[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 24]
[Senate]
[Pages 32717-32721]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Udall of 
        Colorado):
  S. 2907. A bill to establish a coordinated avalanche protection 
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce in the 
Senate legislation that will help to reduce the Nation's yearly death 
toll caused by snow and ice avalanches.
  As a member of the Congressional Hazards Caucus, I am introducing 
legislation, the Federal Land Avalanche Protection Act of 2009 to 
tackle the impacts of one of our Nation's natural hazards, avalanches. 
I am introducing this bill jointly with Senators Mark Begich and Mark 
Udall. It is identical to a measure introduced earlier this week in the 
House of Representatives by Alaska's Congressman Don Young, who was its 
prime sponsor when first introduced in May 2008 late in the 110th 
Congress.
  The goal of the bill is to better protect people in avalanche zones 
nationwide and to reduce the growing potential for avalanches to damage 
properties, as more and more building takes place on mountainsides and 
in valleys threatened by potential avalanches. Avalanches are a 
continuing problem in this country. Last year 49 avalanches in 10 
States and Canada caused

[[Page 32718]]

54 fatalities in North America, 28 in America. The fall-winter-spring 
of 2008-2009, however, was not unusual.
  In the 2007-2008 season, 36 Americans lost their lives as a result of 
avalanches. Another 16 Canadians died that season in 43 reported 
avalanches. In the 2002-03 season, 58 people in North America died as a 
result of 55 reported avalanches. For the past decade 38 people have 
died on average each year in North America from avalanches. Most occur 
in the western States of Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, 
Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, but deaths certainly have 
occurred in eastern States such as Vermont and New Hampshire, as well.
  Many think that avalanches are just a problem for backcountry skiers, 
hikers, or snowboarders. But as urbanization spreads the dangers caused 
by snow and ice buildups on steep slopes will grow and affect more 
urban populations, and especially more motorists traveling through 
mountain passes and along valley roads. So far this season, just in the 
past 2 months, 11 skiers and 1 ice climber have been caught in 
avalanches in Montana, Utah, and Colorado. Fortunately only one death 
has so far resulted. But this Nation needs to devote additional 
resources to warning and battling the impacts of avalanches because 
there are things that we know how to do to improve forecasts, increase 
warnings, and take advance actions to reduce the build up of snow loads 
on steep slopes, thus lessening the danger of larger, deadly avalanches 
when snow packs release.
  The bill I introduce today directs the Secretary of Agriculture, 
acting through the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, to establish an 
avalanche protection program to: identify the potential for avalanches 
on Federal lands and inform the public about the probability of 
avalanches and their potential adverse effects; carry out ongoing 
research to improve avalanche forecasting; and reduce the risks of 
avalanches and mitigate their effects.
  The bill requires the Secretary to coordinate the program to ensure 
protection for recreational users of public land under the Secretary of 
the Interior's jurisdiction, using resources of the Forest Service's 
National Avalanche Center; to establish an advisory committee to assist 
in program development and implementation; and with the Secretary of 
Transportation and the Secretary of the Army, to establish a central 
depository for weapons, ammunition, and parts for avalanche control 
purposes.
  The measure also authorizes the Secretary to make grants to carry out 
projects and activities to assist in the prevention, forecasting, 
detection, and mitigation of avalanches; maintain essential 
transportation, utilities, and communications; assist avalanche 
artillery users to ensure the availability of adequate supplies of 
artillery and explosives required for avalanche control in specified 
areas; and assist research and development activities for alternatives 
to minimize reliance on military weapons for avalanche control.
  It directs the Secretary to give priority to projects carried out in 
avalanche zones with a high frequency or severity of avalanches or in 
which deaths, injuries, or damage to public facilities and communities 
have occurred. It requires the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration to transfer specified property suitable for avalanche 
control purposes to a user of surplus ordnance.
  When first introduced last year for public and professional 
consideration and comment the measure was strongly supported by Federal 
avalanche officials.
  Just in my home State of Alaska avalanches are a concern not just in 
the backcountry at Hatcher Pass, north of Palmer, or for heli-skiing 
enthusiasts near Thompson Pass outside of Valdez or Johnson Pass on the 
Kenai Peninsula, but in urban areas, such as the capital city of 
Juneau, or for motorists who daily drive the Seward Highway from 
Girdwood to Anchorage or through Turnagain Pass. While Alaska's three 
fatalities last year occurred in Thompson and Johnson Pass among 
recreational skiers, the future is that we need to do more on Federal 
lands, and we need to do more to assist states to lessen the severity 
of avalanche dangers on State and private lands.
  This bill would take logically, fiscally prudent steps, to doing just 
that. I urge members to support its passage and modest funding for 
implementation next year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Corker, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 2908. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
require the Secretary of Energy to publish a final rule that 
establishes a uniform efficiency descriptor and accompanying test 
methods for covered water heaters, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with 
Senator Corker that would establish a uniform energy efficiency 
descriptor for all water heaters and improve the testing methods by 
which that descriptor is determined. Currently, water heaters are 
lumped into two categories under two federal statutes, based on 
arbitrary gallon capacity and energy input ratings. ``Smaller'' water 
heaters are covered by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, 
NAECA, and must be rated using an energy factor or EF rating. 
``Larger'' water heaters are within the scope of the Energy Policy Act, 
EPACT, and must be rated using a thermal efficiency or TE rating. Not 
only do the testing methods differ, but a manufacturer is forbidden to 
place an EF rating on a TE-sized unit, and vice-versa.
  The difference between energy factor and thermal efficiency was based 
on the assumption that smaller units are exclusively for residential 
uses while larger units are exclusively for commercial purposes, so the 
competing rating methods would not cause any confusion or adverse 
effects. Due to advances in manufacturing technology over the past 15 
years, the assumptions underlying the earlier dividing line are no 
longer accurate. In fact, both larger and smaller units made by leading 
U.S. manufacturers are used in residences without regard to which 
Federal law applies. Yet, Federal legislation continues to be written 
by taking this distinction into account.
  This legislation would direct the Department of Energy, DOE, to work 
with industry stakeholders to develop a uniform energy efficiency 
descriptor that applies to all sizes of water heaters. It also would 
develop a test method to accurately determine that descriptor for all 
types of water heaters, including new, efficient, advanced 
technologies, like heat pump water heaters, hybrids, and others, that 
are not correctly rated under today's test methods.
  This bill, which has the support of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, 
and Refrigeration Institute, AHRI, and the American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy, ACEEE, brings the DOE and affected industries 
together to focus on this effort. It is my hope that the water heating 
manufacturing community can develop and implement the new test method 
and descriptor that will eliminate confusion and enable consumers and 
business owners to make informed purchasing decisions on water heaters.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Carper):
  S. 2913. A bill to establish a national mercury monitoring program, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague from 
Delaware, Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National 
Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill will ensure the Environmental 
Protection Agency has accurate information about the extent of mercury 
pollution in our nation as it works to enforce regulations about this 
toxic chemical.
  Mercury is a dangerous substance that can cause serious neuron-
developmental harm, especially to children and pregnant women. 
Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, estimate that 
some 630,000 infants are born each year with blood mercury levels 
higher than what is considered safe.

[[Page 32719]]

  Mercury is hazardous not only to people, but also to wildlife. As of 
2006, States issued 533 new fish advisories bringing the nationwide 
total advisories to 3,851. These advisories cover 38 percent of the 
Nation's total lake acreage and 26 percent of the Nation's total river 
miles. Almost 65 percent of the U.S. coastline, except Alaska, is under 
advisory, including 92 percent of the Atlantic coast and 100 percent of 
the Gulf coast.
  Each new scientific study seems to find higher levels of mercury in 
more ecosystems and in more species than we had previously thought. We 
must have more comprehensive information and we must have it soon; 
otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions.
  For example, in 2005 the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new 
mercury regulation based on computer measurements that were not peer-
reviewed and that were not verified with actual measurements. The 
effect of the regulation was to allow power plants to continue spewing 
unlimited amounts of mercury into our air until the year 2018. Many 
experts, including the EPA Inspector General, sharply criticized the 
science underlying that new regulation and recommended that EPA develop 
and implement a mercury monitoring plan. That was a major reason why I 
am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act.
  Specifically, my mercury bill would establish mercury monitoring 
sites across the nation in order to measure mercury levels in the air, 
rain, soil, lakes and streams, as well as in plants and animals; 
authorize about $30 million annually for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 
for the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological 
Survey, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Park Service to 
perform scientific mercury measurements; and create a ``Mercury 
Monitoring Advisory Committee'' to advise the Administrator of the EPA 
in choosing the monitoring sites.
  We must establish a more robust national mercury monitoring network 
to provide EPA the data it needs to make decisions that protect the 
people and environment of Maine and the entire Nation.
  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. 2913

       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 ``Comprehensive National 
     Mercury Monitoring Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that
       (1)(A) mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant 
     ecological and public health concern;
       (B) exposure to mercury occurs largely by consumption of 
     contaminated fish;
       (C) children and women of childbearing age who consume 
     large quantities of fish are at high risk of adverse effects;
       (D) it is estimated that more than 630,000 children born 
     each year in the United States are exposed to levels of 
     mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair 
     neurological development; and
       (E) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have 
     found that 8 percent of women in the United States of 
     childbearing age have blood mercury levels in excess of 
     values determined to be safe by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (2)(A) as of 2006, 3,080 fish consumption advisories due to 
     mercury contamination have been issued for 48 States, 
     including 23 statewide advisories for freshwater and 12 
     statewide advisories for coastal waters;
       (B) that is a 26 percent increase over the number of 
     advisories issued in 2004;
       (C) those advisories represent more than 22,000 square 
     miles of lakes and 882,000 miles of rivers;
       (D) however, fish and shellfish are an important source of 
     dietary protein, and a healthy fishing resource is important 
     to the economy of the United States; and
       (E) the extent of fish consumption advisories underscores 
     the extensive human and ecological health risk posed by 
     mercury pollution;
       (3)(A) in many locations, the primary route for mercury 
     input to aquatic ecosystems is atmospheric emissions, 
     transport, and deposition;
       (B) the cycling of mercury in the environment and resulting 
     accumulation in biota are not fully understood; and
       (C) computer models and other assessment tools provide 
     varying effectiveness in predicting mercury concentrations in 
     fish, and no broad-scale data sets exist to test model 
     predictions;
       (4)(A) on September 14 through 17, 2003, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency cosponsored a Society of Environmental 
     Toxicology and Chemistry workshop involving more than 30 
     international experts to formulate a system to quantify and 
     document mercury changes in the various environment fields 
     resulting from anticipated reductions in mercury emissions in 
     the United States; and
       (B) the resulting plan proposes a holistic, multimedia, 
     long-term mercury monitoring program that is documented in 2 
     sources--
       (i) on January 1, 2005, the article entitled ``Monitoring 
     the Response to Changing Mercury Deposition'' was published 
     in the journal Environmental Science and Technology; and
       (ii) in 2008, the book entitled ``Ecosystem Responses to 
     Mercury Contamination: Indicators of Change'' was published 
     by CRC Press;
       (5) as of the date of enactment of this Act, many 
     regulations limiting mercury emissions from different sources 
     have gone into effect or will be implemented, but ongoing 
     monitoring programs are not adequately measuring the 
     environmental benefits and effectiveness of mercury emission 
     controls;
       (6) on May 15, 2006, the Office of Inspector General of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency issued a report entitled, 
     ``Monitoring Needed to Assess Impact of EPA's Clean Air 
     Mercury Rule (CAMR) on Potential Hotspots'' , Report No. 
     2006-P-0025, which states, in part--
       (A) ``Without field data from an improved monitoring 
     network, EPA's ability to advance mercury science will be 
     limited and `utility-attributable hotspots' that pose health 
     risks may occur and go undetected''; and
       (B) ``We recommend that the EPA develop and implement a 
     mercury monitoring plan to assess the impact of CAMR, if 
     adopted, on mercury deposition and fish tissue and evaluate 
     and refine mercury estimation tools and models'';
       (7)(A) on January 1, 2007, the articles entitled 
     ``Biological Mercury Hotspots in the Northeastern U.S. and 
     Southeastern Canada'' and ``Contamination in Remote Forest 
     and Aquatic Ecosystems in the Northeastern U.S.: Sources, 
     Transformations and Management Options'' were published in 
     the journal BioScience; and
       (B) the authors of the articles--
       (i) identified 5 biological mercury hotspots and 9 areas of 
     concern in the northeastern United States and southeastern 
     Canada associated primarily with atmospheric mercury 
     emissions and deposition;
       (ii) located an area of particularly high mercury 
     deposition adjacent to a coal-fired utility in southern New 
     Hampshire; and
       (iii) concluded that local impacts from mercury emissions 
     should be closely monitored in order to assess the impact of 
     Federal and State policies; and
       (8)(A) building on previous efforts in 2003, on May 5 
     through 7, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency 
     coconvened a workshop with experts from the United States 
     Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     the National Park Service, State and tribal agencies, the 
     BioDiversity Research Institute, the National Atmospheric 
     Deposition Program, industry, and other institutions;
       (B) more than 50 workshop scientists participated and 
     agreed on a goal and major design elements for a national 
     mercury monitoring program, including a national distribution 
     of approximately 20 intensive sites to understand the 
     sources, consequences, and trends in United States mercury 
     pollution;
       (C) the consortium found that ``policy makers, scientists 
     and the public need a comprehensive and integrated mercury 
     monitoring network to accurately quantify regional and 
     national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem 
     contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and 
     wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions.''; and
       (D) the workshop findings are published in a report of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (430-K-09-001).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee'' 
     means the Mercury Monitoring Advisory Committee established 
     under section 5.
       (3) Ancillary measure.--The term ``ancillary measure'' 
     means a measure that is used to understand the impact and 
     interpret results of measurements under the program.
       (4) Ecoregion.--The term ``ecoregion'' means a large area 
     of land and water that contains a geographically distinct 
     assemblage of natural communities, including similar land 
     forms, climate, ecological processes, and vegetation.

[[Page 32720]]

       (5) Mercury export.--The term ``mercury export'' means 
     mercury flux from a watershed to the corresponding water 
     body, or from 1 water body to another water body (such as a 
     lake to a river), generally expressed as mass per unit of 
     time.
       (6) Mercury flux.--The term ``mercury flux'' means the rate 
     of transfer of mercury between ecosystem components (such as 
     between water and air), or between portions of ecosystem 
     components, expressed in terms of mass per unit of time or 
     mass per unit of area per time.
       (7) Program.--The term ``program'' means the national 
     mercury monitoring program established under section 4.
       (8) Surface sediment.--The term ``surface sediment'' means 
     sediment in the uppermost 2 centimeters of a lakebed or 
     riverbed.

     SEC. 4. MONITORING PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     the Director of the United States Geological Survey, the 
     Director of the National Park Service, the Administrator of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 
     heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, shall establish 
     a national mercury monitoring program.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the program is to track--
       (A) long-term trends in atmospheric mercury concentrations 
     and deposition; and
       (B) mercury levels in watersheds, surface waters, and fish 
     and wildlife in terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal 
     ecosystems in response to changing mercury emissions over 
     time.
       (3) Monitoring sites.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), not later 
     than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act and in 
     coordination with the Advisory Committee, the Administrator, 
     after consultation with the heads of Federal agencies 
     described in paragraph (1) and considering the requirement 
     for reports under section 6, shall select multiple monitoring 
     sites representing multiple ecoregions of the United States.
       (B) Locations.--Locations of monitoring sites shall include 
     national parks, wildlife refuges, National Estuarine Research 
     Reserve units, and other sensitive ecological areas that 
     include long-term protection and in which substantive changes 
     are expected from reductions in domestic mercury emissions.
       (C) Colocation.--If practicable, monitoring sites shall be 
     colocated with sites from other long-term environmental 
     monitoring programs.
       (4) Monitoring protocols.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in 
     coordination with the Advisory Committee, shall establish and 
     publish standardized measurement protocols for the program 
     under this Act.
       (5) Data collection and distribution.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator, in coordination with the Advisory Committee, 
     shall establish a centralized database for existing and newly 
     collected environmental mercury data that can be freely 
     accessed once data assurance and quality standards 
     established by the Administrator are met.
       (b) Air and Watersheds.--
       (1) In general.--The program shall monitor long-term 
     changes in mercury levels and important ancillary measures in 
     the air at locations selected under subsection (a)(3).
       (2) Measurements.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     the Director of the United States Geological Survey, the 
     Director of the National Park Service, the Administrator of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 
     heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, shall determine 
     appropriate measurements, including--
       (A) the measurement and recording of wet and estimation of 
     dry mercury deposition, mercury flux, and mercury export;
       (B) the measurement and recording of the level of mercury 
     reemitted from aquatic and terrestrial environments into the 
     atmosphere; and
       (C) the measurement of sulfur species and ancillary 
     measurements at a portion of locations selected under 
     subsection (a)(3) to fully understand the cycling of mercury 
     through the ecosystem.
       (c) Water and Soil Chemistry.--The program shall monitor 
     long-term changes in mercury and methyl mercury levels and 
     important ancillary measures in the water and soil or 
     sediments at locations selected under subsection (a)(3) that 
     the Administrator, in primary consultation with the Director 
     of the United States Geological Survey, determines to be 
     appropriate, including--
       (1) extraction and analysis of soil and sediment cores;
       (2) measurement and recording of total mercury and methyl 
     mercury concentration, and percent methyl mercury in surface 
     sediments;
       (3) measurement and recording of total mercury and methyl 
     mercury concentration in surface water; and
       (4) measurement and recording of total mercury and methyl 
     mercury concentrations throughout the water column and 
     sediments.
       (d) Aquatic and Terrestrial Organisms.--The program shall 
     monitor long-term changes in mercury and methyl mercury 
     levels and important ancillary measures in the aquatic and 
     terrestrial organisms at locations selected under subsection 
     (a)(3) that the Administrator, in primary consultation with 
     the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
     and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, determines to be appropriate, including--
       (1) measurement and recording of total mercury and methyl 
     mercury concentrations in--
       (A) zooplankton and other invertebrates;
       (B) yearling fish; and
       (C) commercially, recreationally, or conservation relevant 
     fish; and
       (2) measurement and recording of total mercury 
     concentrations in--
       (A) selected insect- and fish-eating birds; and
       (B) measurement and recording of total mercury 
     concentrations in selected insect- and fish-eating mammals.

     SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--There shall be established a scientific 
     advisory committee, to be known as the ``Mercury Monitoring 
     Advisory Committee'', to advise the Administrator and Federal 
     agencies described in section 4(a)(1), on the establishment, 
     site selection, measurement and recording protocols, and 
     operation of the program.
       (b) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of 
     scientists who are not employees of the Federal Government, 
     including--
       (1) 3 scientists appointed by the Administrator;
       (2) 2 scientists appointed by the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service;
       (3) 2 scientists appointed by the Director of the United 
     States Geological Survey;
       (4) 2 scientists appointed by the Director of the National 
     Park Service; and
       (5) 2 scientists appointed by the Administrator of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.

       (a) Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     program, including trend data.
       (b) Assessment.--At least once every 4 years, the report 
     required under subsection (a) shall include an assessment of 
     the reduction in mercury deposition rates that are required 
     to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and 
     ecological effects.
       (c) Availability of Data.--The Administrator shall make all 
     data obtained under this Act available to the public through 
     a dedicated website and on written request.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act--
       (1) for fiscal year 2011 to--
       (A) the Environmental Protection Agency $15,000,000;
       (B) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service $9,000,000;
       (C) the United States Geological Survey $5,000,000;
       (D) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     $4,000,000; and
       (E) the National Park Service $4,000,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2012 to--
       (A) the Environmental Protection Agency $12,000,000;
       (B) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service $7,000,000;
       (C) the United States Geological Survey $4,000,000;
       (D) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     $3,000,000; and
       (E) the National Park Service $3,000,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 2013 to--
       (A) the Environmental Protection Agency $12,000,000;
       (B) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service $7,000,000;
       (C) the United States Geological Survey $4,000,000;
       (D) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     $3,000,000; and
       (E) the National Park Service $3,000,000; and
       (4) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2014 through 2016 to--
       (A) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (B) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
       (C) the United States Geological Survey;
       (D) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
     and
       (E) the National Park Service.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING:
  S. 2916. A bill to provide that Internal Revenue Service Notice 2010-
2 shall have no force and effect and to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to restrict the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to 
prescribe regulations under section 382 of such Code; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. 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:

[[Page 32721]]



                                S. 2916

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

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON REGULATORY AUTHORITY RELATING TO 
                   LIMITATION ON LOSSES FOLLOWING OWNERSHIP 
                   CHANGE.

       (a) Repeal of Notice 2010-2.--Internal Revenue Service 
     Notice 2010-2 shall have no force and effect.
       (b) Modification of Regulatory Authority Under Section 
     382.--Section 382(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary may not prescribe any 
     regulation after December 18, 2009, which provides an 
     exemption or special rule under this section which is 
     restricted to dispositions of instruments acquired by the 
     Secretary unless such exemption or special rule is 
     specifically authorized by Congress.''.
       (c) No Inference.--Nothing in subsection (a) or in the 
     amendment made by subsection (b) shall be construed to create 
     any inference with respect to the authority of the Secretary 
     of the Treasury on or before December 18, 2009, to provide 
     exceptions to the application of the rules of section 382 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to certain 
     classes of taxpayers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. 
        Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. 
        Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corker, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        DeMint, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Gregg, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. LeMieux, Mr. 
        Lugar, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Risch, Mr. 
        Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Wicker):
  S.J. Res. 24. A joint resolution providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Department of Labor relating to financial disclosure 
and transparency by labor union management; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of 
Labor-Management Standards, OLMS, is responsible for ensuring that 
labor unions follow basic standards of fiscal responsibility. OLMS 
collects annual financial disclosure reports, LM-2, from labor 
organizations with annual receipts of $250,000 or more. Union members 
who work hard to pay their dues deserve to know how their money has 
been spent. So, these annual financial disclosure reports provide rank-
and-file members with an essential tool for exercising union democracy: 
information about important financial decisions made by their union 
leadership. Consequently, it is vital that OLMS have the necessary 
tools to monitor union compliance with the law as well as to deter 
corruption. Yet, on average, over ONE third of all unions fail to 
comply with existing requirements to file annual financial disclosure 
reports on time.
  In fact, between 2001 and 2008, OLMS reported that its investigations 
yielded a total of 1,004 indictments with 929 convictions and court-
ordered restitution of more than $93 million dollars. For example, 
according to statistics reported by the Office of Management and 
Budget, OMB, the OLMS audits turned up criminal violations in about 
11.5 percent of audits and nearly 8 percent of unions showed some 
fraudulent activity in 2008 alone. Between January 1 and October 19, 
2009, OLMS reported obtaining indictments, convictions and sentences in 
embezzlement cases that total nearly $3 million in theft from union 
funds.
  in order to provide a better method for collecting information about 
union finances, the Department of Labor proposed modifying the LM-2 
form. After a lengthy rulemaking process, the Department issued a final 
rule on January 21, 2009, which required additional information about 
the receipt and disbursement of labor organization funds, and 
established standards and procedures for revoking, where appropriate, a 
labor organization's simplified filing privilege. But politics got in 
the way of transparency and good government. And on October 13, 2009, 
the Department announced a final decision to rescind these regulations.
  This is outrageous. No one is talking about protecting rank-and-file 
members' ability to hold their leadership accountable. Instead, the 
Secretary of Labor has bowed to pressure and complaints from labor 
unions. The unions argued that requiring labor organizations with 
reported annual receipts over $250,000 to file more detailed disclosure 
reports was unnecessarily burdensome and imposed additional 
administrative costs on their organizations.
  Rigorous disclosure requirements promote union transparency and 
accountability of union leaders to their rank-and-file members. The 
annual financial reports ensure that workers' dues are used 
legitimately and can also help workers and oversight investigators 
detect fraudulent or criminal activity. Bringing corrupt union 
officials to justice and recovering millions of dollars in hard-earned 
dues would not be possible if unions were not required to file annual 
financial disclosure reports.
  For this reason, I am introducing a Congressional Review Act 
resolution disapproving the Department of Labor's October 13 decision 
to rescind the LM-2 rule. My resolution, which is cosponsored by 17 of 
my colleagues, would have the effect of reinstating the original LM-2 
rule published in January 2009 and would ensure that OLMS continues to 
protect the rights of rank-and-file union members against corrupt union 
leaders.

                          ____________________