Conrad

Quote

 

S.5

 

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

Ms. James, for herself and Mr. deSonido (with thanks to Ms. Bonamici) introduced the following bill;

 

A BILL

To authorize and strengthen the tsunami detection, forecast, warning, research, and mitigation program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes.

 

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

 

SEC. 1. Short title.

 

This Act may be cited as the “Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2017”.

 

SEC. 2. References to the Tsunami Warning and Education Act.

 

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Tsunami Warning and Education Act enacted as title VIII of Public Law 109–479 (33 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.).

 

SEC. 3. Expansion of purposes of Tsunami Warning and Education Act.

 

Section 803 (33 U.S.C. 3202) is amended—

 

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting “research,” after “warnings,”;

 

(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:

 

“(2) to enhance and modernize the existing tsunami warning system in the United States to increase the accuracy of forecasts and warnings, to ensure full coverage of tsunami threats to the United States with a network of detection assets, and to reduce false alarms;”;

 

(3) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:

 

“(3) to improve and develop standards and guidelines for mapping, modeling, and assessment efforts to improve tsunami detection, forecasting, warnings, notification, mitigation, resiliency, response, outreach, and recovery;”;

 

(4) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (5), (6), and (8), respectively;

 

(5) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

 

“(4) to improve research efforts related to improving tsunami detection, forecasting, warnings, notification, evacuation, mitigation, resiliency, response, outreach, and recovery;”;

 

(6) in paragraph (5), as redesignated—

 

(A) by striking “and increase” and inserting “, increase, and develop uniform standards and guidelines for”; and

 

(B) by inserting “, including the warning signs of locally generated tsunami” after “approaching”;

 

(7) in paragraph (6), as redesignated, by striking “, including the Indian Ocean; and” and inserting a semicolon; and

 

(8) by inserting after paragraph (6), as redesignated, the following:

 

“(7) to foster resilient communities in the face of tsunami and other similar coastal hazards; and”.

 

SEC. 4. Modification of Tsunami Forecasting and Warning Program.

 

(a) In general.—Subsection (a) of section 804 (33 U.S.C. 3203(a)) is amended by striking “Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico region.” and inserting “Atlantic Ocean region, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.”.

 

(b) Components.—Subsection (b) of section 804 (33 U.S.C. 3203(b)) is amended—

 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “established” and inserting “supported or maintained”;

 

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (9) as paragraphs (3) through (10), respectively;

 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

 

“(2) to the degree practicable, maintain not less than 80 percent of the Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis buoy array at operational capacity to optimize data reliability;”;

 

(4) by amending paragraph (5), as redesignated by paragraph (2), to read as follows:

 

“(5) provide tsunami forecasting capability based on models and measurements, including tsunami inundation models and maps for use in increasing the preparedness of communities and safeguarding port and harbor operations, that incorporate inputs, including—

 

“(A) the United States and global ocean and coastal observing system;

 

“(B) the global Earth observing system;

 

“(C) the global seismic network;

 

“(D) the Advanced National Seismic system;

 

“(E) tsunami model validation using historical and paleotsunami data;

 

“(F) digital elevation models and bathymetry; and

 

“(G) newly developing tsunami detection methodologies using satellites and airborne remote sensing;”;

 

(5) by amending paragraph (7), as redesignated by paragraph (2), to read as follows:

 

“(7) include a cooperative effort among the Administration, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation under which the Director of the United States Geological Survey, in coordination with the Administrator, and the Director of the National Science Foundation shall—

 

“(A) provide rapid and reliable seismic information to the Administrator from international and domestic seismic networks; and

 

“(B) support seismic stations installed before the date of the enactment of the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2017 to supplement coverage in areas of sparse instrumentation;”;

 

(6) in paragraph (8), as redesignated by paragraph (2)—

 

(A) by inserting “, including graphical warning products,” after “warnings”;

 

(B) by inserting “, territories,” after “States”; and

 

(C) by inserting “and Wireless Emergency Alerts” after “Hazards Program”; and

 

(7) in paragraph (9), as redesignated by paragraph (2)—

 

(A) by inserting “provide and” before “allow”; and

 

(B) by inserting “and commercial and Federal undersea communications cables” after “observing technologies”.

 

(c) Tsunami warning system.—Subsection (c) of section 804 (33 U.S.C. 3203(c)) is amended to read as follows:

 

“(c) Tsunami warning system.—The program under this section shall operate a tsunami warning system that—

 

“(1) is capable of forecasting tsunami, including forecasting tsunami arrival time and inundation estimates, anywhere in the Pacific and Arctic Ocean regions and providing adequate warnings;

 

“(2) is capable of forecasting and providing adequate warnings, including tsunami arrival time and inundation models where applicable, in areas of the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, that are determined—

 

“(A) to be geologically active, or to have significant potential for geological activity; and

 

“(B) to pose significant risks of tsunami for States along the coastal areas of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, or Gulf of Mexico; and

 

“(3) supports other international tsunami forecasting and warning efforts.”.

 

(d) Tsunami Warning Centers.—Subsection (d) of section 804 (33 U.S.C. 3203(d)) is amended to read as follows:

 

“(d) Tsunami Warning Centers.—

 

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall support or maintain centers to support the tsunami warning system required by subsection (c). Such centers shall include—

 

“(A) the National Tsunami Warning Center, located in Alaska, which is primarily responsible for Alaska and the continental United States;

 

“(B) the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, located in Hawaii, which is primarily responsible for Hawaii, the Caribbean, and other areas of the Pacific not covered by the National Center; and

 

“(C) any additional forecast and warning centers determined by the National Weather Service to be necessary.

 

“(2) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The responsibilities of the centers supported or maintained under paragraph (1) shall include the following:

 

“(A) Continuously monitoring data from seismological, deep-ocean, coastal sea level, and tidal monitoring stations and other data sources as may be developed and deployed.

 

“(B) In coordination with the United States Geological Survey and State geological surveys, evaluating earthquakes, landslides, and volcanic activity that have the potential to generate tsunami.

 

“(C) Evaluating deep-ocean buoy data and tidal monitoring stations for indications of tsunami resulting from earthquakes and other sources.

 

“(D) To the extent practicable, utilizing a range of models, including ensemble models, to predict tsunami, including arrival times, flooding estimates, coastal and harbor currents, and duration.

 

“(E) Using data from the Integrated Ocean Observing System of the Administration in coordination with regional associations to calculate new inundation estimates and periodically update existing inundation estimates.

 

“(F) Disseminating forecasts and tsunami warning bulletins to Federal, State, tribal, and local government officials, critical infrastructure operators, and the public.

 

“(G) Coordinating with the national tsunami hazard mitigation program conducted under section 805 to ensure ongoing sharing of information between forecasters and Federal, State, tribal and local emergency management officials.

 

“(H) In coordination with the Coast Guard, evaluating and recommending procedures for ports and harbors at risk of tsunami inundation, including review of readiness, response, and communication strategies, and data sharing policies.

 

“(I) Making data gathered under this Act and post-warning analyses conducted by the National Weather Service or other relevant Administration offices available to the public.

 

“(J) Integrating and modernizing the program operated under this section with advances in tsunami science to improve performance without compromising service.

 

“(3) FAIL-SAFE WARNING CAPABILITY.—The tsunami warning centers supported or maintained under paragraph (1) shall maintain a fail-safe warning capability and perform back-up duties for each other.

 

“(4) COORDINATION WITH NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.—The Administrator shall coordinate with the forecast offices of the National Weather Service, the Centers supported or maintained under paragraph (1), and such program offices of the Administration as the Administrator or the coordinating committee, as established in section 805(d), consider appropriate to ensure that regional and local forecast offices—

 

“(A) have the technical knowledge and capability to disseminate tsunami warnings for the communities they serve;

 

“(B) leverage connections with local emergency management officials for optimally disseminating tsunami warnings and forecasts; and

 

“(C) implement mass communication tools in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2017 used by the National Weather Service on such date and newer mass communication technologies as they are developed as a part of the Weather-Ready Nation program of the Administration, or otherwise, for the purpose of timely and effective delivery of tsunami warnings.

 

“(5) UNIFORM OPERATING PROCEDURES.—The Administrator shall—

 

“(A) develop uniform operational procedures for the centers supported or maintained under paragraph (1), including the use of software applications, checklists, decision support tools, and tsunami warning products that have been standardized across the program supported under this section;

 

“(B) ensure that processes and products of the warning system operated under subsection (c)—

 

“(i) reflect industry best practices when practicable;

 

“(ii) conform to the maximum extent practicable with internationally recognized standards for information technology; and

 

“(iii) conform to the maximum extent practicable with other warning products and practices of the National Weather Service;

 

“(C) ensure that future adjustments to operational protocols, processes, and warning products—

 

“(i) are made consistently across the warning system operated under subsection (c); and

 

“(ii) are applied in a uniform manner across such warning system;

 

“(D) establish a systematic method for information technology product development to improve long-term technology planning efforts; and

 

“(E) disseminate guidelines and metrics for evaluating and improving tsunami forecast models.

 

“(6) AVAILABLE RESOURCES.—The Administrator, through the National Weather Service, shall ensure that resources are available to fulfill the obligations of this Act. This includes ensuring supercomputing resources are available to run, as rapidly as possible, such computer models as are needed for purposes of the tsunami warning system operated under subsection (c).”.

 

(e) Transfer of technology; maintenance and upgrades.—Subsection (e) of section 804 (33 U.S.C. 3203(e)) is amended to read as follows:

 

“(e) Transfer of technology; maintenance and upgrades.—In carrying out this section, the Administrator shall—

 

“(1) develop requirements for the equipment used to forecast tsunami, including—

 

“(A) provisions for multipurpose detection platforms;

 

“(B) reliability and performance metrics; and

 

“(C) to the maximum extent practicable, requirements for the integration of equipment with other United States and global ocean and coastal observation systems, the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, the Global Seismic Networks, and the Advanced National Seismic System;

 

“(2) develop and execute a plan for the transfer of technology from ongoing research conducted as part of the program supported or maintained under section 806 into the program under this section; and

 

“(3) ensure that the Administration’s operational tsunami detection equipment is properly maintained.”.

 

(f) Federal cooperation.—Subsection (f) of section 804 (33 U.S.C. 3203(f)) is amended to read as follows:

 

“(f) Federal cooperation.—When deploying and maintaining tsunami detection technologies under the program under this section, the Administrator shall—

 

“(1) identify which assets of other Federal agencies are necessary to support such program; and

 

“(2) work with each agency identified under paragraph (1)—

 

“(A) to acquire the agency’s assistance; and

 

“(B) to prioritize the necessary assets in support of the tsunami forecast and warning program.”.

 

(g) Unnecessary provisions.—Section 804 (33 U.S.C. 3203) is further amended—

 

(1) by striking subsection (g);

 

(2) by striking subsections (i) through (k); and

 

(3) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).

 

(h) Congressional notifications.—Subsection (g) of section 804 (33 U.S.C. 3203(g)), as redesignated by subsection (g)(3), is amended—

 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and moving such subparagraphs 2 ems to the right;

 

(2) in the matter before subparagraph (A), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by striking “The Administrator” and inserting the following:

 

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator”;

 

(3) in paragraph (1), as redesignated by paragraph (2)—

 

(A) in subparagraph (A), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by striking “and” at the end;

 

(B) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

 

(C) by adding at the end the following:

 

“(C) the occurrence of a significant tsunami warning.”; and

 

(4) by adding at the end the following:

 

“(2) CONTENTS.—In a case in which notice is submitted under paragraph (1) within 30 days of a significant tsunami warning described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, such notice shall include, as appropriate, brief information and analysis of—

 

“(A) the accuracy of the tsunami model used;

 

“(B) the specific deep-ocean or other monitoring equipment that detected the incident, as well as the deep-ocean or other monitoring equipment that did not detect the incident due to malfunction or other reasons;

 

“(C) the effectiveness of the warning communication, including the dissemination of warnings with State, territory, local, and tribal partners in the affected area under the jurisdiction of the National Weather Service; and

 

“(D) such other findings as the Administrator considers appropriate.”.

 

SEC. 5. Modification of National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.

 

(a) In general.—Subsection (a) of section 805 (33 U.S.C. 3204(a)) is amended to read as follows:

 

“(a) Program required.—The Administrator, in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the heads of such other agencies as the Administrator considers relevant, shall conduct a community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to improve tsunami preparedness and resiliency of at-risk areas in the United States and the territories of the United States.”.

 

(b) National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program.—Section 805 (33 U.S.C. 3204) is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following:

 

“(c) Program components.—The program under this section shall include the following:

 

“(1) Technical and financial assistance to coastal States, territories, tribes, and local governments to develop and implement activities under this section.

 

“(2) Integration of tsunami preparedness and mitigation programs into ongoing State-based hazard warning, resilience planning, and risk management activities, including predisaster planning, emergency response, evacuation planning, disaster recovery, hazard mitigation including Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans, and community development and redevelopment planning programs in affected areas.

 

“(3) Activities to promote the adoption of tsunami resilience, preparedness, warning, and mitigation measures by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local governments and nongovernmental entities, including educational and risk communication programs to discourage development in high-risk areas.

 

“(4) Activities to support the development of regional tsunami hazard and risk assessments. Such regional risk assessments may include the following:

 

“(A) The sources, sizes, and other relevant historical data of tsunami in the region, including paleotsunami data.

 

“(B) Inundation models and maps of critical infrastructure and socioeconomic vulnerability in areas subject to tsunami inundation.

 

“(C) Maps of evacuation areas and evacuation routes, including, when appropriate, traffic studies that evaluate the viability of evacuation routes.

 

“(D) Evaluations of the size of populations that will require evacuation, including populations with special evacuation needs.

 

“(E) Evaluations and technical assistance for vertical evacuation structure planning for communities where models indicate limited or no ability for timely evacuation, especially in areas at risk of near-field generated tsunami.

 

“(F) Evaluation of at-risk ports and harbors.

 

“(G) Evaluation of the effect of tsunami currents on the foundations of closely spaced, coastal high-rise structures.

 

“(5) Activities to promote preparedness in at-risk ports and harbors, including the following:

 

“(A) Evaluation and recommendation of procedures for ports and harbors in the event of a distant or near-field tsunami.

 

“(B) A review of readiness, response, and communication strategies to ensure coordination and data sharing with the Coast Guard.

 

“(6) Activities to support the development of community-based outreach and education programs to ensure community readiness and resilience, including the following:

 

“(A) The development, implementation, and assessment of technical training and public education programs, including education programs that address unique characteristics of distant and near-field tsunami.

 

“(B) The development of decision support tools.

 

“(C) The incorporation of social science research into community readiness and resilience efforts.

 

“(D) The development of evidence-based education guidelines.

 

“(7) Dissemination of guidelines and standards for community planning, education, and training products, programs, and tools, including—

 

“(A) standards for—

 

“(i) mapping products;

 

“(ii) inundation models; and

 

“(iii) effective emergency exercises; and

 

“(B) recommended guidance for at-risk port and harbor tsunami warning, evacuation, and response procedures in coordination with the Coast Guard.

 

“(d) Authorized activities.—In addition to activities conducted under subsection (c), the program under this section may include the following:

 

“(1) Multidisciplinary vulnerability assessment research, education, and training to help integrate risk management and resilience objectives with community development planning and policies.

 

“(2) Risk management training for local officials and community organizations to enhance understanding and preparedness.

 

“(3) Interagency, Federal, State, tribal, and territorial intergovernmental tsunami response exercise planning and implementation in high-risk areas.

 

“(4) Development of practical applications for existing or emerging technologies, such as modeling, remote sensing, geospatial technology, engineering, and observing systems, including the integration of tsunami sensors into Federal and commercial submarine telecommunication cables if practicable.

 

“(5) Risk management, risk assessment, and resilience data and information services, including—

 

“(A) access to data and products derived from observing and detection systems; and

 

“(B) development and maintenance of new integrated data products to support risk management, risk assessment, and resilience programs.

 

“(6) Risk notification systems that coordinate with and build upon existing systems and actively engage decisionmakers, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments and agencies, business communities, nongovernmental organizations, and the media.

 

“(e) No preemption with respect to designation of at-Risk areas.—The establishment of national standards for inundation models under this section shall not prevent States, territories, tribes, and local governments from designating additional areas as being at risk based on knowledge of local conditions.

 

“(f) No new regulatory authority.—Nothing in this Act may be construed as establishing new regulatory authority for any Federal agency.”.

 

(c) Report on accreditation of TsunamiReady program.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a report on which authorities and activities would be needed to have the TsunamiReady program of the National Weather Service accredited by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program.

 

SEC. 6. Modification of tsunami research program.

 

Section 806 (33 U.S.C. 3205) is amended—

 

(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking “The Administrator shall” and all that follows through “establish or maintain” and inserting the following:

 

“(a) In general.—The Administrator shall, in consultation with such other Federal agencies, State, tribal, and territorial governments, and academic institutions as the Administrator considers appropriate, the coordinating committee under section 805(d), and the panel under section 808(a), support or maintain”;

 

(2) in subsection (a), as designated by paragraph (1), by striking “and assessment for tsunami tracking and numerical forecast modeling. Such research program shall—” and inserting the following: “assessment for tsunami tracking and numerical forecast modeling, and standards development.

 

“(b) Responsibilities.—The research program supported or maintained under subsection (a) shall—”; and

 

(3) in subsection (b), as designated by paragraph (2)—

 

(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

 

“(1) consider other appropriate and cost effective solutions to mitigate the impact of tsunami, including the improvement of near-field and distant tsunami detection and forecasting capabilities, which may include use of a new generation of the Deep-Ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis array, integration of tsunami sensors into commercial and Federal telecommunications cables, and other real-time tsunami monitoring systems and supercomputer capacity of the Administration to develop a rapid tsunami forecast for all United States coastlines;”;

 

(B) in paragraph (3)—

 

(i) by striking “include” and inserting “conduct”; and

 

(ii) by striking “and” at the end;

 

(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5);

 

(D) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

 

“(4) develop the technical basis for validation of tsunami maps, numerical tsunami models, digital elevation models, and forecasts; and”; and

 

(E) in paragraph (5), as redesignated by subparagraph (C), by striking “to the scientific community,” and inserting “to the public and the scientific community.”.

 

SEC. 7. Global Tsunami Warning and Mitigation Network.

 

Section 807 (33 U.S.C. 3206) is amended—

 

(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:

 

“(a) Support for development of an international tsunami warning system.—The Administrator shall, in coordination with the Secretary of State and in consultation with such other agencies as the Administrator considers relevant, provide technical assistance, operational support, and training to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the World Meteorological Organization of the United Nations, and such other international entities as the Administrator considers appropriate, as part of the international efforts to develop a fully functional global tsunami forecast and warning system comprised of regional tsunami warning networks.”;

 

(2) in subsection (b), by striking “shall” both places that term appears and inserting “may”; and

 

(3) in subsection (c)—

 

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking “establishing” and inserting “supporting”; and

 

(B) in paragraph (2)—

 

(i) by striking “establish” and inserting “support”; and

 

(ii) by striking “establishing” and inserting “supporting”.

 

SEC. 8. Tsunami Science and Technology Advisory Panel.

 

The Act is further amended—

 

(1) by redesignating section 808 (33 U.S.C. 3207) as section 809; and

 

(2) by inserting after section 807 (33 U.S.C. 3206) the following:

 

“SEC. 808. Tsunami Science and Technology Advisory Panel.

 

“(a) Designation.—The Administrator shall designate an existing working group within the Science Advisory Board of the Administration to serve as the Tsunami Science and Technology Advisory Panel to provide advice to the Administrator on matters regarding tsunami science, technology, and regional preparedness.

 

“(b) Membership.—

 

“(1) COMPOSITION.—The Panel shall be composed of no fewer than 7 members selected by the Administrator from among individuals from academia or State agencies who have academic or practical expertise in physical sciences, social sciences, information technology, coastal resilience, emergency management, or such other disciplines as the Administrator considers appropriate.

 

“(2) FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT.—No member of the Panel may be a Federal employee.

 

“(c) Responsibilities.—Not less frequently than once every 4 years, the Panel shall—

 

“(1) review the activities of the Administration, and other Federal activities as appropriate, relating to tsunami research, detection, forecasting, warning, mitigation, resiliency, and preparation; and

 

“(2) submit to the Administrator and such others as the Administrator considers appropriate—

 

“(A) the findings of the Panel with respect to the most recent review conducted under paragraph (1); and

 

“(B) such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Panel considers appropriate to improve Federal tsunami research, detection, forecasting, warning, mitigation, resiliency, and preparation.

 

“(d) Reports to Congress.—Not less frequently than once every 4 years, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a report on the findings and recommendations received by the Administrator under subsection (c)(2).”.

 

SEC. 9. Reports.

 

(a) Report on implementation of Tsunami Warning and Education Act.—

 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation of the Tsunami Warning and Education Act, as enacted as title VIII of Public Law 109–479 (33 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.).

 

(2) ELEMENTS.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:

 

(A) A detailed description of the progress made in implementing sections 804(d)(6), 805(b)(6), and 806(b)(4) of the Tsunami Warning and Education Act, as enacted as title VIII of Public Law 109–479 (33 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.).

 

(B) A description of the ways that tsunami warnings and warning products issued by the program for tsunami forecasting and warning established under section 804 of such Tsunami Warning and Education Act (33 U.S.C. 3203) may be standardized and streamlined with warnings and warning products for hurricanes, coastal storms, and other coastal flooding events.

 

(b) Report on national efforts that support rapid emergency response following near-Field tsunami events.—

 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly, in coordination with the Director of the United States Geological Survey, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Commander of the United States Northern Command, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the heads of such other Federal agencies as the Administrator considers appropriate, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the national efforts in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act that support and facilitate rapid emergency response following a domestic near-shore near-field tsunami event to better understand domestic effects of earthquake derived tsunami on people, infrastructure, communities, and coastal economies in the United States.

 

(2) ELEMENTS.—The report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:

 

(A) A description of scientific or other measurements being collected on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act which allow for the quick identification and assessment of lost or degraded infrastructure and terrestrial formations post disaster.

 

(B) A description of scientific or other measurements necessary to quickly identify and quantify lost or degraded infrastructure and terrestrial formations.

 

(C) Identification and evaluation of Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, and military first responder and search and rescue operation centers, bases, and other facilities as well as other critical response assets and infrastructure, including search and rescue aircraft and vessels, located within, and adjacent to, near-field and distant tsunami inundation areas on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

(D) An evaluation of Federal, State, and local near-field tsunami response plans in areas described in subparagraph (C) in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, how those response plans would be affected by the loss of search and rescue and first responder infrastructure described in such subparagraph.

 

(E) A description of redevelopment plans and reports in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act for communities in areas that are at high risk for near-field tsunami, as well as identification of States or communities that do not have redevelopment plans.

 

(F) Recommendations to enhance near-field tsunami preparedness and response plans, including recommended responder exercises, predisaster planning, mitigation needs and recommendations to enhance coordination between Federal, State, and local response agencies.

 

(G) Such other data and analysis information as the Administrator and the Secretary of Homeland Security consider appropriate.

 

SEC. 10. Authorization of appropriations.

 

Section 809, as redesignated by section 8(1) of this Act, is amended—

 

(1) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking “and” at the end;

 

(2) in paragraph (5)(B), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

 

(3) by adding at the end the following:

 

“(6) $31,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2021, of which—

 

“(A) not less than 27 percent of the amount appropriated for each fiscal year shall be for activities conducted at the State level under the tsunami hazard mitigation program under section 805; and

 

“(B) not less than 8 percent of the amount appropriated shall be for the tsunami research program under section 806.”.

 

SEC. 11. Outreach responsibilities.

 

The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in coordination with State and local emergency managers, shall develop and carry out formal outreach activities to improve tsunami education and awareness and foster the development of resilient communities. Outreach activities may include—

 

(1) the development of outreach plans to ensure the close integration of tsunami warning centers supported or maintained under section 804(d) of the Tsunami Warning and Education Act enacted as title VIII of Public Law 109–479 (33 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.), (33 U.S.C. 3203(d)) with local Weather Forecast Offices of the National Weather Service and emergency managers;

 

(2) working with appropriate local Weather Forecast Offices to ensure they have the technical knowledge and capability to disseminate tsunami warnings to the communities they serve; and

 

(3) evaluating the effectiveness of warnings and of coordination with local Weather Forecast Offices after significant tsunami events.

 

SEC. 12. Modification of coastal ocean program.

 

Section 201(c) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–567) is amended—

 

(1) by striking “Of the sums” and inserting the following:

 

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Of the sums”; and

 

(2) by adding at the end the following:

 

“(2) REGIONAL COASTAL RISK MANAGEMENT COALITIONS.—The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may form regional coastal risk management coalitions comprised of representatives of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, community groups, academic institutions, and nongovernmental groups to advance the goals of this section for communities facing common coastal hazards and risks. Such coalitions may enter into an agreement with an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a nonprofit foundation in order to accept gifts and donations to support the goals of this subsection.”.

 

SEC. 13. Repeal of duplicate provisions.

 

The Tsunami Warning and Education Act enacted by Public Law 109–424 (120 Stat. 2902) is repealed.

 

Plain English Summary

 

Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2017-This bill revises and reauthorizes through FY2021 the Tsunami Warning and Education Act.

 

The tsunami warning systems for the Pacific and Arctic Oceans and for the Atlantic Ocean are consolidated into a single warning system. The system must support international tsunami forecasting and warning efforts.

 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) must support or maintain tsunami warning centers to support the national warning system and develop uniform operational procedures for the centers. Warning centers are given additional responsibilities, including maintaining a fail-safe warning capability and an ability to perform back-up duties for each other.

 

The tsunami hazard mitigation program must provide for: (1) technical and financial assistance; (2) activities to support the development of regional hazard and risk assessments; (3) activities to promote preparedness in at-risk ports and harbors; and (4) dissemination of guidelines and standards for community planning, education, and training products, programs, and tools.

 

The tsunami research program must develop the technical basis for validation of tsunami maps, models, and forecasts.

 

NOAA no longer has to operate an International Tsunami Information Center to improve tsunami preparedness for Pacific Ocean nations.

 

NOAA must: (1) designate an existing working group to serve as the Tsunami Science and Technology Advisory Panel to provide advice on matters regarding tsunami science, technology, and regional preparedness; (2) maintain a coordinating committee to assist in the national tsunami hazard mitigation program; and (3) develop formal outreach activities to improve tsunami education and awareness and foster the development of resilient communities.

 

 

Quote

 

S.4

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

Mr. Villanueva of Illinois (for himself and others) introduced the following bill;

 

A BILL

 

To establish a comprehensive research and restoration program aimed at addressing major issues impacting the Mississippi River Delta.

 

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

 

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

(a) The Mississippi River Delta is a critical ecological and economic asset to the United States, providing invaluable ecosystem services, supporting diverse habitats, and serving as a vital economic engine for the nation and its bordering states.

(b) The delta region supports a significant portion of the nation's energy production, with extensive oil and gas infrastructure located along its coastlines.

(c) The delta's wetlands provide crucial protection against storm surges and hurricanes, safeguarding coastal communities, infrastructure, and industries from natural disasters.

(d) Erosion, land loss, subsidence, sea-level rise, and human activities such as channelization and levee construction have significantly degraded the delta's ecosystem, threatening its resilience and sustainability.

(e) Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive research, innovative solutions, and coordinated efforts among federal, state, and local stakeholders to restore and enhance the resilience of the Mississippi River Delta.

 

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

This legislation aims to establish a comprehensive research and restoration program to address the challenges facing the Mississippi River Delta, including erosion, land loss, ecological degradation, sea-level rise, subsidence, channelization, and levee construction.

 

SEC. 3. MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTA RESTORATION AND RESILIENCE PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment: The Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with relevant federal agencies, shall establish the Mississippi River Delta Restoration and Resilience Program (MRDRRP) to conduct research, develop strategies, and implement projects to restore and enhance the resilience of the Mississippi River Delta ecosystem.

(b) Research and Assessment: The MRDRRP shall conduct research and assessment activities to:

(1) Assess the extent and causes of erosion, land loss, ecological degradation, sea-level rise, subsidence, channelization, and levee construction in the delta region.

(2) Identify innovative solutions and best practices for delta restoration and resilience.

(3) Evaluate the economic, social, and environmental impacts of delta restoration efforts.

(c) Restoration Projects: The MRDRRP shall develop and implement restoration projects aimed at:

(1) Rebuilding and enhancing coastal wetlands and barrier islands.

(2) Reducing erosion and land loss through sediment management and diversions.

(3) Mitigating the impacts of sea-level rise and subsidence on delta ecosystems and communities.

(4) Promoting sustainable land use practices and reducing the adverse effects of channelization and levee construction.

(d) Stakeholder Engagement: The MRDRRP shall engage with federal, state, tribal, and local governments, as well as private stakeholders, academia, and NGOs, to ensure collaborative decision-making and community involvement in delta restoration efforts.

 

SEC. 4. FUNDING.

(a) Rationale for Funding: The Mississippi River Delta is a critical ecosystem that provides invaluable services to the nation and the bordering states. However, the delta is facing severe degradation due to erosion, land loss, sea-level rise, and human activities. Immediate action is needed to restore and enhance the resilience of the delta ecosystem, protect coastal communities and industries, and sustain the region's economic vitality.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations: There is authorized to be appropriated $250 million annually for fiscal years 2018 through 2028 to carry out the provisions of this Act.

(c) Allocation: The appropriated funds shall be allocated to the MRDRRP to support research, assessment, planning, and implementation of restoration projects in the Mississippi River Delta region.

(d) Annual Reporting: The Secretary of the Interior shall submit an annual report to Congress detailing the progress, expenditures, outcomes, and findings of the Mississippi River Delta Restoration and Resilience Program, including research activities and restoration projects undertaken during the preceding year.

 

SEC. 5. PROCESSING OF BENEFITS TO SURVIVORS OF BLACK LUNG DISEASE.
The Black Lung Benefits Improvement Act is hereby enacted.

 

SEC. 6. SUNSET PROVISION.

This Act shall be in effect for a period of 10 years from the date of enactment unless reauthorized by Congress.

 

SEC. 7. 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 the provisions of this Act shall not be affected thereby.

 

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.

 

  Quote

  Quote

Plain English Summary

 

• This bill aims to address the problems facing the Mississippi River Delta, such as erosion, land loss, and environmental damage, by creating a program that researches and implements solutions.
• This bill provides $250 million each year for the next ten years to support this program.
• The bill also requires the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress annually on the progress and findings of the program's work

 

•  

This character has been signed out. Feel free to contact me.

Mudslide Closes Scenic Highway, Isolating Coastal Communities

La Push, WA - A massive mudslide has severed a critical section of Scenic Highway 101 on the Olympic Peninsula, isolating coastal communities including Forks and La Push. This incident underscores the continued threat mudslides pose in Washington State, where a combination of mountainous terrain, abundant rainfall, and unstable soil types creates a high risk for such events.

Local officials face an immediate challenge in maintaining supplies and emergency services to affected areas. The devastating 2014 Oso landslide and the frequent disruptions along Highway 530 near Darrington serve as stark reminders of the potential consequences of these disasters.

Swift action will be required, potentially including the implementation of emergency ferry services to provide critical supplies and transportation to isolated communities. Expediting the clearing and repair of the highway will be a top priority, possibly with the assistance of the National Guard or specialized contractors. Financial aid packages for businesses in affected towns will likely be considered to mitigate the severe economic impact caused by the disruption.

Toxic Surprise: Algae Bloom Shuts Down Beach at Put-in-Bay

PUT-IN-BAY, Ohio - A thick, green blanket of algae has descended upon Put-in-Bay's popular swimming areas, forcing the closure of beaches and raising concerns about water quality at this Lake Erie vacation destination.

Local officials confirmed the presence of a harmful algal bloom (HAB) on Tuesday, following water samples that revealed high concentrations of cyanobacteria. These bacteria can produce toxins that irritate skin and eyes, cause respiratory problems, and harm aquatic life if ingested.

"The safety of our residents and visitors is our top priority," said Put-in-Bay Mayor Bernard 'Mac' McCann. "Out of an abundance of caution, we're closing all public beaches until further notice."

The bloom has cast a pall over the usually vibrant summer atmosphere of Put-in-Bay, a popular destination for boating, fishing, and nightlife. Tourists who planned on enjoying the cool waters of Lake Erie are now left scrambling for alternative activities.

"We were really looking forward to some swimming and kayaking," said disappointed visitor James Foster. "Hopefully, they can get this under control quickly."

Local environmental officials are working to determine the cause of the bloom. Potential culprits include agricultural runoff rich in phosphorus and nitrogen, which can create ideal conditions for cyanobacteria growth. This could lead to stricter regulations for nearby farms or renewed efforts to improve water quality in the surrounding watershed.

"We need to get to the root of this problem," said Lisa Jameson, director of the Put-in-Bay Water Quality Committee. "These blooms are becoming more frequent and severe, and they threaten not only tourism but the entire ecosystem of the lake."

In the meantime, public health officials are urging residents and visitors to avoid contact with the water in affected areas. They are also advising people to keep pets away from the water's edge and to seek medical attention if they experience any symptoms after exposure to the bloom.

The closure of Put-in-Bay's beaches serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between human activity and the health of our waterways.

Bourbon Boom Backfires: Barrel Shortage Hits Kentucky Distilleries

LOUISVILLE, Kentucky – The booming popularity of Kentucky's iconic bourbon is causing a headache for distillers across the state – a shortage of the very barrels required to age the beloved spirit.

Increased demand for bourbon, both domestically and internationally, has led to a situation where many distilleries are struggling to secure enough new, charred oak barrels. Supply chain disruptions and rising costs of raw materials have further complicated the issue.

"We're seeing a perfect storm," says Eric Gregory, president of the Kentucky Distillers' Association. "The bourbon industry is thriving, but the lack of barrels is creating a real bottleneck. We need to find solutions, and fast."

The shortage is being felt by distilleries of all sizes, from small craft operations to major players in the industry. Some are being forced to delay the release of new products, while others are turning to used barrels from other spirit producers.

State lawmakers are taking notice. Local politicians are considering holding meetings with distillery owners and cooperage representatives to explore solutions. Potential options include offering tax incentives to encourage the expansion of existing cooperages or the creation of new ones. Additionally, research into alternative barrel materials or aging techniques could be a possibility.

"Kentucky bourbon is a signature industry for our state," says State Senator McConnell. "We need to ensure these businesses have the resources they need to continue to grow and create jobs."

Missouri Bill Limiting Public Records Access Sparks Transparency Debate

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – A controversial bill pending in the Missouri state legislature is fueling a heated debate over government transparency. House Bill 1522 proposes restrictions on the public's right to access specific types of government records. Proponents argue the limitations are necessary for security reasons, while opponents fear they could severely undermine government accountability.

The bill, backed by a coalition of state officials and private sector advocates, would exempt correspondence related to ongoing criminal investigations, personnel records of state employees (excluding salary and job title), certain business records submitted for government contracts, and documents related to the state's cybersecurity infrastructure from public disclosure. "These restrictions are common-sense measures to protect sensitive information," said State Senator Mark Dawson, the bill's sponsor. "We must strike a balance between transparency and safeguarding the public interest."

However, open government advocates and media organizations have fiercely opposed the bill. "This is a direct attack on the public's right to know," said Tom Miller, Executive Director of the Missouri Sunshine Coalition. "These broad exemptions allow the government to operate in the shadows, beyond public scrutiny." Opponents also worry about the bill's vague language that leaves interpretation open to the discretion of government officials. "This bill creates a slippery slope," said investigative journalist Sarah Bennett. "If passed, it could be used to conceal information that is simply embarrassing or politically inconvenient."

The debate is likely to intensify as the bill moves through the legislative process. If passed, the new law would almost certainly face legal challenges, potentially reaching federal courts.

Proposed Wind Farm Divides Kansas Community

LINCOLN COUNTY, Kan. – A large-scale wind farm proposed for rural Lincoln County has ignited a debate within the community. Project developers tout the economic benefits and renewable energy potential, while some residents fear the impact on the landscape and property values. Local politicians must now weigh these contrasting concerns.

NextGen Energy seeks to construct over 80 wind turbines across nearly 20,000 acres of farmland. “This project represents a commitment to a sustainable energy future,” states NextGen spokesperson John Brink. “Wind energy benefits the environment while stimulating economic growth in rural communities.”

Supporters highlight the potential for increased tax revenue, land lease payments to participating farmers, and job creation, as well as progress towards the state’s renewable energy targets.

However, a group of concerned landowners has voiced its opposition. “These turbines will mar the landscape and fundamentally change the character of our county,” argues local farmer Robert Evans. “We're concerned about the visual impact, noise pollution, potential wildlife disruption, and the risk to property values.”

County officials find themselves under pressure to balance the projected economic benefits against residents’ anxieties. “We’re committed to carefully considering all perspectives,” says County Commissioner Tom Richards. “Public hearings and thorough information gathering will guide our decision-making process to ensure the best outcome for our community.”

Mysterious Illness Spreads at Phoenix High School, Health Officials Investigate

Phoenix, AZ - Health officials in Phoenix are investigating a cluster of illnesses linked to Mountain Pointe High School. Since Wednesday, at least 15 students have reported symptoms including fever, coughing, and headaches. The illness appears to be contagious, with several students reporting close friends experiencing similar symptoms.

"We understand this situation is concerning for parents and students," said Dr. Amelia Lopez, Director of the Maricopa County Department of Health. "We are working diligently to identify the cause of the illness and implement appropriate containment measures."

The school district, in collaboration with health officials, has taken the following actions such as increased cleaning, health screening and communication with students.

"We encourage parents to keep their children home if they are experiencing any symptoms," stated Dr. Lopez. "This will help to prevent further spread of the illness."

At this time, the exact cause of the illness remains unknown. Health officials are collecting samples from affected students and conducting tests to identify the pathogen. Early speculation points towards a common respiratory virus, but officials are waiting for conclusive results.

While the current outbreak is localized to Mountain Pointe High School, health officials are urging residents across Phoenix to remain vigilant and take steps to prevent the spread of illness such as frequent handwashing and covering coughs.

Iowa DMV Data Breach Exposes Personal Information of Residents

Des Moines, IA - The Iowa Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) announced today a cybersecurity breach that potentially compromised the personal information of millions of state residents. The breach, discovered earlier this week, involved unauthorized access to a database containing driver's license information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. We understand that the only person that wasn't leaked was a person with the pseudonym "John E".

"The Iowa DMV takes the privacy of its residents very seriously," stated Paul Trombino III, Director of the Iowa Department of Transportation. "We deeply regret any concern or inconvenience this incident may cause and are committed to taking all necessary steps to protect Iowans' personal information."

The exact nature and scope of the breach are currently under investigation by the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation in collaboration with cybersecurity experts. The investigation aims to determine how the unauthorized access occurred and identify those potentially responsible.

"We understand that Iowans may be understandably concerned about the potential misuse of their personal information," said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. "We encourage everyone to remain vigilant and monitor their credit reports closely for any suspicious activity. The Iowa Attorney General's Office is prepared to assist Iowans in protecting their identities."

Hoosier Crypto Mine Busted for Stealing Power, Raising Environmental Concerns

Sullivan County, IN - Indiana law enforcement officials shut down a large-scale cryptocurrency mining operation in Sullivan County this week. Authorities allege the facility was illegally drawing power from the local grid, bypassing meters and stealing electricity to fuel its energy-hungry computers.

"This is a clear case of theft," stated Sheriff Michael Andrews in a press conference. "We take all forms of stealing seriously, and stealing from the community's power supply is not acceptable."

The bust has reignited local concerns about the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining. Crypto mining requires massive amounts of computing power, which translates to a heavy demand for electricity. Critics argue this reliance on fossil fuels contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and puts a strain on local power grids.

"This incident is a prime example of why we need to have a conversation about the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining," said Sarah Greene, a spokesperson for the local environmental group, Hoosier Greens. "We can't afford to have unregulated operations stealing power and potentially jeopardizing the stability of the grid."

While the Sullivan County bust raises environmental concerns, experts believe it's unlikely to have a significant national impact on the cryptocurrency industry.

"This seems to be an isolated incident of an operation trying to cut corners," said Dr. Jane Baker, a cryptocurrencies expert at Purdue University. "The industry is aware of the environmental concerns and there's a growing movement towards more sustainable mining practices."

The investigation into the Sullivan County operation is ongoing. No arrests have been made, but authorities are expected to press charges related to theft of services. The future of the seized mining equipment remains unclear.

Chilton County Teachers Strike, Community Divided

CLANTON, Ala. – A strike by educators in Chilton County has brought the county's single school district to a standstill, highlighting long-simmering frustrations over classroom conditions and teacher compensation. The strike has sharply divided the small, rural community where education is a key foundation.

Frustrated by large class sizes and what they consider low pay amidst rising costs of living, teachers walked out last week after negotiations with the school board broke down.

"We're at a breaking point," said John Lee, a high school English teacher and union representative. "We can't give our students the attention they deserve when there are 35 of them in a class. And we can't all afford to live here anymore on the salaries we're making."

The school board has acknowledged the district's challenges, which include an aging school building and a limited budget. However, they cite tight financial restrictions and argue the teachers' demands are unreasonable.

"We understand the teachers' concerns, and we share them," said board president Tom Richards. "But we also have a responsibility to be wise stewards of taxpayer dollars. We simply can't meet all their demands at this time."

The strike has left parents scrambling for childcare and worried about the impact on their children's education. Some parents support the teachers' fight for better working conditions.

"These teachers pour their hearts into our kids," said Lisa Evans, a mother of two elementary school students. "They deserve to be fairly paid and to have the resources they need to succeed."

Others, however, are furious about the disruption the strike has caused. "I'm having to take unpaid leave from work to stay home with my daughter," says Jim Carlson, a single father. "The teachers need to get back in the classroom and let the adults figure this out."

The strike also highlights a broader issue facing rural school districts across the country, and particularly in the South: declining resources and difficulty attracting and retaining qualified teachers. While the outcome of this particular strike will have limited reach, the underlying problems resonate with rural communities nationwide.

Lost Dog Reunited with Owner After Cross-Country Journey

A heartwarming reunion unfolded this week after a lost dog's incredible cross-country journey brought her back to her owner's arms.

Daisy, a terrier mix, disappeared from her Austin, Texas, home during a summer storm three months ago. Her heartbroken family, Sarah and her loved ones, never gave up hope of finding their furry friend.

Enter Starnes, a kind-hearted long-haul trucker with a knack for spotting strays. Weeks ago, Starnes found a scared, matted terrier cowering beneath his truck at a gas station stop in Texas. The dog, who Starnes named Dusty due to her dusty appearance, became his constant companion on the road.

Despite the miles they traveled together, Starnes never forgot about finding Dusty's true home. He tirelessly scanned online lost pet websites, and his persistence finally paid off.

"I think I might have found your dog," said Starnes during a call to Sarah, a moment she described as filled with disbelief and overwhelming joy.

Thanks to Starnes' big heart and determination, Daisy, or should we say Dusty, was finally reunited with her overjoyed family in Oregon. The emotional reunion, witnessed by a supportive neighborhood, was a testament to the unwavering love between a pet and its owner.

Starnes, ever the humble hero, quietly slipped away during the celebration. But his act of kindness serves as a reminder of the incredible bond humans share with animals and the power of never giving up hope.

NovaTech Inc. Announces Job Cuts in Wake of Corporate Scandal

The fallout from the corporate scandal engulfing Silicon Valley giant NovaTech Inc. continues to intensify. The company has announced sweeping job cuts as a direct consequence of the ongoing investigations into allegations of financial misconduct and unethical practices. While the exact number of employees affected remains undisclosed, inside sources suggest the layoffs could impact thousands across multiple divisions.

The move highlights the severity of the crisis facing NovaTech Inc., once a symbol of innovation and a coveted employer within the technology sector. The scandal has eroded investor confidence, causing a precipitous drop in the company's stock price and leaving NovaTech Inc. scrambling to manage its mounting financial losses.

Experts warn that the job cuts are likely just the beginning of a painful restructuring process for NovaTech Inc. The company's tarnished reputation, coupled with potential legal and regulatory ramifications from the scandal, raises serious concerns about its long-term viability.

The impact extends beyond NovaTech Inc. This latest scandal casts a dark shadow over the broader tech industry. This latest scandal casts a shadow over the broader tech industry, fuelling concerns about transparency and ethical practices among Silicon Valley's most prominent players. The ripple effects have caused minor declines in the stock prices of other tech companies, though the losses are not severe enough to indicate a widespread panic within the sector.

Game will start tomorrow.

Whistleblower Exposes Systemic Abuse in Federal Prison System

A shroud of secrecy has been torn from the federal prison system as a whistleblower steps forward with explosive allegations of systemic abuse echoing through the Bureau of Prisons – including facilities ruthlessly managed by private corporations. In an exclusive interview with USA Today, a former corrections officer, granted anonymity for their safety, painted a harrowing picture of the daily realities within multiple federal institutions. Their testimony reveals a system rife with neglect, violence, and a toxic culture of unchecked power that breeds exploitation.

"The things I saw... they defy what we imagine in a civilized society," the whistleblower confessed, voice strained. "This isn't about a few bad apples; it's a pattern of brutality and indifference that stains the system to its core."

Their testimony paints a grotesque portrait of daily life behind bars. Unprovoked assaults by guards masked as "maintaining order", desperate cries for medical attention going unanswered as preventable conditions turn fatal. A suffocating atmosphere of intimidation silences complaints, allowing the cycle of abuse to perpetuate. Most disturbingly, the whistleblower contends that such horrors find fertile ground in for-profit prisons, where the relentless drive to maximize returns allegedly takes precedence over prisoners' basic needs.

"Those corporations see inmates as dollar signs, not human beings," the whistleblower charges. "They skimp on staffing, on healthcare, even on food. Corners are cut until they're sharp enough to hurt someone, and it's always the most vulnerable who get sliced up."

Prison reform organizations echo the outcry, demanding swift federal investigations and accountability for this crisis of conscience. "We've heard these whispers for too long," stated Maria Hernandez, spokesperson for the Prison Reform Alliance. "The government cannot shield itself from its duty to protect those it incarcerates. This whistleblower's courage must be met with decisive action."

The BOP's response has been measured, a terse statement acknowledging the gravity of the allegations and pledging a comprehensive inquiry. "The Bureau stands firm in its commitment to the safety and humane treatment of all individuals under our care," the statement affirmed.

Good to go

Good to go

Good to go

Good to go

Good to go

Bipartisan Agreement Paves Way for California Bridge Reconstruction Bill

A bill appropriating $3 billion in grant funding for the reconstruction of the collapsed Interstate 5 bridge near Sacramento, California, is poised for swift passage through the Senate. Introduced by Senators Everhart (D-PA) and deSonido (D-CA), the legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support and is expected to reach President Murphy's desk.

The bridge collapse severed a crucial artery of California's transportation network, causing significant economic disruption. Initial estimates place the total repair cost at $4 billion. The proposed grant would represent a substantial federal contribution to the reconstruction effort.

While the bill enjoys broad support, the designation of the funds as a grant has ignited a debate on infrastructure spending and accountability. Some Republican lawmakers, led by Senator Atkins (R-TX), have advocated for converting the grant into a loan. Senator Atkins expressed concerns about unchecked spending, arguing that a loan structure would incentivize California to manage the project efficiently.

The legislation arguably addresses these concerns by mandating regular progress reports from California to Congress, ensuring transparency in the use of funds. However, some conservative commentators remain wary.

"California's past experiences with large-scale projects raise questions about potential inefficiencies," said Michael Davenport, a prominent conservative analyst. "The federal government should continue exploring alternative solutions that involve the private sector, such as public-private partnerships."

Despite these reservations, the bill appears to have secured enough support for passage. With Senate approval likely a formality, attention now turns to President Murphy. The President has previously emphasized the importance of infrastructure investment and is expected to sign the bill into law.

This legislation marks a significant step towards rebuilding California's critical infrastructure, but the debate surrounding its funding mechanism reflects a broader national conversation about resource allocation and the role of government in infrastructure development. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issued a recent report card assigning a dismal grade to the nation's infrastructure, highlighting the urgent need for investment across the country.

While the specifics of the California bill are being debated, the underlying issue of infrastructure investment is one that is likely to remain at the forefront of national discourse. Lawmakers will be under pressure to find solutions that address both the need for significant funding and concerns about responsible use of taxpayer dollars. 

Tech Titan Faces Scrutiny in Corporate Scandal

In a development that has rocked Silicon Valley, one of the tech industry's most prominent players, NovaTech Inc., finds itself at the center of a burgeoning corporate scandal. Allegations of unethical behavior and financial misconduct have surfaced, casting a shadow over the once-revered company and sending shockwaves through the technology sector.

NovaTech Inc. is a technology conglomerate based in Silicon Valley, renowned for its groundbreaking innovations in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and advanced robotics. Founded in the early 2000s by visionary entrepreneur Dr. Emily Zhang, NovaTech quickly rose to prominence as a leader in the tech industry, earning a reputation for pushing the boundaries of technological possibility.

Initial reports indicate that NovaTech Inc. is under investigation for a range of alleged transgressions, including misleading investors, manipulating market data, and engaging in questionable business practices. Sources close to the investigation claim that high-ranking executives within the company may have knowingly misled shareholders about the company's financial performance and growth prospects.

The revelations have sent NovaTech Inc.'s stock price plummeting, wiping out billions of dollars in market value and sparking panic among investors. Many are left questioning how such a revered tech titan could find itself embroiled in such controversy, as NovaTech Inc. has long been viewed as a bellwether of innovation and success in the technology industry.

In response to the allegations, NovaTech Inc. has vowed to cooperate fully with investigators and has launched its own internal inquiry into the matter. However, the company's assurances have done little to quell the growing chorus of criticism and skepticism from shareholders and industry observers alike.

The fallout from the scandal extends beyond NovaTech Inc.'s boardroom, with ripple effects being felt throughout the broader tech ecosystem. As one of the industry's largest and most influential companies, NovaTech Inc.'s troubles have raised concerns about the integrity and transparency of other tech giants, prompting calls for greater oversight and accountability.

For now, the full extent of NovaTech Inc.'s alleged wrongdoing remains unclear, and investigators are continuing their probe into the matter. But one thing is certain: the once-golden reputation of NovaTech Inc. has been tarnished, leaving its future hanging in the balance as it navigates the fallout from one of the most significant corporate scandals in recent memory.

Trial of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán Concludes: Verdict and Sentencing Awaited

After a lengthy and highly publicized trial, the legal proceedings against Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, one of the world's most notorious drug lords, have drawn to a close. The trial, which unfolded in a federal court in the United States, saw prosecutors present a wealth of evidence detailing Guzmán's alleged involvement in drug trafficking, money laundering, and organized crime.

Throughout the trial, which spanned several months, witnesses testified about El Chapo's role as the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel and his orchestration of drug trafficking operations that spanned multiple continents. Testimony shed light on the cartel's inner workings, its extensive network of operations, and Guzmán's notorious reputation for violence and intimidation.

Prosecutors painted a damning picture of Guzmán as a ruthless kingpin who amassed immense wealth and power through the illicit drug trade, leaving a trail of devastation in his wake. They argued that his extradition to the United States was necessary to ensure accountability for his crimes and deliver justice to the victims of drug trafficking.

Defense attorneys, however, sought to undermine the prosecution's case, raising questions about the reliability of witnesses and the integrity of the evidence presented. They portrayed Guzmán as a scapegoat, arguing that he was unfairly targeted by law enforcement agencies seeking to take down a high-profile figure in the drug trade.

Now, with the conclusion of witness testimonies and closing arguments, the fate of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán rests in the hands of the jury. Deliberations are expected to begin shortly, as jurors weigh the evidence presented and consider the charges against him.

Once a verdict is reached, attention will turn to the sentencing phase of the trial. Prosecutors have indicated their intention to seek the maximum penalty under law for Guzmán, emphasizing the gravity of his alleged crimes and the need for a strong deterrent against drug trafficking and organized crime.

Meanwhile, the outcome of the trial holds significant implications for the broader fight against transnational crime and the ongoing efforts to enhance border security between the United States and Mexico. The proceedings against Guzmán have underscored the challenges posed by criminal organizations operating across international borders and the importance of cooperation between law enforcement agencies in combating such threats.

Mr President

The following is presented for your signature or veto.

Quote

 

Senator Andrew Clarke, for Senator Carlsen, Senator Stewart, himself and others (and with thanks to Sen. Durbin), introduced the following bill: 
 

A BILL

To address the needs of workers in industries likely to be impacted by rapidly evolving technologies. 

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 “Investing in Tomorrow's Workforce Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) In 2014, the United States spent just 0.1 percent of the Nation's Gross Domestic Product on labormarket policies, less than half of what the United States spent on labor market policies 30 years ago.

(2) The number of workers receiving federally supported training has declined in the past 3 decades as advances in technology have simultaneously shifted labormarket demand over time.

(3) As much as 47 percent of all jobs in the United States are at risk of being replaced by automation technology, and job losses from automation are more likely to impact workers making less than $40,000 annually.

(4) Strong Federal investment in expanding training services for workers whose jobs may be lost due to automation could prepare the United States workforce to better adapt to changes in the labor market and enter into skilled positions in technologically oriented occupations and industries.

(5) A focus on preparing the workforce of the United States for jobs that utilize advanced technologies could grow wages, increase economic productivity, and boost the competitiveness of the United States.

 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) AUTOMATION.—The term “automation” means a device, process, or system that functions without continuous input from an operator, including—

(A) advanced technologies, such as—

(i) data collection, classification processing, and analytics; and

(ii) 3-D printing, digital design and simulation, and digital manufacturing;

(B) robotics, including collaborative robotics, and worker augmentation technology;

(C) autonomous vehicle technology; or

(D) autonomous machinery technology.

(2) DISLOCATED WORKER.—The term “dislocated worker” has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102).

(3) IN-DEMAND INDUSTRY SECTOR OR OCCUPATION.—The term “in-demand industry sector or occupation” has the meaning given the term in section 3 of that Act.

(4) INTEGRATED EDUCATION AND TRAINING.—The term “integrated education and training” has the meaning given the term in section 3 of that Act.

(5) ELIGIBLE PARTNERSHIP.—The term “eligible partnership” means an industry or sector partnership, as defined in section 3 of that Act, except that—

(A) for purposes of applying paragraph (26)(A)(iii) of that section, the term “institution of higher education” has the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001); and

(B) the partnership shall include representatives of—

(i) a State workforce development board or a local workforce development board; and

(ii) an economic development organization.

(6) LOCAL AND STATE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.—The terms “local workforce development board” and “State workforce development board” have the meanings given the terms in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102).

(7) SECRETARY.—The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Labor.

(8) TRAINING SERVICES.—The term “training services” means training services described in section 134(c)(3)(D) of that Act (29 U.S.C. 3174(c)(3)(D)).

 

SEC. 4. GAO STUDY ON BARRIERS TO AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR RETRAINING WORKERS.

(a) Study.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the barriers to providing, and opportunities for improving, training for workers in industries that have, or are likely to have, high rates of job loss due to automation.

(2) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study, the Comptroller General shall study—

(A) considerations impacting, and strategies to improve data collection with respect to, the workforce in industries with high rates of job loss or a high likelihood of automation in the United States, including considerations and data collection strategies concerning—

(i) industries and occupations most likely to be impacted by automation, including—

(I) the geographical location of those industries and occupations;

(II) the annual average wages of those occupations; and

(III) demographic data on the race, gender, and age of workers in those industries and occupations;

(ii) employer-based training practices in those industries and occupations;

(iii) the frequency with which employers provide worker training to address skills needs and react to changes in the labor market; and

(iv) projected job losses;

(B) considerations impacting, and strategies to improve data collection with respect to, the workforce in in-demand industry sectors and occupations in the United States, such as advanced manufacturing, information technology, and health care, including considerations and data collection strategies concerning—

(i) industry sectors and occupations that may emerge or become in-demand industry sectors or occupations as a result of automation, including—

(I) the geographical location of those industry sectors and occupations;

(II) the average annual wages of those occupations; and

(III) demographic data on the race, gender, and age of workers in those occupations;

(ii) the skills and education needed to fill the positions in those industries;

(iii) employer-based training practices in those industry sectors; and

(iv) projected job gains;

(C) barriers to, and opportunities for, retraining workers in industries that have a high likelihood of being impacted by automation;

(D) the impact of the geographical location of workers and their access to transportation on the ability of the workers to access job training and related higher-skilled positions;

(E) the impact of workers’ access to other benefits and services, including child care, paid sick leave, paid family and medical leave, or a retirement plan, on the ability of the workers to access job training and related higher-skilled positions; and

(F) how reduced Federal funding for job training programs has impacted the ability of State and local governments, employers, and communities to respond to changes in the labor market, including rapidly evolving technologies.

(b) Report.—On completion of the study required by subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report concerning the results of the study.

 

SEC. 5. GRANTS TO IMPROVE TRAINING FOR WORKERS IMPACTED BY AUTOMATION.

(a) Grants Authorized.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—From the amounts appropriated under subsection (g), the Secretary of Labor shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible partnerships to support demonstration and pilot projects relating to the training needs of workers who are, or are likely to become, dislocated workers as a result of automation.

(2) DURATION.—A grant awarded under this section shall be for a period not to exceed 3 years.

(b) Applications.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an eligible partnership shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary shall reasonably require.

(2) CONTENTS.—Each application submitted under paragraph (1) shall include a description of the demonstration or pilot project to be completed with the grant funds, which description shall include—

(A) a description of the members of the eligible partnership who will be involved in the demonstration or pilot program and the services each member will provide;

(B) a description of the training services that will be available to individuals participating in the demonstration or pilot project, which may include—

(i) a plan to train dislocated workers from industries likely to be impacted by automation and transition the workers into regionally in-demand industry sectors or occupations; and

(ii) a plan to partner with local businesses to retrain, upskill, and re-deploy workers within an industry as an alternative to layoffs;

(C) a plan to provide workers with technology-based skills training, which may include training to provide skills related to coding, systems engineering, or information technology security, in addition to other skills; and

(D) a description of the goals that the eligible partnership intends to achieve to upskill workers and prepare them for in-demand industry sectors or occupations.

(c) Priorities.—In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to—

(1) eligible partnerships that are located in an area with a high concentration of—

(A) industries with a higher likelihood of being impacted by automation; or

(B) industries included in in-demand industry sectors, as determined under subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B) of section 3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102(23));

(2) eligible partnerships—

(A) with a plan to provide incumbent worker training—

(i) to assist workers in obtaining the skills necessary to retain employment or avert layoffs; or

(ii) that allows a worker working for an employer to acquire new skills that allow the worker to obtain a higher-skilled or higher-paid position with such employer; and

(B) that partner with local employers that intend to backfill the pre-training positions of the incumbent workers by hiring new workers to fill those positions;

(3) eligible partnerships that will provide workers with a transportation stipend, paid sick leave, paid family and medical leave, access to child care services, or other employment benefits; or

(4) eligible partnerships with a plan to develop a shared training curriculum that can be used across local and regional networks of employers and training providers.

(d) Use Of Funds.—An eligible partnership that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds for 1 or more of the following:

(1) Providing training services under the demonstration or pilot project, which may include training services that prepare workers for in-demand industry sectors or occupations.

(2) Providing assistance for employers in developing a staff position for an individual who will be responsible for supporting training services provided under the grant.

(3) Purchasing equipment or technology necessary for training services provided under paragraph (1).

(4) Providing job search and other transitional assistance to workers in industries with high rates of job loss.

(5) Providing a training stipend to workers for training services.

(6) Providing integrated education and training.

(e) Report.—Not later than 1 year after an eligible partnership’s completion of a demonstration or pilot project supported under this section, the eligible partnership shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a report regarding—

(1) the number of workers who received training services through the demonstration or pilot project, disaggregated by type of training service and the age, gender, and race of the workers;

(2) the number of such workers who successfully transitioned into a new position following completion of the training services;

(3) the number of individuals who successfully transitioned into an in-demand industry sector or occupation following completion of the training services;

(4) annual earnings data for individuals who have completed training services through the demonstration or pilot project;

(5) the percentage of individuals described in paragraph (4) who are in education or training activities, or in employment, during the second quarter after exit from the training services;

(6) the percentage of individuals described in paragraph (4) who are in education or training activities, or in employment, during the fourth quarter after exit from the training services; and

(7) any practices used by the partnership that should be considered best practices with respect to training workers in industries that have, or are expected to have, high rates of job loss as a result of automation.

(f) General Requirements.—An eligible partnership that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds in a manner that is consistent with the labor standards and protections described in section 181 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3241) and nondiscrimination provisions described in section 188 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 3248).

(g) Authorization Of Appropriations.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for the first 5 full fiscal years after the date of enactment of this Act.

 

SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF WORKER TRAINING SERVICES.

(a) Adult And Dislocated Worker Employment And Training.—Section 134(d)(1)(A) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3174(d)(1)(A)) is amended—

(1) in clause (xi), by striking “and” at the end;

(2) in clause (xii), by striking the period and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(xiii) training programs for individuals who are, or are likely to become, dislocated workers as a result of automation, including activities that prepare the individuals for occupations in the technology sector.”.

(b) National Dislocated Worker Grants.—Section 170 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3225) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting “advances in automation technology,” before “plant closures,”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(e) Authorization Of Appropriations.—In addition to any funds reserved under section 132(a)(2)(A) to carry out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2019.”.

 

SEC. 7:  Ending Outsourcing

 

(a) Outsourcing Statement.—Section 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2102) is amended by adding at the end the following:

 

“(e) Outsourcing Statement.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection (a), the employer shall include an outsourcing statement in the notice described in that subsection. The outsourcing statement shall specify whether part or all of the positions held by affected employees covered by subsection (a) will be moved to a country outside the United States, regardless of whether the positions are moved within the business enterprise involved or to another business enterprise. The employer shall make the determination of whether the positions are being so moved in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary. The employer shall serve the notice as required under subsection (a) and submit the notice to the Secretary of Labor.

 

“(2) LIST.—Not less often than annually, the Secretary shall publish and make available on the website of the Department of Labor, a list including each employer who—

“(A) has included an outsourcing statement in a notice under paragraph (1); or

 

“(B) has incurred liability under section 5, in part or in whole, because the employer ordered a plant closing or mass layoff without having served a notice that is required, under this section, to include an outsourcing statement.”.

 

(b) Implementation Report.—The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act is amended by inserting after section 10 (29 U.S.C. 2109) the following:

“SEC. 10A. IMPLEMENTATION STUDY.

 

 

“(a) Study.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the implementation of section 3(e) of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2102(e)) by the Department of Labor.

 

“(b) Report.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report containing the results of the study.”.

SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.

 

 

(a) In General.—Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

“SEC. 280I. OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.

 

 

“(a) In General.—No deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed for any specified outsourcing expense.

 

“(b) Specified Outsourcing Expense.—For purposes of this section—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘specified outsourcing expense’ means—

“(A) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the elimination of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located within the United States, and

 

“(B) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the establishment of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located outside the United States,

if such establishment constitutes the relocation of the business unit so eliminated. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a relocation shall not be treated as failing to occur merely because such elimination occurs in a different taxable year than such establishment.

 

“(2) ELIGIBLE EXPENSES.—The term ‘eligible expenses’ means—

“(A) any amount for which a deduction is allowed to the taxpayer under section 162, and

 

“(B) permit and license fees, lease brokerage fees, equipment installation costs, and, to the extent provided by the Secretary, other similar expenses.

Such term does not include any compensation which is paid or incurred in connection with severance from employment and, to the extent provided by the Secretary, any similar amount.

 

“(3) BUSINESS UNIT.—The term ‘business unit’ means—

“(A) any trade or business, and

 

“(B) any line of business, or functional unit, which is part of any trade or business.

 

“(4) EXPANDED AFFILIATED GROUP.—The term ‘expanded affiliated group’ means an affiliated group as defined in section 1504(a), determined without regard to section 1504(b)(3) and by substituting ‘more than 50 percent’ for ‘at least 80 percent’ each place it appears in section 1504(a). A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation) shall be treated as a member of an expanded affiliated group if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of section 954(d)(3)) by members of such group (including any entity treated as a member of such group by reason of this paragraph).

 

“(5) OPERATING EXPENSES NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.—Any amount paid or incurred in connection with the ongoing operation of a business unit shall not be treated as an amount paid or incurred in connection with the establishment or elimination of such business unit.

 

“(c) Special Rules.—

“(1) APPLICATION TO DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION.—In the case of any portion of a specified outsourcing expense which is not deductible in the taxable year in which paid or incurred, such portion shall neither be chargeable to capital account nor amortizable.

 

“(2) POSSESSIONS TREATED AS PART OF THE UNITED STATES.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ shall be treated as including each possession of the United States (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

 

“(d) Regulations.—The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations which provide (or create a rebuttable presumption) that certain establishments of business units outside the United States will be treated as relocations (based on timing or such other factors as the Secretary may provide) of business units eliminated within the United States.”.

 

(b) Limitation On Subpart F Income Of Controlled Foreign Corporations Determined Without Regard To Specified Outsourcing Expenses.—Subsection (c) of section 952 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

 

“(4) EARNINGS AND PROFITS DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO SPECIFIED OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.—For purposes of this subsection, earnings and profits of any controlled foreign corporation shall be determined without regard to any specified outsourcing expense (as defined in section 280I(b)).”.

 

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“Sec. 280I. Outsourcing expenses.”.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. DENIAL OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS AND ACCOUNTING METHODS FOR OUTSOURCING EMPLOYERS.

 

 

(a) In General.—Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

“SEC. 280J. LIMITATIONS FOR OUTSOURCING EMPLOYERS.

 

 

“(a) In General.—During the disallowance period, an applicable taxpayer—

“(1) shall not be allowed any deduction under section 199 for any income of the taxpayer,

 

“(2) may not use the method provided in section 472(b) in inventorying goods,

 

“(3) may not use the lower of cost or market method of determining inventories for purposes of determining income, and

 

“(4) shall not be allowed any deduction under section 163 for interest paid or accrued on indebtedness.

 

“(b) Applicable Taxpayer.—For purposes of subsection (a), the term ‘applicable taxpayer’ means a taxpayer which—

“(1) during the taxable year, has served written notice under subsection (a) of section 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act which includes an outsourcing statement described in subsection (e) of such section, and

 

“(2) the cumulative employment loss (excluding any part-time employees) for positions at facilities owned by such taxpayer which will be moved to a country outside of the United States, as determined pursuant to any outsourcing statements served by such taxpayer during such taxable year, exceeds 50 employees.

 

“(c) Disallowance Period.—For purposes of subsection (a), the disallowance period is the period of 3 taxable years after the taxable year in which the statements described in subsection (b)(2) are required to be served.

 

“(d) Expanded Affiliated Group Treated As Single Taxpayer.—For purposes of this section, the members of an expanded affiliated group (as defined in section 280I(b)(4)) shall be treated as a single taxpayer.

 

“(e) Regulations.—The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.”.

 

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“Sec. 280J. Limitations for outsourcing employers.”.

(c) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. RECAPTURE OF CREDITS FOR OUTSOURCING EMPLOYERS.

 

 

(a) In General.—Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subpart:

 

“Subpart K—Recapture Of Credits For Outsourcing Employers

“Sec. 54BB. Recapture of credits for outsourcing employers.

“SEC. 54BB. RECAPTURE OF CREDITS FOR OUTSOURCING EMPLOYERS.

 

 

“(a) In General.—Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary, in the case of a taxpayer which owns a facility for which there is an outsourcing event during the taxable year, the tax under this chapter for such taxable year shall be increased by the amount equal to the sum of—

“(1) any credits allowed under this chapter relating to expenses for design, construction, operation, or maintenance of such facility during the 5 taxable years preceding such taxable year, and

 

“(2) any grants provided by the Secretary in lieu of credits described in paragraph (1) during the 5 taxable years preceding such taxable year.

 

“(b) Outsourcing Event.—For purposes of subsection (a), the term ‘outsourcing event’ means a plant closing or mass layoff (as described in section 2(a) of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) in which the employment loss (excluding any part-time employees) for positions which will be moved to a country outside of the United States, as determined pursuant to the outsourcing statement (as described in paragraph (1) of such section 3(e) of such Act) served by the taxpayer during the taxable year, exceeds 50 employees.

 

“(c) Expanded Affiliated Group Treated As Single Taxpayer.—For purposes of this section, the members of an expanded affiliated group (as defined in section 280I(b)(4)) shall be treated as a single taxpayer.”.

 

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“SUBPART K. RECAPTURE OF CREDITS FOR OUTSOURCING EMPLOYERS”.

 

(c) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. CREDIT FOR INSOURCING EXPENSES.

 

 

(a) In General.—Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

 

“SEC. 45S. CREDIT FOR INSOURCING EXPENSES.

 

“(a) In General.—For purposes of section 38, the insourcing expenses credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent of the eligible insourcing expenses of the taxpayer which are taken into account in such taxable year under subsection (d).

 

“(b) Eligible Insourcing Expenses.—For purposes of this section—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘eligible insourcing expenses’ means—

“(A) eligible expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the elimination of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located outside the United States, and

 

“(B) eligible expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the establishment of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located within—

“(i) a HUBZone (as defined in section 3(p)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(2))), or

 

“(ii) a low-income community (as described in section 45D(e)),

if such establishment constitutes the relocation of the business unit so eliminated. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a relocation shall not be treated as failing to occur merely because such elimination occurs in a different taxable year than such establishment.

 

“(2) ELIGIBLE EXPENSES.—The term ‘eligible expenses’ means—

“(A) any amount for which a deduction is allowed to the taxpayer under section 162, and

 

“(B) permit and license fees, lease brokerage fees, equipment installation costs, and, to the extent provided by the Secretary, other similar expenses.

Such term does not include any compensation which is paid or incurred in connection with severance from employment and, to the extent provided by the Secretary, any similar amount.

 

“(3) BUSINESS UNIT.—The term ‘business unit’ means—

“(A) any trade or business, and

 

“(B) any line of business, or functional unit, which is part of any trade or business.

 

“(4) EXPANDED AFFILIATED GROUP.—The term ‘expanded affiliated group’ means an affiliated group as defined in section 1504(a), determined without regard to section 1504(b)(3) and by substituting ‘more than 50 percent’ for ‘at least 80 percent’ each place it appears in section 1504(a). A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation) shall be treated as a member of an expanded affiliated group if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of section 954(d)(3)) by members of such group (including any entity treated as a member of such group by reason of this paragraph).

 

“(5) EXPENSES MUST BE PURSUANT TO INSOURCING PLAN.—Amounts shall be taken into account under paragraph (1) only to the extent that such amounts are paid or incurred pursuant to a written plan to carry out the relocation described in paragraph (1).

 

“(6) OPERATING EXPENSES NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.—Any amount paid or incurred in connection with the on-going operation of a business unit shall not be treated as an amount paid or incurred in connection with the establishment or elimination of such business unit.

 

“(c) Increased Domestic Employment Requirement.—No credit shall be allowed under this section unless the number of full-time equivalent employees of the taxpayer for the taxable year for which the credit is claimed exceeds the number of full-time equivalent employees of the taxpayer for the last taxable year ending before the first taxable year in which such eligible insourcing expenses were paid or incurred. For purposes of this subsection, full-time equivalent employees has the meaning given such term under section 45R(d) (and the applicable rules of section 45R(e)). All employers treated as a single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as a single employer for purposes of this subsection.

 

“(d) Credit Allowed Upon Completion Of Insourcing Plan.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), eligible insourcing expenses shall be taken into account under subsection (a) in the taxable year during which the plan described in subsection (b)(5) has been completed and all eligible insourcing expenses pursuant to such plan have been paid or incurred.

 

“(2) ELECTION TO APPLY EMPLOYMENT TEST AND CLAIM CREDIT IN FIRST FULL TAXABLE YEAR AFTER COMPLETION OF PLAN.—If the taxpayer elects the application of this paragraph, eligible insourcing expenses shall be taken into account under subsection (a) in the first taxable year after the taxable year described in paragraph (1).

 

“(e) Possessions Treated As Part Of The United States.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ shall be treated as including each possession of the United States (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

 

“(f) Regulations.—The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.”.

 

(b) Credit To Be Part Of General Business Credit.—Subsection (b) of section 38 of such Code is amended by striking “plus” at the end of paragraph (35), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (36) and inserting “, plus”, and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

 

“(37) the insourcing expenses credit determined under section 45S(a).”.

 

(c) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“Sec. 45S. Credit for insourcing expenses.”.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

(e) Application To United States Possessions.—

(1) PAYMENTS TO POSSESSIONS.—

(A) MIRROR CODE POSSESSIONS.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall make periodic payments to each possession of the United States with a mirror code tax system in an amount equal to the loss to that possession by reason of section 45S of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Such amount shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury based on information provided by the government of the respective possession.

 

(B) OTHER POSSESSIONS.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall make annual payments to each possession of the United States which does not have a mirror code tax system in an amount estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury as being equal to the aggregate benefits that would have been provided to residents of such possession by reason of section 45S of such Code if a mirror code tax system had been in effect in such possession. The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to any possession of the United States unless such possession has a plan, which has been approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, under which such possession will promptly distribute such payment to the residents of such possession.

 

(2) COORDINATION WITH CREDIT ALLOWED AGAINST UNITED STATES INCOME TAXES.—No credit shall be allowed against United States income taxes under section 45S of such Code to any person—

(A) to whom a credit is allowed against taxes imposed by the possession by reason of such section, or

 

(B) who is eligible for a payment under a plan described in paragraph (1)(B).

 

(3) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—

(A) POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.—For purposes of this section, the term “possession of the United States” includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

 

(B) MIRROR CODE TAX SYSTEM.—For purposes of this section, the term “mirror code tax system” means, with respect to any possession of the United States, the income tax system of such possession if the income tax liability of the residents of such possession under such system is determined by reference to the income tax laws of the United States as if such possession were the United States.

 

(C) TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS.—For purposes of section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, the payments under this section shall be treated in the same manner as a refund due from sections referred to in such section 1324(b)(2).

SEC. 7. AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL CONTRACTING OFFICERS TO TAKE THE OUTSOURCING OF JOBS FROM THE UNITED STATES INTO ACCOUNT IN AWARDING CONTRACTS.

 

 

(a) Department Of Defense And Related Agency Contracts.—

(1) CONSIDERATION OF OUTSOURCING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2327 the following new section:

 

“§ 2327a. Contracts: consideration of outsourcing of jobs

 

“(a) Disclosure Of Outsourcing Of Jobs.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The head of an agency shall require a contractor that submits a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation issued by the agency to disclose in that bid or proposal if the contractor, or a subsidiary of the contractor, owns a facility for which there is an outsourcing event during the three-year period ending on the date of the submittal of the bid or proposal.

 

“(2) OUTSOURCING EVENT.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘outsourcing event’ means a plant closing or mass layoff (as described in section 2(a) of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) in which the employment loss (excluding any part-time employees) for positions which will be moved to a country outside of the United States, as determined pursuant to the outsourcing statement (as described in paragraph (1) of such section 3(e) of such Act) served by the taxpayer during the taxable year, exceeds 50 employees.

 

“(b) Consideration Authorized.— (1) Agency contracting officers considering bids or proposals in response to a solicitation issued by the agency may take into account any disclosure made pursuant to subsection (a) in such bids and proposals.

“(2) The head of an agency may establish a negative preference of up to 10 percent of the cost of a contract for purposes of evaluating a bid or proposal of a contractor that makes a disclosure pursuant to subsection (a).

 

“(c) Sense Of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that agency contracting officers should, using section 2304(b)(3) of this title, exclude contractors making a disclosure pursuant to subsection (a) in response to solicitations issued by the agency from the bidding process in connection with such solicitations on the grounds that the actions described in the disclosures are against the public interests of the United States.

 

“(d) Annual Report.—The head of each agency shall submit to Congress each year a report on the following:

“(1) The number of solicitations made by the agency during the preceding year for which disclosures were made pursuant to subsection (a) in responsive bids or proposals.

 

“(2) The number of contracts awarded by the agency during the preceding year in which such disclosures were taken into account in the contract award.”.

 

(B) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 137 of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2327 the following new item:

“2327a. Contracts: consideration of outsourcing of jobs.”.

(2) EXCLUSION OF FIRMS FROM SOURCES.—Section 2304(b) of such title is amended—

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively;

 

(B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:

 

“(3) The head of an agency may provide for the procurement of property and services covered by this chapter using competitive procedures but excluding a source making a disclosure pursuant to section 2327a(a) of this title in the bid or proposal in response to the solicitation issued by the agency if the head of the agency determines that the actions described by disclosure are against the public interests of the United States and the source is to be excluded on those grounds. Any such determination shall take into account the sense of Congress set forth in section 2327a(c) of this title.”; and

 

(C) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated, by striking “paragraphs (1) and (2)” and inserting “paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)”.

 

(b) Other Federal Contracts.—

(1) CONSIDERATION OF OUTSOURCING.—Chapter 35 of title 41, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 3303 the following new section:

 

“§ 3303a. Bidders outsourcing jobs: disclosure of outsourcing; consideration of outsourcing in award; exclusion from sources

 

“(a) Disclosure Of Outsourcing Of Jobs.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The head of an executive agency shall require a contractor that submits a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation issued by the executive agency to disclose in that bid or proposal if the contractor, or a subsidiary of the contractor, owns a facility for which there is an outsourcing event during the three-year period ending on the date of the submittal of the bid or proposal.

 

“(2) OUTSOURCING EVENT.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘outsourcing event’ means a plant closing or mass layoff (as described in section 2(a) of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) in which the employment loss (excluding any part-time employees) for positions which will be moved to a country outside of the United States, as determined pursuant to the outsourcing statement (as described in paragraph (1) of such section 3(e) of such Act) served by the taxpayer during the taxable year, exceeds 50 employees.

 

“(b) Consideration Authorized.— (1) Contracting officers of an executive agency considering bids or proposals in response to a solicitation issued by the executive agency may take into account any disclosure made pursuant to subsection (a) in such bids and proposals.

“(2) The head of an executive agency may establish a negative preference of up to 10 percent of the cost of a contract for purposes of evaluating a bid or proposal of a contractor that makes a disclosure pursuant to subsection (a).

 

“(c) Exclusion From Sources.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The head of an executive agency may provide for the procurement of property and services using competitive procedures but excluding a source making a disclosure under subsection (a) in the bid or proposal in response to the solicitation issued by the executive agency if the head of the executive agency determines that the actions described by disclosure are against the public interests of the United States and the source is to be excluded on those grounds. Any such determination shall take into account the sense of Congress set forth in paragraph (2).

 

“(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that contracting officers of executive agencies may use paragraph (1) to exclude contractors making a disclosure pursuant to subsection (a) in response to a solicitation issued by the executive agency from the bidding process in connection with the solicitation on the grounds that the actions described by the disclosure are against the public interests of the United States.

 

“(d) Annual Report.—The head of each executive agency shall submit to Congress each year a report on the following:

“(1) The number of solicitations made by the executive agency during the preceding year for which disclosures were made pursuant to subsection (a) in responsive bids or proposals.

 

“(2) The number of contracts awarded to contractors that disclosed having outsourced more than 50 jobs during the preceding three years.”.

 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 35 of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 3303 the following new item:

“3303a. Bidders outsourcing jobs: disclosure of outsourcing; consideration of outsourcing in award; exclusion from sources.”.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3301(a) of such title is amended by inserting “3303a(c),” after “3303,”.

 

(c) Regulations.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies, shall amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to carry out the requirements of section 3303a of title 41, United States Code, and section 2327a of title 10, United States Code, as added by this section.

 

(2) DEFINITION OF OUTSOURCING.—For purposes of defining outsourcing pursuant to paragraph (1), the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council may utilize regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.

 

(d) Rule Of Construction.—This section, and the amendments made by this section, shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.

 

 

PES: 

This bill (1) directs the Government Accountability Office to study the barriers to providing, and opportunities for improving, training for workers in industries that have, or are likely to have, high rates of job loss due to automation; (2) directs the Department of Labor to award grants to eligible partnerships to support demonstration and pilot projects relating to the training needs of workers who are, or are likely to become, dislocated workers as a result of automation; and (3) expands training programs for such workers and funding for national dislocated worker grants.