[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 171 (Tuesday, December 11, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12859-S12865]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1799. A bill to strengthen the national security by encouraging 
and assisting in the expansion and improvement of educational programs 
to meet critical needs at the elementary, secondary, and higher 
education levels; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
           By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Akaka, 
             and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1800. A bill to strengthen and improve the management of national 
security, encourage Government service in areas of critical national 
security, and to assist government agencies in addressing deficiencies 
in personnel possessing specialized skills important to national 
security and incorporating the goals and strategies for recruitment and 
retention for such skilled personnel into the strategic and performance 
management systems of Federal agencies; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.

[[Page S12860]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the fall of 1957, the United States 
received a national wake-up call. The Soviet Union launched sputnik 
into orbit. The space race was on, and we were already behind. Not only 
were we caught off guard by sputnik, it was suddenly clear that major 
changes had to be made to preserve our national security and to pull 
ahead in scientific and technological innovation.
  One year later, Congress passed landmark legislation, the National 
Defense Education Act. The purpose of the act was to ``strengthen the 
national defense and to encourage and assist in the expansion and 
improvement of educational program to meet critical national needs.'' 
The National Defense Education Act provided assistance to State and 
local school systems to strengthen instruction in science, math, 
foreign languages, and other critical subjects. It also created low-
interest student loan programs and fellowships to open the door to 
higher education to a greater number of young people. This coordinated 
national effort helped our Nation meet its goals.
  By 1969, Americans had landed on the Moon. The United States was the 
most technologically advanced Nation in the world. A new generation of 
highly skilled mathematicians, scientists, and technology experts 
staffed laboratories, universities, and Federal agencies. Colleges and 
universities had established centers for foreign language study and 
research.
  Sadly, this Nation received another wake-up call on September 11, 
2001.
  The week after the attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller made a public 
plea for Arabic and Farsi speakers to assist as translators, 
illustrating the alarming deficiency in fluent speakers of languages 
crucial to our national security needs. It does our Nation no good to 
have sophisticated weapons programs if we don't have the scientists to 
back them up. It does our Nation no good to have expanded intelligence 
gathering capabilities if what we retrieve sits untranslated. The 
United States must have the brainpower to match its firepower.
  Today I join Senators Thompson and Akaka to introduce two initiatives 
that serve two important purposes, to meet the immediate needs of the 
Federal Government in areas of national security, and to make 
investments in our future through investments in education.
  The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act authorizes funds for key 
national security agencies to repay student loans for employees in 
national security positions who pledge to serve for a minimum of three 
years. This expands the existing loan forgiveness program for 
Federal employees by permitting these agencies to repay up to $10,000 
per year in student loans.

  The bill also establishes a National Security Fellowship Program for 
graduate students who agree to enter Federal service in a position key 
to national security upon the completion of their degree. The 
fellowship program will also be open to current Federal employees, 
encouraging the enhancement and development of their skills.
  To give Federal employees more flexibility and experience, the bill 
creates a National Security Service Corps to allow Federal employees to 
serve in rotational assignments in other agencies with national 
security responsibilities.
  Along with these immediate remedies, homeland security and 
preparedness depend on a well-educated citizenry who leave school with 
the tools they need to succeed in science, math, technology, and 
foreign languages. Unless broader education reforms are implemented, we 
will continue to find ourselves playing catch-up to secure the skilled 
professionals our government needs.
  The Homeland Security Education Act would fund partnerships between 
local school districts and foreign language departments in institutions 
of higher education. These new foreign language partnerships will 
provide intensive professional development opportunities for foreign 
language teachers at every level from kindergarten to 12th grade. The 
partnerships will foster contact and communication between university 
faculty and K-12 teachers in order to improve teachers' knowledge of 
the languages they teach as well as their teaching skills. Partnerships 
would also use grant funds to recruit foreign language majors to the 
classroom. Our bill will give priority to partnerships that include 
high-need school districts and that put a focus on the less-commonly 
taught languages.
  Our bill will encourage more undergraduates to complete degrees in 
mathematics, science, engineering, and the less-commonly taught foreign 
languages by establishing a program to forgive the interest on a 
borrower's student loans if he or she earns a degree in one of these 
subjects. The program aims to provide an incentive for students who are 
interested in these areas of study to earn their degrees.
  The bill establishes grants for partnerships between school districts 
and private entities to help schools improve science and math 
curriculum, upgrade laboratory facilities, and purchase scientific 
equipment. In turn, the private sector partner will donate technology 
or equipment to the school district; provide scholarships for district 
students to study math, science, or engineering at college; establish 
internship or mentoring opportunities for district students; or sponsor 
programs aimed at young people who are under-represented in the fields 
of math, science, and engineering.
  In order to stay on top of innovations in science and technology, 
more professionals in these fields will have to also be proficient in a 
foreign language. This is imperative to our national security, even 
some scientific documents and articles in the public domain are beyond 
the translation capabilities of our government. The Homeland Security 
Education Act would make grants available to colleges and universities 
to establish programs in which students take courses in science, math 
and technology taught in a foreign language. Funds will also support 
immersion programs for students to take science and math courses in a 
non-English speaking country.

  The Homeland Security Education Act authorizes $20 million for the 
National Flagship Language Initiative, which was funded as a one-year 
pilot program in this year's Defense Appropriations bill. The funds 
will be used to provide institutional grants to universities to 
graduate specific numbers of students with the foreign language 
proficiencies needed by the government. Participating institutions will 
make available a negotiated number of slots to student applicants who 
are Federal employees.
  With these bills, we hope to address some of the gaps in homeland 
security that have been identified by numerous experts and panels, 
including the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st 
century. We must do everything possible to ensure that our intellectual 
preparedness is equal to that of our military preparedness. Without 
these investments, we may find that the war against terrorism is 
unwinnable, and our status in the global community severely diminished.
  Our Nation has demonstrated that we have the moral resolve to fight a 
war to end terrorism. We must match that resolve with the willingness 
make investments in education and training that will pay off well into 
the next century.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, I am 
honored to work with my colleagues from the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, Senator Durbin and Senator Thompson, to introduce the 
Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act and the Homeland Security 
Education Act.
  Alarmed at the Soviet Union's successful launch of the first space 
vehicle, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958. 
Our country faced a changed national security landscape, and our 
Government was determined to make certain the United States never came 
up short again in the areas of math, science, technology and foreign 
languages.
  Although we face new national security threats, our Government's 
response is built on the talents and dedication of our Federal 
workforce. Recently the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st 
Century, also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, concluded that ``. . 
. the excellence of American public servants is the foundation upon 
which an effective national security strategy must rest . . . because 
future success will require

[[Page S12861]]

the mastery of advanced technology . . . as well as leading-edge 
concepts of governance.''
  The recent terrorist attacks strengthened our will and exposed the 
weaknesses of our great country. We were quickly reminded of the 
importance of our Federal Government and its workforce. For every 
essential service these attacks disrupted, we expected our government 
to respond quickly and effectively, and those in government did.
  However, the events of September 11 and the anthrax attacks through 
the mails underscored how much government needs people with the 
critical skills to fill critical national security positions. We need 
to recruit the best people with the best skills and ensure that 
government service remains attractive. Our legislation does that.
  The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act and the Homeland Security 
Education Act provide needed tools and resources to agencies expressly 
for hiring new employees in critical national security positions and 
establishes a student loan repayment program and fellowships to future 
and current federal employees in exchange for government service.
  It provides additional training opportunities for the great people 
already committed to the Federal service whose expertise guide agencies 
daily in meeting their missions. For example, Federal employees in 
national security positions will be eligible to apply for fellowships, 
which includes full tuition and a stipend, to pursue degrees in fields 
deemed critical to national security.
  Our bills also respond to future national security needs by helping 
schools better prepare students for the demands of the 21st century. We 
must act now to identify and develop the right balance of skills in 
science, math, and foreign languages. We must make resources available 
to our schools and their teachers so that our students graduate with a 
greater proficiency in these areas.
  The bills will strengthen the specific foreign language skills that 
the Government has identified as critical to our national security. We 
would help establish an advanced foreign language program that matches 
foreign language program efforts in leading universities with national 
security requirements.
  I would like to note that the University of Hawaii is recognized as a 
model university in foreign language instruction and is noted for the 
strength of its faculty and curriculum particularly in Mandarin 
Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, language deemed important by the Defense 
Language Institute. The University of Hawaii is also an authority in 
the development of enhanced foreign language teaching methods.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this 
bipartisan legislation is passed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. 
        Smith of New Hampshire):
  S. 1804. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax incentives for economic recovery and provide for the payment of 
emergency extended unemployment compensation; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the economy has been struggling for 
about a year now. We have had a number of difficulties that have made 
our economy not as healthy as we would like it to be. Oddly enough, for 
the week of September 11, according to the hearing we had in the Joint 
Economic Committee, unemployment actually dropped. There was an 
increase in employment that week. So maybe our economy was moving in 
the right direction. But immediately after September 11, and the shock 
this Nation went through, we slipped back into what has now been called 
a recession.
  Factories are closing in a number of places. Quite a few have closed 
in my State. It has been quite discouraging that this tends to happen 
more often in small towns where you have just a few businesses. That is 
where you see more of the closings than in the urban areas.
  The National Bureau of Economic Research has declared that we have 
slipped into recession. And the terrorist attacks have hurt us in a lot 
of different ways involving jobs for families in America. So I have 
been pushing for some time that we make sure we complete this Congress 
with a good, healthy stimulus package.
  I have raised that observation with quite a number of people. But we 
are not, to my knowledge, making any progress. I have referred to the 
people who I understand are working on it as ``the masters of the 
universe.'' They are back there somewhere outside of this Chamber, 
working and manipulating and talking to people about what ought to be 
in the package. And, yes, they take input, and I have talked to them, 
and other people have talked to them--and I did not suggest it is not a 
tough job; it is a tough job--but we are getting close to the time when 
we should recess, and people are suggesting that we might even complete 
this Congress without a stimulus package. I think that would be a very 
bad mistake.
  Even the most conservative economists have suggested we would have a 
one-half of 1 percent increase in the GDP if we have a stimulus package 
of $75 billion to $100 billion. I believe that is clearly worth the 
effort. That one-half of 1 percent, in an economy as large as ours, is 
very significant. It means many people will continue to have jobs that 
they would not have otherwise. It means that many people will be 
working and paying taxes to the Government which will help us with our 
deficit situation. It means many people will be working and taking care 
of their families and not going into debt and will be buying things, 
such as at the grocery store, that they would not otherwise be buying.
  So I think we need to be sure we move in that direction. That is why 
I have offered today S. 1804, which is cosponsored by Senators Tim 
Hutchinson, George Allen, and Bob Smith. And I intend to move this bill 
if we do not see progress. Really, I intend to seek a vote on it if it 
is in any way appropriate and possible this session.
  Let me mention a few things that are in the bill which I think are 
common sense and would be good policy. One of the things I have been 
wrestling with is the earned-income tax credit. This is a program that 
began in 1975. It is now a $31 billion program that provides a tax 
credit to low-income working Americans. It is designed to make work 
more beneficial and more rewarding so that, particularly, families can 
live off of low-income jobs. In fact, the program is quite generous for 
a family of four or more who qualify appropriately. They can receive 
$4,000 a year. An average family with one qualifying child, that 
receives the earned-income tax credit, receives almost $2,000 a year. 
On average, it is over $1,900 per year that they receive.
  This totals out, if you figure it on an hourly basis for the average 
family of four that receives the earned-income tax credit, to almost $1 
an hour pay raise over whatever they are making. If they are making $6 
an hour and they get another $1, that is a big increase. If you are at 
$5 an hour and you get $1 an hour, that is a 20-percent increase in 
your pay. It is more than that in take-home because you don't have any 
withholding out of a tax credit.
  The way this thing has been working, however, is not healthy. The way 
this thing has been working is, the money goes to the worker when they 
fill out their income-tax return the next year. In February or March, 
when they fill out the tax return, they get this $1,900 in a lump sum 
check sometime in the spring after they worked.
  Congress wrestled with that. They didn't believe that was furthering 
a policy of the Congress, and so they tried to provide the credit on 
the worker's paycheck. In years past, in the 1970s and all, when this 
passed, people didn't have the computers we have today, and requiring 
small businesses to calculate this and put it on the paycheck caused 
some grief. But today, because everything is automated, it is much 
easier to do.
  In recent years, Congress tried to do something about it. In 1978, 
they passed legislation that said a worker could have it put on their 
paycheck if they want to. Oddly enough, only 5 percent of workers have 
chosen this or know they can.
  Therein lies a problem, and there are several reasons. One, they 
probably don't know about it. Another one is that oftentimes they are 
told that if you get this advanced payment on your check instead of 
getting a refund next year, you may owe money to the Government next 
year. And that caused some to not take advantage of it. At

[[Page S12862]]

any rate, only 5 percent of Americans are taking advantage of this 
policy.
  I believe it ought to be the policy. I believe the policy was founded 
to begin with, with the idea of helping people, encouraging people to 
go to work. If you are not making much more than the minimum wage, 
sometimes people may wonder if they are not better staying at home on 
welfare. The money should be put on there. Most economists, most good 
public policy students of the situation believe that.
  That is one of the points of this stimulus bill that I have. Let me 
tell you why it is such a good stimulus package. It is good because the 
money for people who have worked this year, who receive the benefit of 
the earned-income tax credit, they will get their refund next year.
  What my proposal says is in January, they would begin to receive next 
year's $1,900, on their paycheck. Current law allows a recipient to get 
about 60 percent of their earned income tax credit in advance, on their 
paycheck. We calculate, of the $31 billion that is annually being spent 
on the earned income tax credit, this proposal would bring to the 
average worker, infused into the economy next fiscal year, $15 billion, 
a year before the time it would normally be in the economy. I believe 
that is good public policy. It is good to encourage work. It will help 
people who need money now to take care of their families. It will be 
coming to them in a regular way, and it will help them take care of 
their families.
  That would be a good stimulus package. It would help us next year 
when we have to balance the budget because we would have $15 billion 
less to spend on the tax refunds because it would have been paid out 
throughout this fiscal year. It would help us get back into a balanced 
budget which is important. This year, we are not going to be in a 
balanced budget. We are going to be in deficit unfortunately. Next 
year, we have an opportunity to get out. This package in that regard 
would help us do so.

  I strongly believe that is a good thing that should be considered. It 
would infuse money into the economy and have a net drain on the economy 
of zero over a 2-year period, except perhaps some interest loss to the 
Government.
  Another matter that we believe should be in this package is a 
proposal for relief for those who are unemployed. Everybody has been 
talking about that. We ought to be able to reach agreement on that. 
Senator Baucus had a proposal. The House Republicans had a proposal 
that came out of that chamber. A centrist proposal has been put forward 
by Senators Collins, Smith and Landrieu that hits the area about right. 
It increases the weeks for unemployment for up to 13 additional weeks, 
and it begins calculating that for anybody who was unemployed at the 
time of September 11. It is more expansive in that regard. We have a 
good bipartisan unemployment compensation package.
  Another thing it is time for us to do would be to complete the 
reduction of the 27-percent tax bracket down to the 25-percent tax 
bracket. We committed to doing that over the 10-year tax plan. This 
would accelerate that next year, and working Americans would receive a 
little more take-home money every week as a result of a reduction in 
that tax rate. That has a lot of support.
  One thing that has not been mentioned, but I strongly believe would 
be one of the most beneficial proposals, is to advance the child tax 
credit. Under our current 10-year tax reduction package that passed, we 
will increase the child tax credit for families to $1,000, but it will 
take nine years for it to become $1,000. I believe for next year alone 
we ought to do that. So every family who obviously is hurt the most in 
a recessionary environment would receive an additional $400 per child 
tax credit that they could use to help their families. That would be a 
good impact.
  The cost of that is about $20 billion in terms of estimated revenue 
lost to the Government, but it is a real stimulus into the economy, 
into the hands of families who will be spending it on their children. 
It will help keep the economy moving in a healthy way. That is a good 
step. It is good public policy. Families trying to raise children would 
have additional income to take care of them.
  A lot of people are at a point where they have had to cash in stocks 
and other investments that they have and have taken losses for it. For 
individuals, this allows them to deduct those losses on their tax 
return, but the limit on loss deductions is $3,000 per year. We believe 
that, particularly in light of the fact that many people may be cashing 
in investments, we should at least raise it up to $5,000 per year which 
could be helpful to people in desperate circumstances.
  One other thing that is important--and Senator Allen has been a 
champion of this and has won me over--is the need to provide a tax 
credit to encourage American families to become technologically 
literate, to encourage American families to purchase computers for 
children who are in school so they will have a computer at home so they 
can become a part of the high-tech world that is all about us today. He 
has proposed, and we have put as a part of this bill, a $500 tax credit 
for the purchase of software or computer systems for a family. To 
really get a jolt out of it, we are only going to propose that for a 3-
month period. And the computer companies, I am sure, and all the 
marketing companies and the stores will be promoting that you have a 
$500 rebate on your purchase of a computer for your family, if you have 
a student in school.

  I think that is a good step. The computer industry has been hurting 
badly, and having this money available could get them off the ground, 
get them moving again and, at the same time, help children, help them 
become educated and to become an active part of the high-tech world in 
which we now live.
  Some of the matters that are in the legislation we proposed, I don't 
believe there is a single thing in it that somebody could say is a 
special interest. It has a business provision. It has Senator Baucus's 
10-percent advance depreciation, which would encourage businesses to 
purchase equipment and allow them to depreciate a little faster, and 
encourage them, perhaps, to recapitalize in their business. That was 
Senator Baucus's 1-year proposal.
  I don't believe there is anything in this bill that does violence to 
fairness or justice. I don't think there is anything in this bill that 
in any way could be considered special interest or unfair. I believe we 
have a simple package--myself and the three Senators who have 
introduced this with me--that would infuse $75 billion into the 
economy, with virtually no bureaucracy, virtually no overhead, targeted 
to middle and lower income America--putting $75 billion into their 
hands early, allowing them to spend it and get this economy going 
again.
  I am not sure businesses--and I have heard a number of economists say 
this--are in a mood to do a lot of investing in new equipment to 
produce a lot more product if there is nobody to buy. So I think that 
the way we proceed would be to allow people who have families and who 
work every day, and who need every dollar they get to survive--give 
them a little bit more to take home. If they do, they will spend it and 
help get the economy moving again. If nothing else, it will help them 
get by, whether it improves the economy or not.

  Of course, we do have $5 billion in grant money to the States that 
would allow them to deal with emergency situations in their States for 
people who are hurting also. That has been a bipartisan project, and it 
has a little more than has been proposed in the President's request. We 
think that is a good figure that everybody can rally around.
  I believe getting a tax stimulus package together and passed is not 
that hard. It doesn't have to be lockstep the way everybody is 
negotiating now. They have dug in on every position. Some of the issues 
in my package they are dealing with and some of them they are not 
considering. My provisions do the job just as well--in fact, better 
than what I am hearing discussed in a lot of ways.
  I think the majority leader needs to be sure we don't get to the end 
of this session without time to bring this up. If they can't reach an 
agreement, we are going to have a problem. The bill was up and 
amendments were being offered. When debate and amendments were not shut 
off, the bill was pulled down. It has gone behind closed doors and we 
are sitting around here saying: Maybe they will reach an agreement; 
maybe they will not reach an agreement.

[[Page S12863]]

  I have a bill that I think we need to vote on if we can't get some 
agreement with which I and other Members are comfortable. We need to 
vote on this bill because it is a good bill. It is not that complicated 
in any way to administer or put together.
  I thank the Chair for her attention. I look forward to further 
discussions on this issue. I certainly look forward to making sure 
before this Congress recesses we bring up and pass legislation that 
will help this economy. I don't know how much it would take to do it. 
The experts say $75 billion is worth half a GDP percentage point in 
growth. That is good news. I think it is exactly the kind of shot that 
might be helpful.
  If we don't pass something, that could be a sad event also. In fact, 
the markets and people might lose confidence even more than they have 
already if we don't pass a stimulus package. It is a double burden to 
move that forward.
  I thank the Chair for listening. I thank my colleagues in the Senate 
for their consideration of this legislation. We look forward to making 
sure a stimulus package clears before we recess.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Graham, Ms. Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1806. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect 
to health professions programs regarding the practice of pharmacy; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues, 
Senator Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Enzi of Wyoming, to 
introduce legislation that will address the growing shortage of 
pharmacists.
  The Pharmacists Education Act takes a multi-faceted approach to the 
problem of workforce shortages in the pharmacy sector. In December 
2000, the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, Bureau of 
Health Professions published a report entitled, ``The Pharmacist 
Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Pharmacists''. This 
study considered the factors influencing the demand for pharmacists in 
the health care sector and also looked at the ability of our academic 
institutions to supply the quantity of pharmacy students required to 
meet this growing demand. The report concluded that there was indeed 
evidence of a shortage in the field, due primarily to the rapid 
increase in demand for pharmacists and the array of services they 
provide, coupled with a constrained ability to expand the number of 
pharmacy education programs to accommodate the need for more practicing 
pharmacists. The study also indicated that the shortage was unlikely to 
abate in the future without significant changes to the current system.
  Pharmacists represent the third largest health professional group in 
the United States with about 190,000 active pharmacists last year. This 
figure is expected to grow to 224, 500 by 2010. Yet, despite this 
anticipated increase in the number of practicing pharmacists, the 
demand for the services is expected to continue to outpace supply. A 
recent employment survey conducted by the National Association of Chain 
Drug stores found that the number of vacancies among their member 
companies had increased by 1,000 positions in the last six months 
alone.
  Remarkable advancements in medical science have made treatments for 
diseases once thought impossible to treat a reality. And what is 
possible is quickly what is practiced in the medical profession. Many 
of these dynamic breakthroughs have been in the area of 
pharmaceuticals.
  These remarkable changes in health care have resulted in dramatic 
upswings in the number of retail prescriptions dispensed annually, from 
1.9 billion in 1992 to 2.8 billion in 1999. Moreover, as medications 
become more complex and diverse, and our population becomes older and 
sicker, the role of the pharmacist in the health care setting has 
become evermore important. For these reasons, my colleagues and I felt 
it was very important that steps be taken to avert a more serious 
shortage of these critical health professionals.
  The Pharmacy Education Act seeks to enhance not only the supply of 
pharmacists, by providing much needed support to Colleges of Pharmacy, 
it also aims to improve the distribution of pharmacists by building 
upon the National Health Service Corps. Specifically, the bill expands 
eligibility of certain existing Federal grant programs to Colleges of 
Pharmacy to upgrade and expand facilities and laboratory space and 
recruit and retain talented faculty to educate pharmacy students.
  The bill also provides a number of new sources of financial aid to 
students interested in pursuing a career in pharmacy. First, the bill 
allows students entering pharmacy school and students who have 
graduated with a PharmD degree to apply for National Health Service 
Corps, NHSC, Scholarship and Loan Repayment funds. Second, it allows 
students who demonstrate financial need to apply for scholarships to 
qualifying schools of pharmacy.
  This bill is endorsed by a number of organizations, including the 
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, the National Association 
of Chain Drug Stores, National Community Pharmacists Association, 
American College of Clinical Pharmacy and American Society of Health-
System Pharmacists.
  Increasing demand for pharmacists makes it imperative that a 
proactive response to current trends be undertaken before the situation 
becomes critical. I hope my colleagues will join me in seeking 
expeditious consideration and passage of this timely and important 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Pharmacy Education Act 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1806

       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 ``Pharmacy Education Aid Act 
     of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Pharmacists are an important link in our Nation's 
     health care system. A critical shortage of pharmacists is 
     threatening the ability of pharmacies to continue to provide 
     important prescription related services.
       (2) In the landmark report entitled ``To Err is Human: 
     Building a Safer Health System'', the Institute of Medicine 
     reported that medication errors can be partially attributed 
     to factors that are indicative of a shortage of pharmacists 
     (such as too many customers, numerous distractions, and staff 
     shortages).
       (3) Congress acknowledged in the Healthcare Research and 
     Quality Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-129) a growing demand for 
     pharmacists by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to conduct a study to determine whether there is a 
     shortage of pharmacists in the United States and, if so, to 
     what extent.
       (4) As a result of Congress' concern about how a shortage 
     of pharmacists would impact the public health, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services published a report entitled 
     ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study in Supply and Demand for 
     Pharmacists'' in December of 2000.
       (5) The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study in Supply and Demand 
     for Pharmacists'' found that ``While the overall supply of 
     pharmacists has increased in the past decade, there has been 
     an unprecedented demand for pharmacists and for 
     pharmaceutical care services, which has not been met by the 
     currently available supply'' and that the ``evidence clearly 
     indicates the emergence of a shortage of pharmacists over the 
     past two years''.
       (6) The same study also found that ``The factors causing 
     the current shortage are of a nature not likely to abate in 
     the near future without fundamental changes in pharmacy 
     practice and education.'' The study projects that the number 
     of prescriptions filled by community pharmacists will 
     increase by 20 percent by 2004. In contrast, the number of 
     community pharmacists is expected to increase by only 6 
     percent by 2005.
       (7) The demand for pharmacists will increase as 
     prescription drug use continues to grow.

     SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF PRACTICE OF PHARMACY IN PROGRAM FOR 
                   NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS.

       (a) Inclusion in Corps Mission.--Section 331(a)(3) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Such term includes pharmacist services.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E)(i) The term `pharmacist services' includes drug 
     therapy management services furnished by a pharmacist, 
     individually or on behalf of a pharmacy provider, and such 
     services and supplies furnished incident to

[[Page S12864]]

     the pharmacist's drug therapy management services, that the 
     pharmacist is legally authorized to perform (in the State in 
     which the individual performs such services) in accordance 
     with State law (or the State regulatory mechanism provided 
     for by State law).''.
       (b) Scholarship Program.--Section 338A of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``pharmacists,'' 
     after ``physicians,''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``pharmacy'' after 
     ``dentistry,''.
       (c) Loan Repayment Program.--Section 338B of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l-1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``pharmacists,'' 
     after ``physicians,''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``pharmacy,'' after 
     ``dentistry,''.
       (d) Funding.--Section 338H(b)(2) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254q(b)(2)) is amended in subparagraph 
     (A), by inserting before the period the following: ``, which 
     may include such contracts for individuals who are in a 
     course of study or program leading to a pharmacy degree''.

     SEC. 4. CERTAIN HEALTH PROFESSIONS PROGRAMS REGARDING 
                   PRACTICE OF PHARMACY.

       (a) In General.--Part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294n et seq) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 770 as section 771; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following subpart:

                ``Subpart 3--Certain Workforce Programs

     ``SEC. 771. PRACTICING PHARMACIST WORKFORCE.

       ``(a) Recruiting and Retaining Students and Faculty.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make awards of grants 
     or contracts to qualifying schools of pharmacy (as defined in 
     subsection (f)) for the purpose of carrying out programs for 
     recruiting and retaining students and faculty for such 
     schools, including programs to provide scholarships for 
     attendance at such schools to full-time students who have 
     financial need for the scholarships and who demonstrate a 
     commitment to becoming practicing pharmacists or faculty.
       ``(2) Preference in providing scholarships.--An award may 
     not be made under paragraph (1) unless the qualifying school 
     of pharmacy involved agrees that, in providing scholarships 
     pursuant to the award, the school will give preference to 
     students for whom the costs of attending the school would 
     constitute a severe financial hardship.
       ``(b) Loan Repayment Program Regarding Faculty Positions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may establish a program of 
     entering into contracts with individuals described in 
     paragraph (2) under which the individuals agree to serve as 
     members of the faculties of qualifying schools of pharmacy in 
     consideration of the Federal Government agreeing to pay, for 
     each year of such service, not more than $20,000 of the 
     principal and interest of the educational loans of such 
     individuals.
       ``(2) Eligible individuals.--The individuals referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are individuals who--
       ``(A) have a doctoral degree in pharmacy or the 
     pharmaceutical sciences; or
       ``(B) are enrolled in a school of pharmacy and are in the 
     final academic year of such school in a program leading to 
     such a doctoral degree.
       ``(3) Requirements regarding faculty positions.--The 
     Secretary may not enter into a contract under paragraph (1) 
     unless--
       ``(A) the individual involved has entered into a contract 
     with a qualifying school of pharmacy to serve as a member of 
     the faculty of the school for not less than 2 years;
       ``(B) the contract referred to in subparagraph (A) provides 
     that, in serving as a member of the faculty pursuant to such 
     subparagraph, the individual will--
       ``(i) serve full time; or
       ``(ii) serve as a member of the adjunct clinical faculty 
     and in so serving will actively supervise pharmacy students 
     for 25 academic weeks per year (or such greater number of 
     academic weeks as may be specified in the contract); and
       ``(C) such contract provides that--
       ``(i) the school will, for each year for which the 
     individual will serve as a member of the faculty under the 
     contract with the school, make payments of the principal and 
     interest due on the educational loans of the individual for 
     such year in an amount equal to the amount of such payments 
     made by the Secretary for the year;
       ``(ii) the payments made by the school pursuant to clause 
     (i) on behalf of the individual will be in addition to the 
     pay that the individual would otherwise receive for serving 
     as a member of such faculty; and
       ``(iii) the school, in making a determination of the amount 
     of compensation to be provided by the school to the 
     individual for serving as a member of the faculty, will make 
     the determination without regard to the amount of payments 
     made (or to be made) to the individual by the Federal 
     Government under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Applicability of certain provisions.--The provisions 
     of sections 338C, 338G, and 338I shall apply to the program 
     established in paragraph (1) to the same extent and in the 
     same manner as such provisions apply to the National Health 
     Service Corps Loan Repayment Program established in subpart 
     III of part D of title III, including the applicability of 
     provisions regarding reimbursements for increased tax 
     liability and provisions regarding bankruptcy.
       ``(5) Waiver regarding school contributions.--The Secretary 
     may waive the requirement established in paragraph (3)(C) if 
     the Secretary determines that the requirement will impose an 
     undue financial hardship on the school involved.
       ``(c) Information Technology.--The Secretary may make 
     awards of grants or contracts to qualifying schools of 
     pharmacy for the purpose of assisting such schools in 
     acquiring and installing computer-based systems to provide 
     pharmaceutical education. Education provided through such 
     systems may be graduate education, professional education, or 
     continuing education. The computer-based systems may be 
     designed to provide on-site education, or education at remote 
     sites (commonly referred to as distance learning), or both.
       ``(d) Facilities.--The Secretary may award grants under 
     section 1610 for construction projects to expand, remodel, 
     renovate, or alter existing facilities for qualifying schools 
     of pharmacy or to provide new facilities for the schools.
       ``(e) Requirement Regarding Education in Practice of 
     Pharmacy.--With respect to the qualifying school of pharmacy 
     involved, the Secretary shall ensure that programs and 
     activities carried out with Federal funds provided under this 
     section have the goal of educating students to become 
     licensed pharmacists, or the goal of providing for faculty to 
     recruit, retain, and educate students to become licensed 
     pharmacists.
       ``(f) Qualifying School of Pharmacy.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `qualifying school of pharmacy' means a 
     college or school of pharmacy (as defined in section 799B) 
     that, in providing clinical experience for students, requires 
     that the students serve in a clinical rotation in which 
     pharmacist services (as defined in section 331(a)(3)(E)) are 
     provided at or for--
       ``(1) a medical facility that serves a substantial number 
     of individuals who reside in or are members of a medically 
     underserved community (as so defined);
       ``(2) an entity described in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (L) of section 340B(a)(4) (relating to the definition 
     of covered entity);
       ``(3) a health care facility of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs or of any of the Armed Forces of the United States;
       ``(4) a health care facility of the Bureau of Prisons;
       ``(5) a health care facility operated by, or with funds 
     received from, the Indian Health Service; or
       ``(6) a disproportionate share hospital under section 1923 
     of the Social Security Act.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2006.''.
       (b) Technical and Conform Amendments.--Section 1610(a) of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300r(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end thereof;
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) expand, remodel, renovate, or alter existing 
     facilities for qualifying schools of pharmacy or to provide 
     new facilities for the schools in accordance with section 
     771(d).'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end thereof;
       (ii) in clause (ii)(II), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) a qualifying school of pharmacy (as defined in 
     section 771(f)).'';
       (2) by striking the first sentence of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following: ``There are authorized to be 
     appropriated for grants under paragraph (1)(A)(iii), such 
     sums as may be necessary.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Recapture of payments.--If, during the 20-year period 
     beginning on the date of the completion of construction 
     pursuant to a grant under paragraph (1)(A)(iii)--
       ``(A) the school of pharmacy involved, or other owner of 
     the facility, ceases to be a public or nonprofit private 
     entity; or
       ``(B) the facility involved ceases to be used for the 
     purposes for which it was constructed (unless the Secretary 
     determines, in accordance with regulations, that there is 
     good cause for releasing the school or other owner from such 
     obligation);

     the United States is entitled to recover from the school or 
     other owner of the facility the amount bearing the same ratio 
     to the current value (as determined by an agreement between 
     the parties or by action brought in the United States 
     District Court for the district in which such facility is 
     situated) of the facility as the amount of the Federal 
     participation bore to the cost of the construction of such 
     facility.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1807. A bill to amend the National Capital Revitalization and 
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to permit any Federal law 
enforcement agency to enter into a cooperative agreement with the 
Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia to assist 
the Department in carrying out crime prevention and law

[[Page S12865]]

enforcement activities in the District of Columbia if deemed 
appropriate by the Chief of the Department and the United States 
Attorney for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1807

       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 ``District of Columbia Police 
     Coordination Amendment Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY 
                   TO ENTER INTO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH 
                   METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT 
                   OF COLUMBIA.

       Section 11712(d) of the National Capital Revitalization and 
     Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 4-
     192(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(33) Any other law enforcement agency of the Federal 
     government that the Chief of the Metropolitan Police 
     Department and the United States Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia deem appropriate to enter into an agreement pursuant 
     to this section.''.

                          ____________________