[Pages S1415-S1432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 375. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
an influenza vaccine awareness campaign, ensure a sufficient influenza
vaccine supply, and prepare for an influenza pandemic or epidemic, to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage vaccine production
capacity, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage increased
production of influenza vaccines in the United States. I am happy to
honor my commitment to reintroduce the Flu Protection Act of 2005,
along with Senator Bayh.
We dodged a bullet this year because we had a relatively mild flu
season. Also, because the administration and public health officials
did an excellent job of immediately addressing the vaccine shortage
when it was announced in October. While this season's vaccine shortage
didn't have as strong an impact as it might have, we should not go a
day without looking for a path toward solving this problem so that we
don't have the same issues in years to come. We may not always be so
fortunate. Scientists believe that the return of an especially strong
pandemic strain of flu is overdue. This legislation supports the
administration's efforts to take steps to prepare for the imminent
threat of avian flu.
The Bush administration has made progress on this issue, but Congress
needs to address the underlying problems. The United States is
disturbingly underprepared to deal with a massive outbreak or a sudden
shortage of vaccine. We don't want to get caught short next year. We
must aggressively encourage vaccine companies to come into this market
and pass building incentives for existing companies.
I am encouraged that some sections of this legislation have been
included in the majority's priority legislative package and look
forward to working with other Members of Congress to ensure that the
most comprehensive piece of legislation possible can be approved. We
must move quickly to pass legislation that ensures sufficient flu
vaccine supply, encourages an increase in production capacity, supports
a flu vaccine awareness campaign, and prepares the United States to
combat a pandemic or epidemic.
______

By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
S. 376. A bill to improve intermodal shipping container
transportation security; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will
make much-needed improvements to our container security system. The
Federal Government currently has no coordinated strategy which
integrates the many aspects of inter-modal container shipping.
We may not be able to physically screen every container on the move
in our Nation's vast economy, but we should not leave vast shipments of
cargo completely unchecked. My bill lays out a systematic plan to
coordinate and expand existing methods of screening and securing
materials using available technology.
The cost to the U.S. economy of port closures on the West Coast due
to a labor dispute last year was approximately $1 billion per day for
the first five days, and rose sharply thereafter. These disruptions
have become so costly because the container shipping system is designed
for speed and efficiency; as a result, the U.S. and its global trading
partners have in effect become hostages to a ``just-in-time''
distribution model where any disruption of the system has far reaching
and immediate global impact.
I am eager to prevent a similar situation from occurring, since in my
home State the Port of Houston, a $15 billion petrochemical complex, is
the second-largest port in the U.S. and first in international tonnage.
Texas has 13 deepwater ports, many of which subsequently move freight
by rail, a model typical nationwide.
My bill will require the Department of Homeland Security to
incorporate aviation, maritime, rail and highway security in a single
plan. We need a coordinated strategy to make the most of federal,
state, and local capabilities.
The bill requires a ``smart box'' standard to reduce the cost of
inspecting shipping containers and calls for all containers to meet
this standard by 2009. It establishes penalties for commercial
shippers, to hold them, and by extension their clients, responsible for
properly documenting the contents of their shipments. Finally, it
significantly increases U.S. Customs' presence overseas, because
identifying a dirty bomb after it is unloaded onto U.S. soil may be too
late.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and 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. 376

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 ``Intermodal Shipping
Container Security Act''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY STRATEGY.

In carrying out section 114(f) of title 49, United States
Code, the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Border and
Transportation Security shall take into account the National
Maritime Transportation Security Plan prepared under section
70103 of title 46, United States Code, by the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating when the
plan is prepared in order to ensure that the strategy for
dealing with threats to transportation security developed
under section 114(f)(3) of title 49, United States Code,
incorporates relevant aspects of the National Maritime
Transportation Security Plan and addresses all modes of
commercial transportation to, from, and within the United
States.

SEC. 3. COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR INTERMODAL SHIPPING
CONTAINER SECURITY.

(a) Strategic Plan.--
(1) In general.--Within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure a strategic plan for
integrating security for all modes of transportation by which
intermodal shipping containers arrive, depart, or move in
interstate commerce in the United States that--
(A) takes into account the security-related authorities and
missions of all Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies

[[Page S1416]]

that relate to the movement of intermodal shipping containers
via air, rail, maritime, or highway transportation in the
United States; and
(B) establishes as a goal the creation of a comprehensive,
integrated strategy for intermodal shipping container
security that encompasses the authorities and missions of all
those agencies and sets forth specific objectives,
mechanisms, and a schedule for achieving that goal.
(2) Updates.--The Secretary shall revise the plan from time
to time
(c) Identification of Problem Areas.--In developing the
strategic plan required by subsection (a), the Secretary
shall consult with all Federal, State, and local government
agencies responsible for security matters that affect or
relate to the movement of intermodal shipping containers via
air, rail, maritime, or highway transportation in the United
States in order to--
(1) identify changes, including legislative, regulatory,
jurisdictional, and organizational changes, necessary to
improve coordination among those agencies;
(2) reduce overlapping capabilities and responsibilities;
and
(3) streamline efforts to improve the security of such
intermodal shipping containers.
(d) Establishment of Steering Group.--The Secretary shall
establish, organize, and provide support for an advisory
committee, to be known as the Senior Steering Group, of
senior representatives of the agencies described in
subsection (c). The Group shall meet from time to time, at
the call of the Secretary or upon its own motion, for the
purpose of developing solutions to jurisdictional and other
conflicts among the represented agencies with respect to the
security of intermodal shipping containers, improving
coordination and information-sharing among the represented
agencies, and addressing such other, related matters, as the
Secretary may request.
(e) Annual Report.--The Secretary, after consulting the
Senior Steering Group, shall submit an annual report to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure describing the activities of the Senior
Steering Group and the Secretary under this section,
describing the progress made during the year toward achieving
the objectives of the plan, and including any
recommendations, including legislative recommendations, if
appropriate for further improvements in dealing with
security-issues related to intermodal shipping containers and
related transportation security issues.
(f) Biennial Expert Critique.--
(1) Expert Panel.--A panel of experts shall be convened
once every 2 years by the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to review
plans submitted by the Secretary under subsection (a).
(2) Membership.--The panel shall consist of--
(A) 4 individuals selected by the chairman and ranking
member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and by the chairman and ranking member of the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, respectively; and
(B) 1 individual selected by the 4 individuals selected
under subparagraph (A).
(3) Qualifications.--Individuals selected under paragraph
(2) shall be chosen from among individuals with professional
expertise and experience in security-related issues involving
shipping or transportation and without regard to political
affiliation.
(4) Compensation and expenses.--An individual serving as a
member of the panel shall not receive any compensation or
other benefits from the Federal Government for serving on the
panel or be considered a Federal employee as a result of such
service. Panel members shall be reimbursed by the Committees
for expenses, including travel and lodging, they incur while
actively engaged in carrying out the functions of the panel.
(5) Function.--The panel shall review plans submitted by
the Secretary under subsection (a), evaluate the strategy set
forth in the plan, and make such recommendations to the
Secretary for modifying or otherwise improving the strategy
as may be appropriate.

SEC. 4. SHIPPING CONTAINER INTEGRITY INITIATIVE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 701 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 70117 as section 70118; and
(2) by inserting after section 70116 the following:

``Sec. 70117. ENHANCED CONTAINER-RELATED SECURITY MEASURES.

``(a) Tracking Intermodal Container Shipments in the United
States.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Under
Secretary of Border and Transportation Security, shall
develop a system to increase the number of intermodal
shipping containers physically inspected (including non
instrusive inspection by scanning technology), monitored, and
tracked within the United States.
``(b) Smart Box Technology.--Under regulations to be
prescribed by the Secretary, beginning with calendar year
2007 no less than 50 percent of all ocean-borne shipping
containers entering the United States during any calendar
year shall incorporate `Smart Box' or equivalent technology
developed, approved, or certified by the Under Secretary of
Homeland Security for Border and Transportation Security.
``(c) Development of International Standard for Smart
Containers.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) develop, and seek international acceptance of, a
standard for `smart' maritime shipping containers that
incorporate technology for tracking the location and
assessing the integrity of those containers as they move
through the intermodal transportation system; and
``(2) implement an integrated tracking and technology
system for such containers.
``(d) Report.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Intermodal Shipping Container Security Act, the Secretary
shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure a report that contains--
``(1) a cost analysis for implementing this section; and
``(2) a strategy for implementing the system described in
subsection (c)(3).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
701 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by striking
the item relating to section 70117 and inserting the
following:
``70117. Enhanced container-related security measures.

``70118. Civil penalties.''.

SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure a report that contains the following:
(1) Recommendations about what analysis must be performed
and the cost to develop and field a cargo container tracking
and monitoring system within the United States which tracks
all aviation, rail, maritime, and highway cargo containers
equipped with smart container technology.
(2) Recommendations on how the Department of Homeland
Security could help support the deployment of such a system.
(3) Recommendations as to how current efforts by the
Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies
could be incorporated into the physical screening or
inspection of aviation, rail, maritime, and highway cargo
containers within the United States.
(4) Recommendations about operating systems and standards
for those operating systems, to support the tracking of
aviation, rail, maritime, and highway cargo containers within
the United States that would include the location of
regional, State, and local operations centers.
(5) A description of what contingency actions, measures,
and mechanisms should be incorporated in the deployment of a
nationwide aviation, rail, maritime, and highway cargo
containers tracking and monitoring system which would allow
the United States maximum flexibility in responding quickly
and appropriately to increased terrorist threat levels at the
local, State, or regional level.
(6) A description of what contingency actions, measures,
and mechanisms must be incorporated in the deployment of such
a system which would allow for the quick reconstitution of
the system in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack
which affected part of the system.
(7) Recommendations on how to leverage existing information
and operating systems within State or Federal agencies to
assist in the fielding of the system.
(8) Recommendations on co-locating local, State, and
Federal agency personnel to streamline personnel
requirements, minimize costs, and avoid redundancy.
(9) An initial assessment of the availability of private
sector resources which could be utilized, and incentive
systems developed, to support the fielding of the system, and
the maintenance and improvement as technology or terrorist
threat dictate.
(10) Recommendations on how this system that is focused on
the continental United States would be integrated into any
existing or planned system, or process, which is designed to
monitor the movement of cargo containers outside the
continental United States.

SEC. 6. IMPROVEMENTS TO CONTAINER TARGETING SYSTEMS.

(a) In General.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit
a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure that provides a preliminary
plan for strengthening the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection's container targeting system. The plan shall
identify the cost and feasibility of requiring additional
non-manifest documentation for each container, including
purchase orders, shipper's letters of instruction, commercial
invoices, letters of credit, or certificates of origin.
(b) Reduction of Manifest Revision Window.--Within 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall issue regulations under which the
time period for revisions to a container cargo manifest
submitted to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
shall be reduced from 60 days to 45 days after arrival at a
United States port.
(c) Supply Chain Information.--Within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act,

[[Page S1417]]

the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop a system to
share threat and vulnerability information with all of the
industries in the supply chain that will allow ports,
carriers, and shippers to report on security lapses in the
supply chain and have access to unclassified maritime threat
and security information such as piracy incidents.

SEC. 7. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF CUSTOMS INSPECTORS ASSIGNED
OVERSEAS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
substantially increase the number of United States Customs
Service inspectors assigned to duty outside the United States
under the Container Security Initiative of the United States
Customs Service with responsibility for inspecting intermodal
shipping containers being shipped to the United States.
(b) Staffing Criteria.--In carrying out subsection (a) the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine the
appropriate level for assignment and density of customs
inspectors at selected international port facilities by a
threat, vulnerability, and risk analysis which, at a minimum,
considers--
(1) the volume of containers shipped;
(2) the ability of the host government to assist in both
manning and providing equipment and resources;
(3) terrorist intelligence known of importer vendors,
suppliers or manufacturers; and
(4) other criteria as determined in consult with experts in
the shipping industry, terrorism, and shipping container
security.
(c) Minimum Number.--The total number of customs inspectors
assigned to international port facilities shall not be less
than the number determined as a result of the threat,
vulnerability, and risk assessment analysis which is
validated by the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration within 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(d) Plan.--The Secretary shall submit a plan to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, with timelines, for phasing inspectors into
selected port facilities within 180 days after the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 8. RANDOM INSPECTION OF CONTAINERS.

(a) In General.--The Under Secretary of Homeland Security
for Border and Transportation Security shall develop and
implement a plan for random inspection of shipping containers
in addition to any targeted or preshipment inspection of such
containers required by law or regulation or conducted under
any other program conducted by the Under Secretary.
(b) Civil Penalty for Erroneous Manifest.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
the Under Secretary determines on the basis of an inspection
conducted under subsection (a) that there is a discrepancy
between the contents of a shipping container and the manifest
for that container, the Under Secretary may impose a civil
penalty of not more than $1,000 for the discrepancy.
(2) Manifest discrepancy reporting.--The Under Secretary
may not impose a civil penalty under paragraph (1) if a
manifest discrepancy report is filed with respect to the
discrepancy within the time limits established by Customs
Directive No. 3240-067A (or any subsequently issued directive
governing the matters therein) for filing a manifest
discrepancy report.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
S. 377. A bill to require negotiation and appropriate action with
respect to certain countries that engage in currency manipulation; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, February 15, 2005, I rise to
introduce a bill, proposing we enact the Fair Currency Enforcement Act
of 2005. The present legislation addresses the practice of some
governments to intervene aggressively in currency markets, or to peg
their currencies at a fixed--artificially low--exchange rate, thus
subsidizing their export sales and raising price barriers to imports
from the United States. I introduced similar legislation last Congress,
yet the problem remains unsolved.
In recent years, particularly China has been pressed to float their
currency upward. Specifically, the Europeans, the International
Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements have put
pressure on the Chinese to at a minimum repeg their currency to a
higher dollar value. The Administration has talked about this idea, but
has been ineffective. As a consequence there has been no movement on
the part of the Chinese.
As a result of the heavy dollar buying, the Asian Central banks have
allowed their foreign-exchange reserves to swell from less than $800
billion at the start of 1999 to over $1.5 trillion in 2003. This is
almost two-thirds of the global total.
The world's seven biggest holders of foreign-exchange reserves are
all in Asia.
This legislation proposes that our Administration promptly open
negotiations with the four Asian countries that exemplify this
practice, with the intent to put a stop to it. These countries are:
China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. This practice hurts American
manufacturers: it impedes their ability to introduce new products and
technologies and provide Americans with quality jobs. It has caused and
continues to cause the current economic recovery to be a jobless one,
particularly in the manufacturing sector.
Experts indicate that the United States has the right and the power
to address unfair competitive practices under the following laws, rules
and agreements: 1. Section 3004 of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 2. Article IV of the Articles of Agreement
of the International Monetary Fund Article 3. XV of the Exchange
Agreements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 4. The
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World Trade
Organization (as described in section 101(d)(12)) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act. 5. Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade. 6. Sections 301 and 406 of the Trade Act of 1974. 7. The
provisions of the United States-China Bilateral Agreement on World
Trade Organization Accession.
These laws, rules and agreements provide us with ample process to do
this right and it is important we act now. Therefore, beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act, the President will be required to start
a 90 day period of negations. If these negotiations fail to bear fruit,
he is required to seek redress through the various international trade
laws by instituting appropriate proceedings, or report to congress in
detail why this is not a proper course of action.
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. 377

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 ``Fair Currency Enforcement
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The manufacturing sector is an important driver of the
United States economy, contributing almost 30 percent of our
economic growth during the 1990's, and twice the productivity
growth of the service sector during that period.
(2) The manufacturing sector contributes significantly to
our Nation's development of new products and technologies for
world markets, performing almost 60 percent of all research
and development in the United States over the past two
decades.
(3) The manufacturing sector provides high quality jobs,
with average weekly wages between 20 and 30 percent higher
than jobs in the service sector.
(4) The manufacturing growth creates a significant number
of jobs and investments in other sectors of the economy, and
this ``multiplier effect'' is reckoned by economists to be
larger (2.43 to 1) than for any other significant sector of
the economy.
(5) The ``jobless recovery'' from the recent recession has
witnessed the worst job slump since the Great Depression and
the weakest employment recovery on record.
(6) The manufacturing sector has been hit the hardest by
the jobless recovery.
(7) A significant factor in the loss of valuable United
States manufacturing jobs is the difficulty faced by United
States manufacturers in competing effectively against lower
priced foreign products.
(8) A significant obstacle to United States manufacturers
in competing against foreign manufacturers is the practice of
some governments of intervening aggressively in currency
markets, or pegging their currencies at fixed rates, to
maintain their own currencies at artificially low valuations,
thus subsidizing their export sales and raising price
barriers to imports from the United States.
(9) Certain Asian countries exemplify this practice. China,
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan together have accumulated
approximately \1/2\ of the world's total currency reserves.
The vast majority of these reserves, perhaps as high as 90
percent, are in dollars. These same 4 countries account for
60 percent of the United States world trade deficit in
manufactured goods. These reserves are symptomatic of a
strategy of intervention to manipulate currency values.
(10) The People's Republic of China is particularly
aggressive in intervening to maintain the value of its
currency, the renminbi, at an artificially low rate. China
maintains this rate by mandating foreign exchange sales at
its central bank at a fixed exchange rate against the dollar,
in effect, pegging the

[[Page S1418]]

renminbi at this rate. This low rate represents a significant
reason why China has contributed the most to our trade
deficit in manufactured goods.
(11) Economists estimate that as a result of this
manipulation of the Chinese currency, the renminbi is
undervalued by between 15 and 40 percent, effectively
creating a 15- to 40-percent subsidy for Chinese exports and
giving Chinese manufacturers a significant price advantage
over United States and other competitors.
(12) The national currency of Japan is the yen. Experts
estimate that the yen is undervalued by approximately 20
percent or more, giving Japanese manufacturers a significant
price advantage over United States competitors.
(13) In addition to being placed at a competitive
disadvantage by foreign competitors' exports that are
unfairly subsidized by strategically undervalued currencies,
United States manufacturers also may face significant
nontariff barriers to their own exports to these same
countries. For example, in the past in China, until
remediated, a complex system involving that nation's value
added tax and special tax rebates ensured that semiconductor
devices imported into China were taxed at 17 percent while
domestic devices are effectively taxed at 6 percent.
(14) The United States has the right and power to redress
unfair competitive practices in international trade involving
currency manipulation.
(15) Under section 3004 of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Secretary of the Treasury is
required to determine whether any country is manipulating the
rate of exchange between its currency and the dollar for the
purpose of preventing effective balance of payments
adjustments or gaining unfair advantage in international
trade. If such violations are found, the Secretary of the
Treasury is required to undertake negotiations with any
country that has a significant trade surplus.
(16) Article IV of the Articles of Agreement of the
International Monetary Fund prohibits currency manipulation
by a member for the purposes of gaining an unfair competitive
advantage over other members, and the related surveillance
provision defines ``manipulation'' to include ``protracted
large-scale intervention in one direction in the exchange
market''.
(17) Under Article XV of the Exchange Agreements of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, all contracting
parties ``shall not, by exchange action, frustrate the intent
of the provisions of this Agreement, nor by trade action, the
intent of the Articles of Agreement of the International
Monetary Fund''. Such actions are actionable violations. The
intent of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Exchange
Agreement, as stated in the preamble of that Agreement,
includes the objective of ``entering into reciprocal and
mutually advantageous arrangements directed to substantial
reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade,'' and
currency manipulation may constitute a trade barrier
disruptive to reciprocal and mutually advantageous trade
arrangements.
(18) Deliberate currency manipulation by nations to
significantly undervalue their currencies also may be
interpreted as a violation of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures of the World Trade Organization (as
described in section 101(d)(12)) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, which could lead to action and remedy under
the World Trade Organization dispute settlement procedures.
(19) Deliberate, large-scale intervention by governments in
currency markets to significantly undervalue their currencies
may be a nullification and impairment of trade benefits
precluded under Article XXIII of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, and subject to remedy.
(20) The United States Trade Representative also has
authority to pursue remedial actions under section 301 of the
Trade Act of 1974.
(21) The United States has special rights to take action to
redress market disruption under section 406 of the Trade Act
of 1974 adopted pursuant to the provisions of the United
States-China Bilateral Agreement on World Trade Organization
Accession.
(22) While large-scale manipulation of currencies by
certain major trading partners to achieve an unfair
competitive advantage is one of the most pervasive barriers
faces by the manufacturing sector in the United States, other
factors are contributing to the decline of manufacturing and
small and mid-sized manufacturing firms in the United States,
including but not limited to non-tariff trade barriers, lax
enforcement of existing trade agreements, and weak or under
utilized government support for trade promotion.

SEC. 3. NEGOTIATION PERIOD REGARDING CURRENCY NEGOTIATIONS.

Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the
President shall begin bilateral and multilateral negotiations
for a 90-day period with those governments of nations
determined to be engaged most egregiously in currency
manipulation, as defined in section 7, to seek a prompt and
orderly end to such currency manipulation and to ensure that
the currencies of these countries are freely traded on
international currency markets, or are established at a level
that reflects a more appropriate and accurate market value.
The President shall seek support in this process from
international agencies and other nations and regions
adversely affected by these currency practices.

SEC. 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT REGARDING CURRENCY
MANIPULATION.

(a) In General.--During the 90-day negotiation period
described in section 3, the International Trade Commission
shall--
(1) ascertain and develop the full facts and details
concerning how countries have acted to manipulate their
currencies to increase their exports to the United States and
limit their imports of United States products;
(2) quantify the extent of this currency manipulation;
(3) examine in detail how these currency practices have
affected and will continue to affect United States
manufacturers and United States trade levels, both for
imports and exports;
(4) review whether and to what extent reduction of currency
manipulation and the accumulation of dollar-denominated
currency reserves and public debt instruments might adversely
affect United States interest rates and public debt
financing;
(5) make a determination of any and all available
mechanisms for redress under applicable international trade
treaties and agreements, including the Articles of Agreement
of the International Monetary Fund, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, the World Trade Organization Agreements,
and United States trade laws; and
(6) undertake other appropriate evaluations of the issues
described in paragraphs (1) through (5).
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the International Trade Commission
shall provide a detailed report to the President, the United
States Trade Representative, the Secretary of the Treasury,
and the appropriate congressional committees on the findings
made as a result of the reviews undertaken under paragraphs
(1) through (6) of subsection (a).

SEC. 5. INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING CURRENCY
MANIPULATION.

At the end of the 90-day negotiation period provided for in
section 3, if agreements are not reached by the President to
promptly end currency manipulation, the President shall
institute proceedings under the relevant provisions of
international law and United States trade laws including
sections 301 and 406 of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to
those countries that, based on the findings of the
International Trade Commission under section 4, continue to
engage in the most egregious currency manipulation. In
addition to seeking a prompt end to currency manipulation,
the President shall seek appropriate damages and remedies for
the Nation's manufacturers and other affected parties. If the
President does not institute action, the President shall, not
later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
provide to the appropriate congressional committees a
detailed explanation and accounting of precisely why the
President has determined not to institute action.

SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

(a) National Security.--Within 90 days of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall provide
a detailed report to the appropriate congressional committees
evaluating the effects on our national security of countries
engaging in significant currency manipulations, and the
effect of such manipulation on critical manufacturing
sectors.
(b) Other Unfair Trade Practices.--Within 90 days of the
date of enactment of this Act, the United States Trade
Representative and the International Trade Commission shall
evaluate and report in detail to the appropriate
congressional committees on other trade practices and trade
barriers by major East Asian trading nations potentially in
violation of international trade agreements, including the
practice of maintaining a value-added or other tax regime
that effectively discriminates against imports by
underpricing domestically produced goods, or setting
technology standards that effectively limit imports.
(c) Trade Enforcement.--Within 90 days of the date of
enactment of this Act, the United States Trade Representative
and the International Trade Commission shall report in detail
to the appropriate congressional committees on steps that
could be taken to significantly improve trade enforcement
efforts against unfair trade practices by competitor trading
nations, including making recommendations for additional
support for trade enforcement efforts.
(d) Trade Promotion.--Within 90 days of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretaries of State and Commerce,
and the United States Trade Representative, shall prepare a
detailed report with recommendations on steps that could be
undertaken to significantly improve trade promotion for
United States goods and services, including recommendations
on additional support to improve trade promotion.

SEC. 7. CURRENCY MANIPULATION DEFINED.

In this Act, the term ``currency manipulation'' means--
(1) large-scale manipulation of exchange rates by a nation
in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage as stated in
Article IV of the Articles of Agreement of the International
Monetary Fund and related surveillance provisions;
(2) sustained, large-scale currency intervention in one
direction, through mandatory foreign exchange sales at a
nation's central bank at a fixed exchange rate; or
(3) other mechanisms, used to maintain a currency at a
fixed exchange rate relative to another currency.

[[Page S1419]]

______

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kyl,
and Mr. Allen):
S. 378. A bill to make it a criminal act to willfully use a weapon
with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person
while on board a passenger vessel, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reducing
Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act, along with the Chairman
of the Judiciary Committee Senator Specter, and the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, Senators Kyl and
Feinstein. My colleagues and I have worked on this legislation for the
past four years and I am hopeful this package of common-sense criminal
law improvements will be approved by the Senate early this Session.
The bipartisan legislation we introduce today should be familiar to
my colleagues. It was introduced as S. 2653 in the 108th Congress,
where I worked closely with the then-Chairman of the Committee Senator
Hatch and Senator Leahy to ensure they were comfortable with the bill's
provisions. The language has been reviewed by the United States Coast
Guard, the American Association of Port Authorities, the American
Institute of Marine Underwriters, the Inland Marine Underwriters
Association, the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay, the
Transportation Security Administration, and the AFL-CIO. Senator Kyl
included this language in his Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004 and
it was the subject of a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Terrorism on September 13, 2004. This Congress, identical language was
introduced by Senator Gregg at Title IV of S. 3, the majority's
Protecting America in the War on Terror Act of 2005.
Our bill will double the maximum term of imprisonment for anyone who
fraudulently gains access to a seaport or waterfront. The Interagency
Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports concluded that
``control of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the
seaports'' poses one of the greatest potential threats to port
security. Such unauthorized access continues and exposes the nation's
seaports, and the communities that surround them, to acts of terrorism,
sabotage or theft. Our bill will help deter those who seek unauthorized
access to our ports by imposing stiffer penalties.
Our bill would also increase penalties for noncompliance with certain
manifest reporting and record-keeping requirements, including
information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country
from which the shipments originated. An estimated 95 percent of the
cargo shipped to the U.S. from foreign countries, other than Canada and
Mexico, arrives through our seaports. Accordingly, the Interagency
Commission found that this enormous flow of goods through U.S. ports
provides a tempting target for terrorists and others to smuggle illicit
cargo into the country, while also making ``our ports potential targets
for terrorist attacks.'' In addition, the smuggling of non-dangerous,
but illicit, cargo may be used to finance terrorism. Despite the
gravity of the threat, we continue to operate in an environment in
which terrorists and criminals can evade detection by underreporting
and misreporting the content of cargo. Increased penalties can help
here.
The legislation we introduce today would also make it a crime for a
vessel operator to fail to slow or stop a ship once ordered to do so by
a Federal law enforcement officer, for any person on board a vessel to
impede boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by Federal
law, or for any person on board a vessel to provide false information
to a Federal law enforcement officer. The Coast Guard is the main
Federal agency responsible for law enforcement at sea. Yet, its ability
to force a vessel to stop or be boarded is limited. While the Coast
Guard has the authority to use whatever force is reasonably necessary,
a vessel operator's refusal to stop is not currently a crime. This bill
would create that offense.
In addition, the Coast Guard maintains over 50,000 navigational aids
on more than 25,000 miles of waterways. These aids, which are relied
upon by all commercial, military and recreational mariners, are
critical for safe navigation by commercial and military vessels. They
could be inviting targets for terrorists. Our legislation would make it
a crime to endanger the safe navigation of a ship by damaging any
maritime navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard, place in the
waters anything which is likely to damage a vessel or its cargo,
interfere with a vessel's safe navigation, or interfere with maritime
commerce, or dump a hazardous substance into U.S. waters with the
intent to endanger human life or welfare.
Each year, thousands of ships enter and leave the U.S. through
seaports, smugglers and terrorists exploit this massive flow of
maritime traffic to transport dangerous materials and dangerous people
into this country. This legislation would make it a crime to use a
vessel to smuggle into the United States either a terrorist or any
explosive or other dangerous material for use in committing a terrorist
act. The bill would also make it a crime to damage or destroy any part
of a ship, a maritime facility, or anything used to load or unload
cargo and passengers, commit a violent assault on anyone at a maritime
facility, or knowingly communicate a hoax in a way which endangers the
safety of a vessel. In addition, the Interagency Commission concluded
that existing laws are not stiff enough to stop certain crimes,
including cargo theft, at seaports. Our legislation would increase the
maximum term of imprisonment for low-level thefts of interstate or
foreign shipments from 1 year to 3 years and expand the statute to
outlaw theft of goods from trailers, cargo containers, warehouses, and
similar venues.
These are improvements we should make to our criminal code. I am
under no illusion, however, that enactment of our bill will guarantee
the security of our seaports. We need to dramatically increase the
financial assistance we are giving our ports so that they can harden
their own facilities against potential attackers. I was disappointed to
read in the Administration's budget that the President wants to
eliminate the Department of Homeland Security's dedicated port security
grant program. His budget instead will force our ports to compete
against all other transit systems for scarce federal funds. We've spent
only about $750 million to secure seaports since September 11th--the
Coast Guard reports that is not nearly enough to meet the requirements
of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. We also need to increase
the number of inspections of ships and shipping containers that are
coming into our ports. But the amendments to Federal criminal law that
we propose here will provide an important deterrent effect and they
will give Federal prosecutors new tools to go after terrorists who
would target our seaports. I urge my colleagues to support our bill,
and I look forward to its prompt consideration.
______

By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Obama).
S. 379. A bill to build capacity at community colleges in order to
meet increased demand for community college education while maintaining
the affordable tuition rates and the open-door policy that are the
hallmarks on the community college system; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community
College Opportunity Act.'' Community colleges are the gateway to the
future--for first time students looking for an affordable college
education, and for mid-career students looking to get ahead in the
workplace. As college tuition at four-year colleges continues to rise,
more and more students are turning to community colleges for the
education they need to prepare for 21st century jobs.
Yet soon we may not be able to count on our community colleges being
available to everyone. The combination of budget cuts and increased
enrollments is forcing community colleges to make tough choices--
between raising tuition and turning students away. This important
legislation will help keep the doors of our community colleges open to
increasing numbers of students without sending tuition through the
roof. My bill authorizes $500 million for a competitive grant program
to help community colleges serve more students. Community colleges
could apply

[[Page S1420]]

for a grant to help with the cost of constructing or renovating
facilities, hiring faculty, purchasing new computers and scientific
equipment, and investing in creative ways of addressing overcrowding--
like distance learning.
Why is this important? Community colleges are one of the great
American social inventions. I used to teach night school at Baltimore
City Community College. I know firsthand the vital role they play in
our communities. Their low cost, convenient location, and open door
admissions policy have made them the key to the American dream for so
many. Many generations of immigrants pursued the American dream by
working all day and going to night school at night. After World War II,
the GI bill gave returning veterans a chance to get ahead by going to
local junior colleges.
Now, more than ever, it's important to invest in community colleges.
In the next ten years, 40 percent of new jobs will require college
education. At the same time, college tuition is on the rise. Tuition at
the University of Maryland is up by as much as 32 percent. That's
causing many students to take a second look at community colleges
because they're more affordable. They're also leaders in training
workers for 21st century jobs--from nurses to computer techies, and
even lab techs for new industries, like biotechnology. They're playing
a key role in addressing shortages in nursing and teaching. In
Maryland, community colleges train 55 percent of new nurses.
Yet our community colleges are bursting at the seams. They're growing
faster than 4-year colleges. Enrollment at Maryland's community
colleges is expected to grow 30 percent in the next 10 years, while 4-
year colleges will grow by 15 percent. Community colleges are holding
classes from 7 in the morning to 10 at night, on weekends, and over the
internet. In my own State of Maryland, they are starting to turn
students away because there isn't enough room. Almost 1,000 students
were shut out of Montgomery College last spring because they couldn't
get into the classes they needed or they couldn't afford the cost.
Prince George's Community College had to turn away 630 prospective
nursing students and 1,000 prospective education students.
It's great that so many Americans are going to community colleges.
For so many Americans, community colleges are the only way to get the
education they need to be competitive for 21st century jobs. Yet the
rapid increase of students is threatening the very mission of community
colleges. If we want a world-class workforce, we need to invest in
higher education. We need to make sure we always have institutions
available to everyone who wants a college degree--or just a couple of
courses. That means investing in our community colleges, so they can
continue to be affordable, accessible, and successful at training the
next generation of nurses, teachers, and techies.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 379

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

SECTION 1. COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAPACITY-BUILDING GRANT PROGRAM.

Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1051 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating part F as part G; and
(2) by inserting after part E the following:

``PART F--COMMUNITY COLLEGES

``SEC. 371. COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAPACITY-BUILDING GRANT
PROGRAM.

``(a) Program Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section
399(a)(6) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants
to eligible entities, on a competitive basis, for the purpose
of building capacity at community colleges to meet the
increased demand for community colleges while maintaining the
affordable tuition rates and the open-door policy that are
the hallmarks of the community college system.
``(2) Duration.--Grants awarded under this section shall be
for a period not to exceed 3 years.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Community college.--The term `community college'
means a public institution of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a)) whose highest degree awarded is predominantly
the associate degree.
``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a
community college, or a consortium of 2 or more community
colleges, that demonstrates capacity challenges at not less
than 1 of the community colleges in the eligible entity, such
as--
``(A) an identified workforce shortage in the community
served by the community college that will be addressed by
increased enrollment at the community college;
``(B) a wait list for a class or for a degree or a
certificate program;
``(C) a faculty shortage;
``(D) a significant enrollment growth;
``(E) a significant projected enrollment growth;
``(F) an increase in the student-faculty ratio;
``(G) a shortage of laboratory space or equipment;
``(H) a shortage of computer equipment and technology;
``(I) out-of-date computer equipment and technology;
``(J) a decrease in State or county funding or a related
budget shortfall; or
``(K) another demonstrated capacity shortfall.
``(c) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may reasonably require by
regulation.
``(d) Award Basis.--In awarding grants under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall take into consideration--
``(1) the relative need for assistance under this section
of the community colleges;
``(2) the probable impact and overall quality of the
proposed activities on the capacity problem of the community
college;
``(3) providing an equitable geographic distribution of
grant funds under this section throughout the United States
and among urban, suburban, and rural areas of the United
States; and
``(4) providing an equitable distribution among small,
medium, and large community colleges.
``(e) Use of Funds.--Grant funds provided under subsection
(a) may be used for activities that expand community college
capacity, including--
``(1) the construction, maintenance, renovation, and
improvement of classroom, library, laboratory, and other
instructional facilities;
``(2) the purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or
laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including
instructional research purposes;
``(3) the development, improvement, or expansion of
technology;
``(4) preparation and professional development of faculty;
``(5) recruitment, hiring, and retention of faculty;
``(6) curriculum development and academic instruction;
``(7) the purchase of library books, periodicals, and other
educational materials, including telecommunications program
material;
``(8) the joint use of facilities, such as laboratories and
libraries; or
``(9) the development of partnerships with local businesses
to increase community college capacity.

``SEC. 372. APPLICABILITY.

``The provisions of part G (other than section 399) shall
not apply to this part.''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 399(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1068h(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Part f.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out part F, $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and such
sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal
years.''.
______

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Pryor, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Smith, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Coleman):
S. 380. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a
State family support grant program to end the practice of parents
giving legal custody of their seriously emotionally disturbed children
to State agencies for the purpose of obtaining mental health services
for those children; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join several
of my colleagues--Senator Pryor, Senator DeWine, Senator Bingaman,
Senator Smith, Senator Lieberman, and the Presiding Officer, Senator
Coleman--in introducing the Keeping Families Together Act. This
legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to care for children who
are struggling with serious mental illness. It is intended to ensure
their parents are no longer forced to give up custody of their children
solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment.
As the Presiding Officer is well aware, because he was an active
participant in them, the Governmental Affairs Committee in the last
Congress held extensive hearings on this issue.
What we heard was a tragedy. We heard case after case where families

[[Page S1421]]

made the wrenching choice to give up custody of their children in order
to secure the mental health treatment that they needed. No family
should ever be forced to make that decision.
Imagine what it feels like for a child who is suffering from mental
illness to be wrenched from his family, put into either the juvenile
justice system or the foster care system simply because that is the
only way to get that child the care that he so desperately needs.
Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and
adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American
children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or
behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact
that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment
are not getting it.
Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do
the best it can to help a son or a daughter with serious mental health
needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do
well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family
members. These children are almost always involved with more than one
social service agency, including the mental health, special education,
child welfare, or the juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at
either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or
accountable for helping these children and their families.
My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of
stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed
the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting
desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many
families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching
decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care
that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and
place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.
When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a
heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family
includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to
go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment.
Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental
illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who
have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to
rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts.
While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a
serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else
for the family to turn.
In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against
their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in
order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed,
``Beat 'em up, lock 'em up, or give 'em up,'' characterizes the choices
that some families face in their efforts to get help for their
children's mental illness.
In 2003, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report
that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy
that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into
the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children
could receive mental health services. I believe that this is just the
tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the
largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data.
Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A
1999 survey by the National Alliance for the Mentally III found that 23
percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by
public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their
children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done
so.
Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody
relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however,
since it can leave children with mental illness and their families
without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom
of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable
and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these
children and their families.
Last Congress, I chaired a series of hearings in the Governmental
Affairs Committee to examine this issue further. We heard compelling
testimony from mothers who told us that they were advised that the only
way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed
was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare or
juvenile justice system. This is a wrenching decision that no family
should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of
his or her child just to get the services that the child needs.
The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care
for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public
and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of
coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs
that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate
for help for her twin boys, searched for 2 years until she finally
located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in
Illinois''--that was able to help.
Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on
every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone
who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents
to get services and treatment for their children.
We also need to question what happens to these children when they are
turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I
released a report last year with Congressman Henry Waxman that found
that all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile
detention centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while
they wait for scarce mental health services.
Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile
detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities
to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national
problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young
people--roughly 7 percent of all of the children in the centers
surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental
health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held
without any charges pending against them, and the young people
incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as
seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention
facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers'
money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they
are waiting for mental health services.
The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today,
will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states
in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their
children solely for the purpose of securing treatment.
The legislation authorizes $55 million over 6 years for competitive
grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and sustain
statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at
risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving
mental health services. States already dedicate significant dollars to
serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants would help
States to serve children more effectively and efficiently, while
keeping them at home with their families.

The legislation would also remove a current statutory barrier that
prevents more States from using the Medicaid home and community-based
services waiver to serve children with serious mental health needs.
This waiver provides a promising way for States to address the
underlying lack of mental health services for children that often leads
to custody relinquishment. While a number of States have requested
these waivers to serve children with developmental disabilities, very
few have done so for children with serious mental health conditions.
Our legislation would provide parity to children with mental illness by
making it easier for States to offer them home- and community-based
services under this waiver as an alternative to institutional care.
And finally, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal
interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child
welfare and juvenile

[[Page S1422]]

justice systems and the role of those agencies in promoting access by
children and youth to needed mental health services. The task force
would also be charged with monitoring the Family Support grants, making
recommendations to Congress on how to improve mental health services,
and fostering interagency cooperation and removing interagency barriers
that contribute to the problem of custody relinquishment.
The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to
meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional
disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of
mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance
for the Mentally Ill, the Federation of Families for Children's Mental
Health, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Child
Welfare League, the National Mental Health Association, the American
Correctional Association, the American Psychological Association, the
American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, and Fight Crime, Invest in Kids.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters of
endorsement for the bill be printed in the Congressional Record, and I
urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

February 14, 2005.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Hon. Mark Pryor,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim Ramstad,
Hon. Nancy Johnson,
Hon. Pete Stark,
Hon. Patrick Kennedy,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Pryor and Representatives
Ramstad, Johnson, Stark, and Kennedy: As national
organizations representing mental health consumers, families,
advocates, professionals and providers dedicated to improving
the lives of children and adolescents living with mental
disorders and their families, we applaud your leadership in
reintroducing the Keeping Families Together Act in the 109th
Congress.
This legislation promises to help end a scandal that has
lingered too long in states throughout our nation. As you
know, thousands of families every year are forced to give up
custody of their children to the state in order to secure
vitally necessary mental health services. This unthinkable
practice tears families apart, is devastating for parents and
caregivers and leaves children feeling abandoned in their
hour of greatest need.
This practice occurs because most families have
discriminatory and restrictive caps on their private mental
health coverage or insurers fail to cover the required
treatment. The majority of these families are not eligible
for Medicaid coverage because of their income. This truly
unfortunate practice also exists because of the lack of
appropriate mental health services in many states and
communities for children and adolescents with mental
disorders. This was well documented in President Bush's New
Freedom Commission report on mental health (July 2003).
This legislation promises to help end this growing crisis
by providing grants to states to establish interagency
systems of care for children and adolescents with serious
mental disorders. The grants will allow states to build more
efficient and effective mental health systems for children
and families. It also eliminates barriers to home and
community-based care for children by enabling a greater
number of children to receive mental health services under
the Section 1915(c) Medicaid home- and community-based
waiver. The waiver promises to make appropriate services
available to children in their homes and communities and
close to their loved ones at a considerable cost savings over
providing those services in an institutional setting.
The legislation also calls for the creation of a federal
interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the
child welfare and juvenile justice systems. A GAO report
released in April 2003 showed that when parents give up
custody of their child to secure mental health services,
those children are placed in one of these two systems--
neither of which is designed to be a mental health service
agency.
No family in our nation should ever be asked to make the
heart-wrenching decision to give up parental rights of their
seriously ill child in exchange for mental health treatment
and services.
We welcome this legislation as a critical step toward
ending this practice and toward delivering more cost
effective and appropriate services for children and families.
Once again, we thank you for your leadership and commitment
to ending this practice and for continuing to stand up for
children, families and common sense.
Sincerely,
Adoptions Together, Inc.
Alabama Foster and Adoptive Association.
Alliance for Children and Families.
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
American Correctional Association.
American Counseling Association.
American Mental Health Counselors Association.
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychological Association.
Association of University Centers on Disabilities.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation.
Children's Action Alliance.
Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder.
Child Welfare League of America.
Children Awaiting Parents.
Children's Defense Fund.
Depression and Bipolar Alliance.
Family Voices.
Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health.
Foster Family-based Treatment Association.
Girls Incorporated of Memphis.
Learning Disabilities Association of America.
Lutheran Children and Family Service.
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
National Association for Children of Alcoholics.
National Association for Children's Behavioral Health.
National Association of County Behavioral Health and
Disability Directors.
National Association of Mental Health Planning and Advisory
Councils.
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
National Association of School Psychology.
National Association of Social Workers.
National Association of State Mental Health Program
Directors.
National CASA Association (Court Appointed Special
Advocates).
National Foster Parent Association.
National Independent Living Association.
National Mental Health Association.
National Respite Coalition.
Physicians for Human Rights.
School Social Work Association of America.
Suicide Prevention Action Network USA.
Supportive Child Adult Network, Inc. (Stop Child Abuse Now,
Inc.)
The Rebecca Project for Human Rights.
Voice for Adoption.
Volunteers of America.
Youth Law Center.
____

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,

Washington, DC, February 15, 2005.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the more than 2,000
sheriffs, police chiefs, prosecutors, and victims of violence
who constitute the national anti-crime group FIGHT CRIME:
INVEST IN KIDS, thank you for introducing the Keeping
Families Together Act. This bill would take an important step
toward ending the practice of inappropriately placing kids in
juvenile detention facilities solely because of the absence
of affordable and accessible mental health treatment for
them. These placements drain significant resources from an
already underfunded juvenile justice system, diverting
funding that would otherwise support effective violence
prevention programs for at-risk kids and intervention
programs for kids who have already committed a criminal or
delinquent act.
A July 2003 General Accounting Office report, Child Welfare
and Juvenile Justice: Several Factors Influence the Placement
of Children Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services, revealed
that over 9,000 kids in selected counties in 17 states were
placed in the juvenile justice system merely to obtain mental
health services. Furthermore, a House Committee on Government
Reform report demonstrated that two-thirds of juvenile
detention facilities inappropriately hold kids waiting for
mental health services. In 33 states, kids who did not have
any criminal charges were held in detention facilities while
awaiting community mental health treatment. Other kids had
been charged with an offense but would not have been placed
in detention but for the lack of available mental health
treatment. In fact, the House Committee report revealed that,
each night, nearly 2,000 kids wait in detention for community
mental health services, representing 7 percent of all youth
held in juvenile detention. It is estimated that juvenile
detention facilities spend approximately $100 million each
year to keep kids who are inappropriately placed as they wait
for mental health treatment. This cost does not account for
the additional service provision and staff time often needed
in juvenile facilities to care for kids with severe mental
health problems, although over half of responding facilities
reported that staff receives poor, very poor, or no mental
health training.
Every year, 1.4 million kids are charged with an offense
for which an adult could be tried in a criminal court. The
juvenile justice system is responsible for rehabilitating
these kids so that they can leave the system and become
productive citizens instead of continuing a life of crime, as
well as for preventing such acts in the first place.
Inappropriately placing kids who need mental health treatment
in juvenile detention facilities places an unnecessary
financial burden on the inadequately-resourced juvenile

[[Page S1423]]

justice system, and jeopardizes the safety of our
communities. The Keeping Families Together Act would provide
grants to help states provide and coordinate the needed array
of mental health services to children so that families do not
need to relinquish their kids to the juvenile justice system.
This legislation would also establish a federal interagency
task force to examine mental health issues in the child
welfare and juvenile justice systems.
We are proud that our Senator introduced the Keeping
Families Together Act to help keep families together, focus
juvenile justice resources on delinquent and at-risk kids,
and make our communities safer.
Sincerely,
Mark Westrum,
Sheriff, Sagadahoc County, ME.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator
Collins and Senator Pryor, in introducing the ``Keeping Families
Together Act''. This bill will expand Medicaid's home and community
based services waiver to cover children and adolescents in residential
treatment facilities. Currently, most state Medicaid agencies,
including Oregon, do not cover this intensive treatment.
In 2001, 101 Oregon children and adolescents were placed in State
custody because this was the only way they could get the mental health
treatment they need. This situation occurs most often in middle-income
families, where the family's employer-based insurance does not cover
intensive treatment for serious mental illness, but the family income
is too high for them to qualify for Medicaid services. With no other
way to get their child treatment, parents are forced to choose between
custody and care. Passage of this legislation is urgently needed so
that thousands of parents are not forced to relinquish their custody
rights to State child welfare or juvenile agencies in order to obtain
mental health care for their seriously mentally ill children.
In Oregon, children with serious mental illnesses are being taken
away from their families at a time when they most need to be close to
home. The availability of family support services, community-based
services and other effective interventions will help reduce the need
for costly residential care and consequently reduce the need to place
children in a setting away from their homes, families and communities.
Keeping Families Together Act will also establish a Federal interagency
task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and
juvenile justice systems so that we can hopefully see an end to this
practice, not just in Oregon, but in every State in our nation.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical
legislation.
______

By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs.
Clinton):
S. 381. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
encourage guaranteed lifetime income payments from annuities and
similar payments of life insurance proceeds at dates later than death
by excluding from income a portion of such payments; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, America will soon be facing a new and
serious retirement challenge. Americans are living longer. Yet, recent
economic and demographic shifts will put the retirement security of
many retirees at risk. Current projections regarding the solvency of
the Social Security program are not favorable. And, with 77 million
baby boomers set to begin retiring in 2008, the number of retirees in
the Social Security program is expected to double. In addition, fewer
retirees in the future will be able to depend on monthly pension checks
that many employers once paid. A growing number of retirees will be
facing the difficult challenge of managing their own savings.
In response to these trends, I am offering legislation aimed at
assisting Americans maintain their financial independence and their
standard of living throughout their retirement by making it easier for
them to secure a steady income for life. Under the Retirement Security
for Life Act that Senator Conrad and I are introducing today, a tax
incentive would be enacted that encourages retirees to provide
themselves with a guaranteed lifetime income. Specifically, the
proposal would exclude from federal taxes one-half of the income
payments from an annuity purchased with after tax dollars, a so- called
non-qualified annuity.
Importantly, we have proposed a cap on the exclusion so that no more
that $20,000 could be excluded in a year. For a typical American in the
25 percent tax bracket, this would provide an annual maximum tax
savings of up to $5,000. I believe that this modest tax incentive will
enable some retirees to consider annuitizing a portion of their nest
egg so that they have a guaranteed lifetime of income.
In recent years, the ``retirement security'' debate in Congress has
almost entirely focused on the need to accumulate a nest egg prior to
retirement. And, Congress is doing much to encourage personal saving
and employer-provided retirement plans. I am proud of both our
successes and our continuing efforts in these areas. Encouraging more
savings is an important step, but it is not enough. What has received
little attention is the retirement income or ``payout'' phase of the
retirement security equation. That is, we need to be thinking about the
management of market and longevity risk so that a life's savings can
provide a secure retirement. Longevity risk--the risk of outliving
one's savings--is one of the biggest risks facing retirees. While we
have some control over when we retire, we have very little control over
how long we will live. It is my goal that Americans will be able to
enjoy a lifetime of income from their hard-earned savings long after
they have put their years in the workforce behind them.
Please join me in supporting our proposal as a crucial step in
providing a secure retirement for all Americans. I ask unanimous
consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 381

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 ``Retirement Security for Life
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR LIFETIME ANNUITY PAYMENTS.

(a) Lifetime Annuity Payments Under Annuity Contracts.--
Section 72(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to exclusion ratio) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Exclusion for lifetime annuity payments.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of lifetime annuity payments
received under one or more annuity contracts in any taxable
year, gross income shall not include 50 percent of the
portion of lifetime annuity payments otherwise includible
(without regard to this paragraph) in gross income under this
section. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the amount
excludible from gross income in any taxable year shall not
exceed $20,000.
``(B) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2006, the $20,000 amount
in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal
to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2005'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

If any amount as increased under the preceding sentence is
not a multiple of $500, such amount shall be rounded to the
next lower multiple of $500.
``(C) Application of paragraph.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
apply to--
``(i) any amount received under an eligible deferred
compensation plan (as defined in section 457(b)) or under a
qualified retirement plan (as defined in section 4974(c)),
``(ii) any amount paid under an annuity contract that is
received by the beneficiary under the contract--

``(I) after the death of the annuitant in the case of
payments described in subsection (c)(5)(A)(ii)(III), unless
the beneficiary is the surviving spouse of the annuitant, or
``(II) after the death of the annuitant and joint annuitant
in the case of payments described in subsection
(c)(5)(A)(ii)(IV), unless the beneficiary is the surviving
spouse of the last to die of the annuitant and the joint
annuitant, or

``(iii) any annuity contract that is a qualified funding
asset (as defined in section 130(d)), but without regard to
whether there is a qualified assignment.
``(D) Investment in the contract.--For purposes of this
section, the investment in the contract shall be determined
without regard to this paragraph.''.
(b) Definitions.--Subsection (c) of section 72 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(5) Lifetime annuity payment.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(5), the
term `lifetime annuity payment' means any amount received as
an annuity under any portion of an annuity contract, but only
if--

[[Page S1424]]

``(i) the only person (or persons in the case of payments
described in subclause (II) or (IV) of clause (ii)) legally
entitled (by operation of the contract, a trust, or other
legally enforceable means) to receive such amount during the
life of the annuitant or joint annuitant is such annuitant or
joint annuitant, and
``(ii) such amount is part of a series of substantially
equal periodic payments made not less frequently than
annually over--

``(I) the life of the annuitant,
``(II) the lives of the annuitant and a joint annuitant,
but only if the annuitant is the spouse of the joint
annuitant as of the annuity starting date or the difference
in age between the annuitant and joint annuitant is 15 years
or less,
``(III) the life of the annuitant with a minimum period of
payments or with a minimum amount that must be paid in any
event, or
``(IV) the lives of the annuitant and a joint annuitant
with a minimum period of payments or with a minimum amount
that must be paid in any event, but only if the annuitant is
the spouse of the joint annuitant as of the annuity starting
date or the difference in age between the annuitant and joint
annuitant is 15 years or less.

``(iii) Exceptions.--For purposes of clause (ii), annuity
payments shall not fail to be treated as part of a series of
substantially equal periodic payments--

``(I) because the amount of the periodic payments may vary
in accordance with investment experience, reallocations among
investment options, actuarial gains or losses, cost of living
indices, a constant percentage applied not less frequently
than annually, or similar fluctuating criteria,
``(II) due to the existence of, or modification of the
duration of, a provision in the contract permitting a lump
sum withdrawal after the annuity starting date, or
``(III) because the period between each such payment is
lengthened or shortened, but only if at all times such period
is no longer than one calendar year.

``(B) Annuity contract.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)
and subsections (b)(5) and (w), the term `annuity contract'
means a commercial annuity (as defined by section
3405(e)(6)), other than an endowment or life insurance
contract.
``(C) Minimum period of payments.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `minimum period of payments' means
a guaranteed term of payments that does not exceed the
greater of 10 years or--
``(i) the life expectancy of the annuitant as of the
annuity starting date, in the case of lifetime annuity
payments described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(III), or
``(ii) the life expectancy of the annuitant and joint
annuitant as of the annuity starting date, in the case of
lifetime annuity payments described in subparagraph
(A)(ii)(IV).

For purposes of this subparagraph, life expectancy shall be
computed with reference to the tables prescribed by the
Secretary under paragraph (3). For purposes of subsection
(w)(1)(C)(ii), the permissible minimum period of payments
shall be determined as of the annuity starting date and
reduced by one for each subsequent year.
``(D) Minimum amount that must be paid in any event.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `minimum amount that
must be paid in any event' means an amount payable to the
designated beneficiary under an annuity contract that is in
the nature of a refund and does not exceed the greater of the
amount applied to produce the lifetime annuity payments under
the contract or the amount, if any, available for withdrawal
under the contract on the date of death.''.
(c) Recapture Tax for Lifetime Annuity Payments.--Section
72 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
redesignating subsection (x) as subsection (y) and by
inserting after subsection (x) the following new subsection:
``(x) Recapture Tax for Modifications to or Reductions in
Lifetime Annuity Payments.--
``(1) In general.--If any amount received under an annuity
contract is excluded from income by reason of subsection
(b)(5) (relating to lifetime annuity payments), and--
``(A) the series of payments under such contract is
subsequently modified so any future payments are not lifetime
annuity payments,
``(B) after the date of receipt of the first lifetime
annuity payment under the contract an annuitant receives a
lump sum and thereafter is to receive annuity payments in a
reduced amount under the contract, or
``(C) after the date of receipt of the first lifetime
annuity payment under the contract the dollar amount of any
subsequent annuity payment is reduced and a lump sum is not
paid in connection with the reduction, unless such reduction
is--
``(i) due to an event described in subsection
(c)(5)(A)(iii), or
``(ii) due to the addition of, or increase in, a minimum
period of payments within the meaning of subsection (c)(5)(C)
or a minimum amount that must be paid in any event (within
the meaning of subsection (c)(5)(D)), then gross income for
the first taxable year in which such modification or
reduction occurs shall be increased by the recapture amount.
``(2) Recapture amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
recapture amount shall be the amount, determined under rules
prescribed by the Secretary, equal to the amount that (but
for subsection (b)(5)) would have been includible in the
taxpayer's gross income if the modification or reduction
described in paragraph (1) had been in effect at all times,
plus interest for the deferral period at the underpayment
rate established by section 6621.
``(B) Deferral period.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `deferral period' means the period beginning with
the taxable year in which (without regard to subsection
(b)(5)) the payment would have been includible in gross
income and ending with the taxable year in which the
modification described in paragraph (1) occurs.
``(3) Exceptions to recapture tax.--Paragraph (1) shall not
apply in the case of any modification or reduction that
occurs because an annuitant--
``(A) dies or becomes disabled (within the meaning of
subsection (m)(7)),
``(B) becomes a chronically ill individual within the
meaning of section 7702B(c)(2), or
``(C) encounters hardship.''.
(d) Lifetime Distributions of Life Insurance Death
Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to payment of life insurance proceeds
at a date later than death) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(4) Exclusion for lifetime annuity payments.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of amounts to which this
subsection applies, gross income shall not include the lesser
of--
``(i) 50 percent of the portion of lifetime annuity
payments otherwise includible in gross income under this
section (determined without regard to this paragraph), or
``(ii) the amount in effect under section 72(b)(5).
``(B) Rules of section 72(b)(5) to apply.--For purposes of
this paragraph, rules similar to the rules of section
72(b)(5) and section 72(x) shall apply, substituting the term
`beneficiary of the life insurance contract' for the term
`annuitant' wherever it appears, and substituting the term
`life insurance contract' for the term `annuity contract'
wherever it appears.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 101(d)(1) of such Code
is amended by inserting ``or paragraph (4)'' after ``to the
extent not excluded by the preceding sentence''.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to amounts received in calendar years beginning after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Special rule for existing contracts.--In the case of a
contract in force on the date of the enactment of this Act
that does not satisfy the requirements of section 72(c)(5)(A)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this
section), or requirements similar to such section 72(c)(5)(A)
in the case of a life insurance contract), any modification
to such contract (including a change in ownership) or to the
payments thereunder that is made to satisfy the requirements
of such section (or similar requirements) shall not result in
the recognition of any gain or loss, any amount being
included in gross income, or any addition to tax that
otherwise might result from such modification, but only if
the modification is completed prior to the date that is 2
years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 383. A bill to shorten the term of broadcasting licenses under the
Communications Act of 1934 from 8 to 3 years, to provide better public
access to broadcasters' public interest issues and programs lists and
children's programming reports, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Localism
in Broadcasting Reform Act of 2005.'' This legislation would reduce the
license term for broadcasters from 8 years to 3 years, thereby
requiring broadcasters to provide the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC or Commission) with information every 3 years on why their license
should be renewed. Prior to 1981, broadcast licenses were granted for a
term of 3 years.
The bill would require the full Commission to review 5 percent of all
license and renewal applications. Currently, the Media Bureau randomly
audits 5 percent of all license renewal applications. The FCC first
started an audit process back in the 1980s when the FCC changed its
license renewal process from one where stations submitted evidence of
``public interest'' obligations compliance to one where stations self
certify compliance, critics call it a ``post card renewal''. This
section would take the audit process a step further by requiring the
Commissioners to review the applications selected for audit rather than
the Media Bureau.
The bill would command broadcasters to post on their Internet sites
information detailing their commitment to local public affairs
programming and children's programming. The bill also calls for the FCC
to complete

[[Page S1425]]

its proceeding on whether public interest obligations should apply to
broadcasters in the digital era.
To ensure that viewers or listeners can fully participate in a
broadcaster's license renewal, the bill would codify the Commission's
rule that a viewer or listener has standing to challenge a license if
he demonstrates either that he resides in the station's service area or
that he regularly listens or views the station and that such listening
or viewing is not the result of transient contacts with the station.
Lastly, the bill would allow the Commission, during a license renewal
proceeding, to review not only the performance of the station seeking
renewal, but also the performance of all stations owned by the licensee
seeking renewal. The current statute restricts the Commission's review
only to that station seeking the renewal.
Last June, FCC Chairman Michael Powell and I challenged all local
broadcast television and radio stations to provide their local
communities with significant information on the local political issues
facing communities, the local candidates' campaign platforms, and the
local candidate debates during the 2004 election. In response to the
challenge, many broadcasters sent volumes of material detailing their
extensive election coverage and committing to increase their coverage
in 2004. Today, the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School for
Communication at the University of Southern California released
findings showing that local news coverage of local political campaigns
is dismal. Specifically, the study found that 92 percent of the news
broadcasts studied contained no stories about races for the U.S. House,
State senate or assembly, mayor, city council, law-enforcement posts,
judgeships, education offices, or regional or county offices.
Therefore, I feel it is now time to introduce legislation to bring
local back into local broadcasting. I believe this legislation is a
step in the right direction. It will have a small impact on those
stations that are currently meeting their public interest obligations,
but it should have a large impact on those citizens whose local
broadcaster is not meeting its obligations. I refuse to believe that
the ``public interest'' is served by minimal campaign coverage, such as
a 12 second sound bite on from a candidate during a half-hour local
news program as found in the study. Citizens deserve more from their
local broadcaster.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 383

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 ``Localism in Broadcasting
Reform Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. 3-YEAR TERM FOR BROADCAST LICENSES.

(a) In General.--Section 307(c)(1) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 307(c)(1)) is amended by striking
``8'' each place it appears and inserting ``3''.
(b) Existing Licenses.--The amendment made by subsection
(a) shall apply to licenses granted or renewed after the date
of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. FULL COMMISSION REVIEW REQUIRED FOR 5 PERCENT OF
APPLICATIONS.

Section 309(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
309(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
determination required by this subsection shall be made by
the full Commission en banc in no fewer than 5 percent of the
applications filed with it in each calendar year to which
section 308 applies.''.

SEC. 4. ISSUES AND PROGRAMS REPORTS; CHILDREN'S TELEVISION
REPORTS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Electronic filing.--The Commission shall amend its
regulations to require every broadcaster to file,
electronically, a copy of its public interest issues and
programs list and its children's programming reports with the
Commission, in such form as the Commission may require,
within 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
(2) Waiver.--The Commission may waive or defer compliance
with the regulations promulgated in paragraph (1) by a
broadcaster in any specific instance for good cause shown
where such action would be consistent with the public
interest.
(b) Licensee Website Requirement.--The Commission shall
amend its regulations to require every broadcast station for
which there is a publicly accessible website on the
Internet--
(1) to make its public interest issues and programs list
and its children's programming reports available to the
public on that website; or
(2) to provide a hyperlink on that website to that
information on the Commission's website.
(c) Commission Website Requirement.--The Commission shall
provide access to the public to the public interest issues
and programs lists and children's programming reports filed
electronically by broadcasting stations with the Commission.
(d) Timeframe.--The Commission shall amend its regulations
to carry out the requirements of this section not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. STANDARDS FOR BROADCAST STATION RENEWAL TO INCLUDE
REVIEW OF LICENSEE'S OTHER STATIONS.

Section 309(k)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 309(k)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``with respect to that station,'' and
inserting ``with respect to that station (and all stations
operated by the licensee),'';
(2) by striking ``its'' and inserting ``that station's'';
and
(3) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the station has''
and inserting ``the station has, and such other stations
have,''.

SEC. 6. PARTY IN INTEREST REQUIREMENT FOR PETITIONS TO OPPOSE
THE GRANT OR RENEWAL OF A LICENSE.

Section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
309(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `party in
interest' includes any individual who--
``(A) is a listener or viewer of the specific station to
which the application relates (determined without regard to
such individual's place of residence);
``(B) asserts an interest in vindicating the general public
interest; and
``(C) makes the specific allegations and showings required
by this subsection.''.

SEC. 7. COMPLETION OF CERTAIN PENDING PROCEEDINGS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action
on--
(1) In the Matter of Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure
Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public
Interest Obligations, MM Docket No. 00-168; and
(2) In the Matter of Public Interest Obligations of
Television Broadcast Licensees, MM Docket No. 99-360.
(b) Standardized Forms for Electronically Filed Reports.--
As part of the proceedings described in subsection (a), the
Commission shall--
(1) give consideration to requiring standardized forms for
broadcasters to use in preparing public interest issues and
programs lists for electronic filing; and
(2) if it determines that such standardized forms would be
in the public interest, develop and promulgate such forms and
require their use by permittees and licensees.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Broadcaster.--The term ``broadcaster'' means a
permittee or licensee of a commercial or non-commercial
television or radio broadcast station.
(2) Children's programming reports.--The term ``children's
programming reports'' means the information that a
broadcaster is required to provide for public inspection by
paragraph (e)(11)(iii) of section 73.3526 of title 47, Code
of Federal Regulations.
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(4) Public interest issues and programs list.--The term
``public interest issues and programs list'' means the
information that--
(A) a commercial broadcast station is required to provide
for public inspection by paragraphs (e)(11)(i) and (12) of
section 73.3526 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(B) a non-commercial broadcast station is required to
provide for public inspection by paragraph (e)(8) of section
73.3527 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Hagel, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 385. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to restore
integrity to and strengthen payment limitation rules for commodity
payments and benefits; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the
importance of the family farmer to our Nation, and the need to provide
an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however,
assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny.
Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms
reap most program benefits. The reality is over 72 percent of the
payments have gone to only 10 percent of our Nation's farmers. There is
good reason to be critical of our farm programs.
What's more, farm payments that were originally designed to benefit
small- and medium-sized family farmers have contributed to their own
demise. Unlimited farm payments have placed upward pressure on land
prices

[[Page S1426]]

and have contributed to overproduction and lower commodity prices,
driving many family farmers off the farm.
The Senate has agreed, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote during the
2002 farm bill debate and two Senate Budget Committee markups that
targeting Federal assistance to small- and medium-sized family farmers
is the right thing to do.
It has been my hope since the 2002 farm bill conference committee
dropped the payment limit amendment that Congress would establish
legitimate, reasonable payment limits similar to S. 667, the payment
limits bill we introduced last session.
While we have not yet achieved our ultimate goal, no one can question
that the votes have been there for payment limits. Unfortunately, a
two-thirds majority in the Senate hasn't been enough to protect this
issue in conference. But times are clearly changing thanks to the
President's support for payment limits in his budget proposal.
The legislation we are introducing today adopts the President's
proposed cap of $250,000, while maintaining other concepts from S. 667
that the President has embraced like limiting the subterfuge
surrounding the three-entity rule, curtailing the use of generic
certificates, and developing a measurable standard to determine who
should and should not be receiving farm subsidies.
I look forward to working with Senator Dorgan again on this issue.
With the President's support I believe we will have success.
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. 385

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 ``Rural America Preservation
Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

Section 1001 of the Food Security of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$40,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000'';
(2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``$65,000'' and
inserting ``$30,000'';
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d)'' and all that
follows through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``(d) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency
Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions.--
``(1) Loan commodities.--The total amount of the following
gains and payments that a person may receive during any crop
year may not exceed $75,000:
``(A)(i) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a
marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities
under subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) at a lower
level than the original loan rate established for the loan
commodity under that subtitle.
``(ii) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance
loan for 1 or more loan commodities under that subtitle by
forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount exceeds the
repayment amount for the loan if the loan had been settled by
repayment instead of forfeiture.
``(B) Any loan deficiency payments received for 1 or more
loan commodities under that subtitle.
``(C) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity
certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 1
or more loan commodities, as determined by the Secretary,
including the use of a certificate for the settlement of a
marketing assistance loan made under that subtitle, with the
gain reported annually to the Internal Revenue Service and to
the taxpayer in the same manner as gains under subparagraphs
(A) and (B).'';
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Single Farming Operation.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (b) through
(d), subject to paragraph (2), if a person participates only
in a single farming operation and receives, directly or
indirectly, any payment or gain covered by this section
through the farming operation, the total amount of payments
or gains (as applicable) covered by this section that the
person may receive during any crop year may be up to but not
exceed twice the applicable dollar amounts specified in
subsections (b), (c), and (d).
``(2) Individuals.--The total amount of payments or gains
(as applicable) covered by this section that an individual
person may receive during any crop year may not exceed
$250,000.
``(i) Spouse Equity.--Notwithstanding subsections (b)
through (d), except as provided in subsection (e)(2)(C)(i),
if an individual and spouse are covered by subsection
(e)(2)(C) and receive, directly or indirectly, any payment or
gain covered by this section, the total amount of payments or
gains (as applicable) covered by this section that the
individual and spouse may jointly receive during any crop
year may not exceed twice the applicable dollar amounts
specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d).
``(j) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
promulgate regulations--
``(A) to ensure that total payments and gains described in
this section made to or through joint operations or multiple
entities under the primary control of a person, in
combination with the payments and gains received directly by
the person, shall not exceed twice the applicable dollar
amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d);
``(B) in the case of a person that in the aggregate owns,
conducts farming operations, or provides custom farming
services on land with respect to which the aggregate payments
exceed the applicable dollar amounts specified in subsections
(b), (c), and (d), to attribute all payments and gains made
on crops produced on the land to--
``(i) a person that rents land as lessee or lessor through
a crop share lease and receives a share of the payments that
is less than the usual and customary share of the crop
received by the lessee or lessor, as determined by the
Secretary;
``(ii) a person that provides custom farming services
through arrangements under which--

``(I) all or part of the compensation for the services is
at risk;
``(II) farm management services are provided by--

``(III) more than \2/3\ of the farming operations are
conducted as custom farming services provided by--

``(aa) the same person;
``(bb) an immediate family member; or
``(cc) an entity or individual that has a business
relationship that is not an arm's length relationship, as
determined by the Secretary; or
``(iii) a person under such other arrangements as the
Secretary determines are established to transfer payments
from persons that would otherwise exceed the applicable
dollar amounts specified in subsections (b), (c), and (d);
and
``(C) to ensure that payments attributed under this section
to a person other than the direct recipient shall also count
toward the limit of the direct recipient.
``(2) Primary control.--The regulations under paragraph (1)
shall define `primary control' to include a joint operation
or multiple entity in which a person owns an interest that is
equal to or greater than the interest of any other 1 or more
persons that materially participate on a regular,
substantial, and continuous basis in the management of the
operation or entity.''.

SEC. 3. SCHEMES OR DEVICES.

Section 1001B of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308-2) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In general.--'' before ``If''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Fraud.--If fraud is committed by a person in
connection with a scheme or device to evade, or that has the
purpose of evading, section 1001, 1001A, or 1001C, the person
shall be ineligible to receive farm program payments (as
described in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 1001 as
being subject to limitation) applicable to the crop year for
which the scheme or device is adopted and the succeeding 5
crop years.''.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture may
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement
this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall be made without regard to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
______

By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Craig, and Mrs.
Dole):
S. 386. A bill to direct the Secretary of State to carry out
activities that promote the adoption of technologies that reduce
greenhouse gas intensity in developing countries, while promoting
economic development, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
______

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

[[Page S1427]]

S. 387. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax incentives for the investment in greenhouse gas intensity reduction
projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
______

By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Craig, and Mrs.
Dole):
S. 388. A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to direct the
Secretary of Energy to carry out activities that promote the adoption
of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity and to provide
credit-based financial assistance and investment protection for
projects that employ advanced climate technologies or systems, to
provide for the establishment of a national greenhouse gas registry,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the U.N. Global Climate
Treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol will enter into force, requiring
more than 30 industrialized nations to significantly cut manmade
greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.
I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation which I believe
can help contribute to a new domestic and international consensus on
climate change. This legislation builds upon three principles: the need
for shared responsibilities between developed and developing countries;
the linkages between environmental, economic, and energy policies; and
the employment of greenhouse gas intensity as the best measurement upon
which to build an effective climate policy.
I thank Senators Alexander, Craig, and Dole for their support and for
agreeing to cosponsor these bills, which are titled: The Climate Change
Technology Deployment in Developing Countries Act; The Climate Change
Technology Deployment Act; and, The Climate Change Technology Tax
Incentives Act.
Global climate policy affects the world's economic, energy, and
environmental policies. These circles of interest in policy are
interconnected. Climate change does not recognize national borders. It
is a shared responsibility for all nations. Dealing with global climate
policy requires a level of diplomatic intensity and coordination worthy
of the magnitude of the challenge.
We all agree on the need for a clean environment and stable climate.
The debate is about solutions. The question we face is not whether we
should take action, but what kind of action we should take.
Climate change initiatives should include commitments to research and
development, technology, and a more efficient and productive use of
energy and resources.
My climate change legislation authorizes new programs, policies, and
incentives to address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
It focuses on the role of technology, private and public
partnerships, and developing countries.
Any climate policy initiative must include clear metrics that
recognize the links between energy, the economy, and the environment.
Too often these policies are considered in vacuums. It is a global
issue.
Bringing in the private sector and creating incentives for
technological innovation will be critical to real progress on global
climate policy. I believe that greenhouse gas intensity, or the amount
of carbon emitted relative to economic output, is the best measurement
for dealing with climate change.
Greenhouse gas emission intensity is the measurement of how
efficiently a nation uses carbon emitting fuels and technology in
producing goods and services. It captures the links between energy
efficiency, economic development, and the environment.
The first bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment in
Developing Countries Act, provides the Secretary of State with new
authority for coordinating assistance to developing countries for
projects and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas intensity.
It supports the development of a U.S. global climate strategy to
expand the role of the private sector, develop public-private
partnerships, and encourage the deployment of greenhouse gas reducing
technologies in developing countries. This bill directs the Secretary
of State to engage global climate change as a foreign policy issue.
It directs the U.S. Trade Representative to negotiate the removal of
trade-related barriers to the export of greenhouse gas intensity
reducing technologies, and establishes an inter-agency working group to
promote the export of greenhouse gas intensity reducing technologies
and practices from the United States.
The legislation authorizes fellowship and exchange programs for
foreign officials to visit the United States and acquire the expertise
and knowledge to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in their countries.
Current international approaches to global climate change overlook the
role of developing countries as part of either the problem or the
solution.
In July 1997, months before the Protocol was signed, the Senate
unanimously passed. S. Res. 98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called
on the President not to sign any treaty or agreement in Kyoto unless
two conditions were met.
First, the United States should not be party to any legally binding
obligations on greenhouse gas emission reductions unless developing
country, parties are required to meet the same standards. Second, the
President should not sign any treaty that ``would result in serious
harm to the economy of the United States.''
Kyoto does not meet either of these conditions. As it stands,
developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto obligations, leaving
more than 30 developed countries to address greenhouse gas emissions.
Developing nations are becoming the major emitters of greenhouse gases,
but they are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol.
A recent Congressional Budget Office--CB0--report explains that
developing countries are projected within the next 20 years to account
for two-thirds of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions as their
populations and economies expand. There are reasons for this.
Developing nations cannot achieve. greenhouse gas reductions until
they achieve higher standards of living. They lack clean energy
technology and they cannot absorb the economic impact of the changes
necessary for emissions reductions. New policies will require
recognition of the limitations of developing nations to meet these
standards, and the necessity of including them in any successful future
initiative.
Because Kyoto does not include developing countries, its approach is
unrealistic. Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United
States and other developed countries will soon be eclipsed by emissions
from developing nations, such as China, which will soon be the world's
largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases.
It is in the shared interests of the United States and industrialized
nations to help developing countries by sharing cleaner technology.
Developing countries can then ``leapfrog'' over the highly polluting
stages of development that countries like the U.S. have already been
through.
My legislation includes tax incentives for American businesses to
work with foreign countries to help develop clean energy projects and
fuel-efficient technologies.
Our second bill, the Climate Change Technology Deployment Act,
supports establishing domestic public-private partnerships for
demonstration projects that employ greenhouse gas intensity reduction
technologies. Our plan provides credit-based financial assistance and
investment protection for American businesses and projects that deploy
advanced climate technologies or systems. Federal financial assistance
includes direct loans, loan guarantees, standby interest coverage, and
power production incentive payments.
We are most successful in confronting the most difficult issues when
we draw on the strength of the private sector. Public-private
partnerships meld together the institutional leverage of the government
with the innovation of industry.
This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to lead an inter-agency
process to develop and implement a national climate strategy provided
by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It establishes a
Climate Coordinating Committee and Climate Credit Board to assess,
approve, and fund these projects.

[[Page S1428]]

Our third bill, the Climate Change Technology Tax Incentives Act,
amends the tax code to provide incentives for investment in climate
change technology. It also expresses our support for making permanent
the current research and development tax credit, which otherwise
expires on December 31, 2005. An article in the Wall Street Journal on
February 4, 2005, reported on the potential for ``geologic storage'' of
carbon dioxide as a means to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide
emissions.
Geologic storage involves pumping carbon dioxide into the ground,
rather than dumping it into the atmosphere. BP has been using geologic
storage in Algeria's Sahara Desert and Statoil has been working on this
in Norway's North Sea. Chevron Texaco is planning a project off the
coast of Australia.
The article reports that:

the concept is drawing growing interest because it could
curb global warming more quickly than switching to
alternative energy sources or cutting energy use.

There is still much work to be done. But this kind of technology that
was described in the Wall Street Journal article is the kind of
technology that must be employed around the world to achieve results in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My legislation would support more of
this type of activity.
The American people and all global citizens need to better understand
global climate change, its connections to our economic and energy
policies, and what the realistic options are for addressing this
challenge. Any recommendations regarding climate policy must meet the
demands of economic growth and development, especially in the
developing world. This will require a market-driven, technology-based
approach that complements the world's environmental interests, and
connects the public and private sectors.
Achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is one of the
important challenges of our time. America has an opportunity and a
responsibility for global climate policy leadership. But it is a
responsibility to be shared by all nations. I look forward to working
with my colleagues in the Congress, the Bush administration, the
private sector, public interest groups, and America's allies on
achievable climate change policy.
By harnessing our many strengths, we can help shape a worthy future
for all people, and build a better world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor at this
moment to join my colleague Chuck Hagel in the introduction of
legislation that he has put together out of a variety of avenues of
interest and importance to deal with the issue of climate change, a
issue in which he and I have been engaged for a good long while. I am
not quite sure how many years ago it was that I, as the freshman
chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, turned to Chuck to see if
he could bring Senators together in a bipartisan way on what we
believed at the moment--and we still believe today--was a critically
important issue to be addressed.
Out of that effort grew the Hagel-Byrd resolution which passed this
body by an overwhelming vote, and was a very clear message to America--
and to the world--on what we believed was necessary and important if we
were to responsibly and effectively engage in the debate of climate
change outside and well beyond the Kyoto protocol.
The legislation Senator Hagel brings to the floor today, of which I
am proud to be a cosponsor, is what I believe is a needed and necessary
next step to work cooperatively with this administration and with
countries around the world to begin to recognize all that is the makeup
of this issue.
Our policy must recognize the legitimate needs of our bilateral
trading partners to use their resources to meet the needs of their
people. Yet, at the same time, the initial debate basically suggested
that if in fact human involvement in the climate of the world was
changing the climate of the world, the only way you could save the
climate was to turn the lights out. It did not address the human need.
It did not address the economic growth that was critically necessary at
that time. That is why our country pushed back and said no, we would
not ratify Kyoto; that we would go much further than that in bringing
about the changes that were necessary and that this administration
engaged in.

This legislation does a great deal more toward recognizing the need
for bringing resources together.
Senator Hagel has made clear the other important things this
legislation will do. Above all, this legislation is a true
acknowledgment that climate variability and change is a top priority as
an issue for the United States--and for all nations--to be involved in.
There can be an honest debate about whether the United States should
do more or whether too much reliance is being placed on voluntary
initiatives, but to claim that the United States is not acting
seriously reflects, at best, a lack of knowledge or, at worst,
political posturing.
An objective review of Government and private sector programs to
reduce increases in greenhouse gas now and in the future would have to
conclude that the United States is doing at least as much, if not more,
than countries that are part of the Kyoto Protocol which will go into
effect tomorrow. The best evidence of this is our domestic rate of
improvement in greenhouse gas intensity relative to the improvements
other countries are making.
The term I just used, ``greenhouse gas intensity,'' is defined in
legislation as the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic
output. This is a far wiser measure of progress because it complements,
rather than conflicts with, a nation's goal of growing its economy and
meeting the needs and aspirations of its people.
Too much attention is being paid to the mandatory nature of Kyoto.
Too little results are being achieved. It is very interesting to note
that most of the countries that ratified Kyoto will not meet the
greenhouse gas reduction targets by the deadlines required by Kyoto.
Indeed, when I and Senator Craig Thomas and Congressman Joe Barton were
in Buenos Aires at the COP-10 conference in December, many nations were
quietly acknowledging that they could not get to where they promised
they would get, and, in fact, some have even suggested that by 2012
they would find it incumbent upon themselves and their nations to back
out of Kyoto. However, all still recognize the importance of this
issue, understanding it, and clearly defining it.

What Senator Hagel's legislation does is shape for us a variety of
things that are already underway, while still allowing us clearly to
define them and to say, both here at home with our domestic policy as
well as internationally, that we mean what we say and we mean what we
do.
The United States is currently spending in excess of $5 billion
annually in scientific and technological initiatives. When we were in
Buenos Aires, I was very proud to stand before my colleagues from
around the world and before nongovernmental organizational groups and
state that the United States is spending more on this issue, in both
advances in science and technological change, than the rest of the
world combined times two. Then I reminded them that all that we do,
they could have also: that our technology would be in the world, that
our science would be available to them, and that to work our way out of
or to change the character of our economies without damaging those
economies would in large part be the responsibility of new
technologies.
This legislation does not pick one technology over another or one
energy source over another. That has always been the debate. Somehow we
had to go around and selectively turn out the lights if we were going
to change the climate around us. We knew that was not acceptable to the
developing world and in large part that is why the developing world
would not come along. How can you deny a country the right to use its
resources for the economic, humanitarian, and health benefits of its
people? You cannot do that. Nor should we be engaged in trying to do
that.
What we can do as a developed and advanced Nation is offer up exactly
what we are doing; offer up what the Hagel legislation brings together.
That is all we are doing now, and advancing and incentivizing, through
this legislation, countries to do more in the area of technology.

[[Page S1429]]

These programs are designed to advance our state of knowledge,
accelerate the development and the deployment of energy technologies,
aid developing countries in using energy more efficiently, and achieve
an 18-percent reduction in energy intensity by 2012--a phenomenally
responsive goal and something we clearly can take to the world
community.
Our administration today in a series of bilateral agreements is
working with other countries to help them get to where we want and
where they want to get, and for the sake of the environment, where we
all want us all to go.
I was extremely proud sitting in different forums in Buenos Aires to
see the United States talk about the leadership role it has taken and
the bilateral partnerships it has agreed to, and all the things that we
can help with in the world of change today. It is clearly to our
advantage and to the advantage of the world at large.
What Senator Hagel has effectively done today is to get our arms
around this issue to try to more directly define it, and to show that
we are sensitive to it; that we are responding to the issue as clearly
as our administration has and continues to do.
Domestically, the United States has and continues to make world
leading investments in climate change science technology. The United
States has also implemented a wide range of national greenhouse control
initiatives, cash sequestration programs, and international
collaborative programs. All of those are bound up within the bilaterals
I have talked about that we are engaged in.

The legislation we have introduced today furthers all of these goals.
President Bush has consistently acknowledged how human activity can
affect our climate, and that the climate variability does not recognize
national borders. The key issue is not whether there is any human-
influenced effect. Instead, the issues are how large any human
influence may be as compared to natural variability; how costly and how
effective human intervention may be in reversing climate variability;
and how and what technology may be required over the near and the long
term as determined by developments in climate science.
As I said, there can be a legitimate debate about whether more can be
done while meeting our Nation's economic objectives. I, for one,
support doing more in the areas of technological development to help
lift developing countries from the depths of their plights and to
advance their cause as we advance ours. That is why I am proud to be
working with my colleagues in the Senate. I thank Senator Hagel,
Senator Alexander, Senator Dole, and others for the hard work they have
put in and the cooperative effort reflected in the bill introduced this
afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I salute Senator Hagel for his
leadership and his contribution on this issue. I am glad to be here
with my colleague, Senator Craig, who is one of the Senate's real
authorities on energy.
We have had some trouble passing an energy bill in the Senate. We are
having some trouble passing a clean air bill in the Senate. If we are
being logical--which is hard for a Senate to be--we would set clean air
objectives and pass a clean energy bill to help reach that objective,
do it at once, and give ourselves a low cost, reliable supply of
energy, less dependent on the rest of the world, and do it in a way
that is environmentally sound.
That is our objective. We have different approaches on this, but
Senator Hagel has put his emphasis today exactly where it needs to be.
The United States of America is a country that has about a third of all
the GDP in the world. We have 5 to 6 percent of the people and a third
of all the money is one way to put it.
How did we get that money? How did we get our position? The National
Academy of Sciences says that since World War II, half our new jobs
have come from advances in science and technology. There are other
countries in the world--a growing number of countries--that have great
capacity for science and technology. Some of the greatest scientists
and engineers who have worked in this country have come from other
countries in the world. But if any country in the world ought to be
putting a focus on science and technology as a way of helping not just
their country but the rest of the world deal with the issue of
greenhouse gases, it ought to be the United States of America. Senator
Hagel is exactly right to put the spotlight there. He does it in a
three-part bill. In the first part, he talks about international
cooperation. That also makes a lot of sense.
Three weeks ago, I was visiting with the chairman of one of the
largest energy companies in Germany. If there is a country in the world
that has a more irrational energy policy than we do, it would be
Germany. They have just decided to close 19 nuclear powerplants at the
same time, across the Rhine river, France is 85 percent nuclear power.
Of course, Germany will never do that because they will not be able to
meet the Kyoto carbon standards if they close the plants. But the point
that my friend from Germany was making is that we are headed, in his
words, toward an energy catastrophe.
It is a catastrophe of two kinds. One is energy supply, and one is
clean air. Now, why is that? It is because other countries in the world
are growing. In China, the average Chinese person uses about one-sixth
the amount of energy that the average person in the European Union
uses, in the 15 original countries. Now, in China, when the average
Chinese person, with all the people there, gets up to three-sixths or
four-sixths or five-sixths or six-sixths, as they will, there will be
an unbelievable demand for energy in this country. We are already
seeing it in the prices for natural gas, in the prices for oil.
The figures we heard in our Energy Committee were that over the next
25 years--and my numbers are approximate--China might build 650 new
coal plants to begin to supply its energy, and India might build 800.
That does not count the rest of Southeast Asia or what Brazil might do.
So we cannot just look at this issue in terms of what is happening in
the United States.
If there is not a supply of energy, and the other countries are
demanding so much, our prices will be so high that our million chemical
jobs in the country will move overseas looking for cheap natural gas.
And it will not make much difference how we clean the air in the United
States of America if China and India and Brazil build so many old coal
plants and throw stuff up in the air because it will blow around the
world and come over here.
So we have, on two counts, a major, major challenge: energy supply
and clean air. It would make enormous sense for the scientists and
engineers in the United States to work with the scientists and
engineers in Germany who have exactly the same challenge and the
scientists and engineers in China who have even more of a challenge.
They have just stopped 26 of their coal plants because of environmental
concerns, but they will not be able to stop them for long because of
their need for an energy supply.
What the Senator from Nebraska has done is to say to us, hey, we are
talking about mandates and rules and regulations, but what we ought to
be trying to do is to create a solution to the problem using the thing
that we in the United States do better than anybody, or historically
have, and that is our science and technology. This is the country with
the 50 great research universities. This is the country with the 20
National Laboratories. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in my home
State, is already doing important work on how we recapture carbon.

One of the things we can do in the Senate, without arguing about
Kyoto, without arguing about mandates, is to say, let's see if we can--
through technology, working with people in other parts of the world,
and encouraging our own businesses and laboratories--find better ways
to deal with greenhouse gases. I salute the Senator for that. I am glad
to have a chance to be associated with this bill.
Now, the second thing I would like to say is that is not all there is
to do. We have different opinions in this body about so-called global
warming. I believe, of course, there is global warming. Our
grandparents can tell us that. The question, as Senator Craig said, is,
What is causing it? And do we know enough about it to take steps? We
have different opinions about that issue. That does not mean we are all
unconcerned about it; we just have different

[[Page S1430]]

degrees of understanding of it and different opinions about the
evidence we see.
I have a little different opinion than the Senator from Idaho. I
support legislation that Senator Carper and Senator Chafee and Senator
Gregg and I supported in the last session of Congress that put modest
caps on the utilities section for the production of carbon. I was not
willing to go further than that because of the science I read and I'm
not sure we know exactly how to solve this problem. My reading of it
did not persuade me, one, that we know all that we need to know about
global warming; and, two, maybe more importantly, I was not sure we
knew what we were doing by just saying, OK, we will do this, and
without having the solution.
Again, Senator Hagel has suggested, well, let's come up with some
technology. Let's come up with some science. And then we can make a
better assessment about what we would be able to do if we were to put a
cap on it.
I would suggest that in addition to Senator Hagel's technology that
he encourages in his legislation--that is one way to do it--a second
way to do it is with some kind of caps, and there are a variety of
proposals in this body to do that. That also encourages, in my opinion,
technology. But then there is also a third point to make, and that
takes us out of the debate as to whether it is a good idea or a bad
idea to put on mandatory caps.
If China is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants and
India is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants because that
is the only technology available to them and the only source of fuel
they have readily available, then we had better get busy trying to
figure out a way to recapture carbon--not to comply with the Kyoto
Treaty, but because we are going to have to have it in this world. Any
realistic look at the sources of energy in the world says that for the
next 20 or 25 years, nuclear power, natural gas, oil, and coal will be
almost all of it.
There is a lot of support for renewable energy. Some people want to
put up wind turbines taller than football fields covering square miles.
I do not. I think that destroys the American landscape, and it does not
produce much energy.
But one of the most thoughtful presentations I have heard on the
solution to our common issues of clean energy and clean air has come
from the National Resources Defense Council, one of the leading
environmental organizations in this country. They are in favor of a
coal solution--I hope I am attributing this correctly to them--of a
coal solution for our clean air, clean energy policy. A big part of
their reasoning is, they see what is happening in the rest of the
world. If the United States, they reason, can figure out a way to
gasify coal and then recapture the carbon, that gets rid of most of the
noxious pollutants--sulfur, nitrogen, mercury. It recaptures the
carbon, which we have not really figured out how to do yet, but it does
not just do that for the United States, it shows the rest of the world
how to do it. And then China, instead of building 800 new coal plants
with the old technology, will build 800 coal gasification plants and
recapture the carbon. India will do the same, and maybe Germany will do
the same. There will be more energy, and we will all be able to
breathe. And that is quite irrespective of mandatory caps.
One of the things I like about Senator Hagel's proposal is there is
not any way to study the technology of how we deal with greenhouse
gases without getting into questions of coal gasification and the
recapturing of carbon. There is not any way to do that. He is leading
us to the tantalizing possibility that in the United States we might
one day be able to say: We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 500
years' worth of it. We can turn it into gas. We can recapture the
carbon. We can use that to create the hydrogen for the hydrogen economy
that we think might one day be down the road, and that, plus our
supplies of natural gas and nuclear power, will give us clean energy
and will give us clean air and will show the world how to do the same.

The Senator from Nebraska has put the spotlight where the spotlight
ought to be. The United States of America, of all countries, should
start with technology and science and say: Greenhouse gases is a
problem. We are still researching how much of a problem it is. But we
should, working with other countries, use our science and technology to
deal with it and, in the process, see if it can lead us toward that
brilliant intersection of clean energy and clean air that will one day
give us a steady supply of energy and clean air that we can breathe.
I salute the Senator for his leadership and am glad to be a
cosponsor. I look forward to working with him. As chairman of the
Senate subcommittee on energy, we have some jurisdiction over global
warming as well as energy technology commercialization. Senator
Domenici, chairman of our full committee, had a full roundtable the
other day on natural gas. We have one coming up on coal and coal
gasification. I can assure my colleagues that the Hagel legislation
will be an important part of that roundtable. I will do my best to make
it an important part of energy hearings.
______

By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 389. A bill to provide for fire safety standards for cigarettes,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire Safe
Cigarette Act of 2005. Last year the State of New York enacted a bold
new law. As of June 2004, all cigarettes sold in the State are tested
for fire safety and required to self-extinguish.
Nationwide the statistics regarding cigarette-related fires are
startling. Cigarette-ignited fires account for an estimated 140,800
fires in the United States, representing the most common ignition
source for fatal home fires and causing 30 percent of the fire deaths
in the United States. Such fires cause more than 900 deaths and 2,400
injuries every year. Annually, more than $400 million in property
damage is reported due to a fire caused by a cigarette. According to
the National Fire Protection Association, one out of every four fire
deaths in the United States are attributed to tobacco products--by far
the leading cause of fatal home fires in the United States. Overall,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that the cost of the
loss of human life and personal property from not having a fire-safe
cigarette standard is approximately $4.6 billion per year.
In my State of Illinois, cigarette-related fires have also caused too
many senseless tragedies. In 1998 alone, the most recent year for which
we have data, there were more than 1,700 cigarette-related fires, of
which more than 900 were in people's homes. These fires led to 109
injuries and 8 deaths.
Tobacco companies spend billions on marketing and learning how to
make cigarettes appealing to kids. It is not unreasonable to ask those
same companies to invest in safer cigarette paper to make their
products less likely to bum down a house. As of today cigarettes are
designed to continue burning when left unattended. A common scenario is
the delayed ignition of a sofa or mattress by a lit cigarette dropped
by a smoker.
The Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 2005 requires the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to promulgate a fire safety standard, specified in
the legislation, for cigarettes. The CPSC would also have the authority
to regulate the ignition propensity of cigarette paper for roll-your-
own tobacco products. The Act gives the Consumer Product Safety
Commission authority over cigarettes only for purposes of implementing
and enforcing compliance with this Act and with the standard
promulgated under the Act. It also allows states to pass more stringent
fire-safety standards for cigarettes.
Two decades ago Joe Moakley set out to ensure that the tragic
cigarette-caused fire that killed five children and their parents in
Westwood, MA was not repeated. He introduced three bills, two of which
passed. One commissioned a study that concluded it was technically
feasible to produce a cigarette with a reduced propensity to start
fires. The second required that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology develop a test method for cigarette fire safety, and the
last and final bill, the Fire-Safe Cigarette Act of 1999, mandates that
the Consumer Product Safety Commission use this knowledge to regulate
cigarettes with regard to fire safety.

[[Page S1431]]

Today I respectfully introduce this bill to bring fire-safe standards
to all cigarettes sold in this country. I hope that the Commerce
Committee will consider this legislation very soon and that my
Colleagues will join me in supporting this effort. Now that New York
serves as an example of success, it is time to establish a national
standard to ensure that our Nation's children, elderly and families are
protected.
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. 389

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 ``Cigarette Fire Safety Act of
2005''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Cigarette ignited fires are the leading cause of fire
deaths in the United States.
(2) In 1999 there were 807 deaths from cigarette ignited
fires, 2,193 civilian injuries from such fires, and
$559,100,000 in property damage caused by such fires.
(3) Nearly 100 children are killed each year from cigarette
related fires.
(4) For over 20 years former Member of Congress Joseph
Moakley worked on behalf of burn victims, firefighters, and
every individual who has lost a loved one in a fire. By
securing enactment of the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 and
the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990, Joseph Moakley completed
the necessary technical work for a cigarette fire safety
standard and paved the way for a national standard.
(5) It is appropriate for the Congress to require by law
the establishment of a cigarette fire safety standard for the
manufacture and importation of cigarettes.
(6) A recent study by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission found that the cost of the loss of human life and
personal property from not having a cigarette fire safety
standard is $4,600,000,000 per year.
(7) It is appropriate that the regulatory expertise of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission be used to implement a
cigarette fire safety standard.

SEC. 3. CIGARETTE FIRE SAFETY STANDARD.

(a) In General.--
(1) Requirement for standard.--Not later than 18 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission
shall, by rule, prescribe one or more fire safety standards
for cigarettes that, except as provided in this Act, are
substantively the same as the standards set forth by the
State of New York in Part 429 of Title 18 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of
New York, as promulgated on December 31, 2003 (in this Act
referred to as the ``New York standard''), including the
Appendix to such Part.
(2) Cigarettes with unique characteristics.--In adapting
section 4(c) of such Part 429, if the Commission determines
that a cigarette, because of its unique or nontraditional
characteristics, cannot be tested in accordance with the test
method prescribed by the Commission, the manufacturer of such
cigarette may propose a test method and performance standard
for such cigarette. If the Commission finds the proposed
method and standard to be equivalent to the test method and
performance standard otherwise established by the Commission,
the Commission may approve the method and standard and the
manufacturer of such cigarette may employ such test method
and performance standard to certify the cigarette pursuant to
rules prescribed by this Act.
(3) Commission.--In this Act, the term ``Commission'' means
the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
(b) Procedure.--
(1) In general.--The rule under subsection (a), and any
modification thereof, shall be prescribed in accordance with
section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Modifications.--
(A) Modification by sponsor.--If the sponsor of the testing
methodology used under subsection (a)(2) modifies the testing
methodology in any material respect, the sponsor shall notify
the Commission of the modification, and the Commission may
incorporate the modification in the rule prescribed under
subsection (a) if the Commission determines that the
modification will enhance a fire safety standard established
under subsection (a)(2).
(B) Modification by commission.--The Commission may modify
the rule prescribed under subsection (a), including the test
requirements specified in subsection (a)(2), in whole or in
part, only if the Commission determines that compliance with
such modification is technically feasible and will enhance a
fire safety standard established under that subsection. Any
such modification shall not take effect earlier than 3 years
after the date on which the rule is first issued.
(3) Inapplicability of certain laws.--
(A) In general.--No Federal law or Executive order,
including the laws listed in subparagraph (B) but not
including chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 of title 5, United States
Code, commonly referred to as the Administrative Procedures
Act, may be construed to apply to the promulgation of the
rule required by subsection (a), or a modification of the
rule under paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(B) Included laws.--The Federal laws referred to in
subparagraph (A) include the following:
(i) The Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et
seq.).
(ii) Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code.
(iii) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(iv) The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), and the amendments made by that
Act.
(c) Effective Date.--The Commission shall specify in the
rule prescribed under subsection (a) the effective date of
the rule. The effective date may not be later than 24 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Treatment of Standard.--
(1) In general.--The fire safety standard promulgated under
subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product safety
standard promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety Act
(15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.), except as provided in section 4.
(2) Treatment of cigarettes.--A cigarette shall be treated
as a consumer product under section 3(a)(1)(B) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(B)) for
purposes of this Act and for purposes of sections 17 and 18
of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2066, 2067).

SEC. 4. PREEMPTION.

(a) In General.--This Act, and any cigarette fire safety
standard established or modified pursuant to section 3, may
not be construed to preempt or otherwise affect in any way
any law or regulation that prescribes a fire safety standard
for cigarettes--
(1) set forth by the State of New York in the New York
standard; or
(2) promulgated by any State that is more stringent than
the fire safety standard for cigarettes established under
this section.
(b) Private Remedies.--The provisions of section 25 of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2074) shall apply with
respect to the fire safety standard promulgated under section
3(a) of this Act.

SEC. 5. SCOPE OF JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Commission
shall have no jurisdiction over tobacco or tobacco products.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Consumer Product Safety Commission
for fiscal year 2006, $2,000,000 for purposes of carrying out
this Act.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to
subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Bunning):
S. 390. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for coverage of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic
aneurysms under part B of the medicare program; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, along with my
colleague Senator Jim Bunning, to introduce the Screening Abdominal
Aortic Aneurysms Very Efficiently SAAAVE Act of 2005. This important
legislation would provide Medicare coverage for screening for a
dangerous condition known as abdominal aortic aneurysm--or AAA.
The SAAAVE Act is designed to save the lives of those suffering from
abdominal aortic aneurysms, a silent killer that claims the lives of
15,000 Americans each year. AAAs occur when there is a weakening of the
walls of the aorta, the body's largest blood vessel. This artery begins
to bulge, most often very slowly and without symptoms, and can lead to
rupture and severe internal bleeding. AAA is a devastating condition
that is often fatal without detection, with less than 15 percent of
those afflicted with a ruptured aorta surviving. Estimates indicate
that 2.7 million Americans suffer from AAA.
With introduction of this important legislation, Congress recognizes
abdominal aortic aneurysm screening as essential to stopping its deadly
effects. Research indicates that when detected before rupturing, AAAs
are treatable and curable in 95 percent of the cases. And while most
AAAs are never diagnosed, nearly all can be detected through an
inexpensive and painless screening.
I am particularly pleased that the U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force recently recommended AAA screening for all men between the ages
of 65 and 75 that have ever smoked. This independent panel of experts
in primary care and prevention concluded that screening for abdominal
aortic aneurysms for this particularly vulnerable population is
especially important. The

[[Page S1432]]

recognition of this screening measure by this respected body makes
perfectly clear the lifesaving potential offered by AAA screening.
For more than four decades the Medicare program has provided a
literal lifeline for America's seniors and individuals with
disabilities. However, for far too long this valuable program--
originally crafted only to provide needed care after an illness--failed
to cover valuable preventive services. Recently, though, Medicare has
evolved to include a number of preventive measures, such as mammography
and colorectal screenings. With today's introduction of the SAAAVE Act,
we again move Medicare toward greater inclusion of lifesaving
preventive measures. This legislation reflects the changing attitudes
toward the value of preventive health care services and moves us toward
modernizing the Medicare program to better meet the needs of its more
than 40 million beneficiaries. With enactment of the SAAAVE Act,
instead of waiting to treat a ruptured aorta, Medicare will now help
high-risk seniors avert this often-deadly disease through preventive
and lifesaving screening.
Lastly, I want to thank the legislation's chief sponsors in the House
of Representatives, Gene Green and John Shimkus. Representatives Green
and Shimkus have been tireless advocates on behalf of patients
suffering from abdominal aortic aneurysms and their devotion to
modernizing the Medicare program to include greater preventive services
is truly admirable. I look forward to continuing working with my
colleagues from the House to advance the SAAAVE Act in the 109th
Congress.

When Senator Bunning and I first introduced this legislation in the
last Congress, we were joined by patients who had suffered a ruptured
aorta as result of an AAA and their families. At this event these
patients shared with us their harrowing and personal stories of
battling this deadly condition. It is because of struggles like theirs
that we are here today at the outset of an effort to prevent abdominal
aortic aneurysms from advancing to the point of rupture by providing
coverage for a simple yet lifesaving screening. Simply, Mr. President,
this legislation is about saving lives. I urge all of my colleagues to
support the SAAAVE Act.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Dodd
from Connecticut today in re-introducing the Screening Abdominal Aortic
Aneurysms Very Efficiently Act of 2005--also known as the SAAAVE Act--
in the 109th Congress.
This is an important bill that could potentially save the lives of
many Medicare beneficiaries. Unfortunately, too many Americans die from
ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms each year without ever knowing they
had this condition. In fact, less than 15 percent of people who have a
ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm survive.
That is why our bill is so important. The SAAAVE Act would add a new
screening benefit to Medicare so that people at risk for abdominal
aortic aneurysms could be tested. The test is simple. In fact, it's
just an ultrasound test, which is painless, non-invasive and
inexpensive.
Medicare beneficiaries found to have an abdominal aortic aneurysm
could have surgery if needed or could simply be monitored by their
doctors.
Early detection is the key to preventing ruptures of these aneurysms
and preventing deaths. In fact, these aneurysms can be successfully
treated 95 percent of the time if they are detected before rupturing.
The legislation also includes a national educational and information
campaign to get the word out about the health risks associated with
abdominal aortic aneurysms. Too often, those with these aneurysms
simply don't know they have one until it ruptures. The educational
campaign requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus
their education efforts not only on the general public, but also among
health care practitioners as well.
I am pleased we are introducing this bill today, and I look forward
to working with my colleague from Connecticut in getting it passed.

____________________