[Pages S8197-S8202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Salazar):
S. 3721. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to
establish the United States Emergency Management Authority, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 3721, the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. It contains a vital
set of reforms and innovations for our emergency-management systems
that are designed to save lives and ease suffering when disaster
strikes. The crafting of this bill has benefited from the insights of
my principal cosponsor, Senator Lieberman, and from the support of our
other cosponsor, Senator Salazar.
The Senate has already acted on one critical measure to apply the
bitter lessons of Hurricane Katrina. The 87 to 11 vote on July 11,
adding creation of the U.S. Emergency Management Authority to the
Homeland Security appropriations bill, adopted a major element of
today's bill. That was a great step forward.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee conducted an 8-month
investigation with 23 hearings, more than 325 formal interviews, and a
review of more than 838,000 pages of documents to ascertain why the
response to Hurricane Katrina was so inadequate at all levels of
government. The investigation revealed serious failures of leadership.
It also revealed an urgent need for broad reforms ranging from
communication-technology standards to the structure and missions of
entire Federal agencies.
Some of the 88 recommendations that flowed from our investigation can
be adopted by administrative action. The Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act comprises important steps that only Congress can
take. I will outline the five key components of our bill.
First, we strengthen FEMA and rename it as the United State Emergency
Management Authority, or US-EMA, to signify a fresh start. We elevate
US-EMA within DHS, restore its preparedness authority, and protect it
from departmental reorganizations that could erode its budget and
assets. These measures give the agency mission and asset protections
like those of its DHS siblings, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service.
These statutory protections are important. Securing the integrity of
FEMA preserves the cooperative benefits of its operating within easy
reach of other DHS agencies. It also avoids the duplication, cost, and
confusion for State and local officials that would come from carving
FEMA out as a weak, stand-alone agency for natural disasters. Keeping
FEMA where it was placed by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 avoids
the need for DHS to recreate a similar terror-response capability.
Improving contact and coordination among Federal, State, and local
agencies is essential. For that reason, our bill provides for
regionally based, multi-agency Federal strike teams that will be ready
to act and deploy in a region they will already know and understand
before a disaster occurs.
The bill also provides continued funding for the interstate Emergency
Management Assistance Compact that proved so valuable in marshaling aid
for the gulf coast last year. It commits the US-EMA to work with States
and localities to develop a standardized credentialing system that will
help responders and selected private-sector personnel move quickly into
disaster areas anywhere in the country, and it requires the US-EMA to
offer technical assistance to State and local governments.
To help remedy the communications gaps revealed by Hurricane Katrina,
we also improve the agency's organizational and technical
communications systems. Our bill designates the Administrator of the
US-EMA as the principal advisor to the President on emergency-
management issues. Meanwhile, national and regional advisory councils
will ensure that the US-EMA has open channels of communication with
State and local officials, emergency responders, key private-sector and
nongovernmental entities, and with representatives of people with
disabilities.
On the equally important technical side, our bill consolidates
several communications programs within a new Office of Emergency
Communications within US-EMA. This office will devise a national
emergency-communications strategy, administer grants for interoperable
communications, and regularly assess the operability and
interoperability of the communication systems that are essential for
disaster response and that failed so widely during the Katrina
catastrophe.
This US-EMA portion of the bill has received a great deal of
attention. But it is only one part of this package of essential
reforms.
The second part of our bill permits an enhanced Federal role in
emergency management when major disasters require it. The Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, better known as
the Stafford Act, authorizes a variety of Federal assistance measures
to State and local governments when the President has declared a
disaster.
Congress has amended the Stafford Act over time to make it more
effective. Our bill continues that process of improvement by applying
lessons learned from Katrina.
At the highest level, it directs the Federal Government to develop
and maintain a national disaster-recovery strategy in coordination with
the State and local governments which will lead each recovery. This
fills a remarkable planning void in our current system, which focuses
on response. When disaster overwhelms state and local governments and
devastates large areas, recovery can be a long process requiring
extended Federal assistance.

We increase the potential for more effective Federal aid in several
ways. For example, the legislation enhances Federal agencies' ability
to respond when the President uses his authority to direct their
assistance in major-disaster response and recovery.
The bill requires a national-disaster housing strategy and authorizes
making semipermanent housing units a part of Stafford Act assistance.
In many cases, the modular ``Katrina cottages,'' for example, would be
less costly, safer, more livable, more easily sited, and more durable
than the notorious trailers FEMA purchased.
A new title VII for the Stafford Act gives the President discretion
to offer increased Federal assistance when disaster overwhelms state
and local governments. This discretionary--but limited--authority for
catastrophes includes raising the cap on individual assistance,
assisting victims with rent or mortgage costs, extending disaster-
unemployment benefits, increasing community loans, and raising the
reimbursement to communities for the cost of food, clothes, and other
essential goods they distribute to victims.

[[Page S8198]]

Among other Stafford Act revisions, our bill clarifies that Federal
mitigation efforts can extend to man-made hazards like the Mississippi
River Gulf Outlet that funneled deadly storm-surge waters toward New
Orleans. It establishes a missing-child location system and a database
to help reunite families, a major problem in the aftermath of Katrina.
And it requires that planning and training exercises, as well as
evacuation and sheltering plans, give consideration to people with
disabilities or special needs, or who are not fluent in English, or who
have pets.
These improvements to the Stafford Act would be a major
accomplishment by themselves. But the demonstrated need for reforms
goes deeper still.
The third key element of our bill will provide more and better-
trained emergency professionals. The US-EMA will establish a
contingency cadre to meet surge workforce needs; implement a human-
capital strategy to improve recruitment, development, and retention;
and make quarterly reports to Congress on staffing levels. These
actions should reduce the chronic workforce shortfalls--at times as
great as 25 percent--that have hobbled FEMA in the past.
Looking to staffing quality across the full spectrum, our bill
creates a National Homeland Security Academy. The academy will offer
both classroom and distance-learning instruction and training to DHS,
state, and local homeland-security professionals.
The fourth element in our reform bill will correct the confusion and
lack of training on incident management and unified-command operations
that frustrated a fully effective response to Katrina. Our bill
mandates a comprehensive review of the National Response Plan, and
requires that the DHS Secretary employ the NRP and the National
Incident Management System to guide Federal actions in a natural or
manmade disaster.
The Secretary is also directed to work with the US-EMA Administrator
and with the National Advisory Committee to implement a national
training-and-exercise program to ensure that vital knowledge and skills
are in place and are kept sharp.
The fifth key aspect of our bill targets the waste, fraud, and abuse
that outraged both our compassion for disaster victims and our sense of
stewardship for taxpayer dollars. Based on the investigations by our
committee, the GAO, and the DHS inspector general, I believe far more
than a billion dollars has been lost to waste, fraud, and abuse in the
aftermath of Katrina. The purchase of unusable mobile homes, long-
distance moving and storage of unneeded ice, and abuse of debit cards
indicate that DHS has lacked even rudimentary controls to safeguard tax
dollars.
Our bill directs the Department to identify emergency-response
requirements that can be contracted in advance with pre-screened
vendors, so that vital commodities and services can be secured and
delivered promptly. This simple change could curtail the waste of time
and money as officials scramble to make ad-hoc purchase and
distribution arrangements, often paying excessive prices. We also
provide for a contingency corps of Federal contracting officers who can
work in the field for an extended period following a disaster, so that
response and recovery spending is better directed and controlled than
with Katrina.
Our bill also faces the unfortunate reality that thieves and con
artists will try to abuse even programs for disaster victims. Our bill
imposes civil and criminal penalties for misrepresentation, requires
fraud-awareness training for contracting officers and for the relief
workforce, mandates systems to verify identities and addresses, and
requires issuing explicit directions on legitimate uses of purchase
cards.
Our bill is no single-issue, silver-bullet exercise but a careful and
comprehensive program of improvement and innovation. It takes on each
of the vital areas that our Hurricane Katrina investigation determined
require action by Congress: reconstituting FEMA, updating and expanding
the Stafford Act, improving emergency staffing, enhancing planning and
preparedness, and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse.
Floods, earthquakes, storms, fires, and other natural disasters are
abiding threats that exempt no one living on this planet. And the
threat of manmade disasters has, perhaps permanently, forced itself
into our plans for sustaining this great Nation.
Hurricane Katrina showed us in tragic terms that our mechanisms for
disaster mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery urgently need
many improvements. If we leave untouched the gaps, the confusions, and
the missteps revealed during Katrina, we will see more unnecessary loss
of life and prolonged misery. We do not know when the next great
disaster will strike, or what form it will take. But we know it will
come. We know what needs to be done. The Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act gives us the tools to do it.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for
and cosponsorship of this comprehensive piece of legislation that
Chairman Collins and I are proposing based on our investigation into
the failed preparations and response to Hurricane Katrina.
About 1 month ago, we introduced a bill to transform FEMA into the
U.S. Emergency Management Authority to guarantee that our national
emergency response system can handle a catastrophe--whether it is a
hurricane the size and scope of Katrina or a terrorist attack. U.S. EMA
would have special, protected status--much like the Coast Guard has
within the Department of Homeland Security. The Senate overwhelmingly
adopted that legislation by a vote of 87 to 11 as part of the
Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2007 Appropriations Act.
Today, we reintroduce that legislation backed up by additional
reforms to improve emergency communications, planning, training, and to
make necessary changes to the Stafford Act, which governs relief and
emergency assistance to victims of disasters.
The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, at the
request of the Senate leadership, spent 7 months culling through
hundreds of thousands of documents, interviewing hundreds of witnesses,
and holding scores of hearings into the botched Government response to
that catastrophic hurricane.
We found that at all levels, our Government was ill-equipped to deal
with the massive human suffering all along the gulf coast that followed
the storm's landfall, suffering that shocked and angered the American
people who expect more from their government when fellow Americans are
in need. These failings were the result of many things--negligence,
lack of resources, lack of capability. But most of all they were the
result of a failure of leadership--by the White House, DHS, FEMA, the
Louisiana Governor's office, and the New Orleans mayor's office.
To this day, the Department of Homeland Security does not make
sufficient distinction between everyday problems that States must deal
with on a seasonal basis and the larger catastrophes which, as Katrina
demonstrated, quickly overwhelm local and State authorities.
The legislation we are introducing today is an effort to get the
Department of Homeland Security to understand that distinction better
and to target its preparedness and response to cope better with normal
disasters as well as with those rarer but truly catastrophic events. It
addresses--to the extent possible--many of the Federal shortcomings
exposed by our investigation. And it reflects many of the 88
recommendations the committee reached in its final report on the
Katrina investigation.
Let me briefly summarize the bill. First and foremost, we are
concerned about our first responders who rush into the middle of
catastrophes to save lives. First responders must have the tools they
need to protect and save our communities. Think back to September 11.
Hundreds of firefighters lost their lives that day for many reasons.
Among them was that their radio equipment was not compatible with the
police force radios, making it more difficult to learn of the warnings
others had that the Twin Towers were going to fall.
During Hurricane Katrina, first responders not only lacked compatible
radio equipment, but they lost communication completely when power
lines and sub stations were knocked out of operation.
Whether responding to a terrorist attack, natural disaster, fire, a
missing

[[Page S8199]]

child, or a fleeing suspect, police, firefighters, emergency medical
technicians, and other responders too frequently cannot share crucial,
lifesaving information at the scene of a disaster.
Senator Collins and I introduced a bill, reported out of committee
last year, to improve emergency communications, the Assure Emergency
and Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005,
S.1725. We have borrowed liberally from it. For example, today's
legislation, like S.1725, would require the development of a national
strategy for emergency communications; the establishment of an
emergency communications research and development program; and
dedicated funding for State and local communications and
interoperability grants, authorized at $3.3 billion over 5 years.
We would also establish a new Office of Emergency Communications
within U.S. EMA by combining existing offices at the Department of
Homeland Security that deal with various aspects of emergency
communications. Among the offices to be combined are SAFECOM within the
Science and Technology Directorate and the National Communications
System, which was under the Infrastructure Protection Office during
Katrina. This office will make sure that DHS actually has someone in
charge of leading the Department's splintered efforts to fix these
persistent communications problems.
This legislation also makes changes to the Stafford Act and improves
upon other recovery and assistance benefits for the victims of
disaster. Among other things, we would require U.S. EMA to develop
housing and recovery strategies; we would increase the assistance
provided under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program from 7.5 percent of
funds paid out under title IV of the Stafford Act up to 15 percent,
depending on the size of the disaster; and we would expand FEMA's
authority so that in addition to providing temporary housing it could
provide permanent or semipermanent housing, giving it greater
flexibility to meet the needs of those affected by a disaster. Unlike
FEMA, U.S. EMA would not have to reflexively rely on travel trailers to
house victims when other types of housing make more sense.

Victims would be aided further under this legislation by elimination
of the subcaps that limited the amount of specific assistance for
repairs and home replacement during Katrina and by increased
transportation benefits. We would clarify the statute by reinforcing
Congress's intent to allow for the use of rental assistance to pay for
utility costs and to provide treatment of mental health problems
resulting from or aggravated by a disaster. And we would allow U.S. EMA
to provide temporary residences to all parts of a household that
necessarily must split following a disaster--because of multiple
relocations or cases of domestic violence, for example.
If the President finds ``catastrophic damages'' to a locale hit by
disaster, he would be able to provide even more assistance under our
legislation. The President would be able to double the cap for
individual assistance from $26,000 to $52,000, provide unemployment
benefits for 52 weeks instead of 26 weeks, provide help with mortgage
and rental assistance, and waive maximum limitations on the amount of
assistance that can be provided under the Community Disaster Loan
Program.
Other provisions in our bill call for increased planning for people
with special needs, better ways to get disaster information to those
who need it, and measures to assist with family reunification. We would
also require government contractors to hire more local firms and local
workers.
This legislation also has an extensive section dedicated to saving
money for the taxpayers while preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. For
example, we would require the U.S. EMA Director to establish an
identity verification process to ensure that victims who apply for
benefits under the Individuals and Households Program are who they say
they are and are in true need. We would create a registry of
contractors able to perform common postdisaster work and use advance,
competitively awarded contracts for predictably required goods and
services. And we would create a contingent of volunteer contracting
officers from throughout the Federal Government to assist with
additional contracting needs during emergencies.
Our bill would also require U.S. EMA to plan for a disaster far more
extensively than it has previously. It requires the development of a
national training and exercise program, involving both Federal and
State officials, to prepare for natural and manmade disasters. And the
U.S. EMA Administrator would have to review the National Response Plan
and clarify overlapping or confusing law enforcement, search and
rescue, and medical responsibilities.
Mr. President, we are approaching the 1-year anniversary of Katrina--
August 29. Much has changed since that time. Certainly, the gulf coast
is better prepared to meet a disaster this hurricane season. Yet many
victimized by Hurricane Katrina, as well as those vulnerable to natural
disasters or terrorist attacks elsewhere, still face uncertain futures.
We cannot forget those still struggling to rebuild their lives from
the devastation wrought by Katrina almost a year ago. This legislation
was designed to address specific problems exposed by Katrina, so as it
moves through the legislative process, we must do all that we can to
ensure that the President has the authority he needs to provide
assistance to past victims, as well as to victims of future disasters.
We must also make certain that, unlike FEMA, U.S. EMA has all of the
resources it needs to lead a national preparedness effort and to
respond to whatever occurs in a manner that the American people have a
right to expect.
The committee's investigation found that FEMA had never been prepared
for a catastrophic event but also that it had budget shortages that
hindered its preparedness and impeded its performance. Scott Wells,
FEMA's Deputy Federal Coordinating Officer in Lousiana, summed it up.
He said, ``This was a catastrophic disaster. We don't have the
structure; we don't have the people for catastrophic disaster. It's
that simple . . . If you want a big capability, you've got to make a
big investment. And there is no investment in response operations for a
catastrophic disaster. It's not there.''
Clearly, if the Federal Government is to improve its performance in
the next disaster, we must give it sufficient resources. This
legislation takes an important step in that direction by providing a
$49 million increase for FEMA's two key operating accounts in fiscal
year 2008 and an additional $53 million in fiscal year 2009. However, I
believe even more is necessary, and I will work to secure additional
resources as U.S. EMA becomes a reality.
The Department of Homeland Security was established not to address
average disasters--the hurricanes that reliably strike certain parts of
the country each year or flooding from heavy rains. DHS was established
to prevent, prepare for, and if necessary respond to horrific
catastrophes that demand all the resources our Federal Government has
to offer in times of need or when local and State governments are
overwhelmed by what has befallen them.
This legislation is a reminder of that original purpose, an effort to
get the Department of Homeland Security back to where Congress
originally envisioned it should be. This bill will help the Department
be as prepared for and able to respond to catastrophes as the American
public expects it to be.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 3723. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate
certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as
components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator
Lieberman to introduce the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act to
designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of
Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System.
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in
1968 to create a ``Hall of Fame'' for exceptional rivers. Eligible
rivers or river segments must meet two criteria; first,

[[Page S8200]]

the river corridor must be free flowing and, second, it must contain at
least one outstanding remarkable resource deserving special
recognition, such as a prominent natural, cultural, scenic, or
recreational resource.
Over the course of the past few years, the National Park Service has
responded to interest and inquiries from local advocates and town
officials regarding a potential Wild and Scenic River designation for
the Eightmile River located in south central Connecticut. While a local
management plan has been developed, studies have shown that fifteen
miles of the Eightmile River and its East Branch through the
communities of Lyme, East Haddam, and Salem, CT, were already included
on the National Park Service's Nationwide Rivers Inventory of potential
Wild and Scenic River segments. Both segments have great recreational
value and are included on the inventory for outstanding scenic,
geologic, and fish and wildlife values. More than 80 percent of the
Connecticut River watershed is still forested, including large tracts
of unfragmented hardwood forests that are home to a diverse assemblage
of plants and animals including bobcats, great horned owls, red foxes
and roughly 180 other species of birds, plants, fish, and reptiles.
The impetus for gaining wild and scenic designation of segments of
the Eightmile River originated locally in 1995 when local officials and
citizens began working on protection efforts. A variety of local,
State, and Federal watershed protection programs were considered, and a
Wild & Scenic River study and designation were determined to be the
best way to achieve the local vision of a protected watershed. It was
found that six special ``resource values'' are present in the Eightmile
River Watershed. These resource values are: Watershed hydrology, water
quality, unique species and natural communities, geology, the watershed
ecosystem, and the cultural landscape. Preserving and enhancing these
values is the basis of the Eightmile River Management Plan and
ultimately the pursuit of wild and scenic designation. Earlier this
year I joined with residents of East Haddam, CT, to endorse the
management plan.
Connecticut is a small State in area, but it is densely populated and
it is essential that balance is achieved between conservation and
economic growth. As one of the most diverse and thriving ecosystems in
the lower Connecticut River Valley, it is essential that we work to
preserve this river while all parties, local, State and Federal, are
willing and able to support this ecosystem. The Eightmile River, like
many other rivers in America, can still be stewarded for future
generations of Americans as both a recreational treasure and an
unblemished ecological haven.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3723

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Eightmile Wild and Scenic
River Act''.

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

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of
2001 (Public Law 107-65; 115 Stat. 484) required the
Secretary to complete a study of the Eightmile River in the
State of Connecticut from its headwaters downstream to its
confluence with the Connecticut River for potential inclusion
in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System;
(2) the segments of the Eightmile River that were assessed
in the study continue to be in a free-flowing condition;
(3) the segments of the Eightmile River contain outstanding
resource values relating to--
(A) cultural landscapes;
(B) water quality;
(C) watershed hydrology;
(D) unique species;
(E) natural communities;
(F) geology; and
(G) watershed ecosystems;
(4) the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee has
determined that--
(A) the outstanding resource values of those segments of
the Eightmile River depend on the continued integrity and
quality of the Eightmile River watershed;
(B) those resource values that are manifested throughout
the entire watershed; and
(C) the continued protection of the entire watershed is
intrinsically important to the designation of the Eightmile
River under this Act;
(5) the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee
took a watershed approach in studying and recommending
management options for the river segments and the Eightmile
River watershed as a whole;
(6) during the study, the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic
Study Committee prepared the Eightmile River Management Plan
to establish objectives, standards, and action programs to
ensure long-term protection of the outstanding values of the
river, and compatible management of the land and water
resources of the Eightmile River and its watershed, without
Federal management of affected land not owned by the United
States;
(7) the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee--
(A) voted in favor of including the Eightmile River in the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and
(B) included that recommendation as an integral part of the
Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan;
(8) the residents of the towns located adjacent to the
Eightmile River and comprising most of its watershed,
including Salem, East Haddam, and Lyme, Connecticut, as well
as the boards of selectmen and land use commissions of those
towns, voted--
(A) to endorse the Eightmile River Watershed Management
Plan; and
(B) to seek designation of the river as a component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
(9) the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut
enacted Public Act 05-18--
(A) to endorse the Eightmile River Watershed Management
Plan; and
(B) to seek the designation of the Eightmile River as a
component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
(b) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Eightmile river.--The term ``Eightmile River'' means
segments of the main stem and certain tributaries of the
Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut that are
designated as components of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System by the amendment made by subsection (c).
(2) Management plan.--The term ``Management Plan'' means
the plan prepared by the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic
Study Committee, with assistance from the National Park
Service, known as the ``Eightmile River Watershed Management
Plan'', and dated December 8, 2005.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(c) Designation.--Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended--
(1) by designating the undesignated paragraph relating to
the White Salmon River, Washington, following paragraph (166)
as paragraph (167); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(168) Eightmile River, Connecticut.--The following
segments in the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut,
totaling approximately 25.3 miles, to be administered by the
Secretary of the Interior:
``(A) The 10.8-mile segment of the main stem of the
Eightmile River, from Lake Hayward Brook to the Connecticut
River at the mouth of Hamburg Cove, as a scenic river.
``(B) The 8.0-mile segment of the East Branch of the
Eightmile River from Witch Meadow Road to the main stem of
the Eightmile River, as a scenic river.
``(C) The 3.9-mile segment of Harris Brook from the
confluence of an unnamed stream lying 0.74 miles due east of
the intersection of Hartford Road (State Route 85) and Round
Hill Road to the East Branch of the Eightmile River, as a
scenic river.
``(D) The 1.9-mile segment of Beaver Brook from Cedar Pond
Brook to the main stem of the Eightmile River, as a scenic
river.
``(E) The 0.7-mile segment of Falls Brook from Tisdale
Brook to the main stem of the Eightmile River at Hamburg
Cove, as a scenic river.''.
(d) Management.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the Eightmile
River in accordance with the Management Plan and such
amendments to the Plan as the Secretary determines to be
consistent with this section.
(2) Management plan.--The Management Plan shall be
considered to satisfy each requirement for a comprehensive
management plan that is required by section 3(d) of the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(d)).
(e) Committee.--The Secretary shall coordinate the
management responsibilities of the Secretary relating to the
Eightmile River with the Eightmile River Coordinating
Committee, as described in the Management Plan.
(f) Cooperative Agreements.--
(1) In general.--Pursuant to sections 10(e) and 11(b)(1) of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1281(e),
1282(b)(1)), the Secretary may enter into a cooperative
agreement with--
(A) the State of Connecticut;
(B) the towns of--
(i) Salem, Connecticut;
(ii) Lyme, Connecticut; and
(iii) East Haddam, Connecticut; and
(C) appropriate local planning and environmental
organizations.
(2) Consistency with management plan.--Each cooperative
agreement authorized by this subsection--
(A) shall be consistent with the Management Plan; and

[[Page S8201]]

(B) may include provisions for financial or other
assistance from the United States.
(g) Relation to National Park System.--Notwithstanding
section 10(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.
1281(c)), the Eightmile River shall not--
(1) be administered as part of the National Park System; or
(2) be subject to laws (including regulations) that govern
the National Park System.
(h) Land Management.--
(1) Zoning ordinances.--With respect to the Eightmile
River, each zoning ordinance adopted by the towns of Salem,
East Haddam, and Lyme, Connecticut, in effect as of December
8, 2005 (including provisions for conservation of
floodplains, wetland and watercourses associated with the
segments), shall be considered to satisfy each standard and
requirement under section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (16 U.S.C. 1277(c)).
(2) Acquisition of land.--The authority of the Secretary to
acquire land for the purpose of managing the Eightmile River
as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
shall be--
(A) limited to acquisition--
(i) by donation; or
(ii) with the consent of the owner of the land; and
(B) subject to the additional criteria set forth in the
Management Plan.
(i) Watershed Approach.--
(1) Statement of policy.--In furtherance of the watershed
approach to resource preservation and enhancement articulated
in the Management Plan, the tributaries of the Eightmile
River watershed specified in paragraph (2) are recognized as
integral to the protection and enhancement of the Eightmile
River and that watershed.
(2) Covered tributaries.--The tributaries referred to in
paragraph (1) include--
(A) Beaver Brook;
(B) Big Brook;
(C) Burnhams Brook;
(D) Cedar Pond Brook;
(E) Cranberry Meadow Brook;
(F) Early Brook;
(G) Falls Brook;
(H) Fraser Brook;
(I) Harris Brook;
(J) Hedge Brook Lake Hayward Brook;
(K) Malt House Brook;
(L) Muddy Brook;
(M) Ransom Brook;
(N) Rattlesnake Ledge Brook;
(O) Shingle Mill Brook;
(P) Strongs Brook;
(Q) Tisdale Brook;
(R) Witch Meadow Brook; and
(S) all other perennial streams within the Eightmile River
watershed.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this Act.
______

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Cochran,
and Mr. Johnson):
S. 3724. A bill to enhance scientific research and competitiveness
through the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I introduce the EPSCoR
Research and Competitive Act of 2006, and I am proud to have the
bipartisan support of my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Inouye, Cochran
and Johnson.
The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR,
at the National Science Foundation, NSF, is designed to help states
that historically do not receive much NSF funding to compete more
effectively for grants. NSF maintains it high standards, but it also
provides help to States to meet such standards. Such an investment is
fundamental to help promote our country's competitiveness nationwide.
Twenty-six States are eligible for the EPSCoR program, and these States
represent 20 percent of our population, 25 percent of our doctoral and
research universities, and 18 percent of our academic scientists and
engineers. The EPSCoR states also represent unique environments for
scientific research with Hawaii and Alaska having unique features.
Montana is a major area for paleontology. Six of the top ten energy
producing States are EPSCoR States. It is common sense to invest in
building research capacity in our EPSCoR States.
We also know that EPSCoR works. More than one-half of the researchers
supported by NSF's EPSCoR program during the first 10 years later were
successful in competing for non-EPSCoR funding. Also, 75 percent of new
technology companies started by university research are based in the
States where the original research was done. To strengthen our research
and enhance competitiveness EPSCoR is a smart investment.
Within the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006, is a
provision authorizing the EPSCoR program at $125 million, and stating
that EPSCoR funding should increase in proportion with the overall NSF
budget. This package was marked up by the Senate Commerce Committee on
May 18, 2006 with bipartisan support.
Clearly, there is agreement that EPSCoR needs to be part of our
national strategy for competitiveness. This legislation adds some
specifics to that goal. The bill proposes that the Research
Infrastructure Improvements Grant increase to $75 million. It seeks 20
percent of the EPSCoR budget for the co-funding program, an innovative
initiative to help encourage each of the NSF directorates to
collaborate and fund meritorious projects from the EPSCoR States. It
encourages the NSF Director to develop creative ways to ensure that the
EPSCoR States are part of the new major initiatives of the foundation,
including cyber-infrastructure and major research instrumentation.
West Virginia has truly benefited from the EPSCoR program. Since
2001, competitive Federal research in West Virginia has risen from
$35.8 million to $60.1 million which is a 68 percent increase. In 2005
alone, research created more than $147 million in economic activity and
supported 4,432 jobs. EPSCoR has also been the catalyst for enhanced
cooperation between West Virginia's leading universities, West Virginia
University and Marshall University.
This legislation will add to the American Innovation and
Competitiveness Act's goal of promoting competitiveness in the EPSCoR
States which helps our entire country.
______

By Mr. KOHL:
S. 3727. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for an adjustment to the reduction of Medicare resident
positions based on settled cost reports; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare
Residency Program Fairness Act of 2006. This bill would provide for an
adjustment to the reduction of Medicare resident positions based on
settled cost reports. The reason I am introducing this bill is because
unintended consequences of Section 422 of the Medicare Modernization
Act of 2003 have resulted in a decrease of residents slots in
Wisconsin's Fox Valley and potentially in other small urban and rural
family medicine practices across the Nation.
For more than a year, I have been working with the University of
Wisconsin School of Medicine and the Fox Valley Fami1y Medicine
Residency Program to urge CMS to restore funding for its residency
training positions that was taken away as a result of an audit that
incorrectly determined that the positions were not used. Now, a Final
Mediation Agreement between Appleton Medical Center and United
Government Services demonstrates that the positions were being used and
that the program met the Medicare requirement for those positions. I
believe it is only fair that Appleton Medical Center's residency
positions be reinstated.
The Fox Valley Family Practice Residency Program is an important
contributing member to the Fox Valley and surrounding community,
providing health care services to some 10,000 families. This is exactly
the type of program that we should be supporting, not reducing. My
legislation will right this wrong and provide for the same opportunity
for any other small urban or rural program that can demonstrate that
its residency slots were erroneously de-funded by CMS. I ask that my
Senate colleagues join me by supporting this bill. I ask unanimous
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3727

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

(a) In General.--Section 1886(h)(7) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(7)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

[[Page S8202]]

``(D) Adjustment based on settled cost report for rural and
small urban hospitals.--In the case of a hospital located in
a rural area (as defined in subsection (d)(2)(D)) or in an
urban area that is not a large urban area (as so defined) for
which--
``(i) the otherwise applicable resident limit was reduced
under subparagraph (A)(i)(I); and
``(ii) such reduction was based on a reference resident
level that was determined using a cost report that was
subsequently settled, whether as a result of an appeal or
otherwise, and the reference resident level under such
settled cost report is higher than the level used for the
reduction under subparagraph (A)(i)(I);

the Secretary shall apply subparagraph (A)(i)(I) using the
higher resident reference level and make any necessary
adjustments to the reduction described in subclause (II). Any
such necessary adjustments shall be effective for portions of
cost reporting periods occurring on or after July 1, 2005.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
422 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Brownback,
Mr. Biden, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Akaka, and Mrs. Dole):
S. 3728. A bill to promote nuclear nonproliferation in North Korea;
considered and passed.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3728

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``North Korea Nonproliferation
Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

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

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

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

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

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

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

____________________