[Pages S577-S606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Bennett):

[[Page S578]]

S. 168. A bill to reauthorize additional contract authority for
States with Indian reservations; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished
colleague Senator Bennett to introduce the Indian School Bus Route
Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005. This bill continues an important
Federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the
roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and
the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had
been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often
impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because
of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to
be addressed at the Federal level.
I'd like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why
I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo
Nation is by far the nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering
25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States:
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere
close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State
of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are
smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of
public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-fifth of these
roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, seventy-eight percent, are
dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to
transport Navajo children to and from school.
About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA
roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public
roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including
BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian
Reservation Road System. However, only BIA roads are eligible for
Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding
and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA-
21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States
and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their
2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.
The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation
are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the
reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the
land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.
For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley
County is either tribal or federal land, including BLM, Forest Service,
and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of
McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very
limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of
the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512
miles serve Indian land.
In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the
land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo
Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90
miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools,
two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.
The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, and
Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties'
limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the
States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in
this unique situation.

Families living in and around the reservation are no different from
families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same
opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education.
However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the
reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet,
muddy or snowy. If the school buses don't get through, the kids simply
cannot get to school.
These children are literally being left behind.
Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of
maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the
counties can bear without federal assistance. I believe it is essential
that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of-
a-kind situation.
In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began
providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo
reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to
and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request
in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million was
made available each year to be shared equally among the three States.
The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New
Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very
clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located
within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county
maintenance system, and that are used by school buses.
This program has been very successful. For the last six years, the
counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used
by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs.
I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this
funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are
maintained using funds from this program.
The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year
reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2005 through 2010,
with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and
for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States. The
text of the bill is identical to that passed last year by the full
Senate in H.R. 3550, the SAFETEA bill.
I believe that continuing this program for six more years is fully
justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far
the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the
Federal Government can deal with effectively.
I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school should
have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in
rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good
education. The Senate already passed this legislation last year. I ask
all Senators to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo
schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get
an education.
I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of
Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion
bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year
and with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to
incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year
reauthorization of the surface transportation bill.
I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 168

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 ``Indian School Bus Route
Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR
STATES WITH INDIAN RESERVATIONS.

Section 1214(d)(5)(A) of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 202 note; 112 Stat. 206) is
amended by striking ``$1,500,000 for each of fiscal years
1998 through 2003'' and inserting ``$1,800,000 for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2010''.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 169. A bill to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 to identify a route that passes through the
States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas as a high priority
corridor on the National Highway System; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Otero,
Lincoln, Torrance, Guadalupe, and Quay Counties.

[[Page S579]]

The purpose of this legislation is to focus attention on the need to
upgrade U.S. Highway 54 to four lanes. I believe improving the
transportation infrastructure will help attract good jobs to South,
Central, and Eastern New Mexico.
I am honored to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Roberts,
as the lead cosponsor of the bill. I am also pleased to have Senators
Inhofe as an original cosponsor. In addition, Representatives Udall
(NM), Lucas, and Pearce are introducing this bill today on the House
side.
Our bill designates U.S. Highway 54 from the border with Mexico at
the Bridge of the Americas in El Paso, TX, through New Mexico, and
Oklahoma to Wichita, KS, as the Southwest Passage Initiative for
Regional and Interstate Transportation, or SPIRIT, corridor. Congress
has already included Highway 54 as part of the National Highway System.
This bill adds the SPIRIT Corridor to Congress's list of High Priority
Corridors on the National Highway System.
About half of the 700-mile-long SPIRIT corridor is in New Mexico and
another 200 miles of it are in Kansas. Our goal in asking Congress to
designate SPIRIT as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway
System is to help focus attention on the need for a complete four-lane
upgrade of the route from El Paso to Wichita. When completed, the route
will link rural areas in the four States to major market centers.
I continue to believe strongly in the importance of highway
infrastructure for economic development in my state. Even in this age
of the new economy and high-speed digital communications, roads
continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial
goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are
especially important to citizens in the rural parts of New Mexico.
It is well known that regions with four-lane highways more readily
attract out-of-state visitors and new jobs. Truck drivers and the
traveling public prefer the safety of a four-lane divided highway.
In New Mexico, U.S. 54 is a fairly level route, bypassing New
Mexico's major mountain ranges. The route also traverses some of New
Mexico's most dramatic scenery, including three of the state's popular
Scenic Byways. One is the Mesalands Scenic Byway in Guadalupe, San
Miguel and Quay Counties, incorporating the beautiful tablelands known
as El Llano Estacado. Another is the State's newest byway, La Frontera
de Llano, which follows highway 39 from Logan to Abbott in Harding
County, including the spectacular Canadian River Canyon and the Kiowa
National Grasslands. The third byway is the historic Route 66, which
crosses Highway 54 from Santa Rosa to Tucumcari.
The SPIRIT corridor passes through Alamogordo, home of the New Mexico
Museum of Space History and gateway to the stunning White Sands
National Monument.
Highway 54 is also important to our Nation from the perspective of
national security. The route directly serves Fort Bliss, the White
Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air Force Base. It also passes
through the Nation's breadbasket as well as some of the Nation's most
important oil and gas fields.
The route of the SPIRIT corridor starts at Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico,
home of one the largest concentrations of manufacturing in the border
region. As a result of increased trade under NAFTA, commercial border
traffic is now much higher at the border crossings in El Paso, Texas,
and Santa Teresa, New Mexico. In New Mexico, truck traffic from the
border has risen to over 1000 per day and is expected to triple in the
next twenty years.
The SPIRIT corridor is perfectly situated to serve international
trade and promote economic development along its entire route. The
route provides direct connections to four major Interstate Highways: I-
10, 1-35, I-40, and 1-70. SPIRIT is also the shortest route between
Chicago and El Paso shaving 137 miles off the major alternative.
Though much of U.S. 54 is currently only two lanes, traffic has been
rising dramatically along the entire route since NAFTA was implemented.
In New Mexico, total daily traffic levels are nearing 10,000 and are
projected to rise to 30,000, with trucks making up 35 percent of the
total. In Oklahoma, traffic levels are up to 6,500 per day--40 percent
of which are commercial trucks. These traffic statistics clearly
reflect the SPIRIT corridor's attraction to commercial and passenger
drivers.
New Mexicans recognize the importance of efficient roads to economic
development and safety. I have long supported my State's efforts to
complete the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54. The State Department of
Transportation rates the project a high priority for New Mexico. The
four-lane upgrade of the first 56-mile segment from the Texas border to
Alamogordo was completed in 2002. Two more sections in New Mexico
remain to be upgraded: 163 miles from Tularosa, north through
Carrizozo, Corona, and Vaughn, to Santa Rosa and 50 miles from
Tucumcari to the Texas border near Nara Visa in Quay County. This
corridor is currently a two-lane facility with no shoulders, no passing
zones and various deficient areas. The cost to four-lane these two
segments is estimated at $420 million.
I am pleased Governor Richardson has set aside over $130 million as
part of the New Mexico's GRIP initiative to upgrade key portions of the
route between Tularosa and Santa Rosa. I am committed to working with
State to secure the funding required to complete New Mexico's four-lane
upgrade as soon as possible. I am pleased the other states are also
moving quickly to four-lane their portion of the route.
Once the SPIRIT corridor is designated, New Mexico will have four
high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. The other three
are the Ports-to-Plains corridor, the Camino Real Corridor, and the
East West Transamerica Corridor. These four trade corridors, as well as
our close proximity to the border, strongly underscore the vital role
New Mexico plays in our Nation's interstate and international
transportation network.
The SPIRIT project has broad grassroots support. Most of the cities,
counties, and chambers of commerce all the way from Wichita to El Paso
have passed resolutions of support for the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54
along the entire corridor.
I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 54 is vital to the
continued economic development for all of the communities along the
SPIRIT corridor in New Mexico. I again thank Senators Roberts and
Inhofe for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all senators will join us
in support of this important legislation. It is my hope that our bill
can pass quickly this year or be included when the Senate again
considers the reauthorization of a six-year surface transportation
bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 169

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

SECTION 1. SOUTHWEST PASSAGE INITIATIVE FOR REGIONAL AND
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.

Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(46) The corridor extending from the point on the border
between the United States and Mexico at El Paso, Texas, where
United States Route 54 begins, along United States Route 54
through the States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Kansas, and ending in Wichita, Kansas, to be known as the
`Southwest Passage Initiative for Regional and Interstate
Transportation Corridor' or `SPIRIT Corridor'.''.
______

By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 170. A bill to clarify the definition of rural airports; to the
Committee on Finance.
______

By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Stevens, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 171. A bill to exempt seaplanes from certain transportation taxes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two related
pieces of legislation addressing inequities that affect seaplane
operators and passengers in rural areas. Both of these were included in
S. 1072 when it passed the Senate last year, but because that business
remains unfinished, it is necessary to reintroduce them.

[[Page S580]]

The first of these--on which Senator Stevens is joining me as a
cosponsor, is a modification to the definition of a ``rural airport.''
The law adopted in 1997 provides for a per-passenger fee--now $3.20--on
each domestic flight segment. Rural airports were exempted from the tax
on the grounds it was intended to cover increased security costs for
airports handling large aircraft and international flights. The law
defines a rural airport as one which--for a given calendar year--has
fewer than 100,000 departures in the second preceding calendar year,
and which either received essential air service subsidies as of August
5, 1997, or is more than 75 miles from a larger airport.
The latter provision is a significant problem in my State. It was
intended to reflect the fact that 75 miles is not really a long way to
drive to and from an airport. Unfortunately, that assumes there is a
road to drive on. That's not always the case. My State has a number of
small community airports that are within 75 miles of a larger airport,
but where there are no roads connecting the two. Thus, passengers
cannot choose to drive to the larger airport. In order to fly to their
ultimate destination, they are forced to fly from their village to the
larger airport, where the passenger tax is legitimately collected. The
bottom line is that these rural residents are unfairly taxed at least
twice as much as all the other passengers leaving from the larger
airport.
My bill simply adds this one additional unique criterion to the
definition of a rural airport--that it may include a small airport that
is within 75 miles from a larger one, but where there is no road
connection between the two.
The second bill I am introducing today--along with Senator Stevens
and Senator Murray--is also intended to correct an inequity. Air
passenger transportation is subject to a 7.5 percent excise tax in
addition to the $3.20 per-segment fee. This generates revenue that goes
toward the maintenance and improvements of airports receiving Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funding. However, in several cases in Alaska,
and in at least one case in the State of Washington, the taxes are
imposed on seaplane operators who land on and take off from open
waters, not from facilities using AIP funds, and which rarely if ever
make use of FAA communication and navigation systems. It should be a
fundamental tenet that those who do not receive a service should not be
required to pay for it. That is exactly the basis for my second bill.
Both these proposals have been in circulation for several years. Each
of them has been estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to have
negligible impacts on revenue--less than $2 million per year for the
rural airport definition and less than $1 million for the excise tax.
In that connection, it should also be noted that even if the excise tax
for seaplane operators is eliminated, they will still be paying their
fair share because they will automatically begin paying higher fuel
taxes. The latter will go up from 4.4 cents per gallon to 19.4 cents
per gallon for aviation gasoline and to 21.9 cents per gallon for jet
fuel.
I encourage my colleagues' support of these two important measures.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of both measures be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 170

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

SECTION 1. RURAL AIRPORTS.

(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 4261(e)(1)(B) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining rural airport) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I),
(2) by striking the period at the end of subclause (II) and
inserting ``, or'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) is not connected by paved roads to another
airport.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar years beginning after December 31,
2004.
______

S. 171

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION PROVIDED BY
SEAPLANES.

(a) In General.--Section 4261 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax) is amended by
redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j) and by
inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
``(i) Exemption for Transportation Provided by Seaplanes.--
No tax shall be imposed by this section or section 4271 on
any air transportation by a seaplane with respect to any
segment consisting of a takeoff from, and a landing on,
water.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar years beginning after December 31,
2004.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 172. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
provide for the regulation of all contact lenses as medical devices,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 172

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds as follows:
(1) All contact lenses have significant effects on the eye
and pose serious potential health risks if improperly
manufactured or used without appropriate involvement of a
qualified eye care professional.
(2) Most contact lenses currently marketed in the United
States, including certain plano and decorative contact
lenses, have been approved as medical devices pursuant to
premarket approval applications or cleared pursuant to
premarket notifications by the Food and Drug Administration
(``FDA'').
(3) FDA has asserted medical device jurisdiction over most
corrective and noncorrective contact lenses as medical
devices currently marketed in the United States, including
certain plano and decorative contact lenses, so as to require
approval pursuant to premarket approval applications or
clearance pursuant to premarket notifications.
(4) All contact lenses can present risks if used without
the supervision of a qualified eye care professional. Eye
injuries in children and other consumers have been reported
for contact lenses that are regulated by FDA as medical
devices primarily when used without professional involvement,
and noncorrective contact lenses sold without approval or
clearance as medical devices have caused eye injuries in
children.

SEC. 2. REGULATION OF CERTAIN ARTICLES AS MEDICAL DEVICES.

Section 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 360j) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Regulation of Contact Lens as Devices

``(n)(1) All contact lenses shall be deemed to be devices
under section 201(h).
``(2) Paragraph 1 shall not be construed as having any
legal effect on any article that is not described in that
paragraph.''.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 173. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide adequate coverage for immunosuppressive drugs furnished to
beneficiaries under the Medicare program that have received an organ
transplant; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 173

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive
Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Transplant Patients Act
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS
UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(J)) is amended by
striking ``, to an individual who receives'' and all that
follows before the semicolon at the end and inserting ``to an
individual who has received an organ transplant''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. PROVISION OF APPROPRIATE COVERAGE OF
IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS UNDER THE MEDICARE
PROGRAM FOR ORGAN TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS.

(a) Continued Entitlement to Immunosuppressive Drugs.--
(1) Kidney transplant recipients.--Section 226A(b)(2) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(b)(2)) is amended by
inserting ``(except for coverage of immunosuppressive

[[Page S581]]

drugs under section 1861(s)(2)(J))'' after ``shall end''.
(2) Other transplant recipients.--The flush matter
following paragraph (2)(C)(ii)(II) of section 226(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)) is amended by striking
``of this subsection)'' and inserting ``of this subsection
and except for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs under
section 1861(s)(2)(J))''.
(3) Application.--Section 1836 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395o) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Every individual who'' and inserting
``(a) In General.--Every individual who''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Special Rules Applicable to Individuals Only Eligible
for Coverage of Immunosuppressive Drugs.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual whose
eligibility for benefits under this title has ended except
for the coverage of immunosuppressive drugs by reason of
section 226(b) or 226A(b)(2), the following rules shall
apply:
``(A) The individual shall be deemed to be enrolled under
this part for purposes of receiving coverage of such drugs.
``(B) The individual shall be responsible for the full
amount of the premium under section 1839 in order to receive
such coverage.
``(C) The provision of such drugs shall be subject to the
application of--
``(i) the deductible under section 1833(b); and
``(ii) the coinsurance amount applicable for such drugs (as
determined under this part).
``(D) If the individual is an inpatient of a hospital or
other entity, the individual is entitled to receive coverage
of such drugs under this part.
``(2) Establishment of procedures in order to implement
coverage.--The Secretary shall establish procedures for--
``(A) identifying beneficiaries that are entitled to
coverage of immunosuppressive drugs by reason of section
226(b) or 226A(b)(2); and
``(B) distinguishing such beneficiaries from beneficiaries
that are enrolled under this part for the complete package of
benefits under this part.''.
(4) Technical amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 226A of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1), as added by
section 201(a)(3)(D)(ii) of the Social Security Independence
and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-296; 108
Stat. 1497), is redesignated as subsection (d).
(b) Extension of Secondary Payer Requirements for ESRD
Beneficiaries.--Section 1862(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(1)(C)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new sentence: ``With regard to
immunosuppressive drugs furnished on or after the date of
enactment of the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug
Coverage for Transplant Patients Act of 2005, this
subparagraph shall be applied without regard to any time
limitation.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. PLANS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN COVERAGE OF
IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

(a) Application to Certain Health Insurance Coverage.--
(1) In general.--Subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 2707. COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

``A group health plan (and a health insurance issuer
offering health insurance coverage in connection with a group
health plan) shall provide coverage of immunosuppressive
drugs that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage
provided by such plan or issuer on the day before the date of
enactment of the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug
Coverage for Transplant Patients Act of 2005, and such
requirement shall be deemed to be incorporated into this
section.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 2721(b)(2)(A) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-21(b)(2)(A)) is
amended by inserting ``(other than section 2707)'' after
``requirements of such subparts''.
(b) Application to Group Health Plans and Group Health
Insurance Coverage Under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.--
(1) In general.--Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title
I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 714. COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

``A group health plan (and a health insurance issuer
offering health insurance coverage in connection with a group
health plan) shall provide coverage of immunosuppressive
drugs that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage
provided by such plan or issuer on the day before the date of
enactment of the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug
Coverage for Transplant Patients Act of 2005, and such
requirement shall be deemed to be incorporated into this
section.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 732(a) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191(a)) is amended by
striking ``section 711'' and inserting ``sections 711 and
714''.
(B) The table of contents in section 1 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 713 the
following new item:

``Sec. 714. Coverage of immunosuppressive drugs''.
(c) Application to Group Health Plans Under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.--Subchapter B of chapter 100 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) in the table of sections, by inserting after the item
relating to section 9812 the following new item:

``Sec. 9813. Coverage of immunosuppressive drugs'';
and
(2) by inserting after section 9812 the following:

``SEC. 9813. COVERAGE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

``A group health plan shall provide coverage of
immunosuppressive drugs that is at least as comprehensive as
the coverage provided by such plan on the day before the date
of enactment of the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug
Coverage for Transplant Patients Act of 2005, and such
requirement shall be deemed to be incorporated into this
section.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1,
2006.
______

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Dodd, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 174. A bill to improve the palliative and end-of-life care
provided to children with life-threatening conditions, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill Senator
Dodd and I are introducing today. This is a bill about children, and it
covers an issue that is difficult to think about or talk about, but one
that is critical to many children and their families in our Nation.
What I am talking about is what we can do when a child develops a
life-threatening or terminal illness. How do we make sure we do
everything in our power to make a sick child as comfortable as possible
and as happy as possible--everything in our power to ease their
suffering--when that child is terminally ill. We have a pressing need
for comprehensive, compassionate, continuous care for children who are
facing death as a result of serious illness.
No parent or family member ever expects a child to die. With today's
modern medicine and research advances, it is easy to think that only
older people die, but, tragically, we all know that is not the case.
That is why today we are introducing the Compassionate Care for
Children Act, a bill we introduced previously in the 108th Congress
along with Representative Deborah Pryce in the House. This legislation
is an effort to help ensure that very sick children receive a continuum
of care and that young lives do not end in preventable pain or fear or
sadness.
Every year, over 55,000 children die in the United States. Some
children will die suddenly and unexpectedly--in a car accident, by
drowning, or fire, or by choking. Some may even be murdered. Others,
though--thousands of children, actually--will be diagnosed with life-
threatening illnesses or diseases that might eventually, over a period
of time, take away these children's lives. Children with such illnesses
are in and out of hospitals and clinics. They receive chemotherapy and
radiation treatments. They might undergo multiple surgeries. They might
have nurses and doctors poking and prodding at them nearly all the
time. Some of these children are old enough to realize that they might
die if the treatments for their diseases don't work. Others are too
young to understand that reality.
One little girl--Liza--knew she was going to die. Shortly after her
fourth birthday, she was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. For the
next year, Liza's parents explored every possible medical option for
her and every possible treatment. They took her to doctor after doctor
after doctor, and they had access to the most cutting-edge therapies
available to treat Liza's disease. Nothing seemed to work. At the age
of five, Liza began to ask her mother what would come next, and whether
she would soon die after her bone marrow transplant--her last chance
for a cure--had failed.
Once the medical treatments had failed, doctors had little else to
offer Liza. There was no discussion, tragically, about end-of-life care
at the hospital for this little child. No one wanted to admit that they
were out of

[[Page S582]]

treatment options--that there was no cure--that she wasn't going to get
better, have her life restored and her health restored--that she wasn't
going to grow up and become an adult and have her own children someday.
There was no discussion of that. No one in that hospital wanted to talk
with Liza about death, even though this little girl pleaded with them
to do so.
Liza's mother told the Washington Post that Liza asked her oncologist
to tell her when death was near. This little five-year-old girl asked
her doctor to tell her when she was going to die. Yet, on the final
night of her life, as this little child lay dying in her mother's arms,
near her father and her older sister, Liza asked, ``Why didn't the
doctor call to tell me?''
Liza's parents were able to get some hospice care for their daughter
during the last three months of her life. Tragically, fewer than 10
percent of children who die in the United States ever receive any sort
of hospice care. When children like Liza are terminally ill, parents
are forced to make decisions for their children under extremely
emotional and stressful conditions. The decisions that confront these
parents are ones that they never, of course, expected to have to make.
Parents want what is best for their children. They want their children
to get better and be healthy. They want their children to be pain free.
They want their children to receive comfort and care when they are
sick.
God forbid that parents find out their children are very sick--so
sick they are never going to get better--so sick there are no more
treatments and no more cures--and so sick they know their children are
going to die. Those parents will try to do everything imaginable and
everything possible in their power to help their children and make them
comfortable--pain-free and happy in their remaining days.
Mr. President, we have an obligation to help those parents. Children
with life-threatening diseases and illnesses require special medical
attention to make their shortened lives more comfortable. We know that.
Yet, despite that knowledge, the fact is, current federal law and
regulations do not take into consideration the special care needs of a
gravely ill or dying child. In fact, these federal laws and regulations
get in the way of taking care of these children.
The legislation we are introducing today would help correct the
deficiencies in current law and help sick children facing possible
death live more comfortably and live with dignity. It would help them
receive the comprehensive care they deserve and the comprehensive care
we would expect for our own children.
Let me take a few moments to explain what our bill actually does.
First, it offers grants so doctors and nurses can receive training and
education to enable them to better understand these issues and to help
them provide end-of-life care for these kids. The goal of these grants
is to improve the quality of care terminally ill children receive. One
of the ways we do this is to make sure doctors and nurses truly
understand these issues so they can provide the care and be better
informed. Our bill also provides money for the National Institutes of
Health to conduct research in pain and symptom management in children.
This research is critically important to improving the type of care
that dying children receive.
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 89
percent of children dying of cancer die experiencing ``a lot or a great
deal'' of pain and suffering. This does not have to happen. We can
change that, and we must. This is simply not acceptable. Research has
to be done so that children will not suffer needlessly.

In addition to grants, the second piece of our bill changes the way
care is delivered to children with life-threatening illnesses. Right
now, doctors, hospitals, and parents have to overcome significant
insurance and eligibility barriers to enroll a dying child in hospice.
First, to qualify for hospice, a doctor must certify that a child has
six months or less to live. The problem with this ``six-month rule'' is
that it is harder for a doctor to determine the life expectancy of a
sick child than it is to determine the life expectancy of a sick adult
or elderly person. A child dying of cancer, for example, may die in six
months or six years, making that child ineligible for hospice care that
would ensure a comfortable life while that child is alive. It is very
difficult many times to estimate how long that child is going to live.
This very rigid six-month predictability rule, which denies care, is
very inhumane for these kids. It is wrong, and we have to change that
rule.
According to Dr. Joanne Hilden and Dr. Dan Tobin, ``Sick children are
still growing, which is a biological process very much like healing.
So, when a child is diagnosed with illness, such as cancer or heart
disease, he or she is much more likely to be cured than an adult.''
Simply put, diseases progress differently in children than adults, and
children with terminal diseases get lost in the health care system
designed for adults--a health care system that does not take into
consideration the special needs of children.
Furthermore, the current system does not allow a patient to receive
curative and palliative care simultaneously. In other words, current
law does not allow doctors to continue trying life-prolonging
treatments--treatments that could cure an illness or extend a life--and
also at the same time provide palliative care to that patient. That
means that current law does not allow the doctors to go in to provide
typical hospice care where you make that child comfortable and do all
the things to alleviate the pain and at the same time try to save the
child's life.
That is wrong. That is simply wrong. That presents a parent with a
horrible choice--a choice that no parent should ever have to make. That
is tragic. Palliative care offers a continuum of care--care that
involves counseling to families and patients about how to confront
death--care that involves making the patient comfortable in his or her
sickest hours--care that acknowledges that death is a real possibility.
Federal law requires a person who wishes to receive end-of-life care
to discontinue receiving curative or life-prolonging treatment. This
should not be an either/or decision for parents. I don't know of any
parent who would give up trying to cure a sick child when there was any
chance that child might be saved. They should not be put in this
position.
Current law places parents in impossible positions. We simply must
fix this. End-of-life care should be integrated with curative care so
that parents, children, and doctors have access to a range of benefits
and services. As I said earlier, palliative care should not be confined
to the dying. It should be available to any child who is seriously ill.
That is why our bill creates Medicare and private market
demonstration programs to remove these barriers, making it simpler and
easier for doctors and parents to make end-of-life decisions for
children. The demonstration program would allow children to receive
curative and palliative care concurrently. This means children can
continue to receive treatment and life-prolonging care while receiving
palliative care at the same time. The demonstration program also
removes the six-month rule so children can receive palliative care
benefits at the time of diagnosis.
I would like to take a moment to tell my colleagues about another
girl--Rachel Ann. Rachel Ann was a little girl who did receive
palliative care from the time she was diagnosed with a grave heart
problem. Rachel Ann had a heart that doctors describe as ``incompatible
with life.'' Most babies with heart malformations like Rachel Ann die
within a matter of days after birth. Rachel Ann's parents were
devastated and distraught to see their tiny baby connected to a sea of
wire and tubes, clinging to life.
Rachel Ann's parents were referred to a pediatric hospice and decided
to bring their daughter home from the hospital so she could experience
life with her family, surrounded by parents, brothers, relatives, and
friends at home. Rachel Ann's parents say she seemed truly happy at
home. She smiled and wiggled in response to voices and being held. Her
brothers doted on their baby sister.
Rachel Ann was able to spend her life at home in comfort with her
family. She lived for 42 days and her family was able to make every
single moment count. On Christmas day, after spending the morning with
her family, Rachel Ann passed away.
Fortunately, Rachel Ann and her family were able to spend as much
time

[[Page S583]]

together as possible with Rachel Ann as comfortable as possible. Her
brothers were able to know their sister and to talk with hospice
professionals about what was happening to her. Rachel Ann's parents and
grandparents also were able to talk about her condition with hospice
professionals and maintained an active role in her care. There was a
support system in place for this family.
The terminal illness of a child is an incredibly difficult thing to
confront for a parent and family. No one wants to think about children
dying. No one wants to believe that children suffer, especially in this
age of great medical advances. It is a horrible situation. But, it is
one that we must face. We can always do more to improve the care that
our children receive. We should continue to support research and
finding cures for the diseases and illnesses from which children
suffer. But, until those cures are found, and as long as children die
from these diseases, we must provide care and support for a dying
child. We have an obligation to provide that care and that support.
The bill we are introducing today will be an important step in this
direction. It will provide tools and support networks to help grieving
families in their time of need. It is the right thing to do, and I
encourage my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important
piece of legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 174

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children's
Compassionate Care Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents

TITLE I--GRANTS TO EXPAND PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE SERVICES AND
RESEARCH

Sec. 101. Education and training
Sec. 102. Grants to expand pediatric palliative care
Sec. 103. Health professions fellowships and residency grants
Sec. 104. Model program grants
Sec. 105. Research

TITLE II--PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Sec. 201. Medicare pediatric palliative care demonstration projects
Sec. 202. Private sector pediatric palliative care demonstration
projects
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations

TITLE I--GRANTS TO EXPAND PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE SERVICES AND
RESEARCH

SEC. 101. EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 770(a) by inserting ``except for section
771,'' after ``carrying out this subpart''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 771. PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE SERVICES EDUCATION AND
TRAINING.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary may award grants to
eligible entities to provide training in pediatric palliative
care and related services.
``(b) Eligible Entity Defined.--
``(1) In general.--In this section the term `eligible
entity' means a health care provider that is affiliated with
an academic institution, that is providing comprehensive
pediatric palliative care services, alone or through an
arrangement with another entity, and that has demonstrated
experience in providing training and consultative services in
pediatric palliative care including--
``(A) children's hospitals or other hospitals or medical
centers with significant capacity in caring for children with
life-threatening conditions;
``(B) pediatric hospices or hospices with significant
pediatric palliative care programs;
``(C) home health agencies with a demonstrated capacity to
serve children with life-threatening conditions and that
provide pediatric palliative care; and
``(D) any other entity that the Secretary determines is
appropriate.
``(2) Life-threatening condition defined.--In this
subsection, the term `life-threatening condition' has the
meaning given such term by the Secretary (in consultation
with hospice programs (as defined in section 1861(dd)(2) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2))) and
academic experts in end-of-life care), except that the
Secretary may not limit such term to individuals who are
terminally ill (as defined in section 1861(dd)(3) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(3))).
``(c) Authorized Activities.--Grant funds awarded under
subsection (a) shall be used to--
``(1) provide short-term training and education programs in
pediatric palliative care for the range of interdisciplinary
health professionals and others providing such care;
``(2) provide consultative services and guidance to health
care providers that are developing and building comprehensive
pediatric palliative care programs;
``(3) develop regional information outreach and other
resources to assist clinicians and families in local and
outlying communities and rural areas;
``(4) develop or evaluate current curricula and educational
materials being used in providing such education and guidance
relating to pediatric palliative care;
``(5) facilitate the development, assessment, and
implementation of clinical practice guidelines and
institutional protocols and procedures for pediatric
palliative, end-of-life, and bereavement care; and
``(6) assure that families of children with life-
threatening conditions are an integral part of these
processes.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

SEC. 102. GRANTS TO EXPAND PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE.

Part Q of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280h et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 399Z-1. GRANTS TO EXPAND PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration, may award grants to eligible entities to
implement or expand pediatric palliative care programs for
children with life-threatening conditions.
``(b) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term
`eligible entity' means--
``(1) children's hospitals or other hospitals with a
capacity and ability to care for children with life-
threatening conditions;
``(2) hospices with a demonstrated capacity and ability to
care for children with life-threatening conditions and their
families; and
``(3) home health agencies with--
``(A) a demonstrated capacity and ability to care for
children with life-threatening conditions; and
``(B) expertise in providing palliative care.
``(c) Authorized Activities.--Grant funds awarded under
subsection (a) shall be used to--
``(1) create new pediatric palliative care programs;
``(2) start or expand needed additional care settings, such
as respite, hospice, inpatient day services, or other care
settings to provide a continuum of care across inpatient,
home, and community-based settings;
``(3) expand comprehensive pediatric palliative care
services, including care coordination services, to greater
numbers of children and broader service areas, including
regional and rural outreach; and
``(4) support communication linkages and care coordination,
telemedicine and teleconferencing, and measures to improve
patient safety.
``(d) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Administrator at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Administrator may require.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

SEC. 103. PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE TRAINING AND RESIDENCY
GRANTS.

Part A of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 404H. PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE TRAINING AND RESIDENCY
GRANTS.

``(a) Establishment.--The Director of the National
Institutes of Health is authorized to award training grants
to eligible entities to expand the number of physicians,
nurses, mental health professionals, and appropriate allied
health professionals and specialists (as determined by the
Secretary) with pediatric palliative clinical training and
research experience.
``(b) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section, the term
`eligible entity' means--
``(1) a pediatric department of a medical school and other
related departments including--
``(A) oncology;
``(B) virology;
``(C) neurology; and
``(D) psychiatry;
``(2) a school of nursing;
``(3) a school of psychology and social work; and
``(4) a children's hospital or other hospital with a
significant number of pediatric patients with life-
threatening conditions.
``(c) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Director may require.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

SEC. 104. MODEL PROGRAM GRANTS.

Part Q of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280h et seq.), as amended by section 102, is further
amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S584]]

``SEC. 399Z-2. MODEL PROGRAM GRANTS.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary may award grants to
eligible entities to enhance pediatric palliative care and
care for children with life-threatening conditions in general
pediatric or family practice residency training programs
through the development of model programs.
``(b) Eligible Entity Defined.--In this section the term
`eligible entity' means a pediatric department of--
``(1) a medical school;
``(2) a children's hospital; or
``(3) any other hospital with a general pediatric or family
practice residency program that serves a significant number
of pediatric patients with life-threatening conditions.
``(c) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Administrator at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Administrator may require.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.''.

SEC. 105. RESEARCH.

(a) Pain and Symptom Management.--The Director of the
National Institutes of Health (in this section referred to as
the ``Director'') shall provide translational research grants
to fund research in pediatric pain and symptom management
that will utilize existing facilities of the National
Institutes of Health including--
(1) pediatric pharmacological research units;
(2) the general clinical research centers; and
(3) other centers providing infrastructure for patient
oriented research.
(b) Eligible Entities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Director may award grants for the conduct of research to--
(1) children's hospitals or other hospitals serving a
significant number of children with life-threatening
conditions;
(2) pediatric departments of medical schools;
(3) institutions currently participating in National
Institutes of Health network of pediatric pharmacological
research units; and
(4) hospices with pediatric palliative care programs and
academic affiliations.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

TITLE II--PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

SEC. 201. MEDICARE PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Care coordination services.--The term ``care
coordination services'' means services that provide for the
coordination of, and assistance with, referral for medical
and other services, including multidisciplinary care
conferences, coordination with other providers involved in
care of the eligible child, patient and family caregiver
education and counseling, and such other services as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate in order to facilitate
the coordination and continuity of care furnished to an
individual.
(2) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration
project'' means a demonstration project established by the
Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
(3) Eligible child.--The term ``eligible child'' means an
individual with a life-threatening condition who is entitled
to benefits under part A of the medicare program and who is
under 18 years of age.
(4) Eligible provider.--The term ``eligible provider''
means--
(A) a pediatric palliative care program that is a public
agency or private organization (or a subdivision thereof)
which--
(i)(I) is primarily engaged in providing the care and
services described in section 1861(dd)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(dd)(1)) and makes such services
available (as needed) on a 24-hour basis and which also
provides counseling (including bereavement counseling) for
the immediate family of eligible children;
(II) provides for such care and services in eligible
children's homes, on an outpatient basis, and on a short-term
inpatient basis, directly or under arrangements made by the
agency or organization, except that--

(aa) the agency or organization must routinely provide
directly substantially all of each of the services described
in subparagraphs (A), (C), and (H) of such section
1861(dd)(1);
(bb) in the case of other services described in such
section 1861(dd)(1) which are not provided directly by the
agency or organization, the agency or organization must
maintain professional management responsibility for all such
services furnished to an eligible child, regardless of the
location or facility in which such services are furnished;
and

(III)(aa) identifies medical, community, and social service
needs;
(bb) simplifies access to service;
(cc) uses the full range of community resources, including
the friends and family of the eligible child; and
(dd) provides educational opportunities relating to health
care; and
(ii) has an interdisciplinary group of personnel which--

(I) includes at least--

(aa) 1 physician (as defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)(1)));
(bb) 1 registered professional nurse; and
(cc) 1 social worker;

employed by or, in the case of a physician described in item
(aa), under contract with the agency or organization, and
also includes at least 1 pastoral or other counselor;

(II) provides (or supervises the provision of) the care and
services described in such section 1861(dd)(1); and
(III) establishes the policies governing the provision of
such care and services;
(iii) maintains central clinical records on all patients;
(iv) does not discontinue the palliative care it provides
with respect to an eligible child because of the inability of
the eligible child to pay for such care;
(v)(I) uses volunteers in its provision of care and
services in accordance with standards set by the Secretary,
which standards shall ensure a continuing level of effort to
use such volunteers; and
(II) maintains records on the use of these volunteers and
the cost savings and expansion of care and services achieved
through the use of these volunteers;
(vi) in the case of an agency or organization in any State
in which State or applicable local law provides for the
licensing of agencies or organizations of this nature, is
licensed pursuant to such law;
(vii) seeks to ensure that children and families receive
complete, timely, understandable information about diagnosis,
prognosis, treatments, and palliative care options;
(viii) ensures that children and families participate in
effective and timely prevention, assessment, and treatment of
physical and psychological symptoms of distress; and
(ix) meets such other requirements as the Secretary may
find necessary in the interest of the health and safety of
the eligible children who are provided with palliative care
by such agency or organization; and
(B) any other individual or entity with an agreement under
section 1866 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc)
that--
(i) has demonstrated experience in providing
interdisciplinary team-based palliative care and care
coordination services (as defined in paragraph (1)) to
pediatric populations; and
(ii) the Secretary determines is appropriate.
(5) Life-threatening condition.--The term ``life-
threatening condition'' has the meaning given such term by
the Secretary (in consultation with hospice programs (as
defined in section 1861(dd)(2) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2))) and academic experts in end-of-life
care), except that the Secretary may not limit such term to
individuals who are terminally ill (as defined in section
1861(dd)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(dd)(3))).
(6) Medicare program.--The term ``medicare program'' means
the health benefits program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(b) Pediatric Palliative Care Demonstration Projects.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish
demonstration projects in accordance with the provisions of
this subsection to provide pediatric palliative care to
eligible children.
(2) Participation.--
(A) Eligible providers.--Any eligible provider may furnish
items or services covered under the pediatric palliative care
benefit.
(B) Eligible children.--The Secretary shall permit any
eligible child residing in the service area of an eligible
provider participating in a demonstration project to
participate in such project on a voluntary basis.
(c) Services Under Demonstration Projects.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the provisions of section 1814(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(i)) shall apply to the payment
for pediatric palliative care provided under the
demonstration projects in the same manner in which such
section applies to the payment for hospice care (as defined
in section 1861(dd)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395x(dd)(1))) provided under the medicare program.
(2) Coverage of pediatric palliative care.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 1862(a)(1)(C) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)(1)(C)), the
Secretary shall provide for reimbursement for items and
services provided under the pediatric palliative care benefit
made available under the demonstration projects in a manner
that is consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (B).
(B) Benefit.--Under the pediatric palliative care benefit,
the following requirements shall apply:
(i) Waiver of requirement to elect hospice care.--Each
eligible child may receive benefits without an election under
section 1812(d)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395d(d)(1)) to receive hospice care (as defined in section
1861(dd)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1))) having been
made with respect to the eligible child.
(ii) Authorization for curative treatment.--Each eligible
child may continue to receive benefits for disease and
symptom modifying treatment under the medicare program.
(iii) Provision of care coordination services.--Each
eligible child shall receive care

[[Page S585]]

coordination services (as defined in subsection (a)(1)) and
hospice care (as so defined) through an eligible provider
participating in a demonstration project, regardless of
whether such individual has been determined to be terminally
ill (as defined in section 1861(dd)(3) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(3))).
(iv) Availability of information on pediatric palliative
care.--Each eligible child and the family of such child shall
receive information and education in order to better
understand the utility of pediatric palliative care.
(v) Availability of bereavement counseling.--Each family of
an eligible child shall receive bereavement counseling, if
appropriate.
(vi) Additional benefits.--Under the demonstration
projects, the Secretary may include any other item or
service--

(I) for which payment may otherwise be made under the
medicare program; and
(II) that is consistent with the recommendations contained
in the report published in 2003 by the Institute of Medicine
of the National Academy of Sciences entitled ``When Children
Die: Improving Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Children
and Their Families''.

(C) Payment.--
(i) Establishment of payment methodology.--The Secretary
shall establish a methodology for determining the amount of
payment for pediatric palliative care furnished under the
demonstration projects that is similar to the methodology for
determining the amount of payment for hospice care (as
defined in section 1861(dd)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1))) under section 1814(i) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395f(i)), except as provided in the following
subclauses:

(I) Amount of payment.--Subject to subclauses (II) and
(III), the amount of payment for pediatric palliative care
shall be equal to the amount that would be paid for hospice
care (as so defined), increased by an appropriate percentage
to account for the additional costs of providing bereavement
counseling and care coordination services (as defined in
subsection (a)(1)).
(II) Waiver of hospice cap.--The limitation under section
1814(i)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(i)(2))
shall not apply with respect to pediatric palliative care and
amounts paid for pediatric palliative care under this
subparagraph shall not be counted against the cap amount
described in such section.
(III) Separate payment for counseling services.--
Notwithstanding section 1814(i)(1)(A) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(i)(1)(A)), the Secretary may pay for
bereavement counseling as a separate service.

(ii) Special rules for payment of medicare+choice
organizations.--The Secretary shall establish procedures
under which the Secretary provides for an appropriate
adjustment in the monthly payments made under section 1853 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23) to any
Medicare+Choice organization that provides health care items
or services to an eligible child who is participating in a
demonstration project.
(3) Coverage of pediatric palliative care consultation
services.--Under the demonstration projects, the Secretary
shall provide for a one-time payment on behalf of each
eligible child who has not yet elected to participate in the
demonstration project for services that are furnished by a
physician who is either the medical director or an employee
of an eligible provider participating in such a project and
that consist of--
(A) an evaluation of the individual's need for pain and
symptom management, including the need for pediatric
palliative care;
(B) counseling the individual and the family of such
individual with respect to the benefits of pediatric
palliative care and care options; and
(C) if appropriate, advising the individual and the family
of such individual regarding advanced care planning.
(d) Conduct of Demonstration Projects.--
(1) Sites.--The Secretary shall conduct demonstration
projects in at least 4, but not more than 8, sites.
(2) Selection of sites.--The Secretary shall select
demonstration sites on the basis of proposals submitted under
paragraph (3) that are located in geographic areas that--
(A) include both urban and rural eligible providers; and
(B) are geographically diverse and readily accessible to a
significant number of eligible children.
(3) Proposals.--The Secretary shall accept proposals to
furnish pediatric palliative care under the demonstration
projects from any eligible provider at such time, in such
manner, and in such form as the Secretary may reasonably
require.
(4) Facilitation of evaluation.--The Secretary shall design
the demonstration projects to facilitate the evaluation
conducted under subsection (e)(1).
(5) Duration.--The Secretary shall complete the
demonstration projects within a period of 5 years that
includes a period of 1 year during which the Secretary shall
complete the evaluation under subsection (e)(1).
(e) Evaluation and Reports to Congress.--
(1) Evaluation.--During the 1-year period following the
first 4 years of the demonstration projects, the Secretary
shall complete an evaluation of the demonstration projects in
order--
(A) to determine the short-term and long-term costs and
benefits of changing--
(i) hospice care (as defined in section 1861(dd)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(1))) provided under
the medicare program to children to include the pediatric
palliative care furnished under the demonstration projects;
and
(ii) the medicare program to permit eligible children to
receive curative and palliative care simultaneously;
(B) to review the implementation of the demonstration
projects compared to recommendations contained in the report
published in 2003 by the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academy of Sciences entitled ``When Children Die:
Improving Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Children and
Their Families'';
(C) to determine the quality and duration of palliative
care for individuals who receive such care under the
demonstration projects who would not be eligible to receive
such care under the medicare program;
(D) whether any increase in payments for pediatric
palliative care is offset by savings in other parts of the
medicare program; and
(E) the projected cost of implementing the demonstration
projects on a national basis.
(2) Reports.--
(A) Interim report.--Not later than the date that is 2
years after the date on which the demonstration projects are
implemented, the Secretary shall submit an interim report to
Congress on the demonstration projects.
(B) Final report.--Not later than the date that is 1 year
after the date on which the demonstration projects end, the
Secretary shall submit a final report to Congress on the
demonstration projects that includes the results of the
evaluation conducted under paragraph (1) together with such
recommendations for legislation or administrative action as
the Secretary determines is appropriate.
(f) Waiver of Medicare Requirements.--The Secretary shall
waive compliance with such requirements of the medicare
program to the extent and for the period the Secretary finds
necessary to conduct the demonstration projects.

SEC. 202. PRIVATE SECTOR PEDIATRIC PALLIATIVE CARE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration
project'' means a demonstration project established by the
Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Eligible child.--The term ``eligible child'' means an
individual with a life-threatening condition who is--
(A) under 18 years of age;
(B) enrolled for health benefits coverage under an eligible
health plan; and
(C) not enrolled under (or entitled to) benefits under a
health plan described in paragraph (3)(C).
(3) Eligible health plan.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the
term ``eligible health plan'' means an individual or group
plan that provides, or pays the cost of, medical care (as
such term is defined in section 2791 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91)).
(B) Types of plans included.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term ``eligible health plan'' includes the following
health plans, and any combination thereof:
(i) A group health plan (as defined in section 2791(a) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(a))), but
only if the plan--

(I) has 50 or more participants (as defined in section 3(7)
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1002(7))); or
(II) is administered by an entity other than the employer
who established and maintains the plan.

(ii) A health insurance issuer (as defined in section
2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-
91(b))).
(iii) A health maintenance organization (as defined in
section 2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300gg-91(b))).
(iv) A long-term care policy, including a nursing home
fixed indemnity policy (unless the Secretary determines that
such a policy does not provide sufficiently comprehensive
coverage of a benefit so that the policy should be treated as
a health plan).
(v) An employee welfare benefit plan or any other
arrangement which is established or maintained for the
purpose of offering or providing health benefits to the
employees of 2 or more employers.
(vi) Health benefits coverage provided under a contract
under the Federal employees health benefits program under
chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
(C) Types of plans excluded.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term ``eligible health plan'' does not include any
of the following health plans:
(i) The medicare program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
(ii) The medicaid program under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
(iii) A medicare supplemental policy (as defined in section
1882(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss et
seq.).
(iv) The health care program for active military personnel
under title 10, United States Code.
(v) The veterans health care program under chapter 17 of
title 38, United States Code.

[[Page S586]]

(vi) The Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), as defined in section 1072(4)
of title 10, United States Code.
(vii) The Indian health service program under the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
(4) Eligible organization.--The term ``eligible
organization'' means an organization that provides health
benefits coverage under an eligible health plan.
(5) Life-threatening condition.--The term ``life-
threatening condition'' has the meaning given such term under
section 201(a)(4).
(6) Pediatric palliative care.--The term ``pediatric
palliative care'' means services of the type to be furnished
under the demonstration projects under section 201, including
care coordination services (as defined in subsection (a)(1)
of such section).
(7) Pediatric palliative care consultation services.--The
term ``pediatric palliative care consultation services''
means services of the type described in section 201(c)(3).
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
(b) Nonmedicare Pediatric Palliative Care Demonstration
Projects.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish
demonstration projects under this section at the same time as
the Secretary establishes the demonstration projects under
section 201 and in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection to demonstrate the provision of pediatric
palliative care and pediatric palliative care consultation
services to eligible children who are not entitled to (or
enrolled for) coverage under the health plans described in
subsection (a)(3)(C).
(2) Participation.--
(A) Eligible organizations.--The Secretary shall permit any
eligible organization to participate in a demonstration
project on a voluntary basis.
(B) Eligible children.--Any eligible organization
participating in a demonstration project shall permit any
eligible child enrolled in an eligible health plan offered by
the organization to participate in such project on a
voluntary basis.
(c) Services Under Demonstration Projects.--
(1) Provision of pediatric palliative care and consultation
services.--Under a demonstration project, each eligible
organization electing to participate in the demonstration
project shall provide pediatric palliative care and pediatric
palliative care consultation services to each eligible child
who is enrolled with the organization and who elects to
participate in the demonstration project.
(2) Availability of administrative grants.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary
shall award grants to eligible organizations electing to
participate in a demonstration project for the administrative
costs incurred by the eligible organization in participating
in the demonstration project, including the costs of
collecting and submitting the data required to be submitted
under subsection (d)(4)(B).
(B) No payment for services.--The Secretary may not pay
eligible organizations for pediatric palliative care or
pediatric palliative care consultation services furnished
under the demonstration projects.
(d) Conduct of Demonstration Projects.--
(1) Sites.--The Secretary shall conduct demonstration
projects in at least 4, but not more than 8, sites.
(2) Selection of sites.--The Secretary shall select
demonstration sites on the basis of proposals submitted under
paragraph (3) that are located in geographic areas that--
(A) include both urban and rural eligible organizations;
and
(B) are geographically diverse and readily accessible to a
significant number of eligible children.
(3) Proposals.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall accept proposals to
furnish pediatric palliative care and pediatric palliative
care consultation services under the demonstration projects
from any eligible organization at such time, in such manner,
and in such form as the Secretary may require.
(B) Application for administrative grants.--If the eligible
organization desires to receive an administrative grant under
subsection (c)(2), the proposal submitted under subparagraph
(A) shall include a request for the grant, specify the amount
requested, and identify the purposes for which the
organization will use any funds made available under the
grant.
(4) Collection and submission of data.--
(A) Collection.--Each eligible organization participating
in a demonstration project shall collect such data as the
Secretary may require to facilitate the evaluation to be
completed under subsection (e)(1).
(B) Submission.--Each eligible organization shall submit
the data collected under subparagraph (A) to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and in such form as the Secretary
may require.
(5) Duration.--The Secretary shall complete the
demonstration projects within a period of 5 years that
includes a period of 1 year during which the Secretary shall
complete the evaluation under subsection (e)(1).
(e) Evaluation and Reports to Congress and Eligible
Organizations.--
(1) Evaluation.--During the 1-year period following the
first 4 years of the demonstration projects, the Secretary
shall complete an evaluation of the demonstration projects.
(2) Reports.--
(A) Interim report.--Not later than the date that is 2
years after the date on which the demonstration projects are
implemented, the Secretary shall submit an interim report to
Congress and each eligible organization participating in a
demonstration project on the demonstration projects.
(B) Final report.--Not later than the date that is 1 year
after the date on which the demonstration projects end, the
Secretary shall submit a final report to Congress and each
eligible organization participating in a demonstration
project on the demonstration projects that includes the
results of the evaluation conducted under paragraph (1)
together with such recommendations for legislation or
administrative action as the Secretary determines is
appropriate.

SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated--
(1) $2,500,000, to carry out the demonstration projects
under section 201; and
(2) $2,500,000, to carry out the demonstration projects
under section 202, including for awarding grants under
subsection (c)(2) of such section.
(b) Availability.--Sums appropriated under subsection (a)
shall remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until
expended.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, along with my
good friend Senator Mike DeWine, to introduce the Compassionate Care
for Children Act of 2005. This important legislation is designed to
greatly improve the quality of care provided to terminally ill children
and their loved ones, as well as the training of those that provide for
their medical care.
The subject of childhood illness is a difficult one. However, for
children facing a serious illness and their families, it is a subject
that must be examined. Tragically, we know that close to 55,000
children under the age of 19 die each year. Some are lost to accidents.
Many are lost suddenly to complications related to prematurity.
However, many other children are diagnosed with life-threatening
conditions and begin a battle that, tragically, many will eventually
lose.
For these children and their families, palliative care is often the
only way to ease their great burden. Very broadly, palliative care
seeks to prevent or relieve the physical and emotional distress
produced by a life-threatening condition or its treatment, to help
diagnosed children and their families live as normal a life as
possible, and to provide accurate and timely information to ease
decisionmaking. And while many view palliative care as necessary for
only the terminally ill, any child with a serious illness and their
family would benefit greatly from its broad scope of services.
Sadly, determining how best to care for a child facing a life-
threatening or terminal illness requires an expertise that too few
healthcare professionals possess. Too often, healthcare professionals
serving a child with a life-threatening condition are at a loss as to
how best ease the child's pain, comfort the child's family and loved
ones, and coordinate the range of services required.
The legislation we introduce today would seek to close this knowledge
gap by authorizing $35 million annually to provide for research and
training related to childhood palliative care. Specifically, the
legislation will authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to award grants to health care providers and health care institutions
to expand pediatric palliative care programs, to research new
initiatives in pediatric palliative care--such as issues related
specifically to pain management for children--and to provide training
to healthcare providers serving children requiring pediatric palliative
care services.
According to Children's Hospice International, close to one million
children are seriously ill with a variety of progressive afflictions at
any one time. Parents of these children face a multitude of heart-
wrenching decisions related to the appropriate course of treatment for
their children. Among the choices available to some parents is one that
I believe no parent should ever be forced to make. Under current law,
seriously ill children are not eligible to receive simultaneous
curative and palliative care.
Imagine forcing a parent to choose between seeking a cure for their
seriously ill child or services designed to ease their child's burden.
Again, no parent should ever be required to make

[[Page S587]]

this choice and under the legislation we introduce today, parents will
no longer be forced to decide whether to forgo curative treatment
options for their children in order to receive palliative care. In
eliminating this unnecessary and cruel requirement, the Compassionate
Care for Children Act establishes a demonstration program under
Medicare that will encourage the development of more coordinated model
systems of curative and palliative care.
This legislation would also ensure that seriously ill children
treated under the demonstration program would not be subject to the so-
called 6-month rule, a regulation currently in place that requires a
physician's determination that an ill child has a life expectancy of 6
months or less in order to receive hospice services. As we all know,
children are not simply little adults. Children's bodies react
differently than adults to the onset of disease and various treatment
options, making this determination possibly dangerously inaccurate.
Lastly, I thank the legislation's chief sponsors in the House of
Representatives, Deborah Pryce and John Murtha. Representatives Pryce
and Murtha have been tireless advocates on behalf of seriously ill
children and their devotion to easing the struggle of these children
and their families is truly admirable. I look forward to continuing
working with my colleagues from the House to advance the Compassionate
Care for Children Act in the 109th Congress.
Mr. President, when Senator DeWine and I first introduced this
legislation in the last Congress, we were joined by members of the
National Childhood Cancer Foundation. Each year this valuable
organization sponsors ``Conquer Kids Cancer Gold Ribbon Days,'' an
event that brings cancer patients, families, care givers and
researchers from across the Nation to the District to lobby the
Congress for increased resources to battle childhood cancers. At this
event we heard from dozens of children and families from across this
Nation that have battled serious illness. It is because of struggles
like theirs that we are here today at the outset of an effort to better
serve seriously ill children and those who love and care for them.
I know that I can say with confidence that we all wish for the day
when no child fell ill to serious disease. Until that day comes, the
Compassionate Care for Children Act offers children battling illness
and their families the hope of eased pain, expertise in treatment, and
informed decisions. They deserve no less. I urge all of my colleagues
to support this important legislation.
______

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
S. 175. A bill to establish the Bleeding Kansas and Enduring Struggle
for Freedom National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague
from the great State of Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, and introduce the
Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act. I appreciate the Senator's
hard work and passion on this bill. Likewise, I commend Representative
Jim Ryan who authored this bill in the House of Representatives who,
like Senator Roberts and I, worked tirelessly to pass this bill last
Congress. And finally, I would like to thank Senator Domenici, Chairman
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senator Thomas,
Subcommittee Chair, National Parks, for working with me in the 108th
Congress. Through their hard work and the work of their staff, the
Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act passed the Senate. It is my
hope that we will once again be able to see this bill pass the Senate
but also pass the House of Representatives in the 109th Session.
The great story of Kansas can be summed up in the, State motto, ``Ad
Astra per Aspera,'' to the stars through difficulties. Though only a
short phrase comprised of four words, the meaning and passion behind
the Kansas State motto are as profound as they are descriptive of a
State that though smaller than some, was a catalyst for racial equality
in this Nation.
From inception, Kansas was born in controversy--a controversy that
helped to shape a nation and end the egregious practice of chattel
slavery that brutalized an entire race of individuals in this country.
I cannot think of a more noble or more important contribution provided
to our Nation--though arguably it was one of the most turbulent and
darkest hours of our history. Without this struggle however, the battle
to end persecution and transform our country into a symbol of freedom
and democracy throughout the world would not have been realized.
Last year, 2004, marked the sesquicentennial of the signing of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill which repealed the Missouri compromise, allowed
States to enter into the Union with or without slavery. This piece of
legislation, which was passed in May 1854, set the stage for what is
now referred to as, ``Bleeding Kansas.'' During this time, our State,
then a territory, was thrown into chaos with Kansans fighting
passionately to ensure that the territory would inter the Union as a
free State and not condone or legalize slavery in any capacity. At the
end of a very difficult and bloody struggle, Kansas entered the Union
as a free State and helped to spark the issue of slavery on a national
level. However, Kansas' contributions to the realization of freedom in
this Nation did not stop with the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Keeping true to our motto, to the stars through difficulties, Kansas
opened up her arms to a newly freed people after the Civil War ended.
Many African Americans looked to Kansas for solace and prosperity when
the South was still an uncertain place. Perhaps one of the best
examples of Ad Astra per Aspera was the founding of a town in Kansas by
African Americans coming to our State to begin their life of freedom
and prosperity.
Founded in 1877, Nicodemus, which was named after a legendary slave
who purchased his freedom, is the most recognized historically black
town in Kansas. Nicodemus was established by a group of colonists from
Lexington, KY, and grew to a population of 600 by 1879. However,
Nicodemus is not the only Kansas contribution that shaped a more
tolerant Nation. Kansas was also one of the first States to house an
African American military regiment in the 1800s, the Buffalo Soldiers.
The Buffalo Soldiers were, and still are, considered one of the most
distinguished and revered African American military regiments in our
Nation's history. One of those regiments, the 10th Cavalry, was
stationed at Fort Leavenworth, KS. In July 1866, Congress passed
legislation establishing two cavalry and four infantry regiments that
were to be solely comprised of African Americans. The mounted regiments
were the 9th and 10th Cavalries, soon nicknamed ``Buffalo Soldiers'' by
the Cheyenne and Comanche tribes. Lt. Henry O. Flipper, the first
African American to graduate from the United States Military Academy in
1877 and commanded the 10th Cavalry unit where he proved that African
Americans possessed the quality of military leadership. Until the early
1890s, the Buffalo Soldiers constituted 20 percent of all cavalry
forces on the American frontier. Their invaluable service on the
western frontier still remains one of the most exemplary services
performed by a regiment in the U.S. Army.
These are just a few examples of why I am pleased to join with my
colleague from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, today and introduce the
Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act, which will not only serve
to educate Kansans but the Nation on the important contributions--and
in many cases the sacrifices--made in order to establish this proud
state. The creation of this heritage area will ensure that this legacy
is not only commemorated but celebrated on a national level.
Specifically, the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act will
designate 24 counties in Kansas as the ``Bleeding Kansas and the
Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area.'' Each of these
counties will be eligible to apply for the heritage area grants
administered by the National Park Service.
The heritage area will add to local economies within the State by
increasing tourism and will encourage collaboration between interests
of diverse units of government, businesses, tourism officials, private
property owners, and nonprofit groups within the heritage area.
Finally, the bill protects private property owners by requiring that

[[Page S588]]

they provide in writing consent to be included in any request before
they are eligible to receive, Federal funds from the heritage area. The
bill also authorizes $10,000,000 over a 10-year period to carry out
this act and states that not more than $1,000,000 may be appropriated
to the heritage area for any fiscal year.
Kansas has much to be proud of in their history and it is vital that
this history be shared on a national level. By establishing the
Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage
Area, we will ensure that this magnificent legacy lives on and serves
as a stirring reminder of the sacrifices and triumphs that created this
Nation--a Nation united in freedom for all people.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again introduce,
along with my distinguished colleague Senator Brownback, a bill
designating the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom
National Heritage Area. This project, which we hope will receive the
congressional recognition it deserves, has joined communities
throughout eastern Kansas in an effort to document, preserve, and
celebrate Kansas' significant role in the political struggle that led
to the Civil War and in other historic struggles for equality that took
place in our State.
National Heritage Areas are places where natural, cultural, historic,
and recreational resources combine to form complete and distinct
landscape. The State of Kansas, which has a proud heritage and
compelling story, will benefit from this national designation that
helps preserve and celebrate America's defining landscapes. By
enhancing and developing historic sites throughout eastern Kansas, we
will ensure that the traditions that evolved there are preserved.
During the Civil War, William Quantrill, the head of an infamous gang
of Confederate sympathizers, led a raid on Lawrence, KS. Though far
from the main campaigns, this massacre caused Bleeding Kansas to become
a prominent symbol in the fight for the freedom of all people, and the
territory would become a battleground over the question of slavery.
After these attacks, the abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner delivered
his famous speech called ``The Crime Against Kansas,'' in which he
brought the escalating situation into sharper focus for the nation.
Almost 100 years later, Kansas became the battleground once again, as
Oliver L. Brown fought to prove that separate among the people of this
great Nation is not equal. In fact, we will soon celebrate the 50th
anniversary of the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court
decision, which was a landmark victory in the civil rights movement.
These are only two of the historic chapters that will make up this
heritage area, marking an important era in our Nation.
I commend the Lawrence City Commission, the Douglas County
Commission, and the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, who have worked
diligently on this project for over 2 years. We have a great
opportunity to pass this important piece of legislation during the
109th Congress, and I encourage the Senate's swift consideration.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Baucus, and Mr. Ensign):
S. 177. A bill to further the purposes of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 by directing the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to carry
out an assessment and demonstration program to control salt cedar and
Russian olive, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a piece of
legislation that is of paramount importance to the State of New Mexico
and many other western States. This bill will address the mounting
pressures brought on by the growing demands of a diminishing water
supply throughout the west.
The bill that I am introducing today authorizes the Department of the
Interior acting through the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a series
of research and demonstration programs to help eradicate non-native
species on rivers in the Western United States. This bill will help
develop the scientific knowledge and experience base needed to build a
strategy to control these invasive thieves. In addition to projects
that could benefit the Pecos and the Rio Grande, the bill allows other
States in the west such as Texas, Colorado, Utah, California and
Arizona to develop and participate in projects as well.
Allow me to explain the importance of this bill. A water crisis has
ravaged the west for more than five years. Drought conditions have
expanded throughout the Western United States. Snow packs have been
continuously low, causing severe drought conditions.
The presence of invasive species compounds the drought situation in
many states. For instance, New Mexico is home to a vast amount of salt
cedar. Salt cedar is a water-thirsty non-native tree that continually
strips massive amounts of water out of New Mexico's two predominant
water supplies--the Pecos and the Rio Grande rivers.
We have already had numerous catastrophic fires in our Nation's
forests including the riparian woodland--the Bosque--that runs through
the heart of New Mexico's most populous city. One of the reasons this
fire ran its course through Albuquerque was the presence of large
amounts of Salt cedar, a plant that burns as easily as it consumes
water.
Estimates show that one mature Salt cedar tree can consume as much as
200 gallons of water per day; over the growing season that's 7 acre
feet of water for each acre of Salt cedar. In addition to the excessive
water consumption, Salt cedars increase fire, increase river
channelization and flood frequency, decrease water flow, and increase
water and soil salinity along the river. Every problem that drought
causes is exacerbated by the presence of Salt cedar.

I know that the seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico
becomes more acute every single day. This drought has affected every
New Mexican and nearly everyone in the west in some way. Wells are
running dry, farmers are being forced to sell livestock, many of our
cities are in various stages of conservation and many, many acres have
been charred by fire.
The drought and the mounting legal requirements on both the Pecos and
Rio Grande rivers are forcing us toward a severe water crisis in New
Mexico. Indeed, every river in the inter-mountain west seems to be
facing similar problems. Therefore, we must bring to bear every tool at
our disposal for dealing with the water shortages in the west.
Solving such water problems is one of my top priorities and I assure
this Congress that this bill will receive prompt attention by the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Controlling water thirsty
invasive species is one significant and substantial step in the right
direction for the dry lands of the west.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 177

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 ``Salt Cedar and Russian Olive
Control Demonstration Act''.

SEC. 2. SALT CEDAR AND RUSSIAN OLIVE CONTROL DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred
to in this Act as the ``Secretary''), acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation and in cooperation with the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Defense, shall
carry out a salt cedar (Tamarix spp) and Russian olive
(Elaeagnus angustifolia) assessment and demonstration
program--
(1) to assess the extent of the infestation by salt cedar
and Russian olive trees in the western United States;
(2) to demonstrate strategic solutions for--
(A) the long-term management of salt cedar and Russian
olive trees; and
(B) the reestablishment of native vegetation; and
(3) to assess economic means to dispose of biomass created
as a result of removal of salt cedar and Russian olive trees.
(b) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the
Secretary shall complete an assessment of the extent of salt
cedar and Russian olive infestation on public and private
land in the western United States.

[[Page S589]]

(2) Requirements.--In addition to describing the acreage of
and severity of infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive
trees in the western United States, the assessment shall--
(A) consider existing research on methods to control salt
cedar and Russian olive trees;
(B) consider the feasibility of reducing water consumption
by salt cedar and Russian olive trees;
(C) consider methods of and challenges associated with the
revegetation or restoration of infested land; and
(D) estimate the costs of destruction of salt cedar and
Russian olive trees, related biomass removal, and
revegetation or restoration and maintenance of the infested
land.
(c) Long-Term Management Strategies.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall identify and document
long-term management and funding strategies that--
(A) could be implemented by Federal, State, and private
land managers in addressing infestation by salt cedar and
Russian olive trees; and
(B) should be tested as components of demonstration
projects under subsection (d).
(2) Grants.--The Secretary shall provide grants to
institutions of higher education to develop public policy
expertise in, and assist in developing a long-term strategy
to address, infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive
trees.
(d) Demonstration Projects.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the
Secretary shall establish a program that selects and funds
not less than 5 projects proposed by and implemented in
collaboration with Federal agencies, units of State and local
government, national laboratories, Indian tribes,
institutions of higher education, individuals, organizations,
or soil and water conservation districts to demonstrate and
evaluate the most effective methods of controlling salt cedar
and Russian olive trees.
(2) Project requirements.--The demonstration projects under
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) be carried out over a time period and to a scale
designed to fully assess long-term management strategies;
(B) implement salt cedar or Russian olive tree control
using 1 or more methods for each project in order to assess
the full range of control methods, including--
(i) airborne application of herbicides;
(ii) mechanical removal; and
(iii) biocontrol methods, such as the use of goats or
insects;
(C) individually or in conjunction with other demonstration
projects, assess the effects of and obstacles to combining
multiple control methods and determine optimal combinations
of control methods;
(D) assess soil conditions resulting from salt cedar and
Russian olive tree infestation and means to revitalize soils;
(E) define and implement appropriate final vegetative
states and optimal revegetation methods, with preference for
self-maintaining vegetative states and native vegetation, and
taking into consideration downstream impacts, wildfire
potential, and water savings;
(F) identify methods for preventing the regrowth and
reintroduction of salt cedar and Russian olive trees;
(G) monitor and document any water savings from the control
of salt cedar and Russian olive trees, including impacts to
both groundwater and surface water;
(H) assess wildfire activity and management strategies;
(I) assess changes in wildlife habitat;
(J) determine conditions under which removal of biomass is
appropriate (including optimal methods for the disposal or
use of biomass); and
(K) assess economic and other impacts associated with
control methods and the restoration and maintenance of land.
(e) Disposition of Biomass.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which funds are made available to carry out this Act, the
Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture,
shall complete an analysis of economic means to use or
dispose of biomass created as a result of removal of salt
cedar and Russian olive trees.
(2) Requirements.--The analysis shall--
(A) determine conditions under which removal of biomass is
economically viable;
(B) consider and build upon existing research by the
Department of Agriculture and other agencies on beneficial
uses of salt cedar and Russian olive tree fiber; and
(C) consider economic development opportunities, including
manufacture of wood products using biomass resulting from
demonstration projects under subsection (d) as a means of
defraying costs of control.
(f) Costs.--
(1) In general.--With respect to projects and activities
carried out under this Act--
(A) the assessment under subsection (b) shall be carried
out at a cost of not more than $4,000,000;
(B) the identification and documentation of long-term
management strategies under subsection (c) shall be carried
out at a cost of not more than $2,000,000;
(C) each demonstration project under subsection (d) shall
be carried out at a Federal cost of not more than $7,000,000
(including costs of planning, design, implementation,
maintenance, and monitoring); and
(D) the analysis under subsection (e) shall be carried out
at a cost of not more than $3,000,000.
(2) Cost-sharing.--
(A) In general.--The assessment under subsection (b), the
identification and documentation of long-term management
strategies under subsection (c), a demonstration project or
portion of a demonstration project under subsection (d) that
is carried out on Federal land, and the analysis under
subsection (e) shall be carried out at full Federal expense.
(B) Demonstration projects carried out on non-federal
land.--
(i) In general.--The Federal share of the costs of any
demonstration project funded under subsection (d) that is not
carried out on Federal land shall not exceed--

(I) 75 percent for each of the first 5 years of the
demonstration project; and
(II) for the purpose of long-term monitoring, 100 percent
for each of such 5-year extensions as the Secretary may
grant.

(ii) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of
the costs of a demonstration project that is not carried out
on Federal land may be provided in the form of in-kind
contributions, including services provided by a State agency
or any other public or private partner.
(g) Cooperation.--In carrying out the assessment under
subsection (b), the demonstration projects under subsection
(d), and the analysis under subsection (e), the Secretary
shall cooperate with and use the expertise of Federal
agencies and the other entities specified in subsection
(d)(1) that are actively conducting research on or
implementing salt cedar and Russian olive tree control
activities.
(h) Independent Review.--The Secretary shall subject to
independent review--
(1) the assessment under subsection (b);
(2) the identification and documentation of long-term
management strategies under subsection (c);
(3) the demonstration projects under subsection (d); and
(4) the analysis under subsection (e).
(i) Reporting.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress an
annual report that describes the results of carrying out this
Act, including a synopsis of any independent review under
subsection (h) and details of the manner and purposes for
which funds are expended.
(2) Public access.--The Secretary shall facilitate public
access to all information that results from carrying out this
Act.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act--
(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(2) $15,000,000 for each subsequent fiscal year.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 178. A bill to provide assistance to the State of New Mexico for
the development of comprehensive State water plans, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, water is the life's blood for New
Mexico. When the water dries up in New Mexico, so will many of its
communities. As such, the scarcity of water in New Mexico is a dire
situation. Unfortunately, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer,
NM OSE, lacks the tools necessary to undertake the Herculean task of
effectively managing New Mexico's water resources.
Today, I introduce legislation that would allow New Mexico to make
informed decisions about its limited water resources.
In order to effectively perform water rights administration, as well
as comply with New Mexico's compact deliveries, the State Engineer is
statutorily required to perform assessments and investigations of the
numerous stream systems and ground water basins located within New
Mexico. However, the NM OSE is ill equipped to vigorously and
comprehensively undertake the daunting but critically important task of
water resource planning. At present, the NM OSE lacks adequate
resources to perform necessary hydrographic surveys and data
collection. As such, ensuring a future water supply for my home State
requires that Congress provide the NM OSE with the resources necessary
to fulfill its statutory mandate.
The bill I introduce today would create a standing authority for the
State of New Mexico to seek and receive technical assistance from the
Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Geological Survey. It would
also provide the NM OSE the sum of $12.5 million in Federal assistance
to perform hydrologic models of New Mexico's most important water
systems. This bill would provide the NM OSE with the best resources
available when making crucial decisions about how best to preserve our
limited water stores.

[[Page S590]]

Ever decreasing water supplies in New Mexico have reached critical
levels and require immediate action. The Congress cannot sit idly by as
water shortages cause death to New Mexico's communities. I hope the
Senate will give this legislation its every consideration.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 178

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 ``New Mexico Water Planning
Assistance Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and
the United States Geological Survey.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of New
Mexico.

SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Upon the request of the Governor of the
State and subject to subsections (b) through (f), the
Secretary shall--
(1) provide to the State technical assistance and grants
for the development of comprehensive State water plans;
(2) conduct water resources mapping in the State; and
(3) conduct a comprehensive study of groundwater resources
(including potable, brackish, and saline water resources) in
the State to assess the quantity, quality, and interaction of
groundwater and surface water resources.
(b) Technical Assistance.--Technical assistance provided
under subsection (a) may include--
(1) acquisition of hydrologic data, groundwater
characterization, database development, and data
distribution;
(2) expansion of climate, surface water, and groundwater
monitoring networks;
(3) assessment of existing water resources, surface water
storage, and groundwater storage potential;
(4) numerical analysis and modeling necessary to provide an
integrated understanding of water resources and water
management options;
(5) participation in State planning forums and planning
groups;
(6) coordination of Federal water management planning
efforts;
(7) technical review of data, models, planning scenarios,
and water plans developed by the State; and
(8) provision of scientific and technical specialists to
support State and local activities.
(c) Allocation.--In providing grants under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall, subject to the availability of
appropriations, allocate--
(1) $5,000,000 to develop hydrologic models and acquire
associated equipment for the New Mexico Rio Grande main stem
sections and Rios Pueblo de Taos and Hondo, Rios Nambe,
Pojoaque and Teseque, Rio Chama, and Lower Rio Grande
tributaries;
(2) $1,500,000 to complete the hydrographic survey
development of hydrologic models and acquire associated
equipment for the San Juan River and tributaries;
(3) $1,000,000 to complete the hydrographic survey
development of hydrologic models and acquire associated
equipment for Southwest New Mexico, including the Animas
Basin, the Gila River, and tributaries;
(4) $4,500,000 for statewide digital orthophotography
mapping; and
(5) such sums as are necessary to carry out additional
projects consistent with subsection (b).
(d) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the total cost of
any activity carried out using a grant provided under
subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
(2) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share under
paragraph (1) may be in the form of any in-kind services that
the Secretary determines would contribute substantially
toward the conduct and completion of the activity assisted.
(e) Non-Reimbursable Basis.--Any assistance or grants
provided to the State under this Act shall be made on a non-
reimbursable basis.
(f) Authorized Transfers.--On request of the State, the
Secretary shall directly transfer to 1 or more Federal
agencies any amounts made available to the State to carry out
this Act.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 179. A bill to provide for the exchange of land within the Sierra
National Forest, California, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2005, the companion to
legislation authored by Representative Radanovich.
This legislation would assist the Boy Scout Sequoia Council in taking
ownership of part of the land on which Camp Chawanakee sits. By
authorizing the transfer of ownership of part of the camp land to the
Boy Scouts, we will help make Chawanakee a permanent member of the
Fresno Community, and an asset that youth for generations to come can
enjoy and benefit from.
Specifically, the bill would authorize a land exchange between the
Federal Government and a private landowner as follows:
The landowner would receive 160 acres, 145 of which are submerged, on
Shaver Lake. In exchange, the Forest Service would receive $50,000 and
an 80 acre inholding that the landowner owns in the Sierra National
Forest.
The Forest Service transfer to the landowner is conditional upon his
conveyance of the parcel to the Boy Scouts within 4 months to benefit
Camp Chawanakee.
Over the years, well over 250,000 youths and leaders from California,
Nevada and Arizona have attended the Boy Scouts' Camp Chawanakee.
Recently, summer camp attendance has exceeded 3,000 Scouts. While other
camps in California have closed in recent years, Camp Chawanakee has
grown to become one of the premier Scouting camps in the Nation.
I applaud Congressman George Radanovich's commitment to this issue
and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 179

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 ``Sierra National Forest Land
Exchange Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the
parcels of land and improvements thereon comprising
approximately 160 acres and located in township 9 south,
range 25 east, section 30, E\1/2\SW\1/4\ and W\1/2\ SE\1/4\,
Mt. Diablo Meridian, California.
(2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
a parcel of land comprising approximately 80 acres and
located in township 8 south, range 26 east, section 29, N\1/
2\NW\1/4\, Mt. Diablo Meridian, California.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.

SEC. 3. LAND EXCHANGE, SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Exchange Authorized.--
(1) In general.--If, during the one-year period beginning
on the date of enactment of this Act, the owner of the non-
Federal land offers the United States the exchange of the
non-Federal land and a cash equalization payment of $50,000,
the Secretary shall convey, by quit claim deed, all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the
Federal land. The conveyance of the Federal land shall be
subject to valid existing rights and under such terms and
conditions as the Secretary may prescribe.
(2) Acceptable title.--Title to the non-Federal land shall
conform with the title approval standards of the Attorney
General applicable to Federal land acquisitions and shall be
acceptable to the Secretary.
(3) Correction and modification of legal descriptions.--The
Secretary, in consultation with the owner of the non-Federal
land, may make corrections to the legal descriptions of the
Federal land and non-Federal land. The Secretary and the
owner of the non-Federal land may make minor modifications to
such descriptions insofar as such modifications do not affect
the overall value of the exchange by more than five percent.
(b) Valuation of Land to Be Conveyed.--For purposes of this
section, during the period referred to in subsection (a)(1),
the value of the non-Federal land shall be deemed to be
$200,000 and the value of the Federal land shall be deemed to
be $250,000.
(c) Administration of Land Acquired by United States.--Once
acquired, the Secretary shall manage the non-Federal land in
accordance with the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as
the Weeks Act; 16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.), and in accordance with
the other laws and regulations pertaining to National Forest
System lands.
(d) Conditions on Conveyance of Federal Land.--The
conveyance by the Secretary under subsection (a) shall be
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the recipient of the Federal land convey all 160
acres of the Federal land to the Sequoia Council of the Boy
Scouts of America not later than four months after the date
on which the recipient receives the Federal land from the
Secretary under subsection (a).
(2) That, as described in section 5, the owner of the
easement granted in section 4

[[Page S591]]

have the right of first offer regarding any reconveyance of
the Federal land by the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of
America.
(e) Disposition and Use of Cash Equalization Funds.--The
Secretary shall deposit the cash equalization payment
received under subsection (a) in the fund established by
Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C.
484a). The cash equalization payment shall be available to
the Secretary until expended, without further appropriation,
for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands for the
National Forest System in the State of California.
(f) Cost Collection Funds.--The owner of the non-Federal
land shall be responsible for all direct costs associated
with processing the land exchange under this section and
shall pay the Secretary the necessary funds, which shall be
deposited in a cost collection account. Funds so deposited
shall be available to the Secretary until expended, without
further appropriation, for the cost associated with the land
exchange. Any funds remaining after completion of the land
exchange, which are not needed to cover expenses, shall be
refunded to the owner of the non-Federal land.

SEC. 4. GRANT OF EASEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT NO. 67.

(a) Purpose.--A hydroelectric project, licensed pursuant to
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) as Project No.
67, is located on a majority of the Federal land authorized
for exchange under section 3. To protect the ability of the
owner of Project No. 67 to continue to operate and maintain
that hydroelectric project under the current and all future
licenses or authorizations issued pursuant to the Federal
Power Act or any other applicable law, this section is
necessary.
(b) Easement Required.--Before conveying the Federal land
under section 3, the Secretary shall grant an easement,
without consideration, to the owner of Project No. 67 for the
right to enter, occupy, and use for hydroelectric power
purposes the Federal land currently within the licensed
boundary for Project No. 67. The Project No. 67 owner shall
hold harmless the Secretary for any claims against the owner
due to the grant of easement.
(c) Required Terms and Conditions.--The easement granted
under this section shall provide the following: ``The United
States of America, hereinafter called `Grantor,' pursuant to
a congressional authorization, hereby grants, transfers, and
conveys unto the [insert name of Project No. 67 owner], its
successors and assigns, hereinafter called `Grantee,' all
those certain exclusive easements and rights in, on, under,
over, along, and across certain real property described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto [attach description of real
property subject to the easement] and incorporated herein
(the `Property'), for any purpose or activity that Grantee
deems convenient or necessary to the creation, generation,
transmission, or distribution of hydropower on and off the
Property, including, but not limited to, the right to
inundate the Property with water, reservoir management, and
compliance with legal obligations in accordance with the
applicable Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license and
those non-exclusive easements and rights to use, occupy, and
enter the Property, and to allow others to use, occupy, and
enter the Property, for other purposes related to hydropower
and reservoir management and use, such as recreation by
Grantee or the public, and regulation of any activities on
the Property that may impact such purposes, at any time and
from time to time. Grantor further grants, transfers, and
conveys unto the Grantee the right of assignment, in whole or
in part, to others, without limitation. Grantee shall have
the right to take such actions on the Property as may be
necessary to comply with all applicable laws, rules,
regulations, ordinances, orders and other governmental,
regulatory, and administrative authorities and requirements,
or that may be necessary for the economical entry, occupancy,
and use of the Property for hydropower purposes. Grantor, its
successors and assigns, shall not deposit or permit or allow
to be deposited, earth, rubbish, debris or any other
substance or material on the Property, or so near thereto as
to constitute, in the opinion of Grantee, an interference or
obstruction to the hydropower and reservoir purposes. No
other easements, leases, or licenses shall be granted on,
under or over the Property by Grantor to any person, firm or
corporation without the previous written consent of Grantee,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The terms,
covenants and conditions of this Grant of Easement shall bind
and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of
Grantor and the successors and assigns of Grantee.''.

SEC. 5. RIGHT OF FIRST OFFER FOR SUBSEQUENT CONVEYANCE OF
FEDERAL LAND.

(a) Right of First Offer.--As a condition on the conveyance
of the Federal land under section 3 and its reconveyance to
the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America, as required
by section 3(d)(1), the Secretary shall require that the
Council agree to provide the owner of the easement granted
under section 4 the right of first offer to obtain the
Federal land, or any portion thereof, that the Council ever
proposes to sell, transfer, or otherwise convey.
(b) Notice and Offer.--If the Council proposes to sell,
transfer, or otherwise convey the Federal land or a portion
thereof, the Council shall give the easement owner written
notice specifying the terms and conditions on which the
conveyance is proposed and offering to convey to the easement
owner, on the same terms and conditions, the Federal land or
the portion thereof proposed for conveyance.
(c) Acceptance or Rejection of Offer.--Within 90 days after
the easement owner receives the notice required by subsection
(b) and all available documents necessary to perform
reasonable due diligence on the proposed conveyance, the
easement owner shall either accept or reject the offer. If
the easement owner accepts the offer, the closing of the sale
shall be governed by the terms of the offer in the notice.
(d) Effect of Rejection.--If the hydropower easement owner
rejects an offer under subsection (b) or fails to respond to
the offer before the expiration of the 90-day period provided
in subsection (c), the Council may convey the property
covered by the notice to any other person on the same terms
and conditions specified in the notice. If those terms and
conditions are subsequently altered in any way, then the
notice and offer shall again be made to the easement owner
under subsection (b). The rejection by the easement owner of
one or more of such offers shall not affect its right of
first offer as to any other proposed conveyance by the
Council.
______

By Mr. ENSIGN:
S. 181. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit against income tax for taxpayers owning certain commercial power
takeoff vehicles; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to
correct an inequity with the United States Tax Code that affects
thousands of taxpayers every year. The bill I am offering is the Fuel
Tax Equalization Credit for Substantial Power Takeoff Vehicles Act
which will correct an injustice for owners of ready mixed concrete and
sanitation trucks.
Our Tax Code imposes a Federal tax on fuel sold for use in highway
vehicles. This makes sense because vehicles that use our roads cause
wear and tear. The money raised from the fuel tax goes directly into
the Highway Trust Fund and is used for road repair and maintenance. The
Code provides fuel tax exemption for ``off highway'' use so that fuel
used by non-highway vehicles is not taxed. The principle is simple.
Fuel used to move vehicles on our roads is taxed; fuel used for ``off-
road'' purposes is not.
Mixed concrete and sanitation trucks are ``dual-use'' vehicles. In
addition to consuming fuel for roadway travel, they use fuel for a
secondary purpose such as turning the mixer drum or lifting a dumpster
and compacting trash. This is known as a ``Power Takeoff Function.'' In
the past, this function was performed by a second fuel-driven engine.
But times have changed. Today, sanitation and cement trucks are more
efficient and use one engine for both tasks. Today's vehicles create
the situation where technology is in the fast lane but our tax system
lags behind in the slow lane.
The environment benefits with the use of one engine instead of two as
a result of decreased fuel use and exhaust emissions. Using one engine
reduces the truck's weight which means these trucks can haul more cargo
without violating weight restrictions. This decreases the number of
trips these trucks must take which results in less wear and tear on the
roads.
Until recently, owners of dual-use vehicles would estimate the amount
of fuel taxes they paid for fuel related to off-road use and would
claim a tax credit for that amount. The Tax Code does not recognize
``dual-use'' vehicles but recent IRS regulations support the idea that
the fuel tax did not apply to fuel used for non-highway purposes.
Despite the regulations, the IRS argued in a recent tax court case that
estimating fuel consumption was too difficult to administer. In other
words, the IRS dismissed its own regulations. Unfortunately for
taxpayers who own dual use vehicles, the tax court agreed with the
IRS's position. This decision has had the effect of penalizing
efficiency, conservation and good environmental practices.
Mr. President, by establishing an annual $250.00 per vehicle tax
credit my bill resolves this inequity. This legislation should not be
seen as creating a new tax break. It restores tax fairness to owners of
dual-use vehicles without resorting to an elaborate fuel measurement
scheme that would create administrative difficulties. The amount of the
tax credit is less than the estimated amount of fuel taxes paid for

[[Page S592]]

non-highway purposes for these vehicles. In order to receive this
credit, a vehicle would have to be registered, licensed and insured in
the vehicle owner's respective State. This is a measure that will
simply restore fairness to a situation involving the fuel tax where
Congress never intended the tax to apply in the first place.
______

By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 182. A bill to provide for the establishment of the Uintah
Research and Curatorial Center for Dinosaur National Monument in the
States of Colorado and Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Uintah Research
and Curatorial Center Act.
This bill would authorize the National Park Service, NPS, to
construct a research and curatorial facility for Dinosaur National
Monument and its partner, the Utah Field House of Natural History
Museum, Museum in Vernal UT. The facility would be co-located to with
the museum while helping to preserve, protect, and exhibit the vast
treasures of one of the most productive sites of dinosaur bones in the
world.
This is not the first time I have introduced this legislation, which
was reported favorably and passed by this body in October 2004.
Unfortunately there was not enough time before the end of the
legislative session for this bill to be considered by the House. It is
my hope that this legislation can be addressed by both bodies during
the 109th Congress. With this legislation, I believe we can proactively
address the Dinosaur National Monument's deteriorating storage
facilities, before there is irreparable damage to the resources stored
there.
Since the first discovery of Jurassic era bones by the paleontologist
Earl Douglass in 1909, and the subsequent proclamation as a national
monument in 1915 by President Woodrow Wilson, the Dinosaur National
Monument has been a haven for both amateur and expert dinosaur
enthusiasts.
At present, Dinosaur National Monument has more that 600,000 items in
its museum collection. Unfortunately, these items are currently stored
in 17 different facilities throughout the park. Many of these resources
are at risk due to the failure of the scattered facilities to meet
minimum National Park Service storage standards. A new research and
curatorial facility is greatly needed to bring the park's collections
up to standard and to ensure its protection.
The curatorial facility will also fill a critical role as a
collection center for the park and partners' fossil, archaeological,
natural resource operations and collections, and park archives.
Moreover, in these days of limited budgets, the decision to co-locate
this facility with the State's museum will also save taxpayer dollars.
The State of Utah is nearing completion of their new Field House Museum
at a cost to the State of $6.5 million. Because of the co-location, NPS
staff, visiting scholars, interns and volunteers would have access to
the State museum's space for exhibit, classroom, conferencing,
education, restrooms, public access, parking, and other needs not
included in the curatorial facility.
The 22,500 square foot facility will be built outside the boundaries
of the park on land donated to the Park Service by the city of Vernal
and Uintah County. The legislation will also permit the Park Service to
accept the donation of the land, valued at approximately $1.5 million.
The Park Service estimates the total cost of adding the research and
curatorial center to be $8.7 million.
Other Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the
Forest Service, who are also in need of collections storage, have
become minor partners and would utilize a small portion of the storage
facility. An additional partner in the project, the Intermountain
Natural History Association, has agreed to fund and carry out the soil
and environmental testing necessary to permit the Park Service to
accept the donation.
Mr. President, it is imperative that we care for these
paleontological resources and ensure their availability to future
generations, both for scientific study and the enjoyment of the public.
This legislation is a proactive approach to accomplishing those
objectives and is an excellent example of a cost effective partnership
between the National Park Service, the State of Utah Department of
Natural Resources, the city of Vernal, and Uintah County, of which this
Congress ought to applaud and support.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 183. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide families of disabled children with the opportunity to purchase
coverage under the medicaid program for such children, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again with my
good friend Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Opportunity Act.
The Family Opportunity Act provides states the option to allow
families with disabled children to buy into the Medicaid program.
Mr. President, Senator Kennedy and I have tried to get the Family
Opportunity Act enacted for many years.
The legislation has been scaled back dramatically as we have
attempted to make the bill less costly. For example, the original
proposal, introduced in the 106th Congress would have set a family's
eligibility at 600 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, would have had
an enhanced administrative match and provided coverage for children up
to age 21.
The version we are introducing today sets the family's eligibility at
300 percent of Federal Poverty Level, no administrative match and
provides coverage for children up to age 18.
I am very hopeful that these modifications will ensure that the
Family Opportunity Act can be enacted this year.
The legislation is consistent with the ``compassionate conservative''
agenda advanced by the President and the Congressional leadership.
It helps families stay together. In some cases, in order to provide
for the special needs of their child, parents face the unbearable
prospect of having to put their child in an out of home placement just
to keep their child's access to Medicaid covered services.
Some of these parents have to refuse jobs, pay raises and overtime in
order to preserve access to Medicaid for their child with disabilities.
These parents are hard working taxpayers.
There is precedent for allowing individuals with disabilities to
continue to have access to the services that Medicaid provides while
enhancing their income and self-esteem through the dignity and the
contribution to society that one attains through engagement in the
world of work. It only makes sense to extend these principles to adults
with a child with a disability.
The Family Opportunity Act is an option for States. It is not a
Federal mandate. Additionally, it encourages the use of private
employer sponsored coverage. Hopefully a participating family has some
private insurance. The Family Opportunity Act would allow states to
offer ``wrap around'' services that the employer sponsored coverage
does not provide, such as physical therapy, mental health services and
customized durable medical equipment.
Children with significant disabilities need these services in order
to properly develop into responsible and contributing members of
society.
Additionally, the legislation would provide for the establishment of
demonstration projects regarding home and community based alternatives
to psychiatric residential treatment facilities for children.
Under current law, states are not allowed to offer home and community
based services as an alternative to inpatient psychiatric hospitals.
The legislation proposed by Senator Kennedy and myself would help
realize this goal for these children.
The Family Opportunity Act would make progress in correcting this
omission by allowing for demonstration projects to test the
effectiveness in improving or maintaining a child's functional level
and cost-effectiveness of providing coverage of home and community
based alternatives to psychiatric residential treatment for children in
the Medicaid program.
Finally, the Family Opportunity Act would provide for the development
of Family to Family Health Information Centers which help guide
families

[[Page S593]]

through the maze of programs and networks associated with the
challenges of raising a child with a disability.
The Family Opportunity Act is a good bill. For many years it has
garnered the support of a majority of Senators. It has the support of
numerous family and child advocacy groups.
This legislation is pro-family, pro-work and pro-compassion. I urge
the quick enactment of the Family Opportunity Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor once again to join my
colleague Senator Grassley in introducing the Family Opportunity Act to
remove the health care barriers for children with disabilities that so
often prevent families from staying together and staying employed.
We know that families of disabled and special needs children continue
to struggle to help their children learn to live independently and
become fully contributing members of their communities.
Eight percent of children in this country have significant mental or
physical disabilities, and many of them do not have access to the
critical health services they need to improve their lives and prevent
deterioration of their health. To obtain needed health services for
their children, families are often forced to become poor themselves,
stay poor, put their children in out of home placements, or even give
up custody of their children so that the children can qualify for the
broad health coverage available under Medicaid.
In a recent survey of 20 States, families of special needs children
report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises, turning down
overtime, and are unable to save money for the future of their children
and family so that their child can stay eligible for Medicaid through
the Social Security Income Program.
Today we are reintroducing legislation intended to close the health
care gap for the Nation's most vulnerable population, and enable
disabled children and their families to be equal partners in the
American dream.
As President Bush said in his ``New Freedom Initiative'' on February
1, 2001, ``Too many Americans with disabilities remain trapped in
bureaucracies of dependence, and are denied the access necessary for
success and we need to tear down these barriers''.
The Family Opportunity Act will eliminate the unfair barriers that
deny needed health care to so many disabled and special needs children.
It makes health insurance coverage more widely available for children
with significant disabilities, through opportunities to buy-in to
Medicaid at an affordable rate.
It allows States to develop a demonstration program to provide needed
Medicaid services to children with psychiatric illnesses, instead of
limiting such coverage to a residential or institutional setting.
It establishes Family to Family Information Centers in each State to
help families with special needs children.
The enactment of the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
demonstrated the commitment of Congress to do all we can to enable
people with disabilities to lead independent and productive lives. It
is time for Congress to show that same commitment to children with
disabilities and their families.
I look forward to working with all members of Congress to enact this
legislation and give disabled children and their families across the
country a genuine opportunity to fulfill their dreams and fully
participate in the social and economic mainstream of the Nation.
______

By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Dayton):
S. 185. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the
requirement for the reduction of certain Survivor Benefit Plan
annuities by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation and to
modify the effective date for paid-up coverage under the Survivor
Benefit Plan; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and
Senators Corzine, Hagel, Durbin and Dayton, I am honored to introduce
legislation today that we are convinced is necessary to fix a long-
standing problem in our military survivors benefits system.
The system in place right now, even with the important changes we
have made recently, does not take care of our military widows and
surviving children the way it should. We should act to correct this in
this session.
I have sought and found inspiration on this from Holy Scripture. In
fact, a simple yet powerful passage in the Book of Isaiah captures so
much of what we are all about as a Nation theses days and what this
legislation is trying to do.
In Isaiah we are told, ``Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the
oppressed.'' And then we are admonished to, ``Defend the orphan. Fight
for the rights of widows.''
Also in the first chapter of James, verse 27 we are told that in
God's eyes the true measure of our faith is to look after orphans and
widows in their distress.
This is powerful and clear direction that speaks to our hearts.
Last year, under Senator Reid's leadership and at the Senate's
insistence, the Defense authorization bill corrected a long-standing
inequity by allowing 100-percent disabled military retirees to receive
concurrently their full retired pay and disability compensation.
That correction in law was long overdue and we need to continue to
work to extend this change to include retirees with lower disability
ratings.
But there is another related injustice that needs to be addressed.
The legislation that we offer today will extend the same protection of
benefits to the widows and orphans of our 100-percent disabled military
retirees and those who die on active duty.
Back in 1972, Congress established the military survivors' benefits
plan--or SBP--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect
their income. This benefit plan is a voluntary program purchased by the
retiree or issued automatically in the case of service members who die
while on active duty. Retired service members pay for this benefit from
their retired pay. Then upon their death, their spouse or dependent
children can receive up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an
annuity.
Surviving spouses or dependent children of 100-percent service-
connected disabled retirees or those who die on active duty are also
entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation from the Veterans'
Administration.
But the annuity paid by the survivors' benefits plan and received by
a surviving widow or a child is reduced by the amount of the dependency
and indemnity compensation received from the VA.
I know a little something about insurance and income security plans.
And I don't know of any other annuity program in the government or
private sector that is permitted to offset, terminate, or reduce their
payments because of disability payments a beneficiary may receive from
another plan or program.
The legislation that we are proposing today also makes effective
immediately a change to the military SBP program that we enacted in
1999. We have already agreed that military retirees who have reached
the age of 70 and paid their SBP premiums for 30 years should stop
paying a premium. But we delayed the effective date for this relief
until 2008. We should not delay their relief any further.
The United States owes its very existence to generations of soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines who have sacrificed throughout our history
to keep us free. The sacrifices of today are no less important to
American liberty or tragic when a life is lost in the defense of
liberty everywhere.
We owe them and those they leave behind a great debt.
As Abraham Lincoln instructed us, ours is an obligation ``to care for
him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and for his
orphan.''
Too often we fall short on this care. We must meet this obligation
with the same sense of honor as was the service they and their families
have rendered.
We will continue to work to do right by those who have given this
Nation their all, and especially for the loved ones they may leave to
our care.
I appreciate the cosponsorship of my colleagues--Senators Corzine,
Hagel, Durbin and Dayton--and look forward

[[Page S594]]

to working with everyone in the days ahead.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 185

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 ``Military Retiree Survivor
Benefit Equity Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT OF REDUCTION OF SBP SURVIVOR
ANNUITIES BY DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY
COMPENSATION.

(a) Repeal.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code is amended--
(1) in section 1450(c)(1), by inserting after ``to whom
section 1448 of this title applies'' the following: ``(except
in the case of a death as described in subsection (d) or (f)
of such section)''; and
(2) in section 1451(c)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively.
(b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may
be paid to any person for any period before the effective
date provided under subsection (e) by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a).
(c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously
Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has
been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan
under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States
Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided
under subsection (e) and that is adjusted by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a
refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10,
United States Code, shall not be required to repay such
refund to the United States.
(d) Reconsideration of Optional Annuity.--Section
1448(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentences: ``The
surviving spouse, however, may elect to terminate an annuity
under this subparagraph in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned. Upon such an election,
payment of an annuity to dependent children under this
subparagraph shall terminate effective on the first day of
the first month that begins after the date on which the
Secretary concerned receives notice of the election, and,
beginning on that day, an annuity shall be paid to the
surviving spouse under paragraph (1) instead.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the later of--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR PAID-UP COVERAGE UNDER SURVIVOR
BENEFIT PLAN.

Section 1452(j) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``October 1, 2008'' and inserting ``October 1,
2005''.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction
of the Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill
is a major step forward in making our military's Survivor Benefit
Program fairer, more equitable, and more in keeping with our Nation's
promise to our service members and their families. The bill combines
two important fixes to the SBP. The first corrects a serious inequity
in SBP that currently requires over a hundred thousand older military
survivors to pay extra into the system for the same benefits as more
recent enrollees. I have been fighting to fix this problem since the
last Congress and am confident that this year we will succeed in
providing basic fairness to these survivors.
This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar deduction of the
dependency indemnity compensation, DIC, which the VA pays to survivors,
from SBP annuities. This policy is effectively a tax on military
survivors at a time when so many of our brave men and women in uniform
are dying in Iraq and their families are struggling to get by. Senator
Nelson has long fought to eliminate this unfairness, and I am proud to
stand with him today in introducing this comprehensive legislation.
The legislation that I introduced in the last Congress and which is
included in this bill eliminates a major inequity in the SBP arising
from a 1999 congressional act limiting the time required to pay into
the plan. That act deemed retirees who are at least 70 years old and
have already been paying into SBP for at least 30 years to be fully
``paid up'' for the purpose of receiving benefits. This was an
important piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, Congress only made
it effective in 2008. The result was that earlier enrollees--those who
enrolled between 1972 and 1978--were forced to pay into SBP longer than
enrollees from 1978 or later, up to 6 extra years of premiums. In other
words, they had to pay in longer for the same benefits.
This inequity was further magnified by the fact that those earlier
retirees paid much higher SBP premiums--10 percent of retired pay--for
two full decades, until 1992, when the premium was reduced to 6.5
percent of retired pay.
This bill, by making the ``paid up'' provision effective this year,
will finally grant these survivors--the widows and widowers of the
Greatest Generation--the same benefits of those who enrolled in SBP in
subsequent years. It will provide basic fairness to 135,000 survivors
and allow us to honor their sacrifice and that of their loved ones.
This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar reduction of SBP
benefits by the amount received in dependency and indemnity
compensation. Under current law, the surviving spouse of an active duty
or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause is
entitled to $993 a month--for a survivor without children--from the
Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the surviving spouse's SBP
annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC.
SBP and DIC payments are paid for different reasons. SBP, in most
cases, is elected and purchased by the retiree to provide a portion of
retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special
compensation to a survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by
his or her uniformed service. To offset DIC--which we provide to the
families of those who have lost their life in the service of their
country--from annuities earned and paid for, is blatantly unfair.
This bill has the broadest possible support among organizations
representing our troops and their families, including Air Force
Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women Officers
Associated, American Logistics Association, AMVETS, Army Aviation
Association of America, Associations of Military Surgeons of the United
States, Association of the U.S. Army, Commissioned Officers Association
of the U.S. Public Health Service, CWO and WO Association U.S. Coast
Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., Fleet
Reserve Association, Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War Veterans of
the USA, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association,
Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple
Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National Guard
Association of the U.S., National Military Family Association, National
Order of Battlefield Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association,
Naval Reserve Association, Navy League of the U.S., Noncommissioned
Officers Association of the United States of America, Reserve Officers
Association, Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces,
Military Chaplains Association of the USA, Retired Enlisted
Association, United Armed Forces Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers
Association, U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, VFW, and Veterans'
Widows International Network. The Military Coalition has described this
bill as a top legislative goal, and it is my expectation that it will
have strong support in the Senate.
It is vital that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in
our military as well as their families. The widows and widowers of our
service members, those who are serving now and those who served us in
earlier times, are owed our deepest gratitude. But in the face of their
sacrifice, there is more that we should do. We cannot ever fully
compensate them for their loss. But we can ensure that the benefits
that they have earned are fair and just.
______

By Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. 186. A bill to prohibit the use of Department of Defense funds for
any study related to the transportation of chemical munitions across
State lines; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue of considerable
importance to the people of southern Colorado. For nearly 50 years, the
people of

[[Page S595]]

southern Colorado have lived with the knowledge that within a few miles
of their homes, schools, and places of business lies one of the largest
stockpiles of chemical munitions in the world. The Pueblo Chemical
Depot was built during World War II and continues to this day to serve
as an ammunition and material storage facility. Since the mid-1990s,
the primary mission of the depot has been to protect the 780,000
chemical weapons being stored there.
As required by the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Department of
Defense in 1997 launched an aggressive program to dismantle the U.S.
chemical weapons stockpile. The program has since repeatedly stumbled
and has not met the expectations of the international community,
Congress and, most important, the people who live near these
stockpiles. The costs of the program have risen from $15 billion in
1997 to $24 billion in 2001, an increase of $9 billion in 4 years. Some
have estimated that the program will cost as much as $30 billion by the
time it is completed.
The time schedule has experienced unconscionable delays. Last year
cleanup of Pueblo was expected to be completed by 2011. The
Department's latest budget decision has pushed the date all the way
back to 2021, 9 years after the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty
deadline.
Numerous safety incidents have occurred at operational sites,
shutting down one facility for 9 months. Poor contracting has resulted
in the shutting down of another facility, which is now costing the
Federal Government $300,000 a day to keep operationally ready. It was
hardly a surprise then when the President's own management assessment
last year labeled this program as ineffective.
On top of these numerous problems, the Department of Defense has
failed to fully communicate its intentions to either Congress or the
local community. Last week, for instance, Senator Salazar, my colleague
from Colorado, and I met with two Department of Defense officials to
discuss this program. At that meeting we requested that the Defense
Department answer some questions and were promised a written response
from Under Secretary of Defense Michael Wynne within 3 days. That
meeting was held over a week ago, and we have yet to receive a
response.
At least we in Congress can get a meeting. Members of the local
community in Pueblo, CO have been trying to get an official from the
Defense Department to meet with them to discuss the Pentagon's plans
for weeks. Despite the fact that the Defense Department is trying to
unilaterally shut down the design work at Pueblo, the Pentagon has not
taken the time to meet with the residents who, if the Pentagon gets its
way, will be forced to live for another 15 years near an aging
stockpile housing three-quarters of a million chemical weapons.
The latest and most frustrating Pentagon effort in this program is to
study once again the possibility of transporting the 2,600 tons of
mustard gas across the State of Colorado to an incinerator site out of
the State. Never mind that this option has been studied at least three
times in the past decade, and never mind that current law prohibits the
transport of chemical munitions across State lines, and never mind that
transporting these weapons out of State would violate the agreement the
Defense Department made with the people in Pueblo.

This study is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers' hard-earned
dollars. I don't know how simpler we can make it. I have already been
told by Pentagon officials that the study is going to conclude that the
transportation of chemical munitions across State lines is not
practical. If that is the case, why do the study? Why waste $150,000 to
study the feasibility of an option that is against the law and has
already been determined by the Pentagon to be impractical?
With the Department wasting money on meaningless studies, it is no
wonder that this program is over budget and behind schedule. I think it
is time we took a stand against the Pentagon's wasteful actions.
Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that will stop this study
and force the Department of Defense to recognize that the only option
for destroying its chemical munitions is to build a disposal site in
Pueblo.
I am pleased to announce that my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ken
Salazar, has agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I wanted to mention,
though, that Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator Bunning, and Senator
Shelby have also agreed to cosponsor. We should not forget that Senator
McConnell in particular has been fighting the Department on this issue
for over a decade. In many respects, Senator McConnell's hard work has
paved the way for the legislation I am introducing today along with my
colleague from the State of Colorado, Senator Salazar.
I urge my other colleagues to join us in putting the Department on
notice that this kind of wasteful, meaningless effort will not be
tolerated.
I believe it is time the Pentagon took a good look at its chemical
demilitarization program. Our country cannot afford to throw away our
scarce defense dollars into a program that continues to be so
incredibly mismanaged. Nor should our Nation's diplomats be put in the
position of having to explain why we can't meet our treaty obligations
to the likes of China, Iran, or France. Most importantly, we cannot
forget the thousands of innocent Americans who continue to live near
these sites. They bear the burden of the Pentagon's mismanagement. It
is not fair to them when all they have asked for is that these
munitions be cleaned up in a manner that is safe and does not harm the
environment.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues in
relation to the Pueblo Chemical Depot. When the Senate ratified the
Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, it became U.S. law and our sworn
obligation to destroy our Nation's chemical weapons stockpiles by 2012.
With the advent of the global war on terror, this responsibility has
taken on even more importance. We must destroy these weapons to ensure
the health and safety of the citizens of the State of Colorado.
We must also stand as an example to the world that we are firmly
resolved in our commitment to reducing the threats posed by weapons of
mass destruction in our Nation.
Given the gravity of the situation, I cannot understand why the
Department of Defense is shirking from their responsibility in this
matter.
Until recently, the relationship between the Army and the citizens of
Pueblo had an excellent track record, proving that when good people
come together and operate from a position of trust, significant
problems can be solved. Yet, one day after Senator Allard and I were
absolutely assured by the Department of Defense that the chemical
weapons stored in Pueblo would not be transported, and that the weapons
would be destroyed in Pueblo by the environmentally safe method of
water neutralization, the Department of Defense turned around and
commenced a study on the feasibility of transporting the stockpiles out
of Pueblo to be incinerated at another site--twenty-four hours after
they said they wouldn't.
I believe we were given a good faith commitment last week that the
destruction of the weapons would continue at Pueblo using the water
neutralization technology agreed upon, and that the munitions would not
be transferred elsewhere. While we wait for the promised clarification
on these matters, Senator Allard and I believe it is necessary to
emphasize our resolve.
To help provide that emphasis, we are introducing this bill. It is a
straightforward, one-line bill to prohibit the use of Department of
Defense funds for any study related to the transportation of chemical
munitions across State lines.
Mr. President, the sheer number of weapons awaiting destruction at
the Pueblo Chemical Depot is staggering: more than three-quarters of a
million artillery shells and mortar rounds. Transporting these weapons
would be a dangerous and expensive enterprise. It would be subject to
legal challenges by the towns and the States involved, and it is
against Federal law.
In short, transporting these weapons will not save time, and it will
not save money. But this bill we have brought to the floor will save
both time and money, because it stops the frivolous study and returns
the focus to the issue at hand: the safe destruction of the chemical
weapons at Pueblo by water neutralization.

[[Page S596]]

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one of the first meetings I had as a
U.S. Senator 20 years ago was about the aging chemical weapons stored
at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Richmond, KY. At the time, the Army was
ignoring the concerns of the community and attempting to incinerate the
weapons irrespective of the potential risk.
Not much has changed.
I have spent the last 20 years fighting for the citizens of Kentucky
who live in proximity to these dangerous weapons, and although the
party responsible for the weapons is now the Department of Defense, the
problem remains the same. Those responsible for the destruction of the
chemical stockpiles are ignoring the best interests and concerns of the
citizens who live near them.
Every time I have helped the community to clear a hurdle, whether it
was to force the Army to investigate alternative technologies to
incineration or the creation of a new organization to manage the new
method of demilitarization, a new obstacle has been put in the path of
stockpile destruction. Currently, the citizens of Kentucky and Colorado
are being robbed to pay for the massive cost overruns at incineration
sites throughout the country.
The budgets for demilitarization at Blue Grass and Pueblo have been
slashed, and the money has been transferred to other accounts in spite
of the fact that Blue Grass and Pueblo had succeeded in securing
permits from the local environmental agencies in record time. The
Assembled Chemical Weapons Agency, which has been tasked with managing
the demilitarization of these stockpiles, is respected and trusted by
the community. And I believe the Department's decision to cut funding
for ACWA in the FY06 budget is a slap in the face to the citizens of
Kentucky and Colorado, and an insult to the fine people at ACWA.
Now the Department has suggested it wants to transport the weapons
from these depots through our communities to incineration sites. This
will not happen so long as I am a U.S. Senator.
After the time and energy I have expended on ensuring these weapons
are disposed of in a safe and environmentally friendly manner, I am
personally insulted by the Department's efforts to delay destruction
and its suggestion of transporting the weapons elsewhere.
The Department has an obligation to the citizens of Kentucky and
Colorado to dispose of these stockpiles in an expeditious and safe
manner. Congress and the Department, working with the communities,
certified an alternative means of disposal, and it is unacceptable for
the Department to walk away from this promise. Destruction of
stockpiles at Blue Grass and Pueblo deserves full funding from the
Department of Defense, and I will work to put the demilitarization of
these stockpiles back on schedule.
I want to thank my friend, Senator Allard, for his efforts to safely
dispose of these dangerous stockpiles. As a member of the Armed
Services Committee, Senator Allard was a tireless advocate for the
citizens of Colorado who live near these weapons. I am happy to welcome
Senator Allard to the Appropriations Committee, where I look forward to
working with him to ensure that Blue Grass and Pueblo receive the
funding attention that is so long overdue.
Although the Department may come to its senses and decide not to
pursue the shipment of decaying stockpiles of chemical weapons through
suburban Kentucky or Colorado, I've come to learn that trusting the
best judgment of the folks in charge of this program is never a sure
bet. For that reason, I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator
Allard's legislation, which will prohibit the shipment of chemical
weapons from any Army installation. These weapons need to be destroyed,
but they need to be destroyed safely at the locations where they
currently are stored. Moving 60-year-old stockpiles of leaking mustard
agent is not a solution to a budget problem, it is a recipe for
disaster.
______

By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer,
Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Conrad, Mr.
Dayton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Jeffords, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin,
Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Sarbanes, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Biden):
S. 187. A bill to limit the applicability of the annual updates to
the allowance for States and other taxes in the tables used in the
Federal Needs Analysis Methodology for the award year 2005-2006,
published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2004; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy and Smith
and twenty-seven of our colleagues today in introducing a very
important piece of legislation, the Ensuring College Access for All
Americans Act.
This bill would prevent any student from seeing a reduction in the
Pell grants under recent changes by the Bush administration to the
formula used to calculate student aid eligibility. On December 23,
2004--just 2 days before the Christmas holiday, I might note--the
Department of Education published updates to the allowance for state
and other taxes that is used by students and their families to
calculate their expected family contribution, or EFC, to college
tuition. The EFC is the amount that students and their families are
expected to contribute towards college in a given year.
Changes in a student's ``expected family contribution'' have a direct
impact on that student's eligibility for a variety of types of
financial aid. Simply put, as a student's expected family contribution
goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down.
The Administration's changes to the tax tables have the effect of
cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which
more than five million students nationwide rely. It is projected that,
as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in
their Pell grants and another 89,000 will become ineligible for Pell
grant assistance.
Not only will these changes drastically affect Pell grant eligibility
and aid, but because the EFC formula is used to calculate eligibility
for other forms of Federal aid, including federal student loans, as
well as private institutional and state aid, these changes will cut
practically all forms of student aid. Unfortunately, the Department's
changes to the state and local tax allowance will increase the EFC for
nearly all American families and students. While no New Jersey students
are projected to lose assistance under this year's proposed cuts, they
were projected to lose assistance under similar cuts proposed in 2003.
I am very concerned that New Jersey students could be hurt going
forward if the administration continues to update the tax tables based
on outdated tax information.
Certainly, I do not disagree that the tax tables used to determine
EFC, which have not been updated since 1988, may need to be revised to
reflect current state and local tax burden. However, the
administration's proposal does not reflect current tax levels. The
updates reduce the credit that families receive for paying state and
local taxes at a time in which they are actually paying more taxes. For
example, the administration's new tax tables are based on Fiscal Year
2002 state tax information. According to the National Association of
State Budget Officers, though, since FY 2002, states have enacted $14.1
billion in tax and fee increases. Again, because the administration's
proposal is based on outdated tax information, it does not take into
account these substantial increases in State tax burden.
In fact, the General Accounting Office issued a report last week that
found that the Department of Education's procedures for revising the
tax tables and the formula the Department used are seriously flawed.
The GAO report, entitled Student Financial Aid: Need Determination
Could be Enhanced through Improvements in Education's Estimate of
Applicants' State Tax Payments, states, ``Education could not provide
us with written procedures guiding staff on the routine steps necessary
to update the tax allowance, nor did it maintain detailed records of
its efforts to obtain data.'' The report goes on to say of the data the
Department used to revise the tables,

[[Page S597]]

As a result of certain limitations of the SOI [statistics
of income] dataset for the purpose of calculating the
allowance and problems with how Education uses this dataset,
the current state and other tax allowance may not fully
reflect the amount of taxes paid by students and families.
The dataset itself is not ideally suited for calculating the
allowance because it is limited to financial data from those
who itemize their taxes, does not include state and local
taxes, and is several years older than the income information
reported by students and families on the FAFSA.

The report further notes that because the SOI compiles data only for
those who itemize their tax deductions, who may pay different tax rates
than non-itemizers, the data is further flawed. The GAO goes on to
suggest improvements to the Department's calculations and the data they
use.
These changes also come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically
at double digit rates, and students and working families are straining
to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of
education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at
a four-year public university costs an average of $11,354, $824 more
than last year and $1775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition
at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent a
year. In fact, according to the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public
institutions in New Jersey has increased by more than 40 percent since
the 1999-2000 school year. In some states they've increased by more
than 60 percent in the last five years.
To really understand these numbers, though, it's necessary to look at
the people who are struggling to afford to go to college. To that end,
I would like to read a couple of personal stories about the importance
of the Pell grant program to a college-bound student and a student
struggling to afford college now.
One student writes,

I am lucky enough to be attending a top-rate University and
receiving a quality education, but I rely on many federal
loans and aid, including a Pell Grant, in order to remain
where I am. When President Bush decided not to fully fund
Pell Grants, he left me and many others in a precarious
position. My Pell grant is still pending and I really am
counting on it to cover some of my basic expenses; it will be
a hardship until it comes--or worse if it doesn't come in
full. The President says he's an advocate for young people
with his dubious social security plans, but he leaves us
behind with his non-commitment to higher education.

A mother who fears she will no longer be able to afford to send her
son to school writes,

I've saved money from the day my son was born so that he
may attend the college of his dreams. He is a gifted musician
and was awarded scholarships to attend Berklee in Boston.
With the help of the Pell Grant and other student loans, he
is now a freshman there and I'm proud to say is doing very
well. However, I am worried that with Bush having lowered the
income standard for Pell, Timmy may lose his grant and there
won't be enough money saved for him to stay in school. I
would like to give him the opportunity to pursue his dreams
and let his talent take him where it may. I see Bush cutting
programs from the have nots to give to the haves. How many
dreams is he going to destroy and how many more programs is
he going to cut?''

It's wrong, to cut $300 million--a small price to pay to ensure that
low-income families can afford to send their children to college--from
this program. And it's even worse to cut aid to 1.4 million families
based on faulty calculations.
A college education today is essential to survival in our competitive
marketplace. Not only does our economy thrive on an educated workforce,
but also those who are educated and as a result are gainfully employed
contribute enormously to our tax base. I am willing to venture that the
costs of the Pell grant program are more than paid back by those who
were able to go to attend college because of a Pell grant and today are
productive, tax-paying citizens.
The Senate must prevent these cuts from becoming a reality. Thirty
Senators stand behind the legislation I introduce today a bipartisan
group of thirty Senators, I might add.
I hope that we can put politics aside and pass this legislation
immediately to prevent any student from losing Pell grant assistance.
Finally, I strongly urge the administration to take a close look at the
GAO report and to reform the flawed system they have used to revise the
tax tables.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 187

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 ``Ensuring College Access for
all Americans Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE FOR STATE AND OTHER TAXES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the annual
updates to the allowance for State and other taxes in the
tables used in the Federal Needs Analysis Methodology to
determine a student's expected family contribution for the
award year 2005-2006 under part F of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087kk et seq.), published
in the Federal Register on Thursday, December 23, 2004 (69
Fed. Reg. 76926), shall not apply to a student to the extent
the updates will reduce the amount of Federal student
assistance for which the student is eligible.

Mr. KENNEDY. Today I join Senator Corzine and 26 of our colleagues to
introduce legislation to prohibit the implementation of the proposed
changes in the State and local tax tables on college students receiving
need-based aid.
When decisions are made by any administration that affect the price
that families pay for college, it is important that the Congress
understands both the factors that influenced that decision and the
impact of those decisions on our constituents. In light of the slumping
economy, State budget crises, and rising college costs, the
Department's proposed changes come at a very difficult time for
students and their families. Raising the cost of tuition by a few
hundred dollars may cause a student to have to leave school and it is
our responsibility to ensure that these changes are being made for
sound reasons.
I urge the Department of Education to work with Congress when making
these decisions so that members of this body are made aware of policy
changes through a collaborative process--and not the media.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about
the advantages of having a college education and the importance of
ensuring access to higher education. That is why I am pleased to join
as a cosponsor the Corzine-Smith Kennedy Ensuring College Access for
All Americans Act of 2005. Due to recent changes made to the formula
determining federal Pell grant awards, many students are at risk of
losing needed financial aid. This bill would guarantee that no student
sees a reduction in his or her Pell grant assistance in the 2005-2006
school year or loses the grant completely.
We are all familiar with the adage: education is the great
equalizer--and that a college education is the economic ladder to
upward mobility. Not only do individuals reap benefits from having a
college degree, society also values higher education--as we have also
heard that education is the engine that drives a healthy economy.
Basically, in addition to all its other benefits, having a good
education pays individuals in the long run.
According to a recent report by the college board, college graduates
earn about 73 percent more than high school graduates over their
working lives. For those with advanced degrees, earnings are two to
three times higher than high school graduates. Moreover, society enjoys
the financial returns on the investment in higher education--from
generated higher tax payments to decreased dependency on public income-
transfer programs. Overall, higher education improves individual and
societal quality of life.
While we are convinced that higher levels of educational attainment
produces positive outcomes we need to do more to ensure access to
higher education.
With the cost of college tuition continuing to rise, financial aid is
the decisive factor in determining whether thousands of high school
seniors are college bound or not. In particular, Federal Pell grants
are especially critical for low-income students financing their way
through college. According to the college board, college tuition at 4
year institutions increased on average by over 10 percent in the 2004-
2005

[[Page S598]]

school year. At 2-year public colleges, tuition increased by over 8
percent.
However, the Department of Education's recent changes to the formulas
for financial aid eligibility will cut $300 million in Pell grant
assistance to students nationwide, resulting in drastic reductions of
Pell grant awards to more then one million students. The American
Council on Education estimates that 89,000 students who are currently
eligible for a Pell grant will lose this financial assistance. An
additional 1.3 million student will likely see a reduction of $100 to
$300 in their Pell Grants.
In my home State, over 4,000 students, just at one college, the
University of Washington, will be adversely impacted from the change in
financial aid eligibility. Early estimates show that about 3,900
students of the 6,900 eligible for a Pell Grant will lose up to $200 a
year. Two hundred more students will probably lose their minimum grants
of $400. Many of the students likely to see a decrease in their Pell
grant award are low income.
Federal financial aid was critical to my own educational
achievements. I went to college on a Pell grant. It was a critical to
my being able to finance my way through school. With these new rules,
some students may quit school or will have to spend more time working
when they should be going to class.
The Ensuring Access for All Americans Act of 2005 would restore this
critical financial assistance to thousands of needy students in the
2005-2006 school year. At a time when more and more employers are
requiring a college degree for employment and tuition costs are
skyrocketing, government should be opening the doors to educational
opportunity, not locking students out. I urge prompt Senate action on
this measure.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senators Corzine
and Kennedy as a cosponsor of the bill Ensuring College Access for All
Americans that restores cuts to the Federal Pell Grant Program for
millions of students nationwide.
Federal Pell grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial
aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education.
These grants provide nearly $12.8 billion to help about 5.3 million
low-income students attend college.
However, approximately 89,000 students currently eligible for a Pell
grant will lose it, while an additional 1.3 million students will see
their grants reduced by as much as $100 to $300 due to cuts in the
Federal Pell Grant Program.
In California, nearly 150,000 low-income students will see their
federal Pell grants decrease or disappear.
These cuts have a huge impact on students at California's public
colleges and universities.
Within the University of California system, almost half of the 46,000
Pell grant recipients who attend one of the eight UC campuses will
receive reduced grants and about 500 students who receive $400 a year
will lose their grants completely.
On December 23, 2004, the Department of Education issued a proposal
that will cut $300 million from the Federal Pell Grant Program.
The proposal updates State and local tax tables used to determine
families' expected contribution towards college cost in a given year
resulting in students and their families being expected to contribute
more for college expenses.
These changes, which use Fiscal Year 2002 State and local data,
reduce the credit that families receive for paying State and local
taxes at a time when they are actually paying more taxes.
Senators Corzine and Kennedy's bill ensures that no student loses
their Pell grant or sees a reduction in assistance under the Department
of Education's proposal to update State and local tax tables.
It would simply ``hold harmless'' any student who stands to lose
under the new proposal, so that no student would see a reduction in
their Pell grant. Those students in the States that stand to gain would
still benefit from the new tax tables.
It is imperative that cuts to this important student aid program be
restored so that students can continue to receive their Pell grants
that they are eligible for.
I recently received a letter from one my constituents from Chino, CA,
a parent who is very concerned about the cuts to the Pell grant
program. The letter said:

This would result in millions of families, many of whom
depend on financial aid including Pell grants, such as my
children in college, losing all or part of their federal
support. . . . this affects us all and our children's future.

A college student from Contra Costa County in California wrote:

The amount of my Pell grant will not cover the cost of
supplies that I need for the semester. . . . my parents
cannot take out loans themselves. . . . so now I have to take
out loans of my own, which for the amount I was approved for,
doesn't even cover a quarter of my tuition. I really felt let
down and disappointed.

There could not be a worst time for making changes that would take
away or shrink a student's financial aid.
Over 500,000 low and middle-income California students rely on Pell
grants for financial assistance. The maximum Pell grant has been frozen
at $4,050 for 3 consecutive years, while the costs of attending a 4-
year public college or private college have increased both nationwide
and in California.
We must do all we can to make college education more accessible and
affordable for our Nation's students.
I urge my colleagues to join Senators Corzine and Kennedy in
supporting this legislation.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cornyn,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. McCain, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Cantwell,
Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Alexander, and Mr.
Lautenberg):
S. 188. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 to carry
out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today legislation to authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 to carry out the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP.
I am pleased to be joined on this bill by a bipartisan group of
Senators, including Senators Kyl, Schumer, Cornyn, Boxer, McCain,
Durbin, Crapo, Cantwell, Hutchison, Bingaman and Alexander.
This legislation is critical to ensuring that cash strapped states
and localities are at least partially reimbursed for the costs of
housing undocumented criminal aliens in their jails. Ultimately, were
it not for the failure of the federal government to control illegal
immigration, States and localities would not have to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars in housing these individuals in their prisons and
jails.
During the 108th Congress, this bill passed the Senate by unanimous
consent but stalled in the House of Representatives. This year, passage
of this legislation is even more critical given that the authorization
for appropriations for SCAAP in the Immigration and Nationality Act
expired in 2004.
While hard numbers can be elusive when determining the actual costs
to American taxpayers of illegal immigration, not many would disagree
that the costs are in the billions of dollars each year. These costs go
to, for instance, education, medical care and incarceration. And even
if we consider the tax contributions of undocumented aliens and
subtract that from the total costs, we are still left with expenditures
in the billions of dollars.
The cost of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens alone is a
staggering figure--millions of dollars each year. And these dollars
expended by States and localities are not optional. They must be
expended since incarcerating individuals convicted of committing a
crime is not optional.
Since funding for SCAAP began in 1995, the amount appropriated has
been as high as $565 million and as low as $250 million--and these
figures only covered a portion of the costs expended by States and
localities to house undocumented criminal aliens. Furthermore, every
day States and localities expend other monies on undocumented criminal
aliens that are not reimbursed by the federal government through SCAAP.
Those expenses include public safety expenditures, expenses of trial
proceedings, use of translators, cost of public defenders and the
incarceration

[[Page S599]]

expenses of undocumented criminal aliens for minor offenses that do not
meet the standards of SCAAP.
The reality is that all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands requested reimbursement through the
SCAAP program in fiscal year 2004. In that year, $281,605,292 was
awarded through the program.
Congress has an obligation to reimburse States and localities for the
costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens when the federal
government fails in its responsibility to effectively deter illegal
immigration.
During the 108th Congress, this bill--S. 460--passed the Senate by
unanimous consent.
This year, passage of this legislation is all the more critical
because authorization for SCAAP funds expired in 2004. Without funding,
cash strapped states and localities are going to have to re-allocate
monies from other areas within their criminal justice system to meet
the costs of housing undocumented criminal aliens.
We in Congress can assist, albeit in small part, our states by
supporting the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2005''. This bill would amend section 241(i)(5)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize appropriations at a
level of $750 million for FY 2006, $850 million for FY 2007 and $950
million for FY 2008 through FY 2011.
Enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994, SCAAP reimburses States and localities that incur costs for
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. These aliens must be
convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in violation of State
or local law, and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days.
Funding for SCAAP has been appropriated by Congress annually since
1995. The program is administered by the Office of Justice Programs'
Bureau of Justice Assistance, which is located in the Department of
Justice.
During FY1997 to FY2003, approximately $3.5 billion was distributed
to States and localities. California has historically received the
largest annual awards since the program's inception, with Arizona,
Illinois, New York and Texas also consistently receiving large awards.
Unfortunately, authorization for SCAAP expired in October 2004.
SCAAP was established with the belief that protecting the nation's
borders from illegal immigration is the responsibility of the Federal
Government and that States and localities should be reimbursed by the
Federal Government for expenses relating to these duties.
It is clear to everyone in this Chamber that immigration is a federal
responsibility. In fact, the Constitution gives Congress plenary power
over immigration, so States are legally barred from acting on their
own. SCAAP has been set up over the years to reimburse states and local
government for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens.
It is based on the principle that when the Federal Government fails
to enforce its laws against immigration violators, it should bear the
responsibility for the financial costs of this failure.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 188

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 ``State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2005
THROUGH 2011.

Section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)) is amended by striking ``appropriated''
and all that follows through the period and inserting the
following: ``appropriated to carry out this subsection--
``(A) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005;
``(B) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(C) $850,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(D) $950,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008
through 2011.''.
______

By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 189. A bill to amend the Head Start Act to require parental
consent for nonemergency intrusive physical examinations; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
requiring parental consent for intrusive physical exams administered
under the Head Start program.
Young children attending Head Start programs should not be subjected
to these intrusive physical exams without the prior knowledge or
consent of their parents. While the Department of Health and Human
Services has administered general exam guidelines to agencies, the U.S.
Code is not clear about prohibiting them without parental consent. To
clarify the code, my bill will not allow any nonemergency intrusive
exam by a Head Start agency without parental consent. This would not
include exams such as hearing, vision or scoliosis screenings.
This issue was brought to my attention by some of my constituents
from Tulsa, OK who felt their rights were violated when their children
were subjected to genital exams and blood tests without their consent.
I am pleased to see that the Rutherford Institute has taken an interest
in this crucial issue and are representing my constituents.
As a father and grandfather, I believe it is vital for parents to be
informed about what is happening to their children in the classroom. I
hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the following article be
printed in the Record, ``Federal Head Start suit pending.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Federal Head Start Suit Pending

A lawsuit against Tulsa's Head Start program alleging a
violation of the constitutional rights of preschool children
remains pending in the U.S. District Court.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the
lawsuit in July 2003 saying the program appears to have
``directly violated'' their rights by subjecting children to
genital exams and blood tests without their parents' consent.
The appellate decision reversed a 2001 decision by U.S.
District Judge Terence Kern in Tulsa in favor of the
Community Action Project.
The lawsuit arose as a result of exams of Head Start boys
and girls at Roosevelt Elementary School on Nov. 5, 1998. The
appellate judges said a registered nurse, who was a CAP
employee, insisted on the exams over the objection of a
parent, who was also a CAP aide.
The appeals court also reinstated claims for invasion of
privacy and ``technical battery'' under Oklahoma law, and
claims against CAP for allegedly interfering with the
parents' ``constitutional right to direct and control the
medical treatment of their children.''
The parents are represented by Steven Aden, chief litigator
for the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, a conservative
legal foundation that focuses on religious rights, parental
rights and freedom from government intrusion.
______

By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Sununu, and Mrs. Dole):

S. 190. A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market
enterprises, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my
colleagues Senators Sununu and Dole, the Federal Housing Enterprise
Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This is needed regulatory reform at a
critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the
Federal Home Loan Banks.
There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises
GSEs, have been successful in carrying out their mission of providing
liquidity for the housing market. The market has remained strong
through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at
an all-time high.
The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique
set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are
chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to
Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all
the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie
and Freddie enjoy an implicit

[[Page S600]]

guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing
substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets,
their ability to raise capital at near-Treasury bill rates, and their
use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and
Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for
mortgages.
The significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our economy cannot
be overstated. Together, the companies own or guarantee roughly 45.6
percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. The companies
combined have issued over $3.9 trillion in obligations comprised of
$2.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and $1.7 trillion of GSE
debt.
It is clear that the recent revelations at both Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae precipitate the need for Congress to address GSE regulatory
reform. In 2003, Freddie Mac found itself treading through a wave of
accounting problems and questionable management actions. That led to an
income restatement of $5 billion, a penalty of $125 million and the
removal of several members of its executive management. One year later,
a similar surge of questionable practices was discovered at Fannie Mae.
That led to the retirement and resignation of two of Fannie Mae's top
management officials, as well as last month's ruling by the Securities
and Exchange Commission, SEC, that Fannie could face a $9 billion
income restatement.
At a minimum, the bar for a GSE should not be held lower than it is
for any other company. In fact, given its congressionally chartered
mission to serve a public interest, the bar should be held
significantly higher. The operations of such companies should be
managed with uncompromising integrity and unabridged transparency.
Our legislation would create a new independent world class regulator
for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Our bill
provides the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and
enforcement tools like those afforded to the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, the
bill would:
Provide the new regulator the authority of receivership to close down
a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout; provide the new
regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect
against insolvency; provide the new regulator approval power over new
programs and activities proposed by a GSE; provide the regulator with
greater authority to limit exit compensation packages or golden
parachutes for executives removed for cause; require the annual audits
of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing programs to ensure
that these programs support the enterprises' affordable housing
mission; end presidential appointments to the board of directors of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would require all Federal Home Loan
Bank directors to be elected.
This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence
that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems
at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is even more important. I urge my
colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor
our bill.
______

By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Santorum):
S. 191. A bill to extend certain trade preferences to certain least-
developed countries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important
legislation aimed at helping some the world's poorest countries along
their path toward economic development and self-sufficiency. Joining me
in introducing this bill are my colleagues Senator Feinstein, of
California; Senator Baucus, of Montana; and Senator Santorum, of
Pennsylvania. I appreciate their efforts in getting us to this point,
and I look forward to working with them to see that this legislation is
enacted into law.
When President Bush delivered his second inaugural address last week,
he reaffirmed in absolute terms the commitment of the United States
toward furthering human dignity around the globe. He drew on the words
and the beliefs of our forefathers that every life has worth and is
deserving of the freedom and security of economic independence.
The bill that I bring here today is aimed at spreading America's
ideals of economic independence to regions of the world that have seen
few such successes. My bill, the Tariff Relief Assistance for
Developing Economies (TRADE) Act of 2005, would extend to some of the
poorest people of the world the opportunity to work toward a better
life.
Specifically, my legislation would provide duty-free and quota-free
benefits, similar to those afforded under the Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act, to some of the world's most impoverished nations. The
countries covered by this legislation are 14 of the least developed
countries (LDCs), as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State
Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference
program. They include Afghanistan, East Timor, Maldives, Cambodia,
Bangladesh, and Nepal. My bill also includes a special emergency trade
provision to assist Sri Lanka as it struggles through the aftermath of
the recent tsunami.
The TRADE Act countries are subject to some of the highest U.S.
tariffs in the world, averaging over 15 percent. This stands in glaring
contrast to the nearly negligible tariffs that face our wealthier
trading partners in Europe and Japan. The TRADE LDCs have been given
duty-free entry from all other Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development countries, and they need our help now.
In prior years Congress has acted generously toward LDCs in the
Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is now time for us to act in a
similar fashion to LDCs of the Asia-Pacific region. By allowing duty-
free imports into the United States, we can encourage these countries
to diversify their economies while creating employment opportunities
and promoting democracy.
In supporting these values, we can also help to bring about a safer
and more peaceful world. Recent history has shown us the violence and
resentment that can arise when people lose hope and societies
breakdown. Backward economic policies and repressive regimes offer
fertile breeding ground for radical and dangerous ideologies.
In its final report, the 9/11 Commission recommended a U.S. strategy
to counter terrorism that includes ``economic policies that encourage
development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to
improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their
children's future.''
The bill that I am introducing today can help us meet the goal of
greater economic development in an increasingly important region of the
world. The devastation brought by the recent tsunami coupled with the
end of the textile quota system make this legislation especially timely
and hasten the need for its passage. I thank you for the opportunity to
speak here today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in
Congress to pass this legislation.
______

By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 192. A bill to provide for the improvement of foreign
stabilization and reconstruction capabilities of the United States
Government; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LUGAR. The bill I am introducing today seeks to enhance United
States effectiveness in dealing with countries that are either emerging
from civil strife and conflict or threatened with instability. It calls
for the creation of certain fundamental capabilities within the
Government, and the Pentagon in particular, that are critical to
success in what has come to be called stabilization and reconstruction
operations. These capabilities include the training and equipping of
sufficient numbers of civilian and military personnel for such
activities, as well as the development of a new guiding principle--one
that designates stabilization and reconstruction as a prime Defense
Department mission with the same priority as combat operations.
Often these missions will occur at the end of major combat
operations. We have learned from recent experiences in Afghanistan and
Iraq that the

[[Page S601]]

United States will encounter significant challenges in seeking to
ensure stability, democracy, and a productive economy in nations
affected by conflict.
While United States Armed Forces are extremely capable of effectively
projecting military force and prevailing on the battlefield, achieving
United States objectives also requires successful stabilization and
reconstruction operations after major fighting has ceased. Without
success in the aftermath of large-scale hostilities, the United States
hard-won military victories will be at risk. To achieve this success,
the armed forces and civilian agencies of the United States Government
must have the capabilities to support stabilization and reconstruction
and to undertake effective planning and preparation well before the
outbreak of hostilities.
There are many cases, as well, when timely intervention to stabilize
a threatening situation can head off the need for a major combat
operation. This legislation envisions that the same capabilities
created to stabilize a post-conflict situation may also be used to
prevent conflict in the first place, thus achieving United States
objectives more effectively with less loss of life and less potential
risk to our relations with other countries.
Much as the military component of a conflict requires extensive
planning and training, we must also be well-prepared and trained for
stabilization and reconstruction operations. To be fully effective in
such operations, the United States needs to have Federal Government
personnel deployed continuously abroad for years-long tours of duty so
that they become familiar with the local scene and can earn the trust
of indigenous people. The active component of the Armed Forces cannot
meet all of these requirements. Personnel from other Federal agencies,
reserve component forces, contractors, United States allies and
coalition partners, and indigenous personnel must help.
This bill complements legislation I introduced last year, S. 2127,
which calls for creation of a stabilization and reconstruction
capability within the State Department. I am pleased the State
Department created a new office for such activities. This bill is the
important next step. It calls upon the President to issue a directive
to develop an intensive planning process for stabilization and
reconstruction activities, as well as the establishment of joint
interagency task forces composed of senior Government executives and
military officers to ensure coordination and integration of the
activities of military and civilian personnel in a particular country
or area of interest.
In addition, the bill calls upon the Secretary of Defense to take
immediate action to strengthen the role and capabilities of the
Department of Defense for carrying out stabilization and reconstruction
activities as well as to support the development of core competencies
in planning in other departments and agencies, principally the
Department of State. It further calls for the Secretary of Defense to
take certain actions to ensure that stabilization and reconstruction
becomes a core competency of general purpose forces through training,
leader development, doctrine development and the use of other force
readiness tools.
I recognize that the subject matter of this bill is extremely broad
in scope, and that it properly falls within the purview of other
committees in addition to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
However, I believe that the only way the United States will achieve
long-term success in stabilization and reconstruction operations is if
all resources of the United States Government are brought to bear on
the country or area of concern. It is for that reason that I am
introducing this bill, and I hope that my colleagues in this body, in
particular Senators Warner and Levin, will agree to take a major role
in examining the merits of those aspects of this bill that fall within
their jurisdiction and expertise.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 192

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Armed Forces of the United States are extremely
capable of effectively projecting military force and
achieving conventional military victory. However, achieving
United States objectives not only requires military success
but also successful stabilization and reconstruction
operations in countries affected by conflict.
(2) Without success in the aftermath of large-scale
hostilities, the United States will not achieve its
objectives. Success in the aftermath follows from success in
preparation before hostilities.
(3) Providing safety, security, and stability is critical
to successful reconstruction efforts and for achieving United
States objectives. Making progress toward achieving those
conditions in a country is difficult when daily life in that
country is largely shaped by violence of a magnitude that
cannot be managed by indigenous police and security forces.
(4) Reconstruction activities cannot and should not wait
until safety and security has been achieved. Many elements of
reconstruction, including restoration of essential public
services and creation of sufficient jobs to instill a sense
of well-being and self-worth in a population of a country,
are necessary precursors to achieving stabilization in a
country affected by conflict. Stabilization operations and
reconstruction operations are intrinsically intertwined.
(5) Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has
begun new stabilization and reconstruction operations every
18 to 24 months. Because each such operation typically lasts
for five to eight years, cumulative requirements for human
resources can total three to five times the level needed for
a single operation.
(6) History indicates that--
(A) stabilization of societies that are relatively ordered,
without ambitious goals, may require five troops per 1,000
indigenous people; and
(B) stabilization of disordered societies, with ambitious
goals involving lasting cultural change, may require 20
troops per 1,000 indigenous people.
(7) That need, with the cumulative requirement to maintain
human resources for three to five overlapping stabilization
operations, presents a formidable challenge. It has become
increasingly clear that more people are needed in-theater for
stabilization and reconstruction operations than for combat
operations.
(8) Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has
spent at least four times more on stabilization and
reconstruction activities than on large-scale combat
operations.
(9) One overarching lesson from history is that the
quality, quantity, and kind of preparation in peacetime
determines success in a stabilization and reconstruction
operation before it even begins. If an operation starts
badly, it is difficult to recover.
(10) It is clear from experience in Afghanistan and Iraq
that the United States must expect to encounter significant
challenges in its future stabilization and reconstruction
efforts, including efforts that seek to ensure stability,
democracy, human rights, and a productive economy in a nation
affected by conflict. Achieving these ends requires effective
planning and preparation in the years before the outbreak of
hostilities in order for the Armed Forces and civilian
agencies of the United States Government to have the
capabilities that are necessary to support stabilization and
reconstruction. Such capabilities are not traditionally found
within those entities.
(11) The United States can be more effective in meeting the
challenges of the transition to and from hostilities,
challenges that require better planning, new capabilities,
and more personnel with a wider range of skills.
(12) Orchestration of all instruments of United States
power in peacetime would obviate the need for many military
expeditions to achieve United States objectives, and better
prepare the United States to achieve its objectives during
stabilization and reconstruction operations.
(13) Choosing the priority and sequence of United States
objectives, acknowledging that not everything is equally
important or urgent, and noting that in other cultures
certain social and attitudinal change may take decades, all
require explicit management-decisionmaking and planning in
the years before stabilization and reconstruction operations
might be undertaken in a region.
(14) To be fully effective, the United States needs to have
Federal Government personnel deployed continuously abroad for
years-long tours of duty, far longer than the length of
traditional assignments, so that they become familiar with
the local scene and the indigenous people come to trust them
as individuals.
(15) There is a significant need for skilled personnel to
be stationed abroad in support of stabilization and
reconstruction activities. The active components of the Armed
Forces cannot meet all of these requirements. Personnel from
other Federal agencies, reserve component forces,
contractors, United States allies and coalition partners, and
indigenous personnel must help.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) enhancing United States effectiveness in the transition
to and from hostilities will require--

[[Page S602]]

(A) management discipline, that is--
(i) the extension of the management focus of the Armed
Forces (covering the full gamut of personnel selection,
training, and promotion;
(ii) planning, budgeting, and resource allocation;
(iii) education, exercises, games, modeling, and rehearsal,
performance and readiness measurement; and
(iv) development of doctrine (now focused on combat
operations) to include peacetime activities, stabilization
and reconstruction operations and intelligence activities
that involve multi-agency participation and coordination; and
(B) building and maintaining certain fundamental
capabilities that are critical to success in stabilization
and reconstruction, including training and equipping
sufficient numbers of personnel for stabilization and
reconstruction activities, strategic communication,
knowledge, understanding, and intelligence, and
identification, location, and tracking for asymmetric
warfare;
(2) these capabilities, without management discipline,
would lack orchestration and be employed ineffectively, and
management discipline without these capabilities would be
impotent; and
(3) the study of transition to and from hostilities, which
the Defense Science Board carried out in the summer of 2004
at the request of the Secretary of Defense, provides an
appropriate framework within which the Department of Defense
and personnel of other departments and agencies of the
Federal Government should work to plan and prepare for pre-
conflict and post-conflict stability operations.

SEC. 2. DIRECTION, PLANNING, AND OVERSIGHT.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that a new coordination and
integration mechanism is needed to bring management
discipline to the continuum of peacetime, combat, and
stabilization and reconstruction operations.
(b) Presidential Action.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should issue a directive to develop an
intensive planning process for stabilization and
reconstruction activities, and that the directive should
provide for--
(1) contingency planning and integration task forces, that
is, full-time activities that could continue for months or
years, to be staffed by individuals from all involved
agencies who have expertise in the countries of interest and
in needed functional areas to work under the general guidance
of the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs;
(2) joint interagency task forces composed of senior
Government executives and military officers who operate in a
particular country or area of interest and are created to
ensure coordination and integration of the activities of all
United States personnel in that country or area; and
(3) a national center for contingency support, that is, a
federally funded research and development center with country
and functional expertise that would support the contingency
planning and integration task forces and joint interagency
task forces and would augment skills and expertise of the
Government task forces, provide a broad range of in-depth
capability, support the planning process, and provide the
necessary continuity.
(c) Actions by Secretary of Defense.--While a directive
described in subsection (b) is being implemented, the
Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) take immediate action to strengthen the role and
capabilities of the Department of Defense for carrying out
stabilization and reconstruction activities;
(2) actively support the development of core competencies
in planning in other departments and agencies, principally
the Department of State;
(3) instruct regional combatant commanders to maintain a
portfolio of operational contingency plans for stabilization
and reconstruction activities similar in scope to that
currently maintained for combat operations; and
(4) instruct each regional combatant commander to create a
focal point within their command for stabilization and
reconstruction planning and execution.

SEC. 3. STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION CAPABILITIES.

(a) Core Competency.--The Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State shall each--
(1) make stabilization and reconstruction one of the core
competencies of the Department of Defense and the Department
of State, respectively;
(2) achieve a stronger partnership and closer working
relationship between the two departments; and
(3) augment their existing capabilities for stabilization
and reconstruction.
(b) Department of Defense.--
(1) Mission.--The Secretary of Defense shall designate the
planning for stabilization and reconstruction as a mission of
the Department of Defense that has the same priority as the
mission of the Department of Defense to carry out combat
operations.
(2) Supporting actions.--In administering the planning,
training, execution, and evaluation necessary to carry out
the stabilization and reconstruction mission, the Secretary
of Defense shall--
(A) designate the Army as executive agent for stabilization
and reconstruction;
(B) ensure that stabilization and reconstruction
operational plans are fully integrated with combat
operational plans of the combatant commands;
(C) require the Army and the Marine Corps to develop, below
the brigade level, modules of stabilization and
reconstruction capabilities to facilitate task organization
and exercise and experiment with them to determine where
combinations of these capabilities can enhance United States
effectiveness in stability operations;
(D) require the Secretary of the Army to accelerate
restructuring of Army Reserve and Army National Guard forces
with an emphasis on providing the capability for carrying out
the stabilization mission; and
(E) ensure that stabilization and reconstruction becomes a
core competency of general purpose forces through training,
leader development, doctrine development, and use of other
force readiness tools and, to do so, shall require that--
(i) the Secretaries of the military departments and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff integrate stabilization and
reconstruction operations into the professional military
education programs of each of the Armed Forces and the joint
professional military education programs, by including in the
curricula courses to increase understanding of cultural,
regional, ideological, and economic concerns, and to increase
the level of participation by students from other agencies
and departments in those programs;
(ii) stabilization and reconstruction be integrated into
training events and exercises of the Armed Forces at every
level;
(iii) the commander of the United States Joint Forces
Command further develop, publish, and refine joint doctrine
for stability and reconstruction operations;
(iv) the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and
the senior acquisition executive of each of the military
departments develop and implement a process for achieving
more rapid and coherent exploitation of service and
departmental science and technology programs and increase the
investment in force-multiplying technologies, such as
language translation devices and rapid training;
(v) the resources for support of stability operations be
increased; and
(vi) a force with a modest stabilization capability of
sufficient size to achieve ambitious objectives in small
countries, regions, or areas, and of sufficient capability to
achieve modest objectives elsewhere be developed, and
consideration be given to the actual capability of that force
in making a decision to commit the force to a particular
stabilization and reconstruction operation or to expand the
force for that operation.
(c) Department of State.--
(1) Policy on reconstruction integration.--It is the policy
of the United States that the capabilities to promote
political and economic reform that exist in many civilian
agencies of the United States Government, in international
organizations, in nongovernmental and private voluntary
organizations, and in other governments be integrated based
upon a common vision and coordinated strategy.
(2) Responsibilities of the secretary of state.--The
Secretary of State shall--
(A) be the locus for carrying out the policy on
reconstruction integration set forth in paragraph (1); and
(B) develop in the Department of State capabilities--
(i) to develop, maintain, and execute a portfolio of
detailed and adaptable plans and capabilities for the
civilian roles in reconstruction operations;
(ii) to prepare, deploy, and lead the civil components of
reconstruction missions; and
(iii) to incorporate international and nongovernmental
capabilities in planning and execution.
(d) Collaboration and Cooperation Between Departments of
Defense and State.--The Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) assist in bolstering the development of the Office of
Stabilization and Reconstruction of the Department of State
and otherwise support that objective through the sharing of
the extensive expertise of the Department of Defense in
crisis management planning and in the process of deliberate
planning;
(2) work collaboratively with that office and assign to
that office at least 10 experts to provide the intellectual
capital and guidance on the relevant best practices that have
been developed within the Department of Defense; and
(3) ensure that extensive joint and collaborative planning
for stabilization and reconstruction operations occurs before
commencement of a conflict that leads to such an operation.

SEC. 4. STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION.

(a) Presidential Directive.--Recognizing an increase in
anti-American attitudes around the world, particularly in
Islamic and Middle-Eastern countries, the use of terrorism,
and the implications of terrorism for national security
issues, it is the sense of Congress that the President should
issue a directive to strengthen the United States
Government's ability--
(1) to better understand global public opinion about the
United States, and to communicate with global audiences;
(2) to coordinate all components of strategic
communication, including public diplomacy, public affairs,
and international broadcasting; and
(3) to provide a foundation for new legislation on the
planning, coordination, conduct, and funding of strategic
communication.

[[Page S603]]

(b) NSC Organization.--It is, further, the sense of
Congress that the President should establish a permanent
organizational structure within the National Security Council
to oversee the efforts undertaken pursuant to a directive
described in subsection (a) and that such structure should
include--
(1) a deputy national security advisor for strategic
communication to serve as the President's principal advisor
on all matters relating to strategic communication;
(2) a strategic communication committee, chaired by the
deputy national security advisor for strategic communication
and with a membership drawn from officers serving at the
under secretary level of departments and agencies, to develop
an overarching framework for strategic communication
(including brand identity, themes, messages, and budget
priorities) and to direct and coordinate interagency programs
to maintain focus, consistency, and continuity; and
(3) an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan center for
strategic communication to serve as a source of independent,
objective expertise to support the National Security Council
and the strategic communication committee, by (among other
actions) providing information and analysis, developing and
monitoring the effectiveness of themes, messages, products,
and programs, determining target audiences, contracting with
commercial sector sources for products and programs, and
fostering cross-cultural exchanges of ideas, people, and
information.
(c) Actions by Departments of State and Defense.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State and the Secretary
of Defense shall each allocate substantial funding to
strategic communication.
(2) Department of state.--Within the Department of State,
the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs shall be the principal policy advisor and manager for
strategic communication.
(3) Department of defense.--Within the Department of
Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy shall
serve as that department's focal point for strategic
communication.

SEC. 5. KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING, AND INTELLIGENCE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The knowledge necessary to be effective in conducting
stabilization and reconstruction operations is different from
the military knowledge required to prevail during
hostilities, but is no less important.
(2) To successfully achieve United States political and
military objectives, knowledge of culture and development of
language skills must be taken as seriously as development of
combat skills.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the collection, analysis, and integration of cultural
knowledge and intelligence should be ongoing to ensure its
availability far in advance of stabilization and
reconstruction operations for which such knowledge and
intelligence are needed; and
(2) a new approach is needed to establish systematic ways
to access and coordinate the vast amount of knowledge
available within the United States Government.
(c) Commanders of Combatant Commands.--
(1) Intelligence plans.--The Secretary of Defense shall
require the commanders of the combatant commands to develop
intelligence plans as a required element of their planning
process. Each such plan shall satisfy information needs for
peacetime, combat, and stabilization and reconstruction
(including support to other departments and agencies) and be
developed by use of the same kinds of tools that are useful
in traditional pre-conflict and conflict planning.
(2) Resources.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
resources to the regional combatant commands for the
establishment of offices for regional expertise outreach to
support country and regional planning and operations, and to
provide continuity, identify experts, and build relationships
with outside experts and organizations.
(3) Area experts.--In order to increase the number of
competent area experts, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness shall lead a process to set
requirements and develop career paths for foreign area
officers and a new cadre of enlisted area specialists, a
process based on a more formal, structured definition of
requirements by the commanders of the combatant commands.
(4) Military education.--The Secretaries of the military
departments shall improve the regional and cultural studies
curricula in the joint professional military education
system, as well as in online regional and cultural self-study
instruction, in order to broaden cultural knowledge and
awareness.
(d) Intelligence Reform.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the United States should shift the focus of intelligence
reform from reorganization to the solving of substantive
problems in intelligence.
(2) Actions.--The Director of National Intelligence, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall--
(A) establish a human resource coordination office charged
with the responsibility to develop a comprehensive human
resource strategy for planning, management, and deployment of
personnel that would serve as the basis for optimizing the
allocation of resources against critical problems;
(B) adopt a new counterintelligence and security approach
that puts the analyst in the role of determining the balance
between need-to-share and need-to-know that will enable the
intelligence community to enlarge its circle of trust from
which to draw information and skills;
(C) improve integration between networks and data
architectures across the intelligence community to facilitate
enterprise-wide collaboration;
(D) harmonize special operations forces, covert action, and
intelligence, and ensure that sufficient capabilities in
these specialized areas are developed;
(E) accelerate the reinvention of defense human
intelligence and ensure that there are enough such personnel
assigned and sustained for a sufficient number of years in
advance of the nation's need for their services; and
(F) enhance the analysis of intelligence collected from all
sources, including by improving the selection, recruitment,
training, and continuing education of analysts, producing
regular and continuous assessment and post-operation
appraisal of intelligence products, and creating incentives
to promote the creativity and independence of analysts.
(e) Foreign Language Proficiency.--
(1) Finding.--Congress finds that the utilization of
individuals with foreign language skills is critical to
understanding a country or a region, yet the Department of
Defense lacks sufficient personnel with critical foreign
language skills.
(2) Actions by secretary of defense.--The Secretary of
Defense shall--
(A) prescribe the specific foreign language and regional
specialist requirements that must be met in order to meet the
needs of the Department of Defense, including the needs of
the commander of the United States Joint Forces Command and
the commanders of the other combatant commands and the needs
of the Armed Forces generally, and shall provide the
resources for meeting these requirements in the annual budget
submissions; and
(B) develop a more comprehensive system for identifying,
testing, tracking, and accessing personnel with critical
foreign language skills.
(f) Exploitation of Open Sources of Information.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that open sources of
information--
(A) can provide much of the information needed to support
peacetime needs and stabilization and reconstruction needs;
and
(B) can be used to develop a broad range of products needed
for stabilization and reconstruction operations, including
such products as genealogical trees, electricity generation
and transmission grids, cultural materials in support of
strategic communication plans, and background information for
noncombatant evacuation operations.
(2) Executive agent for department of defense.--The
Secretary of Defense shall designate the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency to serve as executive agent of
the Department of Defense for the development and
administration of a robust and coherent program for the
exploitation of open sources of information.

SEC. 6. IDENTIFICATION, LOCATION, AND TRACKING IN ASYMMETRIC
WARFARE.

The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director
of National Intelligence, shall immediately develop a program
administered by a new organization established by those
officers to provide--
(1) an overall technical approach to--
(A) the identification, location, and tracking of
asymmetric warfare operations carried out against the Armed
Forces of the United States or allied or coalition armed
forces; and
(B) tracking targets in asymmetric warfare in which the
Armed Forces of the United States, or allied or coalition
armed forces may be engaged;
(2) the systems and technology to implement the approach;
(3) the analysis techniques for translating sensor data
into useful identification, location, and tracking
information;
(4) the field operations to employ, utilize, and support
the hardware and software produced; and
(5) feedback to the Secretary of Defense and the Director
of National Intelligence on the impact of related policy
decisions and directives on the creation of a robust
identification, location, and tracking capability.

SEC. 7. MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

(a) Requirement for Plans.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of State shall each submit to
Congress a management plan for carrying out the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense (and the duties
of other officials of the Department of Defense) and the
responsibilities of the Secretary of State (and the duties of
other officials of the Department of State), respectively,
under this Act.
(b) Content.--Each plan submitted under this section shall
include objectives, schedules, and estimates of costs,
together with a discussion of the means for defraying the
costs.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Department of Defense.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Defense for the Office for
Stability Operations such sums as may be necessary to enable
that office to carry out the planning, oversight, and related
stabilization and reconstruction activities required of the
Department of Defense under this Act.

[[Page S604]]

(b) Department of State.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of State such sums as may be
necessary for carrying out the planning, oversight, and
related stabilization and reconstruction activities required
of the Department of State under this Act.
______

By Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 194. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 to permit the planting of chicory on base acres; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I am offering
legislation with Senator Mike Enzi to remove chicory from the fruit and
vegetable, FAV, planting prohibition on Direct and Counter-Cyclical
Program, DCP, base acres.
Diversification is a common theme among farm producers throughout the
country. If we expect our producers to survive, we have to give them
more options for diversifying agriculture. Our responsibility should
include the elimination of the disincentive to produce alternative
crops. This bill offers a clear opportunity to grow a chicory industry,
creating a new revenue stream and helping to diversify agriculture
production.
The State of Nebraska currently has the only chicory processing
facility in the United States. There is a strong interest from
producers in Nebraska and Wyoming to increase the production of
chicory, due to its relatively low input cost and opportunity for high
profits. Only 800 to 1,000 acres of the crop are expected to be planted
in 2005. Farm bill policies are simply blocking the prospects for
growth in the chicory industry.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 currently provides
three exceptions--lentils, mung beans, and dry peas--to the FAV
planting prohibition on DCP base acres. Chicory should be added to this
list of exceptions.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Obama, Ms.
Mikulski, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 195. A bill to provide for full voting representation in Congress
for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No
Taxation Without Representation Act of 2005 in an effort to right a
persistent injustice experienced by the 600,000 citizens of the
District of Columbia, who have historically been denied voting
representation in Congress.
This injustice is felt directly by District residents, but it is also
a shadow overhanging the democratic traditions of our Nation as a
whole. It is absurd that, in this day and age, ours is the only
democracy in the world in which citizens of the capital city are not
represented in the national legislature with a vote. The right to vote
is a civic entitlement of every American citizen, no matter where he or
she resides. It is democracy's most essential right.
I am proud to be the chief Senate sponsor of this bill, which
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is introducing today in the House,
because it makes us the fully representative democracy we claim to be.
And I am delighted that Senators Obama, Schumer, Mikulski, Sarbanes,
Feingold, Dayton, Corzine, Dodd and Durbin are joining me as original
co-sponsors. The point of the legislation is simple: It would provide
the residents of the District with full voting representation by two
Senators and a House Member, guaranteeing the residents of the Nation's
capital with the same right to partake in our democracy that the
citizens of all 50 States enjoy. Despite this bill's title, it would
not exempt residents of the District from paying taxes.
In May 2002, the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I then
chaired, held the first hearing since 1994 on this issue. Five months
later, in October, the committee reported out legislation similar to
the bill we introduce today. I was and am still proud of that
accomplishment. Unfortunately, it was not enough. The bill died on the
Senate floor, and with it, the hope of D.C. residents for equal voting
rights.
The people of this city literally fight and die for their country.
They help pay for the benefits to which all Americans are entitled. And
yet, they are denied voting representation.
It is painfully ironic that we are introducing this legislation even
as the young men and women, including many from the District of
Columbia, are dying in Iraq so that Iraqis may live and vote in a
representative democracy. About 1,000 Army and Air National Guardsmen
and women from the District have been called upon to help fight the war
on terrorism. Three have died in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Yet, to
our shame, these brave men and women cannot choose representatives to
the Federal legislature that governs them and thus have no say in when
or whether the nation should go to war.
The people of this city, more than most, live under the near constant
threat of terrorism, and have been mightily inconvenienced by security
precautions because of that threat. And despite Congresswoman Norton's
ability to vote in committee, residents of D.C. have no one who can
vote when homeland and national security policies are being crafted. A
representative without the power to vote on the floor of the House
simply isn't a real representative.
Furthermore, the citizens of Washington, D.C., pay income taxes just
like everyone else. Only, they pay more. Per capita, District residents
have the third highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have no
voice in how high those taxes will be nor how they will be spent.
The vast majority of Americans believe that D.C. residents have
voting representation in the Congress. When informed that they don't,
82 percent of Americans, according to one poll, by the advocacy group
D.C. Vote, say that they should.
In righting this wrong, we won't only be following the will of the
American people. We will be following the imperative of our history.
When they placed our Capital, which was not yet established in their
day, under the jurisdiction of the Congress, the Framers of our
Constitution in effect placed with Congress the solemn responsibility
of assuring that the rights of D.C. citizens would be protected in the
future, just as it is our responsibility to protect the rights of all
citizens throughout this great country. Congress has failed to meet
this obligation for more than 200 years, and I, for one, am not
prepared to make D.C. citizens wait another 200 years.
In the words of this city's namesake, our first President,
``Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be
braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the
Constitution be reprehended: If defective let it be amended, but not
suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.''
The people of D.C. have suffered from this Constitutional defect for
far too long. Let's reprehend it and amend it together. I urge all of
my colleagues to support this essential legislation.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 195

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 ``No Taxation Without
Representation Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The residents of the District of Columbia are the only
Americans who pay Federal income taxes and who have fought
and died in every American war but are denied voting
representation in the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
(2) The residents of the District of Columbia suffer the
very injustice against which our Founding Fathers fought,
because they do not have voting representation as other
taxpaying Americans do and are nevertheless required to pay
Federal income taxes unlike the Americans who live in the
territories.
(3) The principle of one person, one vote requires that
residents of the District of Columbia are afforded full
voting representation in the House and the Senate.
(4) Despite the denial of voting representation, Americans
in the Nation's Capital are third among residents of all
States in per capita income taxes paid to the Federal
Government.
(5) Unequal voting representation in our representative
democracy is inconsistent with the founding principles of the
Nation and the strongly held principles of the American
people today.

[[Page S605]]

SEC. 3. REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

For the purposes of congressional representation, the
District of Columbia, constituting the seat of government of
the United States, shall be treated as a State, such that its
residents shall be entitled to elect and be represented by 2
Senators in the United States Senate, and as many
Representatives in the House of Representatives as a
similarly populous State would be entitled to under the law.

SEC. 4. ELECTIONS.

(a) First Elections.--
(1) Proclamation.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Mayor of the District of Columbia
shall issue a proclamation for elections to be held to fill
the 2 Senate seats and the seat in the House of
Representatives to represent the District of Columbia in
Congress.
(2) Manner of elections.--The proclamation of the Mayor of
the District of Columbia required by paragraph (1) shall
provide for the holding of a primary election and a general
election and at such elections the officers to be elected
shall be chosen by a popular vote of the residents of the
District of Columbia. The manner in which such elections
shall be held and the qualification of voters shall be the
same as those for local elections, as prescribed by the
District of Columbia.
(3) Classification of senators.--In the first election of
Senators from the District of Columbia, the 2 senatorial
offices shall be separately identified and designated, and no
person may be a candidate for both offices. No such
identification or designation of either of the 2 senatorial
offices shall refer to or be taken to refer to the terms of
such offices, or in any way impair the privilege of the
Senate to determine the class to which each of the Senators
elected shall be assigned.
(b) Certification of Election.--The results of an election
for the Senators and Representative from the District of
Columbia shall be certified by the Mayor of the District of
Columbia in the manner required by law. The Senators and
Representative elected shall be entitled to be admitted to
seats in Congress and to all the rights and privileges of
Senators and Representatives of the States in the Congress of
the United States.

SEC. 5. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMBERSHIP.

(a) In General.--Upon the date of enactment of this Act,
the District of Columbia shall be entitled to 1
Representative until the taking effect of the next
reapportionment. Such Representative shall be in addition to
the membership of the House of Representatives as now
prescribed by law.
(b) Increase in Membership of House of Representatives.--
Upon the date of enactment of this Act, the permanent
membership of the House of Representatives shall increase by
1 seat for the purpose of future reapportionment of
Representatives.
(c) Reapportionment.--Upon reapportionment, the District of
Columbia shall be entitled to as many seats in the House of
Representatives as a similarly populous State would be
entitled to under the law.
(d) District of Columbia Delegate.--Until the first
Representative from the District of Columbia is seated in the
House of Representatives, the Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia shall continue to discharge the duties
of his or her office.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 196. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the taxation of income of controlled foreign corporations
attributable to imported property; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Mikulski of
Maryland and seven of our colleagues in introducing legislation to
repeal one of the most egregious tax subsidies found in the U.S. Tax
Code. Believe it or not, U.S. companies that move their manufacturing
plants and good-paying jobs overseas will be rewarded with billions of
dollars in tax breaks over the next 10 years. Unfortunately for both
American workers and American taxpayers, this is absolutely true. Our
bill will repeal this wrong-headed fiscal policy that has worked
against the interest of American manufacturers for so many years.
Let me describe how this perverse tax subsidy works. Imagine two
competing U.S. companies manufacturing a product for sale in this
country. Company A has a plant with American workers. It sells its
product here at home, immediately paying U.S. taxes on its profits.
Company B, however, decides to shut down its U.S. plant, fire its
American workers and build a new plant in a foreign country because it
can produce the same goods at lower cost there, using underpaid foreign
workers. Moreover, Company B pays almost no taxes in the foreign
country and no taxes currently in the United States because it is
entitled to tax ``deferral'' under our income tax laws. The Federal Tax
Code allows firms like Company B to defer paying any U.S. income taxes
on the earnings from those now foreign-manufactured products until
those profits are returned, if ever, to this country.
In other words, when United States companies close down a
manufacturing plant such as Huffy bicycles or Radio Flyer little red
wagons, fire their American workers and move those good-paying jobs to
countries like China, United States tax law actually gives these
companies a large tax break. This tax break is not available to
American companies that make the very same products here on American
soil. So the U.S. company that decides to stay at home suffers a
competitive disadvantage, a disadvantage that our tax laws have helped
to create.
The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation says that this tax
``deferral'' loophole will dole out some $6.5 billion in tax breaks
over the next decade to U.S. manufacturing companies that pack up their
operations and relocate abroad. This tax loophole likely contributed to
a loss of some 2.7 million U.S. manufacturing jobs since 2000 and
encouraged the creation of over 1 million new jobs in the foreign
manufacturing affiliates of U.S companies since 1993.
Last May, Senator Mikulski and I offered an amendment on the Senate
floor to try to shut down this perverse $6.5 billion tax break. Our
effort was supported by a number of organizations concerned about the
loss of good-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs, including the
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America--UAW; the AFL-CIO; the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers
and Helpers; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; and
the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Workers, UNITE.
Regrettably, our amendment failed to get the votes it needed to pass.
The powerful lobby for large multinational firms was able to keep this
tax loophole fully intact. But I intend to offer this proposal again
and again until this tax subsidy is finally repealed.
Frankly, I strongly disagree with the majority in the Senate that
voted to retain this ill-conceived tax break, which hurts American
businesses and workers. By their vote, our opponents essentially said
let's continue to give enormous tax breaks that encourage U.S.
companies to move their operations overseas and contributes to the
dislocation of thousands of American workers.
The bill we are introducing today, like last year's amendment, is
carefully targeted. It applies only to U.S. firms that move production
overseas to low-tax countries and then turn around and import those
products for sale here in the United States. Repealing this U.S. jobs
export tax subsidy will not hurt the ability of U.S. firms to compete
against foreign competitors in foreign markets.
In the final analysis, the approach taken in our legislation is
measured and long overdue. As we work in Congress to reform the tax
system in the coming year and shut down a number of arcane tax
loopholes, this one should be at the top of the list. I urge you to
cosponsor this bill.
______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 197. A bill to improve safety and reduce traffic congestion at
grade crossings; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today in Glendale, CA, there was a tragic
commuter train crash. All of the details of the crash are not available
at this moment. However, at least 10 people were killed and over 100
injured. The National Transportation Safety Board has already sent a
team to investigate.
I have been talking about the problem of grade crossings and the need
for grade separations for several years.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, ``grade crossings
are the site of the greatest number of collisions and injuries'' in the
railroad industry. In 2000, there were 3,502 incidents at grade
crossings.
In addition, the large volume of freight train traffic from
California's ports to the rest of the Nation is a public safety hazard
on many communities

[[Page S606]]

in California where traffic, including emergency vehicles, is severely
delayed at these grade crossings.
In Riverside, CA, from January 2001 to January 2003, trains delayed
ambulance and fire protection 88 times. This translates into more
people possibly dying from health emergencies such as heart attacks and
larger and more deadly fires. If there is another terrorist attack,
imagine what would happen if emergency first responders could not get
across the tracks.
To address the safety problem of accidents and other safety hazards
at grade crossings, I am introducing the Rail Crossing Safety Act, part
of which passed the Senate twice in the last Congress as part larger
railroad bills considered in the Commerce Committee.
This legislation would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with State and local government officials, to conduct a
study of the impact of grade crossings both on accidents and on the
ability of emergency responders to perform public safety and security
duties. This would include the ability of police, fire, ambulances, and
other emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks during
emergencies.
The second part of the legislation would authorize funds for the
Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to State and local
governments to undertake grade separations, in other words to build
bridges and tunnels.
Today's incident in Glendale only underscores the needs to make our
streets and rail lines safer. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
______

By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. Isakson):
S. 200. A bill to establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage
Area in the State of Georgia, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President a mere 20 minutes away from the hustle
and bustle of the booming city of Atlanta, GA, lies a quiet refuge that
cradles historical remnants and nature's beauty. This area around
Arabia Mountain houses the ecosystems of endangered species, historic
structures, and archeological sites--a treasure deserving of our
protection and our admiration.
Arabia Mountain's proximity to Atlanta makes it accessible to
millions of Americans, but it also puts this national treasure in
danger of urban sprawl. No condominium development should destroy the
ancient soapstone quarry which attracted Native Americans over
thousands of years ago. Nor should a strip mall tarnish the pristine
land which contains farms from the days when the area was the heart of
Georgia's dairy industry and which contains remnants of Georgia's Gold
Rush in the 1820s.
I, along with my colleague Senator Isakson, have introduced
legislation to designate Arabia Mountain, which encompasses land in
DeKalb County, Rockdale County, and Henry County, as a National
Heritage Area. This designation will help preserve the rare and
endangered species that inhabit the land, and it will save historic
buildings from the wrecking ball that often comes with modernization.
Arabia Mountain and its surrounding area is the product of
significant geological changes. Starting several thousand years ago
with the quarrying and trading of soapstone, the history of human
settlement in the area is closely connected to its geological
resources. It would be a shame to allow a decade of uncontrolled growth
to deny future generations from enjoying the history and natural beauty
of this land.
The quest to obtain National Heritage designation for Arabia Mountain
began as a concept between conservationists, neighborhood activists,
landowners, and concerned citizens, and support has grown ever since.
Local Georgians even voted to tax themselves to support the project.
Support has come from both sides of the aisle in both houses of
Congress.
I would like to thank all of those who have worked so hard for this
designation--Kelly Jordan, Chair of the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area
Alliance; Mayor Marcia Glenn, of Lithonia; Vernon Jones, CEO of DeKalb
County; Mark Towe and Glen Culpepper; and Senator Zell Miller and
Congresswoman Denise Majette for their efforts in the 108th Congress on
this issue. I ask my colleagues to support the preservation of this
truly deserving area.

____________________