicemembers. We pledge our support 
     in seeking enactment of this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Norb Ryan, Jr.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing 
``The Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act'' that will help military 
families that have suffered a tragic loss. In recent years, the 
Congress has generously raised the amount of the military death 
gratuity to $100,000 and expanded eligibility to all in uniform.
  Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to 
use it to make contributions to tax-preferred accounts that help with 
saving for retirement, health care, or the cost of education. Our 
legislation would allow families who already have given so much to 
contribute the death gratuity to certain tax-preferred accounts. These 
contributions would be treated as qualified rollovers. The contribution 
limits of these accounts will not be applied to these contributions.
  This legislation will not ease the pain of military families that 
suffer the loss of a loved one, but it can help families put their 
lives back together. It will enable military families to save more for 
retirement, education, and health care by being able to put the death 
gratuity payment in an account in which the earnings will accumulate 
tax-free.
  These changes to our tax laws will help military families with some 
of their financial burdens. It can not repay the sacrifices that they 
have made for us, but it hopefully demonstrates the gratitude of a 
Nation that will not forget the families of the fallen.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2586. A bill to establish a 2-year pilot program to develop a 
curriculum at historically Black colleges and universities, Tribal 
Colleges, and Hispanic serving institutions to foster entrepreneurship 
and business development in underserved minority communities; to the 
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Minority 
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program, legislation aimed at 
addressing this Nation's growing economic disparities through 
entrepreneurship and business development. It is the spirit of 
entrepreneurship that has made America's economy the best in the world. 
And it is through the energy and vitality of the small business sector 
that we will help all sectors of American society benefit from our 
robust economy.
  Exactly one year ago, the National Urban League released a report on 
the State of Black America, which discussed the growing economic gap 
between African Americans and their white counterparts. The report 
states that the median net worth of an African American family is 
$6,100 compared with $67,000 for a white family. The report makes clear 
that closing the racial wealth gap needs to be at the forefront of the 
civil rights agenda moving into the twenty-first century.
  Disproportionate unemployment figures for minorities versus their 
white counterparts have also been a persistent problem. Even as the 
administration has been touting the current low nationwide unemployment 
rate, the African American unemployment rate was 9.5 percent, the 
Hispanic unemployment rate was 6 percent, while the unemployment rate 
for whites averaged 4.1 percent.
  As the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I have received firsthand testimony and countless 
reports documenting the positive economic impact that occurs when we 
foster entrepreneurship in underserved communities. There are signs of 
significant economic returns when minority businesses are created and 
are able to grow in size and capacity. Between 1987 and 1997, revenue 
from minority owned firms rose by 22.5 percent, an increase equivalent 
to an annual growth rate of 10 percent and employment opportunities 
within minority owned firms increased by 23 percent during that same 
period. There is a clear correlation between the growth of minority 
owned firms and the economic viability of the minority community.
  We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go if this 
country is going to keep the promise made to all its citizens of the 
American dream. In 2005, African Americans accounted for 12.3 percent 
of the population and only 4 percent of all U.S. businesses. Hispanics 
Americans represent 12.5 percent of the U.S. population and 
approximately 6 percent of all U.S. businesses. Native Americans 
account for approximately 1 percent of the population and .9 percent of 
all U.S. businesses. We can, and should do something to address what is 
essentially an inequality of opportunity.
  I have long argued that there is a compelling interest for the 
Federal Government to create opportunities for business and economic 
development in all communities--throughout this Nation. It is 
appropriate for the Federal Government to lead the efforts and find 
innovative solutions to the racial disparities that exist in this 
country, whether they are in healthcare, education, or economics.
  Economic disparities in this country are a very complex issue, 
particularly when racial demographics are involved. I am well aware 
that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and there is no single 
piece of legislation that will level the playing field. However, I 
strongly believe that education and entrepreneurship can help to close 
the gap in business ownership and the wealth gap that exists in this 
country. Many minorities are already turning to entrepreneurship as a 
means of realizing the American dream. According to U.S. Census data, 
Hispanics are opening businesses 3 times faster than the national 
average. Business development and entrepreneurship have played a 
significant role in the expansion of the black middle class in this 
country for over a century.
  The Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program offers a 
competitive grant to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 
Tribal Colleges, and HispanicServing Institutions to create an 
entrepreneurship curriculum at these institutions and to open Small 
Business Development Centers on campus to serve local businesses. The 
colleges and universities that participate in this program will foster 
entrepreneurship among their students, the best and brightest of the 
minority community, and develop a pool of talented entrepreneurs that 
are essential to innovation, job creation, and closing the wealth gap. 
The bill would make 24 grants, for $1 million each, available to 
institutions that include entrepreneurship and innovation as a part of 
their organizational mission and open a business-counseling center for 
those graduates that start their own businesses as well as the 
surrounding community of existing business owners.
  The goal of this program is to target students who have skills in 
highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science and 
technology, and guide them towards entrepreneurship as a career option. 
Minority-owned businesses already participate in a wide variety of 
industries, but are

[[Page 5578]]

 disproportionately represented in traditionally lowgrowth and low-
opportunity service sectors. Promoting entrepreneurial education to 
undergraduate students at colleges and universities expands the pool of 
potential business owners to technology, financial services, legal 
services, and other non-traditional areas in which the overall 
development of minority firms has been slow. Growing the size and 
capacity of existing minority firms and promoting entrepreneurship 
among minority students already committed to higher education will have 
a direct relationship on the employment rate, income levels and wealth 
creation of minorities throughout the nation.
  The funds are also to be used to open a Small Business Development 
Center (SBDC) on the campus of the institution to assist in capacity 
building, innovation and market niche development, and to offer 
traditional business counseling, similar to other SBDCs. The one-to-one 
counseling offered by the business specialists at these centers has 
proven to be the most effective model available for making 
entrepreneurs run more effective, more efficient, and more successful 
businesses. By placing the centers on campus, the institutions will be 
able to leverage the $1 million grant for greater returns and 
coordinate efforts with the school's academic departments to maximize 
the efficacy of the program.
  While the funding in this bill is modest relative to the multi-
billion dollar budgets we discuss on a daily basis, these funds can go 
a long way and be leveraged to create economic growth in the most 
needed areas of this country. With this legislation, we will help 
foster long-term innovation and competitiveness in the small business 
sector. Mr. President, this bill is a small investment in the future of 
this country that I am sure will do much to foster economic growth in 
our minority communities and beyond. I urge my colleagues to join me as 
cosponsors of this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Inhofe) (by request):
  S. 2589. A bill to enhance the management and disposal of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, to ensure protection of 
public health and safety, to ensure the territorial integrity and 
security of the repository at Yucca Mountain, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, on behalf of 
myself and Senator Inhofe, to introduce, at the request of the 
administration, legislation to further the development at Yucca 
Mountain of the national repository for nuclear spent fuel and defense 
nuclear waste. This bill is a good start on the road to enactment of 
legislation that will resolve issues critical to the construction, 
licensing and operation of the facility.
  I hope to begin hearings on this issue in the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee shortly after the conclusion of the upcoming 
recess. I look forward to working with the administration, Senator 
Inhofe, and other interested Senators to facilitate the construction 
and operation of the repository, a project so important to the 
continued development of safe, clean, and efficient nuclear power in 
this country.
  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. 2589

       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 ``Nuclear Fuel Management and 
     Disposal Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Definitions From Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.--In 
     this Act, the terms ``Commission'', ``disposal'', ``Federal 
     agency'', ``high-level radioactive waste'', ``repository'', 
     ``Secretary'', ``State'', ``spent nuclear fuel'', and ``Yucca 
     Mountain site'' have the meaning given those terms in section 
     2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101).
       (b) Other Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Project.--The term ``Project'' means the Yucca Mountain 
     Project.
       (2) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means the Secretary of the Air Force or the Secretary of the 
     Interior, or both, as appropriate.
       (3) Withdrawal.--The term ``Withdrawal'' means the 
     withdrawal under section 3(a)(1) of the geographic area 
     consisting of the land described in section 3(c).

     SEC. 3. LAND WITHDRAWAL AND RESERVATION.

       (a) Land Withdrawal, Jurisdiction, and Reservation.--
       (1) Land withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights and 
     except as provided otherwise in this Act, the land described 
     in subsection (c) is withdrawn permanently from all forms of 
     entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land 
     laws, including, without limitation, the mineral leasing 
     laws, geothermal leasing laws, and mining laws.
       (2) Jurisdiction.--
       (A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     the Secretary shall have jurisdiction over the Withdrawal.
       (B) Transfer.--There is transferred to the Secretary the 
     land covered by the Withdrawal that is under the jurisdiction 
     of the Secretary concerned on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (3) Reservation.--The land covered by the Withdrawal is 
     reserved for use by the Secretary for the development, 
     preconstruction testing and performance confirmation, 
     licensing, construction, management and operation, 
     monitoring, closure, post-closure, and other activities 
     associated with the disposal of high-level radioactive waste 
     and spent nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
     1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.).
       (b) Revocation and Modification of Public Land Orders and 
     Rights-of-Way.--
       (1) Public land order revocation.--Public Land Order 6802 
     of September 25, 1990, as extended by Public Land Order 7534, 
     and any conditions or memoranda of understanding accompanying 
     those land orders, are revoked.
       (2) Right of way reservations.--Project right-of-way 
     reservations N-48602 and N-47748 of January 5, 2001, are 
     revoked.
       (c) Land Description.--
       (1) Boundaries.--The land and interests in land covered by 
     the Withdrawal and reserved by this Act comprise the 
     approximately 147,000 acres of land in Nye County, Nevada, as 
     generally depicted on the Yucca Mountain Project Map, YMP-03-
     024.2, entitled ``Proposed Land Withdrawal'' and dated July 
     21, 2005.
       (2) Legal description and map.--As soon as practicable 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall--
       (A) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing a 
     legal description of the land covered by the Withdrawal; and
       (B) file copies of the maps described in paragraph (1) and 
     the legal description of the land covered by the Withdrawal 
     with Congress, the Governor of the State of Nevada, and the 
     Archivist of the United States.
       (3) Technical corrections.--The maps and legal description 
     referred to in this subsection have the same force and effect 
     as if included in this Act, except that the Secretary of the 
     Interior may correct clerical and typographical errors in the 
     maps and legal description.
       (d) Relationship to Other Reservations.--
       (1) In general.--Subtitle A of title XXX of the Military 
     Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 
     885) and Public Land Order 2568 do not apply to the land 
     covered by the Withdrawal and reserved by subsection (a).
       (2) Other withdrawn land.--This Act does not apply to any 
     other land withdrawn for use by the Department of Defense 
     under subtitle A of title XXX of the Military Lands 
     Withdrawal Act of 1999.
       (e) Management Responsibilities.--
       (1) General authority.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Secretary concerned, as applicable, shall manage the land 
     covered by the Withdrawal in accordance with the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), 
     this Act, and other applicable law.
       (2) Management plan.--
       (A) Development.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, after consultation with 
     the Secretary concerned, shall develop and submit to Congress 
     and the State of Nevada a management plan for the use of the 
     land covered by the Withdrawal.
       (B) Priority of yucca mountain project-related issues.--
     Subject to subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), any use of the 
     land covered by the Withdrawal for activities not associated 
     with the Project is subject to such conditions and 
     restrictions as the Secretary considers to be necessary or 
     desirable to permit the conduct of Project-related 
     activities.
       (C) Department of the air force uses.--The management plan 
     may provide for the continued use by the Department of the 
     Air Force of the portion of the land covered by the 
     Withdrawal within the Nellis Air Force Base Test and Training 
     Range under terms and conditions on which the Secretary and 
     the Secretary of the Air Force agree with respect to Air 
     Force activities.
       (D) Nevada test site uses.--The Secretary may--

[[Page 5579]]

       (i) permit the National Nuclear Security Administration to 
     continue to use the portion of the land covered by the 
     Withdrawal on the Nevada Test Site; and
       (ii) impose any conditions on that use that the Secretary 
     considers to be necessary to minimize any effect on Project 
     or Administration activities.
       (E) Other non-yucca mountain project uses.--
       (i) In general.--The management plan shall provide for the 
     maintenance of wildlife habitat and the permitting by the 
     Secretary of non-Project-related uses that the Secretary 
     considers to be appropriate, including domestic livestock 
     grazing and hunting and trapping in accordance with clauses 
     (ii) and (iii).
       (ii) Grazing.--Subject to regulations, policies, and 
     practices that the Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, determines to be necessary or 
     appropriate, the Secretary may permit grazing on land covered 
     by the Withdrawal to continue on areas on which grazing was 
     established before the date of enactment of this Act, in 
     accordance with applicable grazing laws and policies, 
     including--

       (I) the Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the 
     ``Taylor Grazing Act'') (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.);
       (II) title IV of the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 
     1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.); and
       (III) the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 
     U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).

       (iii) Hunting and trapping.--The Secretary may permit 
     hunting and trapping on land covered by the Withdrawal on 
     areas in which hunting and trapping were permitted on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, except that the 
     Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the State of Nevada, may designate zones in 
     which, and establish periods during which, no hunting or 
     trapping is permitted for reasons of public safety, national 
     security, administration, or public use and enjoyment.
       (F) Mining.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     surface or subsurface mining or oil or gas production, 
     including slant drilling from outside the boundaries of the 
     land covered by the Withdrawal, is not permitted at any time 
     on or under the land covered by the Withdrawal.
       (ii) Validity of claims.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall evaluate and adjudicate the validity of all mining 
     claims on the portion of land covered by the Withdrawal that, 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, was under the control 
     of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (iii) Compensation.--The Secretary shall provide just 
     compensation for the acquisition of any valid property right.
       (iv) Cind-r-lite mine.--

       (I) In general.--Patented Mining Claim No. 27-83-0002, 
     covering the Cind-R-Lite mine, shall not be affected by 
     establishment of the Withdrawal, unless the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, determines 
     that the acquisition of the mine is required in furtherance 
     of the reserved use of the land covered by the Withdrawal 
     described in subsection (a)(3).
       (II) Compensation.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     acquisition of the mine described in subclause (I) is 
     required, the Secretary shall provide just compensation for 
     acquisition of the mine.

       (G) Limited public access.--The management plan may provide 
     for limited public access to and use of the portion of the 
     land covered by the Withdrawal that is under the jurisdiction 
     of the Bureau of Land Management on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, including for--
       (i) continuation of the Nye County Early Warning Drilling 
     Program;
       (ii) utility corridors; and
       (iii) such other uses as the Secretary, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of the Interior, considers to be 
     consistent with the purposes of the Withdrawal.
       (H) Closure.--If the Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Secretary concerned, determines that the health or safety of 
     the public or the common defense or security requires the 
     closure of a road, trail, or other portion of land covered by 
     the Withdrawal, or the airspace above land covered by the 
     Withdrawal, the Secretary--
       (i) may close the portion of land or the airspace; and
       (ii) shall provide public notice of the closure.
       (3) Implementation.--The Secretary and the Secretary 
     concerned shall implement the management plan developed under 
     paragraph (2) in accordance with terms and conditions on 
     which the Secretary and the Secretary concerned jointly 
     agree.
       (f) Immunity.--The United States (including each department 
     and agency of the Federal Government) shall be held harmless, 
     and shall not be liable, for damages to a person or property 
     suffered in the course of any mining, mineral leasing, or 
     geothermal leasing activity conducted on the land covered by 
     the Withdrawal.
       (g) Land Acquisition.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire land, and 
     interests in land within the land, covered by the Withdrawal.
       (2) Method of acquisition.--Land and interests in land 
     described in paragraph (1) may be acquired by donation, 
     purchase, lease, exchange, easement, right-of-way, or other 
     appropriate methods using donated or appropriated funds.
       (3) Exchange of land.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     conduct any exchange of land covered by the Withdrawal for 
     Federal land not covered by the Withdrawal.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Application.--Section 114(b) of the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``If the President'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--If the President''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following
       ``(2) Required information.--An application for 
     construction authorization shall not be required to contain 
     information any surface facility other than surface 
     facilities necessary for initial operation of the 
     repository.''.
       (b) Application Procedures and Infrastructure Activities.--
     Section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 
     U.S.C. 10134(d)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Commission 
     shall consider'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall consider'';
       (2) by striking the last 2 sentences; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as designated by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(2) Amendments to application for construction 
     authorization.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Commission approves an 
     application for construction authorization and the Secretary 
     submits an application to amend the authorization to obtain 
     permission to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and 
     high-level radioactive waste, or to undertake any other 
     action concerning the repository, the Commission shall 
     consider the application using expedited, informal 
     procedures, including discovery procedures that minimize the 
     burden on the parties to produce documents that the 
     Commission does not need to render a decision on an action 
     under this section.
       ``(B) Final decision.--The Commission shall issue a final 
     decision on whether to grant permission to receive and 
     possess spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, 
     or on any other application, by the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of submission of the application, except that the 
     Commission may extend that deadline by not more than 180 days 
     if, not less than 30 days before the deadline, the Commission 
     complies with the reporting requirements under subsection 
     (e)(2).
       ``(3) Infrastructure activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--At any time before or after the 
     Commission issues a final decision on an application from the 
     Secretary for construction authorization under this 
     subsection, the Secretary may undertake infrastructure 
     activities that the Secretary determines to be necessary or 
     appropriate to support construction or operation of a 
     repository at the Yucca Mountain site or transportation to 
     the Yucca Mountain site of spent nuclear fuel and high level 
     radioactive waste, including infrastructure activities such 
     as--
       ``(i) safety upgrades;
       ``(ii) site preparation;
       ``(iii) the construction of a rail line to connect the 
     Yucca Mountain site with the national rail network, including 
     any facilities to facilitate rail operations; and
       ``(iv) construction, upgrade, acquisition, or operation of 
     electrical grids or facilities, other utilities, 
     communication facilities, access roads, rail lines, and non-
     nuclear support facilities.
       ``(B) Compliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall comply with all 
     applicable requirements under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to 
     an infrastructure activity undertaken under this paragraph.
       ``(ii) EIS.--If the Secretary determines that an 
     environmental impact statement or similar analysis under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is required in 
     connection with an infrastructure activity undertaken under 
     this paragraph, the Secretary shall not be required to 
     consider the need for the action, alternative actions, or a 
     no-action alternative.
       ``(iii) Other agencies.--

       ``(I) In general.--To the extent that a Federal agency is 
     required to consider the potential environmental impact of an 
     infrastructure activity undertaken under this paragraph, the 
     Federal agency shall adopt, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, an environmental impact statement or similar 
     analysis prepared under this paragraph without further 
     action.
       ``(II) Effect of adoption of statement.--Adoption of an 
     environmental impact statement or similar analysis described 
     in subclause (I) shall be considered to satisfy the 
     responsibilities of the adopting agency under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
     and no further action for the activity covered by the 
     statement or analysis shall be required by the agency.

[[Page 5580]]

       ``(C) Denials of authorization.--The Commission may not 
     deny construction authorization, permission to receive and 
     possess spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste, 
     or any other action concerning the repository on the ground 
     that the Secretary undertook an infrastructure activity under 
     this paragraph.''.
       (c) Connected Actions.--Section 114(f)(6) of the Nuclear 
     Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, or an action connected or otherwise relating 
     to the repository, to the extent the action is undertaken 
     outside the geologic repository operations area and does not 
     require a license from the Commission''.
       (d) Expedited Authorizations.--Section 120 of the Nuclear 
     Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10140) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, or the conduct 
     of an infrastructure activity,'' after ``repository'';
       (B) by inserting ``, State, local, or tribal'' after 
     ``Federal'' each place it appears; and
       (C) in the second sentence, by striking ``repositories'' 
     and inserting ``a repository or infrastructure activity'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``, and may include 
     terms and conditions permitted by law''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Failure to Grant Authorization.--An agency or officer 
     that fails to grant authorization by the date that is 1 year 
     after the date of receipt of an application or request from 
     the Secretary subject to subsection (a) shall submit to 
     Congress a written report that explains the reason for not 
     meeting that deadline or rejecting the application or 
     request.
       ``(d) Treatment of Actions.--For the purpose of applying 
     any Federal, State, local, or tribal law or requirement, the 
     taking of an action relating to a repository or an 
     infrastructure activity shall be considered to be--
       ``(1) beneficial, and not detrimental, to the public 
     interest and interstate commerce; and
       ``(2) consistent with the public convenience and 
     necessity.''.

     SEC. 5. NUCLEAR WASTE FUND.

       (a) Crediting Fees.--Beginning on October 1, 2007, and 
     continuing through the end of the fiscal year during which 
     construction is completed for the Nevada rail line and 
     surface facilities for the fully operational repository 
     described in the license application, fees collected by the 
     Secretary and deposited in the Nuclear Waste Fund established 
     by section 302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 
     U.S.C. 10222(c)) shall be credited to the Nuclear Waste Fund 
     as discretionary offsetting collections each year in amounts 
     not to exceed the amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste 
     Fund for that year.
       (b) Fund Uses.--Section 302(d)(4) of the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)(4)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``with'' the following: ``infrastructure 
     activities that the Secretary determines to be necessary or 
     appropriate to support construction or operation of a 
     repository at the Yucca Mountain site or transportation to 
     the Yucca Mountain site of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste, and''.

     SEC. 6. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Material Requirements.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no Federal, State, interstate, or local 
     requirement, either substantive or procedural, that is 
     referred to in section 6001(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6961(a)), applies to--
       (1) any material owned by the Secretary, if the material is 
     transported or stored in a package, cask, or other container 
     that the Commission has certified for transportation or 
     storage of that type of material; or
       (2) any material located at the Yucca Mountain site for 
     disposal, if the management and disposal of the material is 
     subject to a license issued by the Commission.
       (b) Permits.--
       (1) In general.--The Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     be the permitting agency for purposes of issuing, 
     administering, or enforcing any new or existing air quality 
     permit or requirement applicable to a Federal facility or 
     activity relating to the Withdrawal that is subject to the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.).
       (2) State and local activity.--A State or unit of local 
     government shall not issue, administer, or enforce a new or 
     existing air quality permit or requirement affecting a 
     Federal facility or activity that is--
       (A) located on the land covered by the Withdrawal; and
       (B) subject to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 
     U.S.C. 10101 et seq.).

     SEC. 7. TRANSPORTATION.

       The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is amended by 
     inserting after section 180 (42 U.S.C. 10175) the following:

     ``SEC. 181. TRANSPORTATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may determine the extent 
     to which any transportation required to carry out the duties 
     of the Secretary under this Act that is regulated under the 
     Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994 
     (title I of Public Law 103-311; 108 Stat. 1673) and 
     amendments made by that Act shall instead be regulated 
     exclusively under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
     2011 et seq.).
       ``(b) Determination of Preemption.--On request by the 
     Secretary, the Secretary of Transportation may determine, 
     pursuant to section 5125 of title 49, United States Code, 
     that any requirement of a State, political subdivision of a 
     State, or Indian tribe regarding transportation carried out 
     by or on behalf of the Secretary in carrying out this Act is 
     preempted, regardless of whether the transportation otherwise 
     is or would be subject to regulation under the Hazardous 
     Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994 (title I 
     of Public Law 103-311; 108 Stat. 1673).''.

     SEC. 8. CONSIDERATION OF EFFECT OF ACQUISITION OF WATER 
                   RIGHTS.

       Section 124 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 
     U.S.C. 10144) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``The Secretary'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 124. CONSIDERATION OF EFFECT OF ACQUISITION OF WATER 
                   RIGHTS.

       ``(a) Water Rights Acquisition Effect.--The Secretary''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Beneficial Use of Water.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other Federal, 
     State, or local law, the use of water from any source in 
     quantities sufficient to accomplish the purposes of this Act 
     and to carry out functions of the Department under this Act 
     shall be considered to be a use that--
       ``(A) is beneficial to interstate commerce; and
       ``(B) does not threaten to prove detrimental to the public 
     interest.
       ``(2) Conflicting state laws.--A State shall not enact or 
     apply a law that discriminates against a use described in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Acquisition of water rights.--The Secretary, through 
     purchase or other means, may obtain water rights necessary to 
     carry out functions of the Department under this Act.''.

     SEC. 9. CONFIDENCE IN AVAILABILITY OF WASTE DISPOSAL.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in deciding 
     whether to permit the construction or operation of a nuclear 
     reactor or any related facilities, the Commission shall deem, 
     without further consideration, that sufficient capacity will 
     be available in a timely manner to dispose of the spent 
     nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste resulting from 
     the operation of the reactor and related facilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Carper, and Mr. 
        McCain):
  S. 2590. A bill to require full disclosure of all entities and 
organizations receiving Federal funds; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Barack Obama, 
Thomas Carper, and John McCain, I introduced legislation to create an 
online public database that itemizes Federal funding.
  The bill ensures that the taxpayers will now know how their money is 
being spent. Every citizen in this country, after all, should have the 
right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with 
their hard-earned tax dollars.
  The Federal Government awards roughly $300 billion in grants annually 
to 30,000 different organizations across the United States, according 
to the General Services Administration.
  This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to 
establish and maintain a single public Web site that lists all entities 
receiving Federal funds, including the name of each entity, the amount 
of Federal funds the entity has received annually by program, and the 
location of the entity. All Federal assistance must be posted within 30 
days of such funding being awarded to an organization.
  This would be an important tool to make Federal funding more 
accountable and transparent. It would also help to reduce fraud, abuse, 
and misallocation of Federal funds by requiring greater accounting of 
Federal expenditures. According to OMB, Federal agencies reported $37.3 
billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2005 alone. Better 
tracking of Federal funds would ensure that agencies and taxpayers know 
where resources are being spent and likely reduce the number of 
improper payments by Federal agencies.
  Over the past year, the Senate Federal Financial Management 
Subcommittee, which I chair along with ranking member Carper, has 
uncovered tens of billions of dollars in fraud, abuse and wasteful 
spending, ranging from expensive leasing schemes to corporate welfare 
to bloated bureaucracy.

[[Page 5581]]

This database would ensure that such spending is better tracked and the 
public can hold policymakers and Government agencies accountable for 
questionable spending decisions.
  The Web site required by this bill would not be difficult to develop. 
In fact, one such site already exists for some Federal funds provided 
by agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. 
The CRISP, Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects, is 
a searchable database of federally funded biomedical research projects 
conducted at universities, hospitals, and other research institutions. 
The database, maintained by the Office of Extramural Research at the 
National Institutes of Health, includes projects funded by the National 
Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 
Health Resources and Services Administration, Food and Drug 
Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Agency 
for Health Care Research and Quality, and Office of Assistant Secretary 
of Health. The CRISP database contains current and historical awards 
dating from 1972 to the present.
  This type of information should be available for all Federal 
contracts, grants, loans, and assistance provided by all Federal 
agencies and departments.
  It often takes agencies months to verify or to determine an 
organization's funding when requested by Congress. There are numerous 
examples of Federal agencies or entities receiving Federal funds 
actually trying to camouflage how Federal dollars are being spent or 
distributing public funds in violation of Federal laws.
  In October 2005, the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee 
on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources questioned the 
U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, assistant 
administrator to determine if the agency was funding a proprostitution 
nongovernmental organization called Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha, 
SANGRAM, in apparent violation of Public Law 108-25. This law prohibits 
funds from being used ``to promote or advocate the legalization or 
practice of prostitution or sex trafficking,'' and organizations 
seeking Federal funding for HIV/AIDS work must have a policy 
``explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.''
  According to an unclassified State Department memorandum, Restore 
International, an antitrafficking organization working in India, was 
``confronted by a USAID-funded NGO, SANGRAM while the former attempted 
to rescue and provide long-term care for child victims of sex 
trafficking. The confrontation led to the release of 17 minor girls--
victims of trafficking--into the hands of traffickers and trafficking 
accomplices.'' According to this memorandum, SANGRAM ``allowed a 
brothel keeper into a shelter to pressure the girls not to cooperate 
with counselors. The girls are now back in the brothels, being 
subjected to rape for profit.''
  On November 16, 2005, a USAID briefer asserted to subcommittee staff 
that USAID had ``nothing to do with'' the grant to the proprostitution 
SANGRAM and that the subcommittee's inquiries were ``destructive.'' 
Nonetheless, congressional investigators continued to pursue this 
matter and eventually proved that USAID money financed the 
proprostitution SANGRAM through a second organization named Avert, 
which was established with the assistance of four USAID employees as a 
passthrough entity. USAID has held the ex-officio vice chairmanship of 
Avert since inception. According to documents obtained by the 
subcommittee, the USAID board member of Avert voted twice to award 
funding to SANGRAM--July 27, 2002 and again on December 3, 2004--the 
last time being some 18 months after the provisions of Public Law 108-
25 prohibited taxpayer funding of proprostitution groups like SANGRAM.
  Last August, HHS sponsored a conference in Utah entitled the ``First 
National Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV and Hepatitis'' that 
promoted illegal drug abuse and dangerous sexual behavior. Conference 
sessions included: ``We Don't Need a `War' on Methamphetamine''; ``You 
Don't Have to Be Clean & Sober. Or Even Want to Be!''; ``Tweaking Tips 
for Party Boys''; ``Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach''; and 
``Without condoms: Harm Reduction, Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and 
Barebacking.'' ``Tweaking'' is a street term for the most dangerous 
stage of meth abuse. A ``tweaker'' is a term for a meth addict who 
probably has not slept in days, or weeks, and is irritable and 
paranoid. Likewise, ``party boy'' is slang for an individual who abuses 
drugs, or ``parties.'' ``Barebacking'' is a slang term for sexual 
intercourse without the use of a condom.
  While HHS initially denied sponsoring the conference, it was later 
learned that thousands of dollars of a CDC grant were used to, in fact, 
sponsor this conference and CDC sent six employees to participate. In a 
letter dated October 28, 2005, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding 
admitted that ``Although CDC was not listed as a sponsor, a portion of 
CDC's cooperative agreement with Utah, $13,500, was used to support the 
conference. While Utah informed a CDC project officer that Utah and the 
Harm Reduction Coalition were sponsoring the conference and shared a 
draft agenda with the project officer, Utah did not inform the project 
officer about the particular source of the funding for the 
conference.''
  Previously, the CDC was questioned about its financial support for a 
number of dubious HIV prevention workshops, including ``flirting 
classes'' and ``Booty Call,'' orchestrated by the Stop AIDS Foundation 
of San Francisco. While CDC repeatedly denied to both Congress and the 
public that taxpayer funds were used to finance these programs, a Stop 
AIDS Project official eventually admitted in August 2001 to using 
Federal funds for the programs. An HHS Office of Inspector General, 
OIG, investigation also concluded in November 2001 that Federal funds 
were used to finance the programs and that the programs themselves 
contained content that may violate Federal laws and Federal guidelines 
were not followed. The OIG found that the activity under review ``did 
not fully comply with the cooperative agreement and other CDC 
guidance,'' that the CDC requirement for review of materials by a local 
review panel was not followed, and characterized some of the project 
activities as ``inappropriate.'' Finally, the OIG concluded that ``CDC 
funding was used to support all [Stop AIDS] Project activities.'' The 
Stop AIDS Project received approximately $700,000 a year from the CDC 
but no longer receives Federal funding.
  These are just a few recent examples from only a couple agencies 
uncovered due to aggressive congressional oversight. While the public, 
whose taxes finance these groups and programs, watchdog organizations, 
and the media can file Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests for 
this same information, such requests can take months to receive answers 
and often go completely ignored.
  If enacted, this legislation will finally ensure true accountability 
and transparency in how the Government spends our money, which will 
hopefully lead to more fiscal responsibility by the Federal Government.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Chafee, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 2592. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to improve 
the nutrition and health of schoolchildren by updating the definition 
of ``food of minimal nutritional value'' to conform to current 
nutrition science and to protect the Federal investment in the national 
school lunch and breakfast programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our Nation faces a public health crisis of 
the first order. Poor diet and physical inactivity are contributing to 
growing rates of chronic disease in the U.S. These problems do not just 
affect adults, but increasingly affect the health of our children as 
well. Research suggests that one-third of American children born today 
will develop type II

[[Page 5582]]

diabetes at some point. For some minority children, the numbers are 
even more shocking, as high as 50 percent. At the same time, rates of 
overweight among children are skyrocketing: tripling among children 
ages 6-11, and doubling among children ages 2 to 5 and ages 12-19 over 
the past three decades. Indeed, just this week the Journal of the 
American Medical Association released a new study that found that, in 
just the past 5 years, rates of childhood overweight and obesity rose 
very significantly.
  There are many reasons for this public health crisis, and 
accordingly, addressing the crisis will require multiple solutions as 
well. One place where we can start is with our schools, which have been 
inundated with foods and drinks having little or no positive 
nutritional value. A recent study from the Government Accountability 
office found that 99 percent of high schools, 97 percent of middle 
schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools sell foods from vending 
machines, school stores, or a-la-carte lines in the cafeteria. And it 
is not fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods that are 
being sold. No, the vast majority of the foods being sold in our 
schools outside of Federal meal programs are foods that contribute 
nothing to the health and development of our children and are actually 
detrimental to them.
  Not only does the over consumption of these foods take a toll on the 
health of our children, but they also have a negative impact of the 
investment of taxpayer dollars in the health of our kids. Every year 
the Federal Government spends nearly $10 billion to reimburse schools 
for the provision of meals through the National School Lunch Program 
and School Breakfast Program. In order to receive reimbursement, these 
meals must meet nutrition standards based upon the Dietary Guidelines 
for All Americans, the official dietary advice of the U.S. government. 
However, sales of food elsewhere in our schools do not fall under these 
guidelines. Therefore, as children consume more and more of the foods 
typically sold through school vending machines and snack bars, it 
undermines the nearly $10 billion in Federal reimbursements that we 
spend on nutritionally balanced school meals.
  Finally, the heavy selling of candy, soft drinks and other junk food 
in our schools undermines the guidance, and even the instruction and 
authority of parents who want to help their children consume sound and 
balanced diets. The American public agrees. A Robert Wood Johnson 
Foundation poll from several years ago found that 90 percent of parents 
would like to see schools remove the typical junk food from vending 
machines and replace it with healthier alternatives. My bill seeks to 
restore the role and authority of parents by ensuring that schools 
provide the healthy, balanced nutrition that contributes to health and 
development.
  What really hurts children and undermines parents is the junk food 
free-for-all that currently exists in so many of our schools. How does 
it help kids if the school sells them a 20-ounce soda and a candy bar 
for lunch when their parents have sent them to school with the 
expectation that they will have balanced meals from the school lunch 
program?
  Today, for the first time ever, bipartisan legislation is being 
introduced in both Chambers of Congress to address this problem--and to 
do what is right for the health of our kids. This bill is supported by 
key health and education groups, and I would like to thank the National 
PTA, the American Medical Association, the Center for Science in the 
Public Interest, the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic 
Association, the American Diabetes Association, and others for their 
strong support.
  The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006 
does two very simple but important things:
  First, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a 
rulemaking process to update nutritional standards for foods sold in 
schools. Currently, USDA relies upon a very narrow nutritional standard 
that is nearly 30 years old. Since that definition was formulated, 
children's diets and dietary risk have changed dramatically. In that 
time, we have also learned a great deal about the relationship between 
poor diet and chronic disease. It is time for public policy to catch up 
with the science.
  Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to apply the 
updated definition everywhere on school grounds and throughout the 
school day. Currently, the Secretary can only issue rules limiting a 
very narrow class of foods, and then only stop their sales in the 
actual school cafeteria during the meal period. As a result, a child 
only needs to walk into the hall outside the cafeteria to buy a 
``lunch'' consisting of soda, a bag of chips and a candy bar. This is a 
loophole that is big enough to drive a soft drink delivery truck 
through--literally. It is time to close it.
  The bill is supported in the Senate by a bipartisan group of 
Senators. Joining me in introducing the bill are Senator Specter of 
Pennsylvania, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Murkowski of 
Alaska, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island. 
The diverse group of supporters of this bill cuts all lines and shows 
that when the health of our children is at stake, we can put aside our 
differences in the interest of our children.
  This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of poor diet and 
rising rates of chronic disease among our children and adults. But it 
is a start. Scientists predict that--because of obesity and preventable 
chronic diseases--the current generation of children could very well be 
the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents. 
If this isn't a wakeup call, I don't know what is.
  Our children are at risk. The time to act is now. And that's why I am 
pleased to introduce the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch 
Protection 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. 2592

       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 ``Child Nutrition Promotion 
     and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) for a school food service program to receive Federal 
     reimbursements under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 
     U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) or the Richard B. Russell National 
     School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), school meals 
     served by that program must meet science-based nutritional 
     standards established by Congress and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture;
       (2) foods sold individually outside the school meal 
     programs (including foods sold in vending machines, a la 
     carte or snack lines, school stores, and snack bars) are not 
     required to meet comparable nutritional standards;
       (3) in order to promote child nutrition and health, 
     Congress--
       (A) has authorized the Secretary to establish nutritional 
     standards in the school lunchroom during meal time; and
       (B) since 1979, has prohibited the sale of food of minimal 
     nutritional value, as defined by the Secretary, in areas 
     where school meals are sold or eaten;
       (4) Federally-reimbursed school meals and child nutrition 
     and health are undermined by the uneven authority of the 
     Secretary to set nutritional standards throughout the school 
     campus and over the course of the school day;
       (5) since 1979, when the Secretary defined the term ``food 
     of minimal nutritional value'' and promulgated regulations 
     for the sale of those foods during meal times, nutrition 
     science has evolved and expanded;
       (6) the current definition of ``food of minimal nutritional 
     value'' is inconsistent with current knowledge about 
     nutrition and health;
       (7) because some children purchase foods other than 
     balanced meals provided through the school lunch program 
     established under the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the school breakfast 
     program established by section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act 
     of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), the efforts of parents to ensure 
     that their children consume healthful diets are undermined;

[[Page 5583]]

       (8) experts in nutrition science have found that--
       (A) since 1980, rates of obesity have doubled in children 
     and tripled in adolescents;
       (B) only 2 percent of children eat a healthy diet that is 
     consistent with Federal nutrition recommendations;
       (C) 3 out of 4 high school students do not eat the minimum 
     recommended number of servings of fruits and vegetables each 
     day; and
       (D) type 2 diabetes, which is primarily due to poor diet 
     and physical inactivity, is rising rapidly in children;
       (9) in 1996, children aged 2 to 18 years consumed an 
     average of 118 more calories per day than similar children 
     did in 1978, which is the equivalent of 12 pounds of weight 
     gain annually, if not compensated for through increased 
     physical activity; and
       (10) according to the Surgeon General, the direct and 
     indirect costs of obesity in the United States are 
     $117,000,000,000 per year.

     SEC. 3. FOOD OF MINIMAL NUTRITIONAL VALUE.

       Section 10 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1779) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``(a) The Secretary'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 10. REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Food of Minimal Nutritional Value.--
       ``(1) Proposed regulations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate proposed regulations to revise the definition of 
     `food of minimal nutritional value' that is used to carry out 
     this Act and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
       ``(B) Application.--The revised definition of `food of 
     minimal nutritional value' shall apply to all foods sold--
       ``(i) outside the school meal programs;
       ``(ii) on the school campus; and
       ``(iii) at any time during the school day.
       ``(C) Requirements.--In revising the definition, the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       ``(i) both the positive and negative contributions of 
     nutrients, ingredients, and foods (including calories, 
     portion size, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, and added 
     sugars) to the diets of children;
       ``(ii) evidence concerning the relationship between 
     consumption of certain nutrients, ingredients, and foods to 
     both preventing and promoting the development of overweight, 
     obesity, and other chronic illnesses;
       ``(iii) recommendations made by authoritative scientific 
     organizations concerning appropriate nutritional standards 
     for foods sold outside of the reimbursable meal programs in 
     schools; and
       ``(iv) special exemptions for school-sponsored fundraisers 
     (other than fundraising through vending machines, school 
     stores, snack bars, a la carte sales, and any other 
     exclusions determined by the Secretary), if the fundraisers 
     are approved by the school and are infrequent within the 
     school.
       ``(2) Implementation.--
       ``(A) Effective date.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     proposed regulations shall take effect at the beginning of 
     the school year following the date on which the regulations 
     are finalized.
       ``(ii) Exception.--If the regulations are finalized on a 
     date that is not more than 60 days before the beginning of 
     the school year, the proposed regulations shall take effect 
     at the beginning of the following school year.
       ``(B) Failure to promulgate.--If, on the date that is 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the 
     Secretary has not promulgated final regulations, the proposed 
     regulations shall be considered to be final regulations.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 2593. A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's 
freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Freedom of 
Choice Act. When the Supreme Court issued its landmark Roe v. Wade 
decision in 1973, it made clear that our Constitutional right to 
privacy grants women the freedom to choose whether to begin, prevent, 
or continue a pregnancy.
  The purpose of this bill is very simple: It ensures that the 
guarantees of Roe v. Wade will be there for every generation of women.
  We know what Roe has meant for women these past 33 years. It has 
allowed them to make their most personal and difficult reproductive 
decisions in consultation with loved ones and health care providers. It 
has given them the dignity to plan their own families and the ability 
to participate fully in the economic and social life of our country. 
And, most important, it has preserved health and saved lives.
  Many of us are old enough to remember what it was like in the days 
before Roe. More than a million women a year were forced to seek 
illegal abortions, pushed into the back alleys where they risked 
infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Some estimate that 
thousands of women died every year because of illegal abortions before 
Roe.
  When the Senate debated the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Alito, 
women wrote to me with their own heart-breaking stories. For one woman, 
the year was 1956. She was only four when her mother died of an illegal 
abortion performed with a coat hanger. Too scared to ask for help, her 
mother bled to death at work.
  Another woman wrote to me about how hard her mother and father 
struggled during the depression, how they worked day and night to make 
ends meet and support their two children. When her mother found out she 
was pregnant again, she had health problems, and she knew she couldn't 
take care of another child. She made the very difficult decision to get 
an illegal abortion. The procedure left her bleeding for weeks, and she 
almost died.
  Mr. President, the American people do not want us to go back to those 
dark days. In a recent CNN poll, 66 percent said they do not want Roe 
overturned. Yet there is a dangerous movement afoot to overrule Roe 
and, in the meantime, to severely undermine its promises.
  Make no mistake: The threat to Roe is real and immediate. President 
Bush has already put two anti-choice justices on the Supreme Court, 
where reproductive freedom now hangs by a thread. More than 450 anti-
choice measures have been enacted by the states since 1995.
  Recently, South Dakota enacted a ban on abortion in nearly all 
circumstances, even when a woman's health is at stake, even when she is 
the victim of rape and incest. And South Dakota is not alone. Several 
other states are considering similar bans.
  The extremists behind these abortion bans make no secret about their 
goal. They want to use these laws to overturn Roe, and they think that 
the changes on the Supreme Court give them a chance to do just that.
  We must act now. That is why I am introducing legislation today to 
protect the reproductive freedom of women across America.
  The Freedom of Choice Act writes Roe v. Wade into federal law. It 
says that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a 
child; to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability; or, if 
necessary to protect the health or life of the mother, after viability. 
It says that we will not turn back the clock on the health and rights 
of women. And it says that we will take steps--as a Congress and as a 
country--to safeguard the dignity, privacy, and health of women now and 
for generations to come.
  I thank the cosponsors of this legislation, and I ask all my 
colleagues who support Roe v. Wade to join us in making sure that it is 
the law of the land, and 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. 2593

       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 ``Freedom of Choice Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States was founded on core principles, such 
     as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that 
     individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions 
     without governmental interference and discrimination.
       (2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an 
     individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or 
     terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions 
     are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones 
     and health care providers.
       (3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and 
     in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S.

[[Page 5584]]

     113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court 
     recognized that the right to privacy protected by the 
     Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh 
     the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in 
     deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a 
     pregnancy.
       (4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights 
     of women to make important reproductive decisions with the 
     State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe 
     v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision 
     to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal 
     viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after 
     fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's 
     life or health.
       (5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of 
     women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision 
     in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced 
     to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of 
     unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, 
     hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is 
     estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United 
     States as a result of illegal abortions.
       (6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the 
     risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World 
     Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-
     related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 
     are associated with unsafe abortions.
       (7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the 
     opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 
     1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the 
     Supreme Court observed that, ``[t]he ability of women to 
     participate equally in the economic and social life of the 
     Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their 
     reproductive lives.''.
       (8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more 
     than 30 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive 
     health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of 
     government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in 
     more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all 
     circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an 
     attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States 
     are considering similar bans.
       (9) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of 
     reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. 
     Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by 
     Congress and State legislatures have made access to abortion 
     care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women 
     across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in 
     the United States have no abortion provider.
       (10) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women 
     should also have more meaningful access to family planning 
     services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby 
     reducing the need for abortion.
       (11) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal 
     legislation is necessary.
       (12) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights 
     without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where 
     authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the 
     Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure 
     statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.
       (13) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of 
     article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th 
     amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to 
     facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State 
     interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal 
     protection of the laws.
       (14) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to 
     prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this 
     affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--
       (A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and 
     many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional 
     right or Federal protection;
       (B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that 
     regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other 
     necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and
       (C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and 
     other personnel who travel across State lines in order to 
     provide reproductive health services to patients.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Government.--The term ``government'' includes a branch, 
     department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other 
     individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a 
     State, or a subdivision of a State.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     and each territory or possession of the United States.
       (3) Viability.--The term ``viability'' means that stage of 
     pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending 
     physician based on the particular medical facts of the case 
     before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the 
     sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

     SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose 
     to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal 
     viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability 
     when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
       (b) Prohibition of Interference.--A government may not--
       (1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
       (A) to bear a child;
       (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
       (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where 
     termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the 
     woman; or
       (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set 
     forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of 
     benefits, facilities, services, or information.
       (c) Civil Action.--An individual aggrieved by a violation 
     of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including 
     relief against a government) in a civil action.

     SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or the application of such 
     provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be 
     unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the 
     application of such provision to persons or circumstances 
     other than those as to which the provision is held to be 
     unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

       This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local 
     statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, 
     decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, 
     or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2594. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to reauthorize the 
loan guarantee program under section 7(a) of that Act, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, every three years, our Committee reviews 
the majority of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) programs to 
see what's working, what's broken, and what can be improved. As ranking 
member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee currently, 
and a member for more than 20 years, I have worked on many 
reauthorizations. I can tell you that the SBA reauthorization process 
is a great opportunity to examine programs, to work with the small 
business groups and SBA's partners--those who use these programs on a 
day-to-day basis--and the SBA, to ensure that they serve their intended 
purpose and make the dream of a small business a reality to those who 
might not be eligible for business loans through conventional lending, 
don't have an MBA but need some management counseling, or need help 
cutting through red tape to get government contracts.
  Today I am focusing on the SBA's largest small business programs. 
Specifically, I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the 7(a) Loan 
Guaranty Program for three years. This bill, the ``7(a) Loan Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2006,'' authorizes the SBA to back more than a 
combined $58 billion in 7(a) loans to small businesses, gives borrowers 
more options when choosing SBA financing, reduces program fees on 
borrowers and lenders if the government charges excess fees or has 
excess funding, creates an Office of Minority Small Business 
Development within SBA to increase the availability of capital to 
minorities, and creates a National Preferred Lenders program to 
streamline the application process for exemplary lenders to operate on 
a national basis and reach more borrowers.
  7(a) loans are the most basic and widely used loan of the SBA 
business loan programs. These loans help qualified, small businesses 
obtain financing which is guaranteed for working capital, machinery and 
equipment, furniture and fixtures, land and building (including 
purchase, renovation and new construction), leasehold improvements, and 
debt refinancing, under special conditions. The loan maturity is up to 
10 years for working capital and generally up to 25 years for fixed 
assets. A key concept of the 7(a) guaranty loan program is that the 
loan actually comes from a commercial lender, not the government.
  This excellent private/public partnership has made this program one 
of the agency's most popular, with over 400,000 approved loans in the 
past six years. Last year alone, almost 96,000 small businesses 
received $15 billion in

[[Page 5585]]

7(a) loans, creating or retaining an estimated 460,000 jobs. To ensure 
that we continue to have enough authorization levels to manage the 
increasing demand, my bill reauthorizes the 7(a) Loan Program for three 
additional years at $18,500,000,000 fiscal year 07, $19,500,000,000 
fiscal year 08 and $20,500,000,000 fiscal year 09. These authorization 
levels ensure that program levels are sufficiently high to enable the 
SBA to back the maximum amount of loans as possible and avoid credit 
rationing or shutdowns.
  Providing appropriate authorization levels to adequately address the 
capital needs of small businesses is as important as ensuring that 
eligible borrowers have access to both fixed asset financing and 
working capital to address all of their small business needs. 
Currently, borrowers who need working capital under the 7(a) program 
and fixed asset financing through the 504 loan program are not able to 
utilize both SBA loan guaranty programs to their maximum amount and are 
therefore forced to choose between the two programs. To prevent a 
situation where a borrower is forced to choose between getting a much-
needed facility or getting working capital, my bill specifies that the 
borrower can have financing under both loan programs at the maximum 
level, given they qualify for both programs. In previous years, both 
7(a) and 504 loans were subsidized by appropriated funds to pay losses. 
It was therefore appropriate to restrict small businesses to choose 
between the two programs. However, both of these programs are now self-
supporting, and it makes no sense to continue this restriction on 
borrowers.
  One of our jobs on the Committee is to make sure that SBA-backed 
financing remains affordable to the small business community. As I just 
referenced, the 7(a) program is now self-funding. The Administration 
insisted on eliminating all funding for the loans, shifting the cost to 
borrowers and lenders, by imposing higher fees on them. The 
administration spins this as a ``savings'' of $100 million to taxpayers 
while the small business community considers this a ``tax.'' In 
addition to this ``tax,'' the President's budget shows that borrowers 
and lenders already pay too much in fees, generating more than $800 
million in overpayments since 1992 because the government routinely 
over-estimates the amount of fees needed to cover the cost of the 
program. This is part of the reason that many of us in Congress, on 
both sides of the aisle, opposed eliminating funding for the program. 
This legislation seeks to address overpayments by requiring the SBA to 
lower fees if borrowers and lenders pay more than is necessary to cover 
the program costs or if the Congress happens to appropriate money for 
the program and combined with fees there is excess funding to cover the 
cost of the program. The Senate adopted this provision, offered by me 
and Senator Landrieu last year, to the fiscal year 2006 Commerce 
Justice State Appropriations bill.
  In this reauthorization process, as I mentioned previously, I think 
it is important to look at specific programs and examine whether or not 
they are meeting their goals and intended mission. Part of the agency's 
mission is to fill the financing gap left by the private sector. 
According to a recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 
Business Loan Express, availability of capital remains a priority for 
all small businesses, but for Hispanics and African Americans, it is 
one of their top three concerns. They are still more likely to use 
credit cards to finance their businesses, and they fear denial from 
lenders. Knowing of this need, I was deeply disappointed to see that 
although SBA's loan programs have increased lending overall, the 
figures surrounding the percentage of small business loans going to 
African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and women have not 
changed much since 2001. The administration will tell you that SBA has 
been ``highly successful'' in making business loans to minority groups 
facing competitive opportunity challenges. They claim that in fiscal 
year 2005, almost 30 percent of 7(a) loans and about 25 percent of 504 
loans were made to minority groups. However, according to the SBA's own 
data, since 2001, while numbers of 7(a) loans have gone up for African 
Americans, the dollars have remained at 3 percent of all money loaned. 
In the 504 program, loans to women have decreased from 19 percent in 
number to 15 percent, and dropped from 16 percent to 14 percent in 
dollars. In the Microloan program, African Americans received 28 
percent of the total number of microloans made in 2001 as compared to 
only 21 percent of the total number of loans made in 2005. Their 
microloan dollars have also decreased from $7.1 million to $5.7 million 
in 2005. Native Americans went from 2 percent of the total number of 
microloans made in 2001 to less than one percent--a mere .93 percent--
in 2005.
  These statistics are of great concern and demonstrate that the SBA 
has not been highly successful in playing an active role in fostering 
and encouraging robust entrepreneurial activity and small business 
ownership amongst these minority groups. The stagnant percentage of 
small business loans in these communities represents a failure of this 
Administration to provide an alternative means of obtaining capital to 
our underserved communities where funding has not been available 
throughout conventional lending methods.
  To break this trend and increase the proportion of small business 
loans to minorities, and the percentage of loans to African Americans, 
Hispanics, and Asians relative to their share of the population, my 
bill creates an Office of Minority Small Business Development at the 
SBA, similar to offices devoted to business development of veterans and 
women and rural areas. In charge of the office will be the Associate 
Administrator for Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership 
Development with expanded authority and an annual budget to carry out 
its mission.
  Currently this position is limited to carrying out the policies and 
programs of SBA's contracting programs required under sections 7(j) and 
8(a) of the Small Business Act. To make sure that minorities are 
getting a great share of loan dollars, venture capital investments, 
counseling, and contracting, this bill expands its authority and duties 
to work with and monitor the outcomes for programs under Capital 
Access, Entrepreneurial Development, and Government Contracting. It 
also requires the head of the Office to work with SBA's partners, trade 
associations, and business groups to identify more effective ways to 
market to minority business owners, and to work with the head of Field 
Operations to ensure that district offices have staff and resources to 
market to minorities. The latter is important because when SBA 
implemented its extensive workforce transformation plans several years 
ago, it eliminated lending-related jobs with a partial justification 
that remaining staff would be trained to do outreach and marketing to 
the community. However, district offices are not provided with 
sufficient funds or resources to do the job.
  In addition to setting sufficient program levels, giving our 
borrowers maximum loan options, reaching the underrepresented, and 
lowering fees to our borrowers, my bill makes great improvements in our 
lender operations. Lenders are key to providing these loans to small 
business borrowers throughout our nation. An exceptional lender in the 
7(a) program will often become a ``preferred lender,'' with the 
authority to approve, close, service and liquidate loans without the 
lender obtaining the prior specific approval of the agency. SBA 
requires that lenders request preferred lender status in each of the 70 
districts it desires to operate. There are many problems with this 
system, and this bill streamlines and makes uniform the process, an 
advantage to borrowers, lenders and the SBA.
  This preferred lender problem is not a new issue. During our last 
reauthorization in 2003, lenders complained that applying for lending 
autonomy in each of the 70 district office and branches is 
administratively burdensome, both for them and for the Agency staff, 
and that some district offices have taken advantage of the power to 
approve or

[[Page 5586]]

disapprove lenders when they apply for this special lending status. I 
was very disappointed that this issue was not resolved in our last 
reauthorization. My bill attempts to alleviate this administrative 
burden on lenders and SBA staff who must process the application. My 
bill creates a National Preferred Lenders Program to allow lenders that 
have already demonstrated proficiency as a preferred lender the 
authority to operate in any state where it desires to make loans. To 
ensure that national preferred lenders are proficient and experienced, 
this bill requires the Administrator, no later than 60 days after 
enactment, to establish eligibility criteria for national preferred 
lenders but suggests that the criteria established include several 
things--consideration of whether the lender has experience as a 
preferred lender in not fewer than 5 district offices of the 
Administration for a minimum of 3 years in each territory, uniform 
written policies on the 7(a) loan program, including centralized loan 
approval, servicing, and liquidation functions and processes that are 
satisfactory to the administration.
  If a national preferred lender fails to meet the eligibility 
requirements established by the Administrator, the lender shall be 
notified of this deficiency and allowed a reasonable time for 
correction. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in suspension 
or revocation as a national preferred lender.
  Last, my legislation directs the SBA to establish a simple and 
straightforward alternative size standard for business loan applicants 
under section 7(a), similar to what is already available for borrowers 
in the 504 loan program, which utilizes maximum tangible net worth and 
average net income as an alternative to the use of industry standards. 
Currently, in order to be eligible for an SBA business loan, the 
borrower must meet the definition of small businesses. Pursuant to the 
Small Business Act, SBA has promulgated size standards by industry 
utilizing the North American Industry Classification System. The SBA 
table based on this system is over 20 pages, single-spaced, which has 
made this size standard very complicated for lenders to utilize.
  In closing, I want to commend the community of 7(a) lenders for the 
tens of thousands of borrowers they reach every year, and for working 
with us to understand how to improve the program to attract more 
lenders and reach more borrowers. I hope that the Committee will act on 
this bill and other similar reauthorization bills before the current 
laws governing the 7(a) loan program expire on September 30, 2006. I 
ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Pryor):
  S. 2595. A bill to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to 
modernize the treatment of development companies; to the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, as Ranking Democrat on the Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am introducing a 
reauthorization bill for the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 504 
Loan Guaranty Program. This legislation goes beyond simply 
reauthorizing the 504 loan program. Not only does this bill provide 
adequate authorization levels in the 504 loan program, but it also 
takes on important oversight and accountability issues pertaining to 
the operation of Certified Development Companies (CDC). The issues that 
I will present in detail below are well overdue and failure on 
Congress's behalf to deal with them before the end of the fiscal year 
when the program expires will shortchange our borrowers, and ultimately 
our communities who reap the benefits of the local economic development 
that the 504 loan program is intended to provide.
  For more than 20 years, the 504 loan program has provided long-term 
financing for growing businesses with long-term (up to 20 years), 
fixed-rate financing for major fixed assets, such as purchasing land 
and making improvements, including existing buildings, grading, street 
improvements, utilities, parking lots and landscaping; construction of 
new facilities, or modernizing, renovating or converting existing 
facilities; or purchasing long-term machinery and equipment. The 504 
loan is made through a collaboration between the Certified Development 
Company (which provides 40 percent of the financing), a private sector 
lender (covering up to 50 percent of the financing) and a contribution 
of at least 10 percent from the small business being helped. This 
program is a national leader in federal economic development finance 
programs and demonstrates it through, creating or retaining over 1.4 
million jobs, backing more than $25 billion in loans, and leveraging 
over $30 billion in private investment.
  These incredible returns to our community could not be possible 
without the solid mission of the program that drives the types of 
projects and borrowers it serves. This program was not established to 
simply make loans--it was established to promote local economic 
development and to create jobs. I cannot think of another federal 
economic development program that has created over 605,000 jobs, as the 
504 program has done. Last year alone, the 504 program created over 
145,000 jobs. As the demand for 504 loans continues to grow, it is more 
important than ever to reaffirm the mission of the 504 program and to 
ensure that the 504 program is reauthorized at adequate levels to meet 
this growth.
  To address this issue, my bill reauthorizes the 504 Loan Program for 
three additional years at $8,500,000,000, fiscal year 07, 
$9,500,000,000 fiscal year 08, and $10,500,000,000, fiscal year 09. 
These levels are based on the current pace of program growth to ensure 
that there is more than adequate authorization. The fiscal year 06 504 
demand is projected to exceed $7 billion, and the last 3 years have 
shown growth rates of 28 percent, 26 percent, and 26 percent. A low 
authorization level would either force the SBA to shut down the program 
or to ration credit throughout the year to avoid a shut-down.
  As I mentioned previously, this bill goes beyond simply reauthorizing 
the 504 loan program for an additional three years. It makes some much-
needed changes to the structure of our CDCs, which are responsible for 
the delivery of this program and which are essential to the success of 
the 504 loan program.
  Year after year, I have heard about the dangers that structural 
changes pose to the CDC industry and the 504 loan program in 
maintaining the mission of economic development. One of the major 
changes experienced by CDCs includes the centralization of all 504 loan 
processing, loan servicing and liquidation functions from 70 SBA 
district offices to one or two centers in the country. This has 
resulted in a huge backlog, estimated at 900 loans waiting to be 
liquidated. This backlog results in a loss of revenue through delaying 
or completely writing off defaulted loans. This has the potential to 
drive up subsidy costs of the program and therefore fees on borrowers, 
CDCs and lenders. This bill puts forward a solution to this issue by 
decentralizing liquidation functions and allowing CDCs, if they choose, 
to foreclose and liquidate defaulted loans or to contract with a 
qualified third-party to perform foreclosure and liquidation of 
defaulted loans in its portfolio. However, CDCs are not required to 
liquidate until SBA has come up with a program to compensate and 
reimburse them for all expenses pertaining to foreclosure and 
liquidation. The expenses would be approved in advance by the 
Administrator or on an emergency basis.
  The biggest structural change that has had a tremendous impact on our 
not-for-profit CDCs is the ability to expand operations into multiple 
states. This structural change, in conjunction with the growing demand 
for 504 loans and CDC operations in providing these loans to small 
businesses, requires Congress to set a statutory course that preserves 
the local economic development intent and mission of the program 
through accountability measures. The 504 program was not created for 
CDCs to expand operations and simply create revenue from one state to 
another. CDCs are more than lenders and should not act like for-profit 
banks.

[[Page 5587]]

My bill ensures that local communities continue to be the main focus of 
CDCs by requiring that the 25 members of their board and board of 
directors be residents of the area of operations. In addition, CDCs 
will be required to annually submit to the SBA a report on the use of 
all excess funds and local economic development activities in each 
state of operation. This ensures that the members engage, invest, and 
are held accountable to the communities they serve.
  In addition to preserving and growing the 504 loan program, I think 
it is very important to ensure that low-income communities have access 
to 504 loans. As you may know, in 2000 Congress enacted the New Markets 
Tax Credit program to facilitate private sector investment in low-
income communities.
  Theoretically, the program was designed to encourage private 
investors who may never have considered investing in low-income 
communities to do so, thereby attracting new sources of private capital 
for a variety of projects, including retail, childcare and primary 
healthcare centers, which in turn attracts jobs, services and 
additional opportunities to areas that have historically had a 
difficult time sustaining economic development. My bill creates a new 
public policy goal for the ``expansion of businesses in low-income 
communities'' and defines low-income areas as those areas which would 
be eligible for new market tax credits. Under public policy goals, a 
borrower can get a higher loan than the standard limit of $1.5 million. 
For example, a borrower could receive a 504 loan of up to $2 million if 
the proceeds will be directed toward this new public policy goal, or 
any of the currently established eight public policy goals. It is my 
hope that this incentive will increase the number of 504 loans in low-
income communities and therefore build wealth, economic security, and 
employment opportunities which benefit the entire surrounding 
community.
  I want to thank Senator Pryor for his sponsorship of this 
legislation, and thank the many members of the 504 community for 
working with us to identify ways to make this program better than ever. 
I look forward to working with them to enact this legislation before 
the fiscal year expires on September 30, 2006, and ask unanimous 
consent that my statement be included in the Record.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S.J. Res. 33. A joint resolution to provide for a strategy for 
successfully empowering a new unity government in Iraq; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 39 years ago this week Dr. Martin Luther 
King gave a speech at the Riverside Church in New York about the war in 
Vietnam. He began with these words:

       I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because 
     my conscience leaves me no other choice.

  His message was clear. Despite the difficulty of opposing the 
government's policy during time of war, he said, ``We must speak with 
all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must 
speak.''
  I am here today to speak about Iraq. There should be humility enough 
to go around for a Congress that shares responsibility for this war. I 
believe the time has come again when, as Dr. King said, we must move 
past indecision to action.
  I have many times visited the Vietnam Memorial Wall, as many Vietnam 
veterans have. When you walk down the path of either side of that wall, 
east and west of the panels, you walk down to the center of the wall 
where it comes together in a V. That V represents both the beginning of 
the war and the end of the war because the names start at that V and go 
all the way up one end, east, and then they come back from the west.
  I remember standing there once after reading ``A Bright Shining 
Lie,'' by Neil Sheehan, Robert McNamara's memoirs, and many other 
histories of that war. One cannot help but feel the enormity of the 
loss, of the immorality that our leaders knew that the strategy was 
wrong and that almost half the names were added to that wall after the 
time that people knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then 
and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion with respect 
to our policy in Iraq.
  Obviously, every single one of us would prefer to see democracy in 
Iraq. We want democracy in the whole Middle East. The simple reality 
is, Iraqis must want it as much as we do, and Iraqis must embrace it. 
If the Iraqi leadership is not ready to make the changes and the 
compromises that democracy requires, our soldiers, no matter how 
valiant--and they have been valiant--can't get from a humvee or a 
helicopter.
  The fact is, our soldiers have done a stunning job. I was recently in 
Iraq with Senator Warner and Senator Stevens. I have been there 
previously. No one can travel there and talk to our soldiers and not be 
impressed by their commitment to the mission, by their sacrifice, by 
their desire to have something good come out of this, and by the 
remarkable contribution they have made to give Iraqis the opportunity 
to create a democratic future for their country. Our soldiers have done 
their job. It is time for the newly elected Iraqi leadership to do 
theirs. It is time for America's political leaders to do theirs.
  President Bush says we can't lose our nerve in Iraq. It takes more 
nerve to respond to mistakes and to adjust a policy that is going wrong 
than it does to stubbornly continue down the wrong path.
  Last week, Secretary Rice acknowledged ``thousands'' of mistakes in 
Iraq. Amazingly, nobody has been held accountable for those mistakes. 
But our troops have paid the price, and our troops pay the price every 
single day. Yet the President continues to insist on a vague and 
counterproductive strategy that will keep U.S. forces in Iraq 
indefinitely.
  I accept my share of responsibility for the war in Iraq. As I said in 
2004, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war, and I 
certainly wouldn't have done it the way the President did. My 
frustration is that many of us all along the way have offered 
alternatives to the President. Countless numbers of Senators, 
Republican and Democrat alike, have publicly offered alternative ways 
of trying to achieve our goals in Iraq.
  I have listened to my colleagues, Senator Feingold, Senator Biden, 
Senator Hagel, the Presiding Officer, and others all talk about ways in 
which we could do better. But all of these, almost all of them without 
exception, have been left by the wayside without any real discussion, 
without any real dialog, without any real effort to see if we could 
find a common ground. My frustration is that we keep offering 
alternatives.
  In 2003, in 2004, 2005, 2006, year after year, we put them on the 
table, but they get ignored and then we get further in the hole, the 
situation gets worse, and we are left responding, trying to come back 
to a worse situation than the one we were responding to in the first 
place. And we keep putting out possibilities, and the possibilities 
keep being left on the sidelines.
  Time after time, this administration has ignored the best advice of 
the best experts of the country, whether they be our military experts 
or former civilian leaders of other administrations or our most 
experienced voices on the Committee on Armed Services and Foreign 
Relations Committee of the U.S. House and Senate.
  The administration is fond of saying that we shouldn't look back, 
that recrimination only helps our enemies, that we have to deal with 
the situation on the ground now. Well, we do have to deal with the 
situation on the ground now, but we have to deal with it in a way that 
honors the suggestions and ideas of a lot of other people who have 
concerns about our forces on the ground and our families at home and 
our budget and our reputation in the world and our need to respond to 
Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran.
  Frankly, accountability and learning from past mistakes is the only 
way to improve both policies and institutions. Let me, for the moment, 
go along with this idea, the administration's idea. Let me focus on the 
here and now and

[[Page 5588]]

let's face that reality honestly and let's act accordingly.
  You have to live in a fantasy world to believe we are on the brink of 
domestic peace and a pluralistic democracy in Iraq. One has to be blind 
to the facts to argue that the prospects for success are so great they 
outweigh the terrible costs of the President's approach. And you have 
to be incapable of admitting failure not to be able to face up to the 
need to change course now. Yes, change course now.
  Our soldiers on the ground have learned a lot of terrible lessons in 
Iraq. All you have to do is talk to some of the soldiers who have 
returned, as many of us have. It is time those of us responsible for 
the policies of our country learn those lessons. It is clear the 
administration's litany of mistakes has reduced what we can reasonably 
hope to accomplish. Any reasonable, honest observer--and there are many 
in the Senate who have gone over to Iraq and have come back with these 
views--knows that the entire definition of this mission has changed and 
the expectations of what we can get out of this mission have changed.
  I, for one, will not sit idly by and watch while American soldiers 
give their lives for a policy that is not working. Let me say it 
plainly. Withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq over the course of the year 
in a timely schedule is actually necessary to give democracy the best 
chance to succeed, and it is vital to America's national security 
interests.
  Five months ago, I went to Georgetown University. I gave a speech 
where I said that we were then entering the make-or-break period, a 
make-or-break 5-month, 6-month period in Iraq. I said the President 
must change course and hold Iraqis accountable or Congress should 
insist on a change in policy. And I set a goal then, back in November, 
that we should try to reduce American combat forces and withdraw them 
by the end of this year.
  The situation on the ground has now changed for the worse since then. 
In fact, we are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The 
first war was against Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass 
destruction. The second war was against Jihadist terrorists whom the 
administration said it was better to fight over there than over here. 
And now we find our troops in the middle of a low-grade civil war that 
could explode into a full civil war at any time.
  While the events in Iraq have changed for the worse, the President 
has not changed course for the better. It is time for those of us in 
Congress who share responsibilities constitutionally for our policy to 
stand up and change that course. We have a constitutional 
responsibility, and we have a moral responsibility not to sit on the 
sidelines while young Americans are in harm's way.
  That is why today I am introducing legislation that will hold the 
Iraqis accountable and make the goal of withdrawing the most American 
forces a reality. I personally believe that most of those forces could 
be and should be out of Iraq by the end of the year. This war, in the 
words of our own generals, cannot be won militarily. It can only be won 
politically.
  General Casey said, of our large military presence, it ``feeds the 
notion of occupation'' and it ``extends the amount of time that it will 
take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.''
  That is General Casey saying that the large force of American 
presence in Iraq contributes to the occupation and extends the amount 
of time. Zbigniew Brzezinski put it:

       The U.S. umbrella, which is in effect designed to stifle 
     these wars but it is so poor that it perpetuates them, in a 
     sense keeps these wars alive . . . and [is] probably 
     unintentionally actually intensifying them.

  Richard Nixon's Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, breaking a 30-
year silence, summed it up simply:

       Our presence is what feeds the insurgency.

  The bottom line is that as long as American forces remain in large 
numbers, enforcing the status quo, Americans will be killed and maimed 
in a crossfire of vicious conflict that they are powerless to end. We 
pay for the President's reluctance to face reality in both American 
dollars and in too many lives. American families pay in the loss of 
limb and the loss of loved ones.
  I don't think we should tolerate what is happening in Iraq today. We 
can no longer tolerate the political games currently being played by 
Iraqi politicians in a war-torn Baghdad. No American soldier, not one 
American soldier, should be sacrificed for the unwillingness of Iraqi 
politicians to compromise and form a unity government.
  We are now almost 5 months since the election. What is happening is 
the daily game being played by Iraqis who listen to the President say 
we will be here to the end. There is no sense of urgency, there is no 
sense of impending need to make a decision. The result is they just go 
on bickering and they go on playing for advantage while our troops 
drive by the next IED and the next soldier returns to Walter Reed or to 
Bethesda without arms and limbs.
  Given the recent increase in deadly sectarian strife, Iraq urgently 
needs a strong unity government to prevent a full-fledged civil war 
from breaking out and becoming the failed state that all of us have 
wanted to avoid. I believe the current situation is actually allowing 
them to go down the road toward that sectarian strife rather than 
stopping them.
  Thus far, step by step, Iraqis have only responded to deadlines. It 
took a deadline to transfer authority to the provisional government. It 
took a deadline for the first election to take place. It took a 
deadline for the referendum on the Constitution. It took a deadline for 
the most recent election. It is time for another deadline, and that 
deadline is to say to them that they have to come together and pull 
together and put together a government or our troops are going to 
withdraw. And under circumstances over a period of time, we will 
withdraw in order to put Iraq up on its own two feet.
  Iraqi politicians should be told in unmistakable language: You have 
until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will 
immediately withdraw our military.
  I know some colleagues and other people listening will say: Wait a 
minute. You mean we are going to automatically withdraw our military if 
they don't pull it together?
  The answer is: You bet we ought to do that. Because there isn't one 
American soldier who ought to be giving up life or limb for the 
procrastination and unwillingness of Iraqis who have been given an 
extraordinary opportunity by those soldiers to take hold of democracy 
and who are ignoring it and playing for advantage. We all know that 
after the last elections, the momentum was lost by squabbling interim 
leaders. Everybody sat around and said, coming up to this election, the 
one thing we can't do is allow the momentum to be lost. Guess what. It 
has been lost. It has been squandered, again. We are sitting there with 
occasional visits, occasional speeches but without the kind of 
sustained diplomacy necessary to provide a resolution. It has gone on 
for too long, again.
  If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in 5 months, 
then how long does it take and what does it take? If they are not 
willing to do it, they are not willing to do it. It is that simple. The 
civil war will only get worse. And if they are not willing to do it, it 
is because there is such a fundamental intransigence that we haven't 
broken, that civil war, in fact, becomes inevitable, and our troops 
will be forced to leave anyway.
  The fact is, we have no choice but to get tough and to ratchet up the 
pressure. We should immediately accelerate the redeployment of American 
forces to rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup, training, 
and emergency response. Special operations against al-Qaida in Iraq 
should be initiated on hard intelligence leads only.
  If the Iraqi leaders finally do their job, which I believe you have a 
better chance of getting them to do if you give them a timetable, then 
we have to agree on a schedule for leaving, withdrawing American combat 
forces by the end of the year. The only troops that remain should be 
those critical to

[[Page 5589]]

finishing the job of standing up Iraqi security forces.
  Such an agreement will have positive benefits in Iraq. It will 
empower and legitimize the new leadership and the Iraqi people. It will 
expedite the process of getting the Iraqis to assume a larger role of 
running their own country. And it will undermine support for the 
insurgency among the now 80 percent of Iraqis who want U.S. troops to 
leave. In short, it will give the new Iraqi Government the best chance 
to succeed in holding the country together while democratic 
institutions can evolve.
  This deadline makes sense when you look at the responsibilities that 
Iraqis should have assumed by then. Formation of a unity government 
would constitute a major milestone in the transfer of political 
responsibility to the Iraqis. Even the President has said that 
responsibility for security in the majority of the country should be 
able to be transferred to the Iraqis by this time. If the President 
believes that it should be able to be transferred to the Iraqis by this 
time, why not push that eventuality and make it a reality? By the end 
of the year, our troops will have done as much as they possibly can to 
give Iraqis the chance to build a democracy. I again remind my 
colleagues, we are still going to have the ability to have over-the-
horizon response for emergency, as well as over-the-horizon response to 
al-Qaida. And we will have the ability to continue to train those last 
forces to make sure they are in a position to stand up for Iraq.
  The key to this transition is a long overdue engagement in serious 
and sustained diplomacy. I want to say a word about this. I am not 
offering this plan in a vacuum. Critical to the achievement of all of 
our goals in Iraq is real diplomacy. Starting with the leadup to the 
war, our diplomatic efforts in Iraq have ranged from the indifferent to 
the indefensible. History shows that effective diplomacy requires 
persistent hands-on engagement from the highest levels of America's 
leadership. Top officials in the first Bush administration worked 
directly and tirelessly to put together a real coalition before the 
first Gulf War, and President Clinton himself took personal 
responsibility at Camp David for bringing the Israelis and Palestinians 
together and leading the comprehensive effort to resolve the conflict 
in the Middle East. This type of major diplomatic initiative has proven 
successful in many places in American history.
  Most recently, in 1995, there was a brutal civil war in Bosnia 
involving Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. Faced with a seemingly 
intractable stalemate in the midst of horrific ethnic cleansing, the 
Clinton administration took action--direct, personal, engaged action. 
Led by Richard Holbrooke, they brought leaders of the Bosnian parties 
together in Dayton, OH, with representatives from the European Union, 
Russia, and Britain to hammer out a peace agreement. NATO and the 
United Nations were given a prominent role in implementing what became 
known as the Dayton Accords.
  In contrast, this President Bush has done little more than deliver 
political speeches, while his cronies in the White House and outside 
blame the news media for the mess the administration has created in 
Iraq. We keep hearing: They are not telling the full story. They are 
not telling the story.
  Secretary of State Rice's brief surprise visit to Iraq a few days ago 
pales in comparison to the real shuttle diplomacy that was practiced by 
predecessors such as James Baker and Henry Kissinger. Given what is at 
stake, it is long since time to engage in that. I can remember Henry 
Kissinger going from one capital to the next capital, back and forth, 
engaged, pulling people together. Jim Baker did the same thing. There 
was a genuine and real effort to leverage the full prestige and full 
power of the United States behind a goal. That is absent here.
  Ambassador Khalilzad is a good man, and he has done a terrific job, 
almost by himself, left almost to his own devices. That is not the way 
to succeed. Given what is at stake, it is past time to engage in 
diplomacy that matches the effort of our soldiers on the ground. We 
should immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at 
a Dayton-like summit that includes our allies, Iraq's neighbors, 
members of the Arab League, and the United Nations. The fact is, a true 
national compact is needed to bring about a political solution to the 
insurgency. That is how you end the sectarian violence. Our soldiers 
going on patrol in a striker or a humvee, walking through communities 
will not end this violence. Our generals have told us, it can only be 
ended politically. Yet where is the kind of political effort that our 
Nation has seen in history now, trying to effect what our soldiers have 
created an opportunity to effect through their sacrifice?
  Iraqis have to reach a comprehensive agreement that includes security 
guarantees, disbanding the militias, and ultimately, though not 
necessarily at this conference, confronting some of the questions of 
the Constitution. All of the parties must reach agreement on a process 
for reviving reconstruction efforts and securing Iraq's borders. Our 
troops cannot be left hanging out there without that kind of effort to 
protect them.
  At this summit, Shiite religious leaders must agree to rein in their 
militias and to commit to disbanding them. They also have to work with 
Iraqi political leaders to ensure that the leadership of the Interior 
Ministry and the police force under its control is nonsectarian. Shiite 
and Kurdish leaders must make concessions necessary to address Sunni 
concerns about federalism and equitable distribution of oil revenues. 
There is no way the Sunnis are going to suddenly disband or stop the 
insurgency without some kind of adequate guarantee of their security 
and their participation in the process. That was obvious months ago. It 
is even more obvious today. It still remains an open question.
  The Sunnis have to accept the reality that they will no longer 
dominate Iraq. Until a sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni 
base cannot be created that isolates the hard-core Baathists and 
jihadists and defuses the insurgency itself. We must work with Iraqis 
at the summit to convince Iraq's neighbors that they can no longer 
stand on the sidelines while Iraq teeters on the edge of a civil war 
that could bring chaos to the entire region. Where they can help the 
process of forming a government, they need to step up. And for my 
colleagues who suggest that somehow withdrawing American forces will 
put that region at greater risk, I say ``no.'' I say that an over-the-
horizon deployment, a deployment in Kuwait and elsewhere, diffusing the 
insurgency, and an adequate effort to diplomatically pull together this 
kind of summit is the only way to diffuse the insurgency and ultimately 
strengthen the region.
  The administration must also work with Iraqi leaders in seeking a 
multinational force to help protect Iraq's borders until finally a 
national army of Iraq has developed the capacity to do that itself. 
Frankly, such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security 
Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors, countries 
such as India and others, that would be a critical step in stemming the 
tide of insurgents and of encouraging capital to flow into Iraq.
  To be credible with the Iraqi people, the new government must deliver 
goods and services at all levels. It is absolutely stunning--I don't 
know how many Americans are even aware of the fact--that today, several 
years later, electricity production is below where it was before the 
war. It is at 4,000 megawatts compared to the 4,500 before the war. 
Crude oil production has declined from a prewar level of 2.5 million 
barrels per day to 1.9 million barrels per day. We were told that oil 
was going to pay for this war. That has to change. Countries that have 
promised money for reconstruction, particularly of Sunni areas, haven't 
paid up yet. The money is not on the table.
  We can also do our part on the ground. Our own early reconstruction 
efforts were--now known to everybody--poorly planned and grossly 
mismanaged. But as I saw on a recent trip to Iraq, the efforts of our 
civilian military provisional reconstruction teams,

[[Page 5590]]

which have the skills and capacity to strengthen governance and 
institution building around the country, are beginning to take hold. We 
need to stand up more of those teams as fast as possible. If we do that 
in the same context as we find the political resolution, then you have 
a chance.
  We must also continue to turn the job of policing the streets and 
providing security over to Iraqi forces. That means giving our generals 
the tools they need to finish training an Iraqi police force that is 
trusted and respected on the street by the end of the year. It also 
means finishing the training of Iraqi security forces with U.S. troops 
acting only on the basis of hard intelligence to combat terrorist 
threats.
  The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is necessary not only to 
give democracy in Iraq the best chance to succeed, it is also vital to 
our own national security interests.
  We need to pay more attention to our own vital national security 
interests. We will never be as safe as we ought to be if Iraq continues 
to distract us from the most important war we need to win--the war on 
Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, and the terrorists who are resurfacing even 
in Afghanistan.
  To make it clear, despite everything this administration has said, 
today, al-Qaida, and the Taliban, even, are more dangerous in northwest 
Pakistan and northeast Afghanistan than Iraq is to us at this moment in 
time. There is a greater threat from al-Qaida, which has dispersed 
cells and through its training and abilities to organize, in 
Afghanistan than in the place that is consuming most of America's 
forces and money.
  The way to defeat al-Qaida is not by serving as their best 
recruitment tool. Even Brent Scowcroft, George H. W. Bush's National 
Security Adviser, has joined the many experts who agree that the war in 
Iraq actually feeds terrorism and increases the potential for terrorist 
attacks against the United States. The results speak for themselves: 
The number of significant terrorist attacks around the world increased 
from 175 in 2003 to 651 in 2004, and it has continued to increase in 
2005.
  The President keeps talking about al-Qaida's intent to take over 
Iraq. I have not met anybody in Iraq--none of the leaders on either 
side, not Kurds, the Shia, or Sunni--who believes a few thousand, at 
most--and by many estimates, less than a thousand--foreign jihadists 
are a genuine threat to forcibly take over a country of 25 million 
people. And while mistake after mistake by this administration has 
actually turned Iraq into the breeding ground for al-Qaida that it was 
not before the war, large numbers of United States troops are not the 
key to crushing these terrorists.
  In fact, Iraqis have begun to make clear their own unwillingness to 
tolerate foreign jihadists. Every Iraqi I talked to said to me: When we 
get control and start moving forward, we will deal with the jihadists. 
They don't want them on Iraqi soil, and they have increasingly turned 
on these brutal foreign killers who are trying to foment a civil war 
among Iraqis. This process will only be complete when Iraqis have taken 
full responsibility for their own future, and resistance to a perceived 
occupation no longer provides them any common cause with jihadists.
  As General Anthony Zinni said on Sunday, building up intelligence-
gathering capability from Iraqis is essential to defeating the 
insurgency. He said:

       We're not fighting the Waffen S.S. here. They can be 
     policed up if the people turn against them. We haven't won 
     the hearts and minds yet.

  Once again, I remind my colleagues, the hearts and minds of the 
Iraqis will be more susceptible to being won when American forces are 
not there in the way they are now, in a way that can be used as the 
recruitment tool that it has been, when 80 percent of the Iraqi people 
suggest that American forces ought to leave.
  After the bulk of U.S. forces have been withdrawn, I believe it is 
essential to keep a rapid reaction force over the horizon. That force 
can be over the horizon within the desert itself, or it can be in 
Kuwait, and that can be used to act against terrorist enclaves. Our air 
power--the air power we used to police two-thirds of the no-fly zone in 
Iraq before the war--will always ensure our ability to bring 
overwhelming force to bear to protect the U.S. interests in the region. 
The bottom line is that working together with Iraqis from inside and 
outside Iraq, we can prosecute the war against al-Qaida in Iraq more 
effectively than we are today.
  Withdrawing U.S. troops will also enable us to more effectively 
combat threats around the world. But winning the war on terror requires 
more than the killing we have seen from 3 years of combat. The fact is 
that just taking out terrorists, as our troops have been doing, is not 
going to end the flow of terrorists who are recruited, for all of the 
reasons that we understand. The cooperation critical to lasting victory 
in the region is going to be enhanced when Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, 
civil chaos, and mistake after mistake in Iraq no longer deplete 
America's moral authority within the region.
  This is also key to allowing us to repair the damage that flag 
officers fear has been done to our Armed Forces. I know my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle--members of the Armed Services Committee 
and Intelligence Committee--have heard from flag officers in private 
about what is happening to the Armed Forces of our country. We know it 
will take billions of dollars to reset the equipment that has been 
lost, damaged, or worn out from 3 years of combat. In the National 
Guard alone, units across the country have only 34 percent of their 
authorized equipment, including just 14 percent of the chemical 
decontamination equipment they need. That is a chilling prospect if 
they are ever asked to respond to a terrorist incident involving 
weapons of mass destruction.
  The fact is the Army is stretched too thin. Soldiers and brigades are 
being deployed more frequently and longer than the Army believes is 
best in order to continue to attract the best recruits. Recruiting 
standards have been changed and recruitment is suffering. The Army fell 
6,700 recruits short of their needs in 2005--the largest shortfall 
since 1979. Recruitment is suffering today. Not only are American 
troops not getting leadership equal to their sacrifice on the civilian 
side, but our generals are not getting enough troops to accomplish 
their mission of keeping the country safe.
  The fact is that in the specialties--special forces, translators, 
intelligence officers, for the Marines, for the Army, for the National 
Guard--our recruit-
ments are below the levels they ought to be.
  Withdrawing from Iraq will also enable us to strengthen our efforts 
to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Iran, the 
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, is absolutely delighted 
with our presence in Iraq. Why? Because it advances their goals, 
keeping us otherwise occupied, and it allows them to make mischief in 
Iraq itself at their choice. Their President is so emboldened that he 
has openly called for the destruction of Israel, while defying the 
international community's demands to stop developing its nuclear 
weapons capability. Could that have happened prior to our being bogged 
down the way we are?
  North Korea has felt at liberty to ignore the six-party talks, while 
it continues to stockpile more nuclear weapons material.
  Any effort to be stronger in dealing with the nuclear threat from 
Iran and North Korea is incomplete without an exit from Iraq. It will 
also enable us to more effectively promote democracy in places such as 
Russia, which is more than content to see us bogged down while 
President Putin steadily rolls back democratic reforms.
  China benefits from us throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into 
Iraq instead of into economic competition and job creation here at 
home. Our long-term security requires putting the necessary resources 
into building our economy and a workforce that can compete and win in 
the age of globalization. We cannot do as much as we need to--not 
nearly as much as we need to--while the war in Iraq is draining our 
treasury.

[[Page 5591]]

  Finally, we have not provided anywhere near the resources necessary 
to keep our homeland safe. Katrina showed us in the most graphic way 
possible that 5 years after 9/11, we are woefully unprepared to handle 
a natural disaster that we know is coming a week in advance, let alone 
a catastrophic terrorist attack we have no notice of. Removing the 
financial strain of Iraq will free up funds for America's homeland 
defense.
  The time has come for the administration to acknowledge the realities 
that the American people are increasingly coming to understand--the 
realities in Iraq and the requirements of America's national security. 
Stop telling us that terrible things will happen if we get tough with 
the Iraqis, when terrible things happen every single day because we are 
not tough enough. If we don't change course and hold the Iraqis 
accountable now, I guarantee you it will get worse.
  Ignoring all of the warnings, and ignoring history itself, in a 
flourish of ideological excess, this administration has managed to make 
the ancient cradle of civilization look a lot like Vietnam. But there 
is a path forward if we start making the right decisions.
  As Dr. King said so many years ago:

       The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it 
     otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human 
     history.

  Now is the moment of choice for Iraq, for America, and for this 
Congress.

                          ____________________