[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 83 (Wednesday, June 16, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6884-S6905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 2523. A bill to exempt the Great Plains Region and Rocky Mountain 
Region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from trust reform reorganization 
pending the submission of agency-specific reorganization plans; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Senator Johnson and I are 
introducing a bill that reflects the concerns of tribal leaders about 
the lack of progress on trust management reform and their 
dissatisfaction with the Department of the Interior's reorganization 
plan to deal with it. It offers an alternative to the Department's 
approach that tribal chairmen in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain 
regions believe will better serve their members.
  Trust reform is a particularly vexing issue that has confounded 
Federal policymakers and frustrated Native Americans for years. But the 
bottom line is that when the United States Government divided Indian 
lands in 1887, it made a commitment, through solemn treaty obligations, 
to hold those lands in trust, to manage them wisely, and to give any 
income from the sale or lease of the land to its Indian owners. It has 
never fulfilled that promise.
  The Indian trust has been so badly mismanaged, for so long, by 
Administrations of both political parties, that no one today has any 
idea how much money should even be in the trust--let alone, how much is 
owed to individual account holders and to tribes, and for what. 
Meanwhile, too many individual and tribal community needs go unmet in 
Indian Country because of the lack of resources. That is the 
contradiction that simply cannot be allowed to continue.
  I know that the Interior Department has gone to great efforts to 
reform its internal structure to get a handle on the administration of 
the Indian trust fund. And I appreciate that Interior officials believe 
that their reorganization plan has been shaped, at least in part, by 
``listening sessions'' it held in Indian Country. Yet, the fact remains 
that tribal leaders around the country do not accept the premise that 
those meetings represented true consultation, and they do not accept 
the Department's reorganization plan as a legitimate response to 
mismanagement of the Indian trust. A number of tribal leaders have told 
me that the Department's ``listening sessions'' were hardly that, but 
could more accurately be described as a notification of how the 
Department would proceed.
  Tribal leaders in my State believe strongly that the Department's 
reorganization plan moves in the wrong direction. Instead of 
integrating the trust and ``non-trust'' functions of the Department, it 
separates those functions even further. They also believe the plan 
ignores the unique character of each region's challenges. The Great 
Plains Region, for example, has more Individual Indian Money Account 
holders than any other region and holds 33 percent of the nation's 
tribal trust assets.
  I acknowledge that this is a difficult problem and that some in the 
Administration sincerely desire to solve the trust management problem 
in a way that ensures that stakeholders receive what is due them in a 
timely manner. I also greatly appreciate the attention devoted to this 
matter. However, I do believe some of that attention has been 
misdirected. And, given the recent history of the trust reform debate, 
I have no credible answer to tribal leaders' lament that the Department 
appears more interested in undercutting the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit 
than in considering the opinion of tribes in South Dakota or the rest 
of Indian Country.
  Since the Department formally unveiled its reorganization proposal 
earlier last year, numerous questions have been raised about exactly 
how this reorganization, which is currently being advanced 
administratively, will improve the present trust fund management and 
accounting procedures.
  What are the role and responsibilities of the Special Trustee's trust 
officers who will be dispatched throughout Indian Country, and how will 
these positions relate to the local and regional BIA offices? Is this a 
duplication of services?
  Who has oversight over these positions, and what accountability 
mechanism is in place to monitor their performance? What are the lines 
of authority?
  Will Indian preference apply to any new positions that are created by 
the reorganization?
  Why is the reorganization effort affecting the Office of Indian 
Education Programs when the court mandate affects only trust fund 
management reform? Does the plan violate the BIA amendments to the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization?
  The list of questions is long, and tribal leaders and their 
constituents deserve answers. Those answers cannot be gleaned from the 
18 pages of organizational charts the Department has provided as a 
rationale for its plan to reorganize the BIA and the Office of the 
Special Trustee.
  This past February tribal leaders from nearly every Indian Nation in 
America traveled to Washington for a meeting of the National Congress 
of American Indians to discuss a variety of issues, including trust 
reform. They expressed unanimous opposition to the Department of 
Interior's reorganization efforts, and their urgent plea to Congress 
was that the federal government work with Native people to find an 
honorable and equitable solution to the Indian trust fund dispute.
  In March, in an appearance before the Senate Indian Affairs 
Committee, Tex Hall, Chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort 
Berthold and President of the National Congress of American Indians, 
testified that tribal leaders do not believe that their views are 
reflected in the Department's trust reorganization plan. And the 
Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Michael Jandreau, a member of 
the BIA-Tribal Task Force on trust reform, told the Committee that 
``meaningful involvement [of] and input from tribal leadership'' and 
the failure by the federal government to recognize ``obvious treaty 
obligations'' are contributing to the inability to reach consensus on 
trust reform.
  This disagreement between Indian Country and Washington runs deep and 
cannot be solved by Interior Department officials simply re-drawing 
lines on organizational charts. The search for resolution must include 
real, meaningful, and ongoing consultation between Department officials 
and the tribes and tribal leaders. After all, we are talking about 
Indian people's money.
  At the March Committee hearing, Harold Frazier, testifying in his 
capacities as Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and as 
Chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association, offered 
both a critique of the Department's reorganization plan and an 
alternative to it. He emphasized that a majority of Indian tribes 
opposed the reorganization, not just because it was implemented without 
``meaningful tribal consultation,'' but also because ``a one-size-fits-
all approach to trust management reform is certain to fail.'' While 
acknowledging that some aspects of reform, such as land consolidation 
and improved record-keeping, are better managed at the national level, 
Chairman Frazier pointed out that basic services provided at the agency 
level are the key to the most efficient utilization of trust assets and 
that these resource decisions are best made at the local level

[[Page S6885]]

so they may be adapted to serve tribal beneficiaries' unique needs. And 
he offered the Great Plains Regional Proposal for Trust Reform as an 
alternative to the Department's reorganization plan.
  Senator Johnson and I believe that Chairman Frazier has made a 
constructive contribution to breaking the trust impasse, and the bill 
we are introducing today codifies the Great Plains Regional Proposal 
for Trust Reform, as expanded by the inclusion of the Rocky Mountain 
Regional Tribes. It is based on the principle that differences among 
tribes in population, employment, revenue base, and even geographic 
location effect the type of trust reform suitable for each area, and it 
has precedent in a provision of the FY 2004 Interior Appropriations 
bill, Section 139, that exempted certain self-governance tribes from 
the Interior reorganization plan.

  Our proposal exempts the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain tribes from 
the Department of the Interior's trust reform reorganization, excluding 
current efforts to reform Indian probate and encourage land 
consolidation, thereby precluding the Department from reorganizing the 
BIA at the agency level. It also stipulates that any funds appropriated 
to accomplish trust reform at the agency level within the Great Plains 
and Rocky Mountain Regions can be expended only under plans developed 
by local tribes in cooperation with, and with the approval of, the 
Department of the Interior. And it authorizes $200,000 for the Great 
Plains Region and $200,000 for the Rocky Mountain Region to be used for 
the development of agency-specific reorganization plans.
  The legislation Senator Johnson and I are introducing today is not 
intended to end the trust reform debate. We still do not have an 
historical accounting of trust income; we still do not know if certain 
records exist; and we still do not know how much the United States of 
America owes to Indian people and to the Tribes. Neither is the 
legislation intended to limit other regions searching for their own 
solutions; to the contrary, we and the tribes of the Great Plains and 
Rocky Mountain regions respect other regions' rights to develop 
proposals that meet their own unique needs. But we do hope our proposal 
will help refocus the debate in a more constructive, substantive, cost-
effective manner, acknowledging that the tribes know what is best for 
them and should be consulted--in a meaningful way--and play a key role 
in this process.
  The tribes understand that the Interior and Treasury Departments, the 
BIA, and the Special Trustee for American Indians must be their allies 
in the search for a solution. But friction over reorganization has 
diverted attention from the more fundamental challenge of providing a 
full and fair accounting to Indian people, and ultimately paying the 
money that is owed to them and the tribes.
  Now that the Department has been given authorization to proceed 
administratively with its reorganization plan, I hope the Department 
will submit to Congress a legislative proposal on how to address the 
underlying, substantive problem that we have been wrestling with for 
far too long. I also hope the Department will embrace the pilot program 
Senator Johnson and I are proposing today, with the support of the 
Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Tribal Chairmen's Associations.
  In closing, I think it is extremely important to reflect on two 
central facts about the Indian trust debate as we consider the proposed 
reorganization of the BIA and the OST, and the Great Plains and Rocky 
Mountains Tribal Chairmen's Associations' ideas for localizing trust 
reform.
  First, residents of Indian Country have been victimized for 
generations by persistent mismanagement of trust assets by the federal 
government. Far too many families for far too long have been denied 
trust assets to which they are entitled because of Federal 
mismanagement. And this situation has adversely affected their quality 
of life.
  Second, frustration with the Federal Government's failure to come to 
grips with this problem has not only led to litigation (Cobell v. 
Norton), it has also solidified the tribes' determination to be part of 
the solution to the problem. Effective trust management reform will 
remain an elusive goal if the tribes are not full participants in this 
exercise.
  We need to recognize the human dimension and consequences of trust 
mismanagement, and we need to accept that tribal leaders must be equal 
partners in its reform. The bottom line is that the tribes do not have 
the resources they need to adequately address the full range of socio-
economic challenges they face. In the case of trust reform, the issue 
is not simply boxes on an organizational chart, but lives that 
literally hang in the balance.
  Yesterday I met with Chairman Frazier, Chairman Jandreau, and Oglala 
Sioux Tribal President John Yellow Bird Steele. Their frustrations with 
the Department's reorganization proposal could be summed up with the 
comments made by one chairman and echoed by the other two: ``They left 
us out of the equation. We have many of the records, and we know what 
adjustments need to be made at the agency level to address our local 
needs. Whether it's historical accounting or reorganization, we have to 
be part of the solution.''
  It's a concept so simple that it should go without saying, but the 
Administration has not adhered to it. But we still have a chance to 
turn that around. The tribes of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Montana, and 
Wyoming have stepped up to the plate. They aren't just complaining 
about the Administration's proposal; they're offering their own. 
They've developed regional proposals to fit their unique regional 
needs. We should respect their judgment, and the judgment of other 
regions that will undoubtedly follow with their own proposals.
  The history of trust management has been a travesty, and, without a 
concerted and open-minded effort to address the issue, the future will 
not be any better. The United States has a fiduciary responsibility to 
Indian Country based on numerous treaty obligations. We must satisfy 
our obligations. We must work together to craft a solution to the 
underlying trust problem. Let's start by granting the Great Plains and 
Rocky Mountain Regions greater autonomy to fashion their own trust 
solutions.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2523

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

     SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF TRUST REFORM REORGANIZATION TO 
                   THE GREAT PLAINS REGION AND ROCKY MOUNTAINS 
                   REGION OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``Agency'' means an Agency of the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs within a Region.
       (2) Region.--The term ``Region'' means each of the Great 
     Plains Region and the Rocky Mountain Region of the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) No Reorganization.--Notwithstanding any implementation 
     of the trust reorganization plan for the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs in fiscal year 2004 or 2005, the Secretary shall not 
     reorganize the Bureau at the Agency level in a Region except 
     with respect to the reform of probate procedure and efforts 
     to encourage land consolidation.
       (c) Trust Management Infrastructure.--The Secretary shall 
     not impose trust management infrastructure reforms on, or 
     alter, the existing trust resource management system of an 
     Agency unless the reforms are expressly agreed to by the 
     Indian tribe covered by the Agency.
       (d) Agency Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Any funds made available to accomplish 
     trust reform at the Agency level shall be expended in 
     accordance with a plan developed by the Indian tribe covered 
     by the Agency, in cooperation with the Secretary and approved 
     by Act of Congress.
       (2) Timing.--An Agency shall submit the Agency plan to the 
     Secretary not later than 180 days after the date on which 
     funds are made available under subsection (f).
       (e) Report.--
       (1) In general.--After submission to the Secretary of an 
     Agency plan under subsection (d)(2), the Secretary shall--
       (A) prepare a report that includes findings and 
     recommendations of the Secretary concerning the Agency plan; 
     and
       (B) provide the Indian tribe covered by the Agency 60 days 
     in which to submit comments regarding the findings and 
     recommendations of the Secretary.
       (2) Submission to congress.--After receiving comments of 
     the Indian tribe under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives--
       (A) the Agency plan;

[[Page S6886]]

       (B) the report of the Secretary; and
       (C) the comments of the Indian tribe.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary $200,000 for each Region, 
     to be made available to the Agencies for use in developing an 
     Agency plan under subsection (d).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida:
  S. 2524. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 
provision of health care, rehabilitation, and related services to 
veterans suffering from trauma relating to a blast injury, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to establish 
a Department of Veterans Affairs War-Related Blast Injury Center. The 
need for this type of research and treatment facility has become 
especially pressing in light of the staggering number of veterans 
returning from the battles raging abroad.
  Blasts from such weapons as artillery, mortar shells, and roadside 
bombs--improvised explosives that blow debris such as broken glass, 
nails, and gravel upward into the face--have become the most common 
mechanism of injury in modern warfare. The resulting injuries include 
those to the lungs, inner ear, limbs, and, quite commonly, the head. In 
addition to the serious physical wounds, deep psychological wounds also 
result, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
  Despite the fact that injuries from explosive devices currently make 
up the majority of combat casualties and the most severe, there has 
never been an established medical program to evaluate, treat, and track 
the short- and long-term consequences of these specific injuries. This 
bill is an important first step toward correcting this deficiency. It 
establishes at least one War-Related Blast Injury Center within VA that 
would provide comprehensive and specialized rehabilitation programs, as 
well as targeted education and outreach programs and research 
initiatives.
  The Center would be formed from a collaboration between the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, (VA) and the Department of Defense, 
promoting cooperation between the two agencies to reach their 
respective goals regarding the care of our military personnel. One of 
the Center's main purposes would be to fill in the gap that now exists 
in the evidence base for treating victims of blast injuries. Through 
its specialized evaluation and treatment of the polytrauma that results 
from blast injuries, the Center would facilitate the identification of 
trends in those suffering from this trauma and go a long way in 
determining innovative, more effective treatment approaches.
  In addition to its comprehensive rehabilitation program and the 
conduct of research, the Center will also provide education and 
training to health care personnel across the care continuum, including 
first responders, acute-care providers, and rehabilitation staff. It 
will also develop improved models and systems for the furnishing of 
blast injury services by VA.
  While my legislation does not designate a site for the Center, I 
mention with pride the work being done at the Tampa VA Medical Center 
(VAMC) in Florida. The Tampa VAMC has an exceptional Physical Medicine 
and Rehabilitation (PM&R) Service that serves the largest number of 
veterans in the Nation. The Spinal Cord Injury, Amputee, and Traumatic 
Brain Injury Programs are not only VA's largest, but they have also 
been recognized as providing the highest quality of care in VA by their 
designation as Clinical Centers of Excellence. The PM&R Service 
utilizes an interdisciplinary team for patient care that includes 
physicians, therapists, audiologists, neuropsychologists, and social 
workers. Among them, this wide-ranging medical staff has access to a 
broad spectrum of medical and support services to best treat their 
patients.
  In addition, this outstanding hospital serves as one of seven lead 
centers comprising the Defense/Veterans Brain Injury Center, a 
cooperative treatment and research program in traumatic brain injury. 
It also established a Gulf War Program in 1999 and in the past year 
created a Blast Injury Program. For all these reasons, the Tampa VAMC 
would serve as an excellent site for a War-Related Blast Injury Center.
  An April 2004 article in The Washington Post detailed the experiences 
of combat surgeons in Iraq currently caring for the heroic men and 
women serving there. These doctors described their experiences treating 
an overwhelming flow of soldiers with wounds that probably would have 
been fatal in previous wars. Increasingly, these wounds involve severe 
damage to the head and eyes and often leave soldiers brain damaged, 
blind, or both. This article paints a clear picture of the injuries our 
soldiers in Iraq are subjected to and must deal with upon their return. 
I ask unanimous consent that the text of The Washington Post article be 
printed in the Record following this statement.
  In addition, a recent update by VA's Physical Medicine and 
Rehabilitation National Program Office revealed over a 60 percent 
increase in rehabilitation patients in 2003 compared to 2002. This 
means that there were 215 additional brain injury patients and 423 more 
amputee patients. This sizable increase speaks to the great need for 
the War-Related Blast Injury Center.
  This past April, more than 900 soldiers and Marines were wounded in 
Iraq, more than twice the number wounded in October of last year, the 
previous high. On May 2, in a tragic event that hit close to home, 5 
reservists from the Jacksonville-based Seabee battalion were killed in 
a mortar attack in Iraq and an additional 30 suffered injuries 
resulting from the blast. The Jacksonville-based Seabees were in Iraq 
to do humanitarian work such as fixing electrical and water systems and 
sewage problems. These brave men epitomized American courage and 
selflessness. A War-Related Blast Injury Center would serve to care for 
servicemembers like the Seabees who suffer this type of horrific wound.
  After all that these courageous, selfless soldiers sacrifice and 
suffer in battle, we owe them a place where they may receive the 
treatment necessary to mend their wounds, both physical and mental.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, April 27, 2004]

 The Lasting Wounds of War; Roadside Bombs Have Devastated Troops and 
                         Doctors Who Treat Them

                             (By Karl Vick)

       The soldiers were lifted into the helicopters under a 
     moonless sky, their bandaged heads grossly swollen by trauma, 
     their forms silhouetted by the glow from the row of medical 
     monitors laid out across their bodies, from ankle to neck.
       An orange screen atop the feet registered blood pressure 
     and heart rate. The blue screen at the knees announced the 
     level of postoperative pressure on the brain. On the stomach, 
     a small gray readout recorded the level of medicine pumping 
     into the body. And the slender plastic box atop the chest 
     signaled that a respirator still breathed for the lungs under 
     it.
       At the door to the busiest hospital in Iraq, a wiry doctor 
     bent over the worst-looking case, an Army gunner with coarse 
     stitches holding his scalp together and a bolt protruding 
     from the top of his head. Lt. Col. Jeff Poffenbarger checked 
     a number on the blue screen, announced it dangerously high 
     and quickly pushed a clear liquid through a syringe into the 
     gunner's bloodstream. The number fell like a rock.
       ``We're just preparing for something a brain-injured person 
     should not do two days out, which is travel to Germany,'' the 
     neurologist said. He smiled grimly and started toward the UH-
     60 Black Hawk thwump-thwumping out on the helipad, waiting to 
     spirit out of Iraq one more of the hundreds of Americans 
     wounded here this month.
       While attention remains riveted on the rising count of 
     Americans killed in action--more than 100 so far in April--
     doctors at the main combat support hospital in Iraq are 
     reeling from a stream of young soldiers with wounds so 
     devastating that they probably would have been fatal in any 
     previous war.
       More and more in Iraq, combat surgeons say, the wounds 
     involve severe damage to the head and eyes--injuries that 
     leave soldiers brain damaged or blind, or both, and the 
     doctors who see them first struggling against despair.
       For months the gravest wounds have been caused by roadside 
     bombs--improvised explosives that negate the protection of 
     Kevlar helmets by blowing shrapnel and dirt upward into the 
     face. In addition, firefights with guerrillas have surged 
     recently, causing a sharp rise in gunshot wounds to the only 
     vital area not protected by body armor.
       The neurosurgeons at the 31st Combat Support Hospital 
     measure the damage in the number of skulls they remove to get 
     to the injured brain inside, a procedure known as a 
     craniotomy. ``We've done more in eight

[[Page S6887]]

     weeks than the previous neurosurgery team did in eight 
     months,'' Poffenbarger said. ``So there's been a change in 
     the intensity level of the war.''
       Numbers tell part of the story. So far in April, more than 
     900 soldiers and Marines have been wounded in Iraq, more than 
     twice the number wounded in October, the previous high. With 
     the tally still climbing, this month's injuries account for 
     about a quarter of the 3,864 U.S. servicemen and women listed 
     as wounded in action since the March 2003 invasion.
       About half the wounded troops have suffered injuries light 
     enough that they were able to return to duty after treatment, 
     according to the Pentagon.
       The others arrive on stretchers at the hospitals operated 
     by the 31st CSH. ``These injuries,'' said Lt. Col. Stephen M. 
     Smith, executive officer of the Baghdad facility, ``are 
     horrific.''
       By design, the Baghdad hospital sees the worst. Unlike its 
     sister hospital on a sprawling air base located in Balad, 
     north of the capital, the staff of 300 in Baghdad includes 
     the only ophthalmology and neurology surgical teams in Iraq, 
     so if a victim has damage to the head, the medevac sets out 
     for the facility here, located in the heavily fortified 
     coalition headquarters known as the Green Zone.
       Once there, doctors scramble. A patient might remain in the 
     combat hospital for only six hours. The goal is lightning-
     swift, expert treatment, followed as quickly as possible by 
     transfer to the military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany.
       While waiting for what one senior officer wearily calls 
     ``the flippin' helicopters,'' the Baghdad medical staff 
     studies photos of wounds they used to see once or twice in a 
     military campaign but now treat every day. And they struggle 
     with the implications of a system that can move a wounded 
     soldier from a booby-trapped roadside to an operating room in 
     less than an hour.
       ``We're saving more people than should be saved, 
     probably,'' Lt. Col. Robert Carroll said. ``We're saving 
     severely injured people. Legs. Eyes. Part of the brain.''
       Carroll, an eye surgeon from Waynesville, Mo., sat at his 
     desk during a rare slow night last Wednesday and called up a 
     digital photo on his laptop computer. The image was of a 
     brain opened for surgery earlier that day, the skull neatly 
     lifted away, most of the organ healthy and pink. But a thumb-
     sized section behind the ear was gray.
       ``See all that dark stuff? That's dead brain,'' he said. 
     ``That ain't gonna regenerate. And that's not uncommon. 
     That's really not uncommon. We do craniotomies on average, 
     lately, of one a day.''
       ``We can save you,'' the surgeon said. ``You might not be 
     what you were.''
       Accurate statistics are not yet available on recovery from 
     this new round of battlefield brain injuries, an obstacle 
     that frustrates combat surgeons. But judging by medical 
     literature and surgeons' experience with their own patients, 
     ``three or four months from now 50 to 60 percent will be 
     functional and doing things,'' said Maj. Richard Gullick.
       ``Functional,'' he said, means ``up and around, but with 
     pretty significant disabilities,'' including paralysis.
       The remaining 40 percent to 50 percent of patients include 
     those whom the surgeons send to Europe, and on to the United 
     States, with no prospect of regaining consciousness. The 
     practice, subject to review after gathering feedback from 
     families, assumes that loved ones will find value in holding 
     the soldier's hand before confronting the decision to remove 
     life support.
       ``I'm actually glad I'm here and not at home, tending to 
     all the social issues with all these broken soldiers,'' 
     Carroll said.
       But the toll on the combat medical staff is itself acute, 
     and unrelenting.
       In a comprehensive Army survey of troop morale across Iraq, 
     taken in September, the unit with the lowest spirits was the 
     one that ran the combat hospitals until the 31st arrived in 
     late January. The three months since then have been 
     substantially more intense.
       ``We've all reached our saturation for drama trauma,'' said 
     Maj. Greg Kidwell, head nurse in the emergency room.
       On April 4, the hospital received 36 wounded in four hours. 
     A U.S. patrol in Baghdad's Sadr City slum was ambushed at 
     dusk, and the battle for the Shiite Muslim neighborhood 
     lasted most of the night. The event qualified as a ``mass 
     casualty,'' defined as more casualties than can be 
     accommodated by the 10 trauma beds in the emergency room.
       ``I'd never really seen a `mass cal' before April 4,'' said 
     Lt. Col. John Xenos, an orthopedic surgeon from Fairfax. 
     ``And it just kept coming and coming. I think that week we 
     had three or four mass cals.''
       The ambush heralded a wave of attacks by a Shiite militia 
     across southern Iraq. The next morning, another front erupted 
     when Marines cordoned off Fallujah, a restive, largely Sunni 
     city west of Baghdad. The engagements there led to record 
     casualties.
       ``Intellectually, you tell yourself you're prepared,'' said 
     Gullick, from San Antonio. ``You do the reading. You study 
     the slides. But being here . . . .'' His voice trailed off.
       ``It's just the sheer volume.''
       In part, the surge in casualties reflects more frequent 
     firefights after a year in which roadside bombings made up 
     the bulk of attacks on U.S. forces. At the same time, 
     insurgents began planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) 
     in what one officer called ``ridiculous numbers.''
       The improvised bombs are extraordinarily destructive. 
     Typically fashioned from artillery shells, they may be packed 
     with such debris as broken glass, nails, sometimes even 
     gravel. They're detonated by remote control as a Humvee or 
     truck passes by, and they explode upward.
       To protect against the blasts, the U.S. military has 
     wrapped many of its vehicles in armor. When Xenos, the 
     orthopedist, treats limbs shredded by an IED blast, it is 
     usually ``an elbow stuck out of a window, or an arm.''
       Troops wear armor as well, providing protection that 
     Gullick called ``orders of magnitude from what we've had 
     before. But it just shifts the injury pattern from a lot of 
     abdominal injuries to extremity and head and face wounds.''
       The Army gunner whom Poffenbarger was preparing for the 
     flight to Germany had his skull pierced by four 155mm shells, 
     rigged to detonate one after another in what soldiers call a 
     ``daisy chain.'' The shrapnel took a fortunate route through 
     his brain, however, and ``when all is said and done, he 
     should be independent. . . . He'll have speech, cognition, 
     vision.''
       On a nearby stretcher, Staff Sgt. Rene Fernandez struggled 
     to see from eyes bruised nearly shut.
       ``We were clearing the area and an IED went off,'' he said, 
     describing an incident outside the western city of Ramadi 
     where his unit was patrolling on foot.
       The Houston native counted himself lucky, escaping with a 
     concussion and the temporary damage to his open, friendly 
     face. Waiting for his own hop to the hospital plane headed 
     north, he said what most soldiers tell surgeons: What he most 
     wanted was to return to his unit.

                                S. 2524

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

     SECTION 1. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CLINICAL 
                   ACTIVITIES ON BLAST INJURIES OF VETERANS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 7327. Centers for research, education, and clinical 
       activities on blast injuries

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     for the improvement of the provision of health care services 
     and related rehabilitation and education services to eligible 
     veterans suffering from multiple traumas associated with a 
     blast injury through--
       ``(1) the conduct of research to support the provision of 
     such services in accordance with the most current evidence on 
     blast injuries;
       ``(2) the education and training of health care personnel 
     of the Department; and
       ``(3) the development of improved models and systems for 
     the furnishing of services by the Department for blast 
     injuries.
       ``(b) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary shall establish and 
     operate at least one, but not more than three, centers for 
     research, education, and clinical activities on blast 
     injuries.
       ``(2) Each center shall function as a center for--
       ``(A) research on blast injury to support the provision of 
     services in accordance with the most current evidence on 
     blast injuries, with such research to specifically address 
     injury epidemiology and cost, functional outcomes, blast 
     injury taxonomy and measurement system, and longitudinal 
     outcomes;
       ``(B) the development of a rehabilitation program for blast 
     injuries, including referral protocol, post-acute assessment, 
     and coordination of comprehensive treatment services;
       ``(C) the development of protocols to optimize linkages 
     between the Department and the Department of Defense on 
     matters relating to research, education, and clinical 
     activities on blast injuries;
       ``(D) the creation of innovative models for education and 
     outreach on health-care and related rehabilitation and 
     education services on blast injuries, with such education and 
     outreach to target those who have sustained a blast injury 
     and health care providers and researchers in the Veterans 
     Health Administration, the Department of Defense, and the 
     Department of Homeland Security;
       ``(E) the development of educational tools and products on 
     blast injuries, and the maintenance of such tools and 
     products in a resource clearinghouse that can serve as 
     resources for the Veterans Health Administration, the 
     Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, 
     and other departments and agencies of the Federal Government;
       ``(F) the development of interdisciplinary training 
     programs on the provision of health care and rehabilitation 
     care services for blast injuries that provide an integrated 
     understanding of the continuum of care for such injuries to 
     the broad range of providers of such services, including 
     first responders, acute-care providers, and rehabilitation 
     service providers; and
       ``(G) the implementation of strategies for improving the 
     medical diagnostic coding of blast injuries in the Department 
     to reliably identify veterans with blast injuries and track 
     outcomes over time.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall designate a designate a center or 
     centers under this section upon the recommendation of the 
     Under Secretary for Health.
       ``(4) The Secretary may designate a center under this 
     section only if--
       ``(A) the proposal submitted for the designation of the 
     center meets the requirements of subsection (c);

[[Page S6888]]

       ``(B) the Secretary makes the finding described in 
     subsection (d); and
       ``(C) the peer review panel established under subsection 
     (e) makes the determination specified in subsection (e)(3) 
     with respect to that proposal.
       ``(5) The authority of the Secretary to establish and 
     operate centers under this section is subject to the 
     appropriation of funds for that purpose.
       ``(c) Proposal Requirements.--A proposal submitted for the 
     designation of a center under this section shall--
       ``(1) provide for close collaboration in the establishment 
     and operation of the center, and for the provision of care 
     and the conduct of research and education at the center, by a 
     Department facility or facilities (in this subsection 
     referred to as the `collaborating facilities') in the same 
     geographic area that have a mission centered on the care of 
     individuals with blast injuries and a Department facility in 
     that area which has a mission of providing tertiary medical 
     care;
       ``(2) provide that not less than 50 percent of the funds 
     appropriated for the center for support of clinical care, 
     research, and education will be provided to the collaborating 
     facilities with respect to the center; and
       ``(3) provide for a governance arrangement among the 
     facilities described in paragraph (1) with respect to the 
     center that ensures that the center will be established and 
     operated in a manner aimed at improving the quality of care 
     for blast injuries at the collaborating facilities with 
     respect to the center.
       ``(d) Findings Relating to Proposals.--The finding referred 
     to in subsection (b)(4)(B) with respect to a proposal for the 
     designation of a site as a location of a center under this 
     section is a finding by the Secretary, upon the 
     recommendation of the Under Secretary for Health, that the 
     facilities submitting the proposal have developed (or may 
     reasonably be anticipated to develop) each of the following:
       ``(1) An arrangement with an affiliated accredited medical 
     school or university that provides education and training in 
     disaster preparedness, homeland security, and biodefense.
       ``(2) Comprehensive and effective treatment services for 
     head injury, spinal cord injury, audiology, amputation, gait 
     and balance, and mental health.
       ``(3) The ability to attract scientists who have 
     demonstrated achievement in research--
       ``(A) into the evaluation of innovative approaches to the 
     rehabilitation of blast injuries; or
       ``(B) into the treatment of blast injuries.
       ``(4) The capability to evaluate effectively the activities 
     of the center, including activities relating to the 
     evaluation of specific efforts to improve the quality and 
     effectiveness of services on blast injuries that are provided 
     by the Department at or through individual facilities.
       ``(e) Departmental Support on Evaluation of Center 
     Proposals.--(1) In order to provide advice to assist the 
     Secretary and the Under Secretary for Health to carry out 
     their responsibilities under this section, the official 
     within the central office of the Veterans Health 
     Administration responsible for blast injury matters shall 
     establish a peer review panel to assess the scientific and 
     clinical merit of proposals that are submitted to the 
     Secretary for the designation of centers under this section.
       ``(2) The panel shall consist of experts in the fields of 
     research, education and training, and clinical care on blast 
     injuries. Members of the panel shall serve as consultants to 
     the Department.
       ``(3) The panel shall review each proposal submitted to the 
     panel by the official referred to in paragraph (1) and shall 
     submit to that official its views on the relative scientific 
     and clinical merit of each such proposal. The panel shall 
     specifically determine with respect to each such proposal 
     whether or not that proposal is among those proposals which 
     have met the highest competitive standards of scientific and 
     clinical merit.
       ``(4) The panel shall not be subject to the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       ``(f) Award of Funding.--Clinical and scientific 
     investigation activities at each center established under 
     this section--
       ``(1) may compete for the award of funding from amounts 
     appropriated for the Department for medical and prosthetics 
     research; and
       ``(2) shall receive priority in the award of funding from 
     such amounts insofar as funds are awarded from such amounts 
     to projects and activities relating to blast injuries.
       ``(g) Dissemination of Information.--(1) The Under 
     Secretary for Health shall ensure that information produced 
     by the centers established under this section that may be 
     useful for other activities of the Veterans Health 
     Administration is disseminated throughout the Administration.
       ``(2) Information shall be disseminated under this 
     subsection through publications, through programs of 
     continuing medical and related education provided through 
     regional medical education centers under subchapter VI of 
     chapter 74 of this title, and through other means. Such 
     programs of continuing medical education shall receive 
     priority in the award of funding.
       ``(h) Supervision.--The official within the central office 
     of the Veterans Health Administration responsible for blast 
     injury matters shall be responsible for supervising the 
     operation of the centers established under this section and 
     shall provide for ongoing evaluation of the centers and their 
     compliance with the requirements of this section.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for the centers established under this section 
     amounts as follows:
       ``(A) $3,125,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(B) $6,250,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
     2008.
       ``(2) In addition to amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     by paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Under Secretary for 
     Health shall allocate to each center established under this 
     section, from other funds authorized to be appropriated for 
     such fiscal year for the Department generally for medical and 
     for medical and prosthetics research, such additional amounts 
     as the Under Secretary for Health determines appropriate to 
     carry out the purpose of this section.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 73 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7326, 
     the following new item:

``7327. Centers for research, education, and clinical activities on 
              blast injuries''

     .  (b) Designation of Centers.--The Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall designate at least one center for research, 
     education, and clinical activities on blast injuries as 
     required by section 7327 of title 38, United States Code (as 
     added by subsection (a)), not later than January 1, 2005.
       (c) Annual Reports.--(1) Not later than February 1 of each 
     of 2006, 2007, and 2008, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives a report on the status and activities during 
     the previous fiscal year of the center for research, 
     education, and clinical activities on blast injuries 
     established under section 7327 of title 38, United States 
     Code (as so added). Each such report shall include the 
     following:
       (A) A description of the activities carried out at each 
     center, and the funding provided for such activities.
       (B) A description of the advances made at each of the 
     participating facilities of the each center in research, 
     education and training, and clinical activities on blast 
     injuries .
       (C) A description of the actions taken by the Under 
     Secretary for Health pursuant to subsection (g) of that 
     section (as so added) to disseminate information derived from 
     such activities throughout the Veterans Health 
     Administration.
       (D) The assessment of the Secretary of the effectiveness of 
     the centers in fulfilling the purposes of the centers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2525. A bill to establish regional dairy marketing areas to 
stabilize the price of milk and support the income of dairy producers; 
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join today with nine of my colleagues 
to introduce the National Dairy Equity Act (NDEA), legislation intended 
to substantially reduce Federal expenditures for the dairy industry and 
allow for more local authority to regulate milk prices in a particular 
area. Members of the House of Representatives have introduced similar 
legislation with 20 cosponsors.
  This legislation would establish a voluntary, national program that 
permits producers and consumers, acting through Regional Dairy 
Marketing Area (RDMAs), to establish minimum prices for Class I fluid 
milk, which is intended to stabilize the price of milk. Although the 
June 2004 Class I fluid milk price is $18.40, the true impetus for this 
legislation is based on the April 2003 price of $11.89, the lowest milk 
price in the last 25 years as of October 1978. The recent rise in milk 
price, while certainly welcome, gives only a temporary respite from the 
low prices of the past five years that have threatened the survival of 
thousands of dairy farm. In Pennsylvania alone, since 1999, 1,100 dairy 
farms have fallen victim to the battle over milk pricing.
  Since last spring, I, along with my colleagues in both the Senate and 
the House representing the Northeast, South and Midwest, have held 
monthly meetings to address this dire situation faced by the dairy 
industry. Additionally, I have worked with Pennsylvania Department of 
Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Dairy Task Force, 
which represents Pennsylvania's 9,900 commercial dairy farms, and have 
assembled a working group of 24 Pennsylvania dairy farmers for their 
input, while holding eight forums in Pennsylvania discussing the merits 
of the legislation I present today.
  Under the NDEA, five RDMAs would be established; three of these 
RDMAs, the Northeast, the South, and the Midwest, would be 
automatically deemed

[[Page S6889]]

as participating States, but there is a mechanism for any State to opt 
out. The States within the other two regions, the Intermountain and the 
Pacific, can opt into the program. Ultimately, the NDEA overcomes 
previous inter-regional objections to similar plans because it permits 
regions with low Class I utilization to receive the same benefit as 
higher regions, and does not require national pooling of money between 
the various regions.
  Within each RDMA, a board, representative of both farmers and 
consumers, would be appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 
exclusively from lists of nominees provided by the Governors, Ag 
Commissioners in which they are elected officeholders. The RDMA boards 
would distribute the payments to the farmers in their regions and would 
also have the authority to conduct supply management, including the 
development and implementation of incentive-based supply management 
programs.
  Specifically, this legislation would allow states that do not wish to 
participate in the NDEA to continue participating in the current Milk 
Income Loss Contract (MILC) program, which would be extended to 2007 to 
coincide with the reauthorization of the Farm Bill. The MILC program is 
set to expire at the end of September 2005. Although I supported the 
MILC program when it was offered in the 2002 Farm Bill, I am aware that 
the MILC program is delinquent in providing a producer (farmer) 
referendum within a region; especially in the Northeast, to establish a 
regulated over-order price.
  Equally, I am concerned about the cost of the MILC program. Since 
2002, this program has cost the Federal Government nearly $1.65 
billion, when it originally scored at only $1 billion from 2002 to 
September 2005. If enacted, the NDEA will reduce government spending by 
90 percent in the Northeast, 100 percent in the South and 65 percent in 
the Midwest. Nationwide, this is a cost savings of nearly $700 million, 
roughly $200 million per year from enactment until 2007.
  More specifically in Pennsylvania, the MILC payment program is 
costing the Federal Government roughly $44.2 million, which is 
dispersing payments to 8,300 dairy farms with herd sizes of roughly 100 
cows or less. Under the NDEA, this cost to the Federal Government would 
be reduced by 90 percent, and would ultimately pay $35 million more to 
these farmers for a total of $78.6 million because the maximum price 
for milk would be capped at $17.50, national pooling under the MILC 
payment would be eliminated and better supply management techniques 
would be put into place.
  Finally, this legislation clearly does not model a dairy compact 
because unlike a compact, the NDEA establishes a cap of $17.50 per cwt, 
hundredweight, on maximum Class I price, which could increase in 
succeeding years based on Consumer Price Index (CPI), Additionally, 
this legislation equalizes payments producers receive by establishing a 
50 percent Class utilization payment for all regions thereby not 
placing low Class I utilization areas at a disadvantage, ultimately 
establishing a level playing field. The NDEA provides for federal 
authority for the establishment of five RDMAs, and establishes a 
central dairy producers payment fund at the Federal level that would 
transfer processor payments and if necessary CCC funds back to each 
RDMA in order to equalize all payments among regions.
  As we continue to celebrate National Dairy Month, I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor and support this timely legislation, which 
would help reduce the Federal deficit and would tighten the huge gap 
that exists in the stabilization of the milk price for the betterment 
of our nation's dairy industry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, 
        and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 2528. A bill to restore civil liberties under the First Amendment, 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues 
in introducing the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004.
  The attacks of September 11 changed this nation forever. Much has 
been done since then to combat the threat of terrorism and make America 
safer. But not every measure or policy adopted after 9/11 has been 
effective, legal, or fair. The strengthening of security has sometimes 
meant the weakening of civil liberties. Often, the Bush Administration 
has misused the fear of terrorism as an excuse to ignore basic rights 
in our society.
  Immigrants, especially Arabs and Muslims, became targets as the 
Administration carried out roundups of individuals based on national 
origin and religion, rather than any specific assessment of danger. 
Abusive detention practices took place. Registration programs have made 
criminal suspects out of legal immigrants.
  These changes were implemented without Congressional consultation or 
approval. They have swept much too broadly and eliminated necessary 
checks and balances that prevent abuse. They have squandered our 
limited resources and have been more successful in alienating immigrant 
communities than in apprehending terrorists. We cannot allow fear to 
trump and trample the values upon which our country was founded. Our 
Nation can be both secure and free.
  The Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004 will provide basic civil 
liberties protections, and restore balance and fairness to our laws in 
the treatment of immigrants. It will preserve fundamental rights 
without endangering national security. It will restore the confidence 
of immigrant communities, especially those unfairly targeted by recent 
and current policies.
  It will place reasonable limitations on closed immigration hearings. 
On September 21, 2001, the Attorney General ordered immigration judges 
to close all hearings on individuals detained in the 9/11 
investigation. In a highly critical report issued by the Inspector 
General of the Justice Department in April 2003 we learned that many 
were arrested as a result of ``chance encounters or tenuous 
connections'' to the investigation, rather than ``any genuine 
indications of a possible connection with or possession of information 
about terrorist activity.''
  Nevertheless, over 600 immigration hearings were held in secret. 
Visitors, the press and even family members of the detainees were 
excluded. Consistent with the First Amendment, our legislation 
authorizes the closing of immigration hearings only when the government 
can demonstrate a compelling privacy or national security interest.
  The bill will restore other due process protections weakened after 9/
11. Before that, the INS was required to give notice to detained non-
citizens within 24 hours of arrest, informing them of the charges 
against them. On September 20, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a 
regulation extending that period to 48 hours or ``an additional 
reasonable period of time'' in ``emergency or other extraordinary 
circumstances.''
  This open-ended change led to serious abuses. As the Inspector 
General reported, some detainees were held for more than a month after 
their arrest, without being told of the charges against them. Often 
they were held in harsh and restrictive conditions and prevented from 
consulting with their attorneys.
  Our legislation will require a charging document to be served within 
48 hours of an arrest or detention. Non-citizens held for more than 48 
hours would have to be brought before an immigration judge within 72 
hours of their arrest or detention, with an exception for non-citizens 
who are certified by the Attorney General, based on reasonable grounds, 
as having engaged in espionage or a terrorist offense.
  After 9/11, the Bush Administration also adopted policies that deny 
bond to many immigrants with no individual assessment of their danger 
or flight risk. Two examples of this policy were the ``hold until 
cleared'' policy criticized by the Inspector General's report, and the 
Attorney General's precedent decision declaring that all Haitians 
arriving by sea were a national security threat and must be detained.
  Unilateral executive branch decisions mandating detention violate 
fundamental rights. Blanket detentions of persons who pose no flight 
risk or harm to the community waste valuable resources that should be 
used to apprehend criminals and terrorists.

[[Page S6890]]

  Our legislation will require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
provide all detainees with individual assessments to determine whether 
they pose a flight risk or a threat to public safety, except those in 
categories specifically designated by Congress as posing a special 
threat. If the individual is eligible for release, the Secretary must 
set a reasonable bond or other conditions to guarantee the person's 
appearance at future proceedings, and this decision would be subject to 
review by an immigration judge.
  The authority of immigration judges was further weakened by an 
October 2001 regulation that authorizes the Attorney General to stay a 
decision by an immigration judge to release an individual if bond had 
originally been denied, or had been set at $10,000 or more. The current 
regulation goes too far. It allows the government's immigration 
attorneys to overrule a decision by an immigration judge that an 
individual does not pose a risk.
  The bill puts reasonable limitations on this automatic stay 
authority. The Board of Immigration Appeals could stay the immigration 
judge's bond decision for a limited time, only when the government is 
likely to prevail in appealing that decision and there is a risk of 
irreparable harm in the absence of a stay.
  In early 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a series of 
``procedural reforms'' purportedly designed to eliminate the backlog of 
cases in the Board of Immigration Appeals. Altering its practices in 
accordance with the new mandates, the Board has issued thousands of 
single-member decisions affirming without written opinions the 
decisions of the immigration judges. Before the changes took effect, 1 
in 4 appeals was granted, now only 1 in 10 is granted. Instead of 
eliminating the backlog, however, the cases have shifted to the federal 
courts. The number of Board decisions being appealed to the federal 
courts has increased dramatically. The Ninth Circuit has received over 
4,200 immigration appeals, more than four times the usual number.
  These so-called reforms highlight the degree to which integrity and 
impartiality of the immigration courts have been compromised. To 
correct the problem, the bill establishes an independent regulatory 
agency within the Department of Justice to administer the immigration 
court system. Integrity would be restored by enabling Board Members and 
immigration judges to exercise independent judgment and discretion. The 
reforms will help ensure that individuals and families receive fair 
treatment in immigration decisions, which can have profound 
consequences for immigrants and refugees, such as permanent separation 
from loved ones, or deportation to countries where they may face 
persecution and even death.
  The Act will also end the infamous National Security Entry-Exit 
Registration System--the NSEERS program which was launched by Attorney 
General Ashcroft in August 2002 and which required men from 
predominately Muslim or Arab countries to be fingerprinted, 
photographed, and interrogated, based on the absurd notion that 
terrorists would present themselves for registration and be caught.
  As Vincent Cannistraro, former director of Counterterrorism 
Operations at the CIA, has said, policies like the NSEERS program 
caused fear and distrust and worked ``against intelligence-gathering by 
law enforcement, particularly the FBI.'' At a time when we needed vital 
intelligence information, members of these communities were unfairly 
stigmatized and discouraged from coming forward to help our law 
enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts.
  According to Department of Homeland Security officials, no one 
registered under the NSEERS program was ever charged with terrorism. 
Last December, significant parts of the NSEERS program were suspended. 
Our bill will terminate it completely, and it will also close removal 
proceedings for certain individuals targeted under it.
  A related issue is the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. More 
than 14,000 individuals who voluntarily complied with the NSEERS 
program were placed in removal proceedings for technical immigration 
violations, even though many of them had relief available to them or 
were in the process of applying for permanent residence. Immigration 
officers routinely refused to use their discretion not to arrest these 
individuals, or not to initiate removal proceedings against them, or 
not to release them from detention. The result was a massive diversion 
of resources away from investigations, prosecutions, and removals of 
criminals and terrorists.
  Our bill will codify an immigration memorandum which outlines the 
parameters for the responsible exercise of prosecutorial discretion. 
The legislation makes clear that such discretion is not an invitation 
to violate or ignore the law, but is intended to give the government 
the flexibility to maximize its allocation of resources. Exercise of 
such discretion is particularly appropriate in light of the complexity 
of the immigration laws, the harshness of the consequences of 
enforcement, and the importance of conserving limited enforcement 
resources so that they are available for use against individuals who 
threaten our safety and security.
  Given the problems inherent in the NSEERS program, the government 
should reconsider all pending NSEERS cases and determine whether a 
favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. Family ties, 
humanitarian concerns, and eligibility for relief are positive factors 
that should be considered in assessing such cases.
  Our bill also protects the integrity of the National Crime 
Information Center database. For decades, in maintaining the database, 
the Department of Justice was required to obey the Privacy Act, which 
requires each agency to maintain its records ``with such accuracy, 
relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to 
assure fairness to the individuals in the determination.'' In March 
2003, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a regulation stating that these 
requirements no longer applied to the NCIC database, and justified the 
exemption because ``in the collection of information for law 
enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what 
information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete.''
  Our legislation requires the Attorney General to comply with the 
Privacy Act in maintaining the database. Circumventing this statutory 
obligation poses significant risks not only for individuals whose files 
may be part of this data system, but also for communities that rely on 
law enforcement to employ effective, reliable methods for protecting 
public safety.
  This requirement is especially important today. The Attorney General 
announced last year that information on more than 400,000 persons with 
removal orders and an unknown number of alleged NSEERS violators would 
be included in the database. The error rate in immigration records has 
always been very high--a fact confirmed by numerous reports issued by 
the Inspector General. Requiring the Attorney General to comply with 
the Privacy Act will help prevent inaccurate and unreliable information 
from contaminating the database and harming individuals and 
communities.
  The bill also protects privacy by ensuring that constitutional 
limitations apply to secret surveillance. The Patriot Act amended the 
Foreign Intelligence Service Act to permit surveillance or searches 
when a ``significant purpose'', not just the ``primary purpose'', of 
the surveillance or search is foreign intelligence. Under current 
procedures, when such evidence is brought before a court, it is nearly 
impossible for a criminal defendant to contest its introduction, 
because the government's application for the search is kept secret. 
When such evidence is used in criminal cases, the court should disclose 
the application and related materials to the defendant, subject to the 
Classified Information Procedures Act, which offers a balanced and 
effective way to protect both national security information and the 
rights of defendants.
  In addition, the legislation provides that when such information from 
electronic surveillance and other sources is introduced in a criminal 
case, disclosure of the surveillance application, order, or other 
materials is permitted under the procedures in the Classified 
Information Procedures Act.
  Finally, the bill addresses the practice of data-mining. Through 
comprehensive data-mining, many records that people believe are private 
can be

[[Page S6891]]

collected by computer, fed into a database and used by the government 
without their knowledge. Law enforcement must have the necessary means 
to protect our safety, but the use of data-mining technology should not 
be allowed to threaten privacy and civil liberties.
  The legislation will require all federal agencies to report to 
Congress within 90 days and annually in future years on data-mining 
programs used to find patterns indicating terrorist or other criminal 
activity and the effect of these programs on civil liberties and 
privacy, so that Congress can exercise its oversight authority over 
federal agencies using this technology.
  We know that we can protect our nation's security and still respect 
the basic rights of both citizens and immigrants. The Civil Liberties 
Restoration Act is a needed effort to end the abuse that has become all 
too common in the past three years, and Congress has a responsibility 
to end them. It has been said that our laws are the wise restraints 
that make us free. The restraints have been weakened in recent years, 
and we need to make them stronger.
  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. 2528

       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 ``Civil Liberties Restoration 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Fighting terrorism is a priority for our Nation.
       (2) As Federal, State, and local law enforcement work 
     tirelessly every day to prevent another terrorist attack, our 
     Nation must continue to work to ensure that law enforcement 
     have the legal tools and resources to do their job.
       (3) At the same time, steps that are taken to protect the 
     United States from terrorism should not undermine 
     constitutional rights and protections.
       (4) Some of the steps taken by the Administration since 
     September 11, 2001, however, have undermined constitutional 
     rights and protections.
       (5) Our nation must strive for both freedom and security.
       (6) This Act seeks to restore essential rights and 
     protections without compromising our Nation's safety.

               TITLE I--RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

     SEC. 101. LIMITATION ON CLOSED IMMIGRATION HEARINGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 240 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Standards for Closing Removal Hearings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a removal 
     proceeding held pursuant to this section shall be open to the 
     public.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Portions of a removal proceeding held 
     pursuant to this section may be closed to the public by an 
     immigration judge on a case by case basis, when necessary--
       ``(A) to preserve the confidentiality of applications for 
     asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention 
     Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 
     Treatment or Punishment, the Violence Against Women Act of 
     1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1902), or the Victims of 
     Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (Public Law 
     106-386; 114 Stat. 1464), or other applications for relief 
     involving confidential personal information or where portions 
     of the removal hearing involve minors or issues relating to 
     domestic violence, all with the consent of the alien;
       ``(B) to prevent the disclosure of classified information 
     that threatens the national security of the United States and 
     the safety of the American people; or
       ``(C) to prevent the disclosure of the identity of a 
     confidential informant.
       ``(3) Compelling government interest.--In order for 
     portions of removal proceedings to be closed to the public in 
     accordance with this subsection, the government must show 
     that such closing of the proceedings is necessitated by a 
     compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to 
     serve that interest.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 240(b) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5)(C)(i), by striking ``subsection 
     (e)(1)'' and inserting ``subsection (f)(1)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``subsection (e)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (f)(1)''.

            TITLE II--PROVIDING DUE PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUALS

     SEC. 201. TIMELY SERVICE OF NOTICE.

       (a) In General.--Section 236 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(f) Notice of Charges.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall serve a notice to appear on every alien 
     arrested or detained under this Act, except those certified 
     under section 236A(a)(3), within 48 hours of the arrest or 
     detention of such alien. Any alien, except those certified 
     under section 236A(a)(3), held for more than 48 hours shall 
     be brought before an immigration judge within 72 hours of the 
     arrest or detention of such alien. The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall--
       ``(1) document when a notice to appear is served on a 
     detainee in order to determine compliance by the Department 
     of Homeland Security with the 48-hour notice requirement; and
       ``(2) submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives an annual report 
     concerning the Department of Homeland Security's compliance 
     with such notice requirement.''.
       (b) Applicability of Other Law.--Nothing in section 236(f) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall be construed to repeal section 236A of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226a).

     SEC. 202. INDIVIDUALIZED BOND DETERMINATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 236(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``On a warrant'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--On a warrant'';
       (2) by striking ``Except as provided'' and all that follows 
     through the end and inserting the following: ``This 
     subsection shall apply to all aliens detained pending a 
     decision on their removal or admission, regardless of whether 
     or not they have been admitted to the United States, 
     including any alien found to have a credible fear of 
     persecution under section 235(b)(1)(B) or any alien admitted 
     or seeking admission under the visa waiver program pursuant 
     to section 217. Except as provided in subsection (c) and 
     pending such decision, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall--
       ``(A) make an individualized determination as to whether 
     the alien should be released pending administrative and 
     judicial review, to include a determination of whether the 
     alien poses a danger to the safety of other persons or 
     property and is likely to appear for future scheduled 
     proceedings; and
       ``(B) grant the alien release pending administrative and 
     judicial review under reasonable bond or other conditions, 
     including conditional parole, that will reasonably assure the 
     presence of the alien at all future proceedings, unless the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security determines under subparagraph 
     (A) that the alien poses a danger to the safety of other 
     persons or property or is unlikely to appear for future 
     proceedings.
       ``(2) Individualized determinations.--An individualized 
     determination made by the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) shall be reviewable at a hearing 
     held before an immigration judge pursuant to section 240. An 
     immigration judge who reviews an initial bond determination 
     by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or who makes a bond 
     determination prior to a decision by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, shall apply the same standards set forth 
     in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Revocation of Bond or Parole.--Section 236(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(b)) is amended 
     by striking ``The Attorney General'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting the following: ``The bond or 
     parole determination made pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) 
     may be revoked or modified only by an immigration judge in 
     proceedings held pursuant to section 240, and only if the 
     party seeking to revoke or modify the bond or parole 
     determination can establish a change in circumstances. The 
     administrative decision finding the alien removable does not, 
     in and of itself, constitute a change in circumstances. At 
     such a hearing, if changed circumstances are established, the 
     immigration judge shall make a new individualized 
     determination in the manner described in subsection (a).''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 236 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place that term 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``Attorney General's'' 
     and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security's''.

     SEC. 203. LIMITATION ON STAY OF A BOND.

       Section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1226), as amended by section 201, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Stay of a Bond Determination.--An order issued by an 
     immigration judge to release an alien may be stayed by the 
     Board of Immigration Review, for not more than 30 days, only 
     if the Government demonstrates--
       ``(1) the likelihood of success on the merits;
       ``(2) irreparable harm to the Government if a stay is not 
     granted;
       ``(3) that the potential harm to the Government outweighs 
     potential harm to alien; and
       ``(4) that the grant of a stay is in the interest of the 
     public.''.

[[Page S6892]]

     SEC. 204. IMMIGRATION REVIEW COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment of Commission.--
       (1) In general.--There is established within the Department 
     of Justice an independent regulatory agency to be known as 
     the Immigration Review Commission (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Commission''). The Executive Office of 
     Immigration Review is hereby abolished and replaced with such 
     Commission.
       (2) Transfer of authority.--The Commission shall perform 
     all administrative, appellate, and adjudicatory functions 
     that were, prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     functions of the Executive Office of Immigration Review or 
     were performed by any officer or employee of the Executive 
     Office of Immigration Review in the capacity of such officer 
     or employee. Such functions shall not include the policy-
     making, policy-implementation, investigatory, or 
     prosecutorial functions of the Department of Homeland 
     Security.
       (3) Organization.--The Commission shall consist of:
       (A) The Office of the Director.
       (B) The Board of Immigration Review.
       (C) The Office of the Chief Immigration Judge.
       (D) The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer.
       (b) Office of the Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--There shall be as the head of the 
     Commission, a Director who shall be appointed by the 
     President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (2) Transfer of offices.--The following officers shall be 
     transferred from the Executive Office for Immigration Review 
     to the Office of the Director for the Commission:
       (A) Deputy Director.
       (B) General Counsel.
       (C) Pro Bono Coordinator.
       (D) Public Affairs.
       (E) Assistant Director of Management Programs.
       (F) Equal Employment Opportunity.
       (3) Responsibilities.--
       (A) The Director shall oversee the administration of the 
     Commission, and the creation of rules and regulations 
     affecting the administration of the courts.
       (B) The Director shall appoint a Deputy Director to assist 
     with the duties of the Director and shall have the power to 
     appoint such administrative assistants, attorneys, clerks, 
     and other personnel as may be needed.
       (c) Board of Immigration Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Board of Immigration Review (referred 
     to in this section as the ``Board'') shall perform the 
     appellate functions of the Commission.
       (2) Appointment.--The Board shall be composed of a 
     Chairperson and not less than 14 other immigration appeals 
     judges, appointed by the President, in consultation with the 
     Director. The term of office of each member of the Board 
     shall be 6 years.
       (3) Current members.--Each individual who is serving as a 
     member of the Board on the date of enactment of this Act 
     shall be appointed to the Board utilizing a system of 
     staggered terms of appointment based on seniority.
       (4) Members.--The Chairperson and each other member of the 
     Board shall be an attorney in good standing of a bar of a 
     State or the District of Columbia and shall have at least 7 
     years of professional, legal expertise in immigration and 
     nationality law.
       (5) Chairperson duties.--The Chairperson shall--
       (A) be responsible, on behalf of the Board, for the 
     administrative operations of the Board and shall have the 
     power to appoint such administrative assistants, attorneys, 
     clerks, and other personnel as may be needed for that 
     purpose;
       (B) direct, supervise, and establish internal operating 
     procedures and policies of the Board; and
       (C) designate a member of the Board to act as Chairperson 
     in the Chairperson's absence or unavailability.
       (6) Board members duties.--In deciding the cases before the 
     Board, the Board shall exercise its independent judgment and 
     discretion and may take any action, consistent with its 
     authorities under this section and regulations established in 
     accordance with this section, that is appropriate and 
     necessary for the disposition of such cases.
       (7) Jurisdiction.--The Board shall have--
       (A) such jurisdiction as was, prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act, provided by statute or regulation to 
     the Board of Immigration Appeals;
       (B) de novo review of any decision by an immigration judge, 
     and any final order of removal; and
       (C) retention of jurisdiction over any case of an alien 
     removed by the United States if the alien's case was pending 
     for consideration before the Board prior to removal of the 
     alien.
       (8) Acting in panels.--
       (A) In general.--All cases shall be subject to review by a 
     3 member panel. The Chairperson shall divide the Board into 3 
     member panels and designate a presiding member of each panel 
     such that--
       (i) a majority of the number of Board members authorized to 
     constitute a panel shall constitute a quorum for such panel; 
     and
       (ii) each panel may exercise the appropriate authority of 
     the Board that is necessary for the adjudication of cases 
     before it.
       (B) Final decision.--A final decision of a panel shall be 
     considered to be a final decision of the Board.
       (9) En banc process.--
       (A) In general.--The Board may on its own motion, by a 
     majority vote of the Board members, or by direction of the 
     Chairperson, consider any case as the full Board en banc, or 
     reconsider as the full Board en banc any case that has been 
     considered or decided by a 3-member panel or by a limited en 
     banc panel.
       (B) Quorum.--A majority of the Board members shall 
     constitute a quorum of the Board sitting en banc.
       (10) Decisions of the board.--
       (A) In general.--The decisions of the Board shall 
     constitute final agency action. The precedent decisions of 
     the Board shall be binding on the Department of Homeland 
     Security and the immigration judges.
       (B) Affirmance without opinion.--Upon individualized review 
     of a case, the Board may affirm the decision of an 
     immigration judge without opinion only if the decision of the 
     immigration judge resolved all issues in the case. An 
     affirmance without opinion signifies the Board's adoption of 
     the immigration judge's findings and conclusion in total.
       (C) Notice of appeal.--The decision by the Board shall 
     include notice to the alien of the alien's right to file a 
     petition for review in the court of appeals within 30 days of 
     the date of the decision.
       (d) Office of the Chief Immigration Judge.--
       (1) Establishment of office.--There is established within 
     the Commission an Office of the Chief Immigration Judge to 
     oversee all the immigration courts and their proceedings 
     throughout the United States. The head of the office shall be 
     the Chief Immigration Judge who shall be appointed by the 
     Director.
       (2) Duties of the chief immigration judge.--The Chief 
     Immigration Judge shall be responsible for the general 
     supervision, direction, and procurement of resources and 
     facilities, and for the coordination of the schedules of 
     immigration judges to enable the judges to conduct the 
     various programs assigned to them. The Chief Immigration 
     Judge may be assisted by a Deputy Chief Immigration Judge and 
     Assistant Chief Immigration Judge.
       (3) Appointment of immigration judges.--
       (A) In general.--Immigration judges shall be appointed by 
     the Director, in consultation with the Chief Immigration 
     Judge and the Chair of the Board of Immigration Review. The 
     term of each immigration judge shall be 12 years.
       (B) Qualifications.--Each immigration judge, including the 
     Chief Immigration Judge, shall be an attorney in good 
     standing of a bar of a State or the District of Columbia and 
     shall have at least 7 years of professional, legal expertise 
     in immigration and nationality law.
       (C) Current members.--Each individual who is serving as an 
     immigration judge on the date of enactment of this Act shall 
     be appointed as an immigration judge utilizing a system of 
     staggered terms of appointment based on seniority.
       (4) Duties of immigration judges.--In deciding the cases 
     before them, immigration judges shall exercise their 
     independent judgment and discretion and may take any action, 
     consistent with their authorities under this section and 
     regulations established in accordance with this section, that 
     is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such 
     cases.
       (5) Jurisdiction and authority of immigration courts.--The 
     Immigration Courts shall have such jurisdiction as was, prior 
     to the date of enactment of this Act, provided by statute or 
     regulation to the Immigration Courts within the Executive 
     Office for Immigration Review.
       (6) Contempt authority.--The contempt authority provided to 
     immigration judges under section 240(b)(1) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(1)) shall--
       (A) be implemented by regulation not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) provide that any contempt sanctions, including any 
     civil money penalty, shall be applicable to all parties 
     appearing before the immigration judge and shall be imposed 
     by a single process applicable to all parties.
       (e) Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer.--
       (1) In general.--The Office of the Chief Administrative 
     Hearing Officer shall be headed by a Chief Administrative 
     Hearing Officer who shall be appointed by the Director.
       (2) Duties and responsibilities.--The duties and 
     responsibilities of the current Office of the Chief 
     Administrative Hearing Officer shall be transferred to the 
     Commission.
       (f) Removal and Review of Judges.--
       (1) In general.--Immigration judges and members of the 
     Board of Immigration Review may be removed from office only 
     for good cause--
       (A) by the Director, in consultation with the Chair of the 
     Board, in the case of the removal of a member of the Board; 
     or
       (B) by the Director, in consultation with the Chief 
     Immigration Judge, in the case of the removal of an 
     immigration judge.
       (2) Independent judgment.--No immigration judge or member 
     of the Board shall be removed or otherwise subject to 
     disciplinary or adverse action for their exercise of 
     independent judgment and discretion as prescribed by 
     subsections (c)(6) and (d)(4).
       (g) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the

[[Page S6893]]

     Director shall issue regulations to implement this section.

                  TITLE III--EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. TERMINATION OF THE NSEERS PROGRAM; ESTABLISHMENT OF 
                   REASONABLE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO REGISTER.

       (a) Termination of NSEERS.--
       (1) In General.--The National Security Entry-Exit 
     Registration System (NSEERS) program administered by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security is hereby terminated.
       (2) Integrated entry and exit data system.--Nothing in this 
     section shall amend the Integrated Entry and Exit Data System 
     established in accordance with section 110 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1365a).
       (3) Administrative closure of removal proceedings.--
       (A) In general.--All removal proceedings initiated against 
     any alien as a result of the NSEERS program shall be 
     administratively closed. This paragraph shall apply to all 
     aliens who were--
       (i) placed in removal proceedings solely for failure to 
     comply with the requirements of the NSEERS program; or
       (ii) placed in removal proceedings while complying with the 
     requirements of the NSEERS program and--

       (I) had a pending application before the Department of 
     Labor or the Department of Homeland Security for which there 
     is a visa available;
       (II) did not have a pending application before the 
     Department of Labor or the Department of Homeland Security 
     for which there is a visa available but were eligible for an 
     immigration benefit; or
       (III) were eligible to apply for other forms of relief from 
     removal.

       (B) Exceptions.--This paragraph shall not apply in cases in 
     which the aliens are removable under--
       (i) section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)); or
       (ii) paragraph (2) or (4) of section 237(a) of that Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227(a)(2) or (4)).
       (4) Motions to reopen.--Notwithstanding any limitations 
     imposed by law on motions to reopen removal proceedings, any 
     alien who received a final order of removal as a result of 
     the NSEERS program shall be eligible to file a motion to 
     reopen the removal proceeding and apply for any relief from 
     removal that such alien may be eligible to receive.

     SEC. 302. EXERCISE OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION.

       (a) Sense of Congress Regarding Prosecutorial Discretion.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (A) Exercising prosecutorial discretion is not an 
     invitation to violate or ignore the law, rather it is a means 
     by which the resources of the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     may be used to best accomplish the mission of the Department 
     of Homeland Security in administering and enforcing the 
     immigration laws of the United States.
       (B) Although a favorable exercise of discretion by any 
     office within the Department of Homeland Security should be 
     respected by other offices of such Department, unless the 
     facts and circumstances in a specific case have changed, the 
     exercise of prosecutorial discretion does not grant lawful 
     status under the immigration laws, and there is no legally 
     enforceable right to the exercise of prosecutorial 
     discretion.
       (2) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the exercise of prosecutorial discretion does not lessen the 
     commitment of the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce 
     the immigration laws to the best of the Secretary's ability.
       (b) Prosecutorial Discretion.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall exercise prosecutorial discretion in deciding 
     whether to exercise its enforcement powers against an alien. 
     This discretion includes--
       (1) focusing investigative resources on particular offenses 
     or conduct;
       (2) deciding whom to stop, question, and arrest;
       (3) deciding whether to detain certain aliens who are in 
     custody;
       (4) settling or dismissing a removal proceeding;
       (5) granting deferred action or staying a final removal 
     order;
       (6) agreeing to voluntary departure, permitting withdrawal 
     of an application for admission, or taking other action in 
     lieu of removing an alien;
       (7) pursuing an appeal; or
       (8) executing a removal order.
       (c) Factors for Consideration.--The factors that shall be 
     taken into account in deciding whether to exercise 
     prosecutorial discretion favorably toward an alien include--
       (1) the immigration status of the alien;
       (2) the length of residence in the United States of the 
     alien;
       (3) the criminal history of the alien;
       (4) humanitarian concerns;
       (5) the immigration history of the alien;
       (6) the likelihood of ultimately removing the alien;
       (7) the likelihood of achieving the enforcement goal by 
     other means;
       (8) whether the alien is eligible or is likely to become 
     eligible for other relief;
       (9) the effect of such action on the future admissibility 
     of the alien;
       (10) current or past cooperation by the alien with law 
     enforcement authorities;
       (11) honorable service by the alien in the United States 
     military;
       (12) community attention; and
       (13) resources available to the Department of Homeland 
     Security.

     SEC. 303. CIVIL PENALTIES FOR TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS OF 
                   REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Registration Penalties.--Section 266(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1306(a)) is amended 
     by striking ``Any alien'' and all that follows through the 
     period and inserting the following: ``(1) A civil penalty 
     shall be imposed, in accordance with paragraph (2), on any 
     alien who is required to apply for registration and be 
     fingerprinted under section 262 or 263, who willfully fails 
     or refuses to make such application or be fingerprinted, and 
     any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the 
     registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to 
     file application for the registration of such alien as 
     required by such section.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Homeland Security may levy a civil 
     monetary penalty of up to--
       ``(A) $100 for a first violation of section 262 or 263;
       ``(B) $500 for a second violation of section 262 or 263; 
     and
       ``(C) $1,000 for each subsequent violation of section 262 
     or 263 after the second violation.
       (b) Other Penalties.--Section 266(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1306(b)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b)(1) A penalty shall be imposed, in accordance with 
     paragraph (2), on any alien or the parent or legal guardian 
     in the United States of any alien who fails to submit written 
     notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security as required by 
     section 265. No penalty shall be imposed with respect to a 
     failure to submit such notice if the alien establishes that 
     such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall levy a civil monetary 
     penalty of--
       ``(A) up to $100 against an alien who fails to submit 
     written notice in compliance with section 265;
       ``(B) up to $500 against an alien for a second violation of 
     section 265; and
       ``(C) up to $1,000 for each subsequent violation of section 
     265 after the second violation.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 
     change of immigration status shall result from failure to 
     submit written notice as required by section 265.
       ``(4) During the transition period, a failure to comply 
     with section 265 shall not result in a penalty or a change in 
     immigration status. At the conclusion of the transition 
     period, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall collect and 
     maintain statistics concerning all enforcement actions 
     related to this subsection.
       ``(5) The penalties imposed under this subsection shall not 
     apply to an alien who previously failed to submit a change of 
     address prior to the date of enactment of the Civil Liberties 
     Restoration Act of 2004 or the end of the transition period 
     if the alien submits a change of address within 6 months 
     after the end of the transition period. A penalty shall be 
     imposed, in accordance with paragraph (2), on any alien who 
     fails to submit a change of address within the 6-month period 
     following the transition period.
       ``(6) In this subsection, the term `transition period' 
     means the period beginning on the date of enactment of the 
     Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004 and ending 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of such Act, at which time the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement a system to 
     record and preserve on a timely basis addresses provided 
     under section 265.''.

     SEC. 304. NCIC COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIVACY ACT.

       Data entered into the National Crime Information Center 
     database must meet the accuracy requirements of section 552a 
     of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
     ``Privacy Act'').

 TITLE IV--PROTECTING PRIVACY AND ENSURING DUE PROCESS FOR TARGETS OF 
                              SURVEILLANCE

     SEC. 401. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON REVIEW OF MOTIONS TO 
                   DISCOVER MATERIALS UNDER FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                   SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

       (a) Electronic Surveillance.--Section 106(f) of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1806(f)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall,'' and 
     inserting ``may,''; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following new sentence: ``In making this determination, the 
     court shall disclose, if otherwise discoverable, to the 
     aggrieved person, the counsel of the aggrieved person, or 
     both, under the procedures and standards provided in the 
     Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.), 
     portions of the application, order, or other materials 
     relating to the surveillance unless the court finds that such 
     disclosure would not assist in determining any legal or 
     factual issue pertinent to the case.''.
       (b) Physical Searches.--Section 305(g) of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1825(g)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall,'' and 
     inserting ``may,''; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following new sentence: ``In making this determination, the 
     court shall disclose, if otherwise discoverable, to the 
     aggrieved person, the counsel of the aggrieved person,

[[Page S6894]]

     or both, under the procedures and standards provided in the 
     Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.), 
     portions of the application, order, or other materials 
     relating to the physical search, or may require the Attorney 
     General to provide to the aggrieved person, the counsel of 
     the aggrieved person, or both a summary of such materials 
     unless the court finds that such disclosure would not assist 
     in determining any legal or factual issue pertinent to the 
     case.''.
       (c) Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices.--Section 
     405(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
     (50 U.S.C. 1845(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Unless the court finds that such disclosure would not 
     assist in determining any legal or factual issue pertinent to 
     the case, the court shall disclose, if otherwise 
     discoverable, to the aggrieved person, the counsel of the 
     aggrieved person, or both, under the procedures and standards 
     provided in the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 
     U.S.C. App.), portions of the application, order, or other 
     materials relating to the use of the pen register or trap and 
     trace device, as the case may be, or evidence or information 
     obtained or derived from the use of a pen register or trap 
     and trace device, as the case may be.''.
       (d) Disclosure of Certain Business Records.--(1) Title V of 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
     1861 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating section 502 as section 503; and
       (B) by inserting after section 501 the following new 
     section:


  ``disclosure of certain business records and items governed by the 
                 classified information procedures act

       ``Sec. 502. Any disclosure of applications, information, or 
     items submitted or acquired pursuant to an order issued under 
     section 501, if such information is otherwise discoverable, 
     shall be conducted under the procedures and standards 
     provided in the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 
     U.S.C. App.).''.
       (2) The table of sections for that Act is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 502 and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 502. Disclosure of certain business records and items governed 
              by the Classified Information Procedures Act.
``Sec. 503. Congressional oversight.''.

     SEC. 402. DATA-MINING REPORT.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Data-mining.--The term ``data-mining'' means a query or 
     search or other analysis of 1 or more electronic databases, 
     where--
       (A) at least 1 of the databases was obtained from or 
     remains under the control of a non-Federal entity, or the 
     information was acquired initially by another department or 
     agency of the Federal Government for purposes other than 
     intelligence or law enforcement;
       (B) the search does not use a specific individual's 
     personal identifiers to acquire information concerning that 
     individual; and
       (C) a department or agency of the Federal Government is 
     conducting the query or search or other analysis to find a 
     pattern indicating terrorist or other criminal activity.
       (2) Database.--The term ``database'' does not include 
     telephone directories, information publicly available via the 
     Internet or available by any other means to any member of the 
     public without payment of a fee, or databases of judicial and 
     administrative opinions.
       (b) Reports on Data-Mining Activities.--
       (1) Requirement for report.--The head of each department or 
     agency of the Federal Government that is engaged in any 
     activity to use or develop data-mining technology shall each 
     submit a public report to Congress on all such activities of 
     the department or agency under the jurisdiction of that 
     official.
       (2) Content of report.--A report submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include, for each activity to use or develop data-
     mining technology that is required to be covered by the 
     report, the following information:
       (A) A thorough description of the data-mining technology 
     and the data that will be used.
       (B) A thorough discussion of the plans for the use of such 
     technology and the target dates for the deployment of the 
     data-mining technology.
       (C) An assessment of the likely efficacy of the data-mining 
     technology in providing accurate and valuable information 
     consistent with the stated plans for the use of the 
     technology.
       (D) An assessment of the likely impact of the 
     implementation of the data-mining technology on privacy and 
     civil liberties.
       (E) A list and analysis of the laws and regulations that 
     govern the information to be collected, reviewed, gathered, 
     and analyzed with the data-mining technology and a 
     description of any modifications of such laws that will be 
     required to use the information in the manner proposed under 
     such program.
       (F) A thorough discussion of the policies, procedures, and 
     guidelines that are to be developed and applied in the use of 
     such technology for data-mining in order to--
       (i) protect the privacy and due process rights of 
     individuals; and
       (ii) ensure that only accurate information is collected and 
     used.
       (G) A thorough discussion of the procedures allowing 
     individuals whose personal information will be used in the 
     data-mining technology to be informed of the use of their 
     personal information and what procedures are in place to 
     allow for individuals to opt out of the technology. If no 
     such procedures are in place, a thorough explanation as to 
     why not.
       (H) Any necessary classified information in an annex that 
     shall be available to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
     the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Time for report.--Each report required under paragraph 
     (1) shall be--
       (A) submitted not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (B) updated once a year and include any new data-mining 
     technologies.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 2531. A bill to assist displaced American workers during a jobless 
recovery, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as many as half a million Americans in the 
services sector have lost their jobs in the past three years; off-
shoring threatens to wipe out 3.3 million more jobs in the coming 
decade. An off-shoring tsunami is bearing down on workers in the 
information technology and services sector. The most vulnerable jobs 
are those considered the cream of the new economy: highly paid database 
managers, software coders, financial analysts and accountants.
  In places like my own State of Oregon, the prolonged jobless recovery 
is causing many people real pain. Highly educated and experienced 
workers are being forced to walk an economic tightrope. Displaced 
software workers with advanced degrees are forced to search for entry-
level positions, but employers won't hire them because they're 
overqualified. In Oregon and elsewhere, the number of discouraged 
workers leaving the workforce altogether is unprecedented. If these 
folks were counted the national unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent 
rather than the current 5.6 percent.
  Something in the country's tax and trade policy is seriously awry 
when productivity is generating wealth for a few, but not employment 
for the many who want to work. Something just isn't right when people 
can't find jobs but productivity is growing faster now than in the late 
1990's, corporate profits as a share of national income are at an all-
time high and all of the extra $220 billion in GDP has gone into 
corporate profits. In my view part of problem can be traced to U.S. tax 
and trade policies that actually encourage U.S. corporations to move 
jobs overseas rather than encourage American business to invest in 
American workers. These policies need to be changed.
  The legislation that I am introducing today, the Keep American Jobs 
at Home Act, takes a first step toward eliminating tax and trade 
policies that favor off-shoring and overseas outsourcing at the expense 
of American workers. It will eliminate tax breaks for off-shoring and 
extend wage and training and health care premium assistance to 
serviceworkers who lose their jobs because of trade.
  The first key feature of the bill will eliminate tax breaks for U.S. 
corporate off-shoring so that corporations cannot ship millions of jobs 
overseas courtesy of the American taxpayer. The average American 
probably does not know that his or her taxes are used to offset the 
off-shoring of their own jobs. That's right: current law allows the 
taxes of hard-working Americans to go right into the pockets of 
corporations to help them offshore and outsource American jobs. No 
corporation should get such a tax break, and no American taxpayer 
should be asked to foot the bill for their own pink slip.
  Today, when a corporation sends executives and staff overseas to 
scope out a new facility, to buy an existing firm, or to hire foreign 
workers to replace employees in the United States the corporation can 
deduct the costs from its gross income. This means that the corporation 
gets a tax break on the compensation of the executives, the salaries 
and wages of workers, travel, lodging, meals, the cost of Internet 
access, computer time, copies, faxes and anything else that falls into 
the broad category of deductions from gross income for trade and 
business expenses. This means a corporation get a business expense 
write-off for just about any item imaginable related to off-shoring.

[[Page S6895]]

  The bill says the costs of off-shoring and outsourcing will no longer 
be ``ordinary and necessary expenses.'' When is it ever necessary that 
a taxpayer foot the bill for her own pink slip? When is it ever 
necessary that taxpayer dollars subsidize the traveling expenses of a 
group of executives looking to relocate a manufacturing facility in a 
foreign country?
  A respected industry research group predicts that by the end of this 
year, one of out every ten jobs in the U.S. IT provider industry will 
move to emerging markets and one out of every 20 IT jobs within user 
enterprises. And these figures cover jobs only in the IT sector. Under 
current law, all of the ``ordinary and necessary expenses paid or 
incurred'' in moving these millions of jobs overseas would be 
deductible from corporate gross income.
  If a corporation opts to fire U.S. workers here at home and instead 
hire workers overseas, then the company should make that business 
decision based on the full cost of the transaction, not the cost 
subsidized by tax deductions courtesy of the American taxpayer.
  Another important part of the bill will put in place a safety net for 
displaced IT and other service workers. Such a safety net, known as 
Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, has been in place since l962 for 
displaced manufacturing workers. This provision will make service 
sector workers displaced by trade eligible for TAA, giving them 
retraining, income support and a health insurance tax credit.
  I was disappointed when this part of the legislation won a majority 
vote in the United States Senate recently, but failed to reach the 60 
vote threshold needed to overcome a point of order raised by opponents. 
I believe it is more necessary than ever to provide assistance to 
workers who lose their jobs because of policies the Federal Government 
has adopted.
  Globalization of technology is globalizing the technology workforce. 
Geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can 
be done. The transformation from an economy built on smokestacks to one 
built on packets of light has come at a heavy price. Today, a software 
programmer in Beijing or Bangalore can perform the same tasks as a 
programmer in Beaverton, OR, but the programmer in Beijing or Bangalore 
will cost the company as little as one-fifth to one-tenth what the 
American programmer will be paid.
  The irony is that some of the very same workers who launched the 
technology revolution have now become its victims. Hardly a day goes by 
without a front page story about an American programmer on his way out 
having to train a foreign worker who will replace him.
  The average American may think the Federal Government is helping 
those tech workers displaced by trade. But it is not. That's because 
U.S. trade assistance laws were designed for the manufacturing era. 
Since 1962, when a worker lost his job in a manufacturing plant as a 
result of trade, he could get help through the TAA. TAA has helped 
hundreds of thousands of displaced workers.
  But workers in the services sector--which now accounts for four-
fifths of the U.S. workforce--are not eligible for TAA. Time after 
time, when a displaced software developer, accountant, or telemedicine 
support staff has gone knocking on TAA's door for help, they have been 
turned away. Our bill will open TAA's door to these and other displaced 
service sector workers. All of these workers who have been displaced by 
trade deserve the same benefits.
  This part of the bill will establish equity in the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance program between manufacturing and service workers. It will 
cover three categories of trade-impacted service workers: 1. those who 
lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays off because of 
import competition; 2. public and private sector service workers who 
lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas; and 3. secondary 
service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers 
are eligible for TAA and whose closure causes the layoff or closure at 
the secondary firm.
  Why is TAA so important? Because it provides retraining, income 
support, health insurance tax credit and other benefits to workers who 
lose their jobs due to trade. It can also help ``secondary workers''--
those supplying parts or services and who may lose their jobs when the 
facility they service shuts down due to import competition or moves 
overseas.
  Another innovative way to encourage the unemployed to reenter the 
workforce is to provide wage insurance for qualifying displaced workers 
upon reemployment. Eligible workers receive up to $10,000 over two 
years to cover up to 50 percent of the difference in salary between a 
new, lower paying job and their former position. The bill also would 
lower the qualifying age from 50 to 40. Wage insurance helps ease the 
burden of reentry for eligible workers who cannot find new employment 
at wages comparable to their previous positions.
  Workers reeling from the off-shoring of service sector jobs cannot 
afford to wait for the higher-skilled jobs economists promise are 
around the corner. Higher-value, higher-paid systems integration jobs 
may come along, but in this jobless recovery unemployed IT 
professionals are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation 
of help wanted ads for new, highly-skilled IT jobs. The wage insurance 
and TAA pieces of this legislation address what American workers really 
need: a fighting chance to survive in a relentlessly global economy.
  This provision offers corporate boards of directors and officers a 
safe harbor against shareholder lawsuits involving a business decision 
not to outsource or off-shore American jobs. A corporation that chooses 
to keep its workers out of breadlines over the numbers on its bottom 
line should not run the risk that it could be sued for potentially 
lower profits or return to shareholders.
  In 2002, Congress offered TAA workers help in paying for health 
insurance while they pursue TAA training or retraining. The vast 
majority of unemployed workers just don't have the money to afford 
health care for themselves and their families. The Health Care Tax 
Credit program was intended to help workers keep coverage until they 
are reemployed. Unfortunately, the level of premium assistance and 
bureaucratic obstacles led to fewer than five percent of eligible 
workers taking advantage of the health care tax credit.
  The provisions in Title II of the bill seek to remove these barriers 
to participation. The bill would boost the premium coverage from 65 
percent to 75 percent, clarify that any TAA worker who had three months 
coverage prior to losing his job is eligible for the HCTC, allow 
workers to get less expensive group coverage, give coverage to spouses 
of Medicare-eligible TAA recipients workers, and require the IRS to 
expedite refunds of the first month's tax credit.
  In closing, I recall that the Chairman of the Council of Economic 
Advisors just a few months ago called off-shoring ``just a new way of 
doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable 
in the past, and that's a good thing. When a good or service is 
produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it 
rather than to produce it domestically.''
  If this is the ``new way of doing international trade,'' the United 
States needs a new policy to help the nearly 4 million Americans whose 
information technology and related jobs have been or are expected to be 
moved overseas. The country needs a tax and trade policy that promotes 
rather than discourages investment in American workers. The country 
needs a tax and trade policy that eases rather than increases the pain 
of worker dislocation and that eliminates the tax breaks that entice 
U.S. businesses to move overseas. These are the goals of the Keep 
American Jobs at Home Act, 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. 2531

       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 ``Keeping American Jobs at 
     Home Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:

[[Page S6896]]

       (1) The unusually prolonged period in which there has been 
     negative job growth has caused an unprecedented number of 
     people to refrain from actively looking for work and, 
     therefore, to be excluded from the unemployment measurement, 
     effectively creating a ``missing'' labor force. If the 
     unemployment rate in February 2004 took into account this 
     missing labor force, the unemployment rate would have been 
     7.4 percent or 1.8 percent greater than the official rate of 
     5.6 percent.
       (2) Newly released unemployment figures show that the trend 
     toward growing long-term unemployment continued last year, 
     the second year after the recession ended.
       (3) An analysis of long-term unemployment from 2000 to 2003 
     shows that the number of people without work for 6 months or 
     more has risen at the extraordinarily high rate of 198.2 
     percent over this period, from just over 649,000 in 2000 to 
     nearly 2,000,000 in 2003.
       (4) According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2003, 
     22.1 percent of all unemployed workers had been out of work 
     for more than 6 months, an increase from 18.3 percent in 
     2002. This proportion is higher than at comparable points in 
     the recovery periods of the 4 most recent recessions, and is 
     the highest rate since 1983.
       (5) In 2005, 588,000 American jobs are projected to be 
     moved overseas. In 2010, that number is expected to grow to 
     1,600,000 and by 2015, 3,300,000 American jobs will be moved 
     overseas.
       (6) In February 2004, the Chairman of the Council of 
     Economic Advisors, called offshoring ``just a new way of 
     doing international trade. More things are tradable than were 
     tradable in the past, and that's a good thing. When a good or 
     service is produced at lower cost in another country, it 
     makes sense to import it rather than to produce it 
     domestically.''.
       (7) Immediate action is necessary to encourage United 
     States companies to keep American jobs at home, to assist 
     displaced American workers in finding new, family wage jobs, 
     and to assure that the current American workforce has the 
     skills to compete and win in the global economy.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to assist 
     displaced American workers during a jobless recovery by--
       (1) ensuring displaced workers in the software, information 
     technology, and services sectors have access to the same 
     trade adjustment assistance and health care tax credits as 
     displaced manufacturing workers;
       (2) providing wage insurance for qualifying displaced 
     workers upon reemployment (to make up part of the difference 
     between a new, lower salary and a previous, higher salary); 
     and
       (3) providing a legal safe harbor for United States 
     businesses that choose to keep American jobs at home.

           TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR DISPLACED AMERICAN WORKERS

     SEC. 101. ELIMINATION OF TAX SUBSIDIES FOR OUTSOURCING OF 
                   AMERICAN JOBS.

       (a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items not 
     deductible) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 280I. ELIMINATION OF TAX SUBSIDIES FOR OUTSOURCING OF 
                   AMERICAN JOBS.

       ``(a) In General.--No deduction or credit shall be allowed 
     under this chapter with respect to any applicable outsourcing 
     item.
       ``(b) Applicable Outsourcing Item.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `applicable outsourcing item' 
     means any item of expense (including any allowance for 
     depreciation or amortization) or loss arising in connection 
     with 1 or more transactions which--
       ``(A) transfer the production of goods (or the performance 
     of services) from within the United States to outside the 
     United States, and
       ``(B) result in the replacement of workers who reside in 
     the United States with other workers who reside outside of 
     the United States.
       ``(2) Certain items included.--The term `applicable 
     outsourcing item' shall include with respect to any 
     transaction described in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) any amount paid or incurred in training the 
     replacement workers described in paragraph (1)(B),
       ``(B) any amount paid or incurred in transporting tangible 
     property outside the United States in connection with the 
     transfer described in paragraph (1)(A),
       ``(C) any expense or loss incurred in connection with the 
     sale, abandonment, or other disposition of any property or 
     facility located within the United States and used in the 
     production of goods (or the performance of services) before 
     such transfer,
       ``(D) expenses paid or incurred for travel in connection 
     with the planning and carrying out of any such transaction,
       ``(E) any general or administrative expenses properly 
     allocable to any such transaction,
       ``(F) any amount paid or incurred in connection with any 
     such transaction for the acquisition of any property or 
     facility located outside the United States, and
       ``(G) any other item specified by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Certain items not included.--The term `applicable 
     outsourcing item' shall not include any expenses directly 
     allocable to the sale of goods and services without the 
     United States.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out the 
     provisions of this section. The Secretary shall prescribe 
     initial regulations not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part 
     IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 280I. Elimination of tax subsidies for outsourcing of American 
              jobs.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to transactions occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE TO 
                   SERVICES SECTOR.

       (a) Adjustment Assistance for Workers.--Section 
     221(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2271(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``firm)'' and inserting 
     ``firm, and workers in a service sector firm or subdivision 
     of a service sector firm or public agency)''.
       (b) Group Eligibility Requirements.--Section 222 of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2272) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``agricultural firm)'' and inserting ``agricultural firm, and 
     workers in a service sector firm or subdivision of a service 
     sector firm or public agency)'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or public agency'' 
     after ``of the firm''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``like or directly 
     competitive with articles produced'' and inserting ``or 
     services like or directly competitive with articles produced 
     or services provided''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B)(i) there has been a shift, by such workers' firm, 
     subdivision, or public agency to a foreign country, of 
     production of articles, or in provision of services, like or 
     directly competitive with articles which are produced, or 
     services which are provided, by such firm, subdivision, or 
     public agency; or
       ``(ii) such workers' firm, subdivision, or public agency 
     has obtained or is likely to obtain such services from a 
     foreign country.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``agricultural firm)'' and inserting ``agricultural firm, and 
     workers in a service sector firm or subdivision of a service 
     sector firm or public agency)'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or service'' after 
     ``related to the article''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``or services'' after 
     ``component parts'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting ``or services'' after ``value-added 
     production processes'';
       (ii) by striking ``or finishing'' and inserting ``, 
     finishing, or testing'';
       (iii) by inserting ``or services'' after ``for articles''; 
     and
       (iv) by inserting ``(or subdivision)'' after ``such other 
     firm''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``for articles'' and inserting ``, or 
     services, used in the production of articles or in the 
     provision of services''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``(or subdivision)'' after ``such other 
     firm''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Basis for Secretary's Determinations.--
       ``(1) Increased imports.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a)(2)(A)(ii), the Secretary may determine that increased 
     imports of like or directly competitive articles or services 
     exist if the workers' firm or subdivision or customers of the 
     workers' firm or subdivision accounting for not less than 20 
     percent of the sales of the workers' firm or subdivision 
     certify to the Secretary that they are obtaining such 
     articles or services from a foreign country.
       ``(2) Obtaining services abroad.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii), the Secretary may determine that 
     the workers' firm, subdivision, or public agency has obtained 
     or is likely to obtain like or directly competitive services 
     from a firm in a foreign country based on a certification 
     thereof from the workers' firm, subdivision, or public 
     agency.
       ``(3) Authority of the secretary.--The Secretary may obtain 
     the certifications under paragraphs (1) and (2) through 
     questionnaires or in such other manner as the Secretary 
     determines is appropriate.''.
       (c) Training.--Section 236(a)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2296(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``$220,000,000'' and inserting ``$440,000,000''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 247 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2319) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or public agency'' after ``of a firm''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``or public agency'' after ``or 
     subdivision'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``or public agency'' 
     after ``the firm'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (17) as 
     paragraphs (9) through (18), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) The term `public agency' means a department or agency 
     of a State or local government or of the Federal Government.

[[Page S6897]]

       ``(8) The term `service sector firm' means an entity 
     engaged in the business of providing services.''.
       (e) Technical Amendment.--Section 245(a) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317(a)) is amended by striking ``, other 
     than subchapter D''.

     SEC. 103. WAGE INSURANCE FOR QUALIFYING DISPLACED WORKERS 
                   UPON REEMPLOYMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2318) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 246. WAGE INSURANCE FOR DISPLACED WORKERS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a wage 
     insurance program for displaced workers that provides the 
     benefits described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Benefits.
       ``(A) Payments.--A State shall use the funds provided to 
     the State under section 241 to pay, for a period not to 
     exceed 2 years, to a worker described in paragraph (3)(B), 50 
     percent of the difference between--
       ``(i) the wages received by the worker from reemployment; 
     and
       ``(ii) the wages received by the worker at the time of 
     separation.
       ``(B) Health insurance.--A worker described in paragraph 
     (3)(B) participating in the program established under 
     paragraph (1) is eligible to receive, for a period not to 
     exceed 2 years, a credit for health insurance costs under 
     section 35 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by 
     section 201 of the Trade Act of 2002.
       ``(3) Eligibility.--
       ``(A) Firm eligibility.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall provide the 
     opportunity for a group of workers on whose behalf a petition 
     is filed under section 221 to request that the group of 
     workers be certified for the wage insurance program under 
     this section at the time the petition is filed.
       ``(ii) Criteria.--In determining whether to certify a group 
     of workers as eligible for the wage insurance program, the 
     Secretary shall consider the following criteria:

       ``(I) Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess 
     skills that are not easily transferable.
       ``(II) The competitive conditions within the workers' 
     industry.

       ``(iii) Deadline.--The Secretary shall determine whether 
     the workers in the group are eligible for the wage insurance 
     program by the date specified in section 223(a).
       ``(B) Individual Eligibility.--A worker in the group that 
     the Secretary has certified as eligible for the wage 
     insurance program may elect to receive benefits under the 
     wage insurance program if the worker--
       ``(i) is covered by a certification under subchapter A of 
     this chapter;
       ``(ii) obtains reemployment not more than 26 weeks after 
     the date of separation from the adversely affected 
     employment; and
       ``(iii) earns not more than $50,000 a year in wages from 
     reemployment;
       ``(iv) is employed on a full-time basis as defined by State 
     law in the State in which the worker is employed; and
       ``(v) does not return to the employment from which the 
     worker was separated.
       ``(4) Total amount of payments.--The payments described in 
     paragraph (2)(A) made to a worker may not exceed $10,000 per 
     worker during the 2-year eligibility period.
       ``(5) Limitation on other benefits.--Except as provided in 
     section 238(a)(2)(B), if a worker is receiving payments 
     pursuant to the program established under paragraph (1), the 
     worker shall not be eligible to receive any other benefits 
     under this title.
       ``(b) Termination.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     payments may be made by a State under the program established 
     under subsection (a)(1) after the date that is 5 years after 
     the date on which such program is implemented by the State.
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a worker 
     receiving payments under the program established under 
     subsection (a)(1) on the termination date described in 
     paragraph (1) shall continue to receive such payments 
     provided that the worker meets the criteria described in 
     subsection (a)(3)(B).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for title 
     II of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 246 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 246. Wage insurance for displaced workers.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to workers certified as eligible for adjustment 
     assistance under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974 on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 104. BUSINESS JUDGMENT DEFENSE FOR NON-OUTSOURCING.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a determination 
     by the officers or directors of a corporation that it is in 
     the best interest of the corporation to keep jobs within the 
     United States and to not locate the domicile of the 
     corporation outside of the United States, or move or carry 
     out production or other business activities of the 
     corporation or any portion thereof, outside of the United 
     States, shall be considered in any action brought against the 
     corporation based on such determination by the court of 
     competent jurisdiction to be a matter of business judgment, 
     and such officers or directors may not be found to have 
     violated their fiduciary duty to the corporation in any such 
     action, based on that determination.

TITLE II--IMPROVEMENT OF CREDIT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF ELIGIBLE 
                              INDIVIDUALS

     SEC. 201. EXPEDITED REFUND OF CREDIT FOR PRORATED FIRST 
                   MONTHLY PREMIUM AND SUBSEQUENT MONTHLY PREMIUMS 
                   PAID PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR 
                   THE CREDIT.

       Section 7527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to advance payment of credit for health insurance costs of 
     eligible individuals) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Expedited Payment of Premiums Paid Prior To Issuance 
     of Certificate.--The program established under subsection (a) 
     shall provide for payment to a certified individual of an 
     amount equal to the percentage specified in section 35(a) of 
     the premiums paid by such individual for coverage of the 
     taxpayer and qualifying family members under qualified health 
     insurance for eligible coverage months (as defined in section 
     35(b)) occurring prior to the issuance of a qualified health 
     insurance costs credit eligibility certificate upon receipt 
     by the Secretary of evidence of such payment by the certified 
     individual.''.

     SEC. 202. TAA PRE-CERTIFICATION PERIOD RULE FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A 63-DAY LAPSE IN 
                   CREDITABLE COVERAGE.

       (a) ERISA Amendment.--Section 701(c)(2) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181(c)(2)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) TAA-eligible individuals.--
       ``(i) TAA pre-certification period rule.--In the case of a 
     TAA-eligible individual, the period beginning on the date the 
     individual has a TAA-related loss of coverage and ending on 
     the date the individual is certified by the Secretary (or by 
     any person or entity designated by the Secretary) as being 
     eligible for a qualified health insurance costs credit 
     eligibility certificate for purposes of section 7527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not be taken into account 
     in determining the continuous period under subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Definitions.--The terms `TAA-eligible individual', 
     and `TAA-related loss of coverage' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 605(b)(4)(C).''.
       (b) PHSA Amendment.--Section 2701(c)(2) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg(c)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) TAA-eligible individuals.--
       ``(i) TAA pre-certification period rule.--In the case of a 
     TAA-eligible individual, the period beginning on the date the 
     individual has a TAA-related loss of coverage and ending on 
     the date the individual is certified by the Secretary (or by 
     any person or entity designated by the Secretary) as being 
     eligible for a qualified health insurance costs credit 
     eligibility certificate for purposes of section 7527 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not be taken into account 
     in determining the continuous period under subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Definitions.--The terms `TAA-eligible individual', 
     and `TAA-related loss of coverage' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 2205(b)(4)(C).''.
       (c) IRC Amendment.--Section 9801(c)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to not counting periods before 
     significant breaks in creditable coverage) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) TAA-eligible individuals.--
       ``(i) TAA pre-certification period rule.--In the case of a 
     TAA-eligible individual, the period beginning on the date the 
     individual has a TAA-related loss of coverage and ending on 
     the date the individual is certified by the Secretary of 
     Labor (or by any person or entity designated by the Secretary 
     of Labor) as being eligible for a qualified health insurance 
     costs credit eligibility certificate for purposes of section 
     7527 shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     continuous period under subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Definitions.--The terms `TAA-eligible individual', 
     and `TAA-related loss of coverage' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 4980B(f)(5)(C)(iv).''.

     SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF SPOUSE OF CERTAIN 
                   INDIVIDUALS ENTITLED TO MEDICARE.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 35 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining eligible coverage 
     month) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Special rule for spouse of individual entitled to 
     medicare.--Any month which would be an eligible coverage 
     month with respect to a taxpayer (determined without regard 
     to subsection (f)(2)(A)) shall be an eligible coverage month 
     for any spouse of such taxpayer.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 173(f)(5)(A)(i) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)(5)(A)(i)) 
     is amended by inserting ``(including with respect to any 
     month for which the eligible individual would have been 
     treated as such but for the application of paragraph 
     (7)(B)(i))'' before the comma.

     SEC. 204. IMPROVEMENT OF THE AFFORDABILITY OF THE CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 35(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to credit for health insurance costs of 
     eligible individuals) is amended by striking ``65'' and 
     inserting ``75''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7527(b) of such Code 
     (relating to advance payment of credit for health insurance 
     costs of

[[Page S6898]]

     eligible individuals) is amended by striking ``65'' and 
     inserting ``75''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.

     SEC. 205. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS TO 
                   FACILITATE ESTABLISHMENT OF GROUP COVERAGE 
                   OPTION AND TO PROVIDE INTERIM HEALTH COVERAGE 
                   FOR ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS IN ORDER TO QUALIFY 
                   FOR GUARANTEED ISSUE AND OTHER CONSUMER 
                   PROTECTIONS; CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR 
                   GROUP COVERAGE OPTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 173(f) of the Workforce Investment 
     Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) Health insurance coverage for eligible individuals in 
     order to obtain qualified health insurance that has 
     guaranteed issue and other consumer protections.--Funds made 
     available to a State or entity under paragraph (4)(A) of 
     subsection (a) shall be used to provide an eligible 
     individual described in paragraph (4)(C) and such 
     individual's qualifying family members with health insurance 
     coverage for the 3-month period that immediately precedes the 
     first eligible coverage month (as defined in section 35(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) in which such eligible 
     individual and such individual's qualifying family members 
     are covered by qualified health insurance that meets the 
     requirements described in clauses (i) through (iv) of section 
     35(e)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or such 
     longer minimum period as is necessary in order for such 
     eligible individual and such individual's qualifying family 
     members to be covered by qualified health insurance that 
     meets such requirements).
       ``(B) Additional uses.--Funds made available to a State or 
     entity under paragraph (4)(A) of subsection (a) may be used 
     by the State or entity for the following:
       ``(i) Health insurance coverage.--To assist an eligible 
     individual and such individual's qualifying family members in 
     enrolling in health insurance coverage and qualified health 
     insurance.
       ``(ii) Administrative expenses and start-up expenses to 
     establish group coverage options for qualified health 
     insurance.--To pay the administrative expenses related to the 
     enrollment of eligible individuals and such individuals' 
     qualifying family members in health insurance coverage and 
     qualified health insurance, including--

       ``(I) eligibility verification activities;
       ``(II) the notification of eligible individuals of 
     available health insurance and qualified health insurance 
     options;
       ``(III) processing qualified health insurance costs credit 
     eligibility certificates provided for under section 7527 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(IV) providing assistance to eligible individuals in 
     enrolling in health insurance coverage and qualified health 
     insurance;
       ``(V) the development or installation of necessary data 
     management systems; and
       ``(VI) any other expenses determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary, including start-up costs and on going 
     administrative expenses, in order for the State to treat at 
     least 1 of the options described in subparagraphs (B) through 
     (H) of subsection (e)(1) of section 35 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 as qualified health insurance under that 
     section.

       ``(iii) Outreach.--To pay for outreach to eligible 
     individuals to inform such individuals of available health 
     insurance and qualified health insurance options, including 
     outreach consisting of notice to eligible individuals of such 
     options made available after the date of enactment of this 
     clause.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Qualified health insurance.--For purposes of this 
     subsection and subsection (g), the term `qualified health 
     insurance' has the meaning given that term in section 35(e) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 174(c)(1) of the Workforce Investment 
     Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2919(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Authorization 
     and appropriation for fiscal year 2002'' and inserting 
     ``Appropriations''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) to carry out subsection (a)(4)(A) of section 173--
       ``(i) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(ii) $300,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2006; and''.
       (c) Report Regarding Failure To Comply With Requirements 
     for Expedited Approval Procedures.--Section 173(f) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Report for failure to comply with requirements for 
     expedited approval procedures.--If the Secretary fails to 
     make the notification required under clause (i) of paragraph 
     (3)(A) within the 15-day period required under that clause, 
     or fails to provide the technical assistance required under 
     clause (ii) of such paragraph within a timely manner so that 
     a State or entity may submit an approved application within 2 
     months of the date on which the State or entity's previous 
     application was disapproved, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress explaining such failure.''.
       (d) Clarification of Requirement To Establish Group 
     Coverage Option.--Subsection (g) of section 35 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (11); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) Requirement to establish group coverage option.--With 
     respect to a State, no credit shall be allowed under this 
     section to an individual who resides in that State on or 
     after the date that is 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph unless, not later than such date, 
     the State has elected to have at least 1 of the options 
     described in subparagraphs (B) through (H) of subsection 
     (e)(1) treated as qualified health insurance under this 
     section.
       ``(10) Group health plan.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `group health plan' has the meaning given that term 
     in section 5000(b)(1).''.
       (e) Technical Amendment.--Effective as if included in the 
     enactment of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-210; 116 
     Stat. 933), subsection (f) of section 203 of that Act is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 206. ALIGNMENT OF COBRA COVERAGE WITH TAA PERIOD FOR 
                   TAA-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) ERISA.--Section 605(b) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1165(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and 
     Coverage'' after ``Election''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``and period'' 
     after ``Commencement'';
       (B) by striking ``and shall'' and inserting ``, shall''; 
     and
       (C) by inserting ``, and in no event shall the maximum 
     period required under section 602(2)(A) be less than the 
     period during which the individual is a TAA-eligible 
     individual'' before the period at the end.
       (b) Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Section 4980B(f)(5)(C) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting ``and 
     coverage'' after ``election''; and
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) in the clause heading, by inserting ``and period'' 
     after ``Commencement'';
       (B) by striking ``and shall'' and inserting ``, shall''; 
     and
       (C) by inserting ``, and in no event shall the maximum 
     period required under paragraph (2)(B)(i) be less than the 
     period during which the individual is a TAA-eligible 
     individual'' before the period at the end.
       (c) Public Health Service Act.--Section 2205(b) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-5(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and 
     Coverage'' after ``Election''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``and period'' 
     after ``Commencement'';
       (B) by striking ``and shall'' and inserting ``, shall''; 
     and
       (C) by inserting ``, and in no event shall the maximum 
     period required under section 2202(2)(A) be less than the 
     period during which the individual is a TAA-eligible 
     individual'' before the period at the end.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 2532. A bill to establish wilderness areas, promote conservation, 
improve public land, and provide for the high quality development in 
Lincoln County, Nevada, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I rise with my good friend Senator 
Ensign to co-sponsor a bill that is important to Lincoln County, 
important to Southern Nevada, and important to America.
  The Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 
2004 accommodates southern Nevada's growth and meets our conservation 
challenges. I am pleased that Congressman Gibbons, Congresswoman 
Berkley and Congressman Porter are introducing companion legislation in 
the House of Representatives today. We are working together on a 
bipartisan basis to reach fair compromises on a number of difficult 
issues.
  The Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act 
represents a comprehensive plan that balances the needs for 
infrastructure development, recreation opportunities, and conservation 
of our natural resources and public lands in Lincoln County, Nevada. 
Our bill is a broad-based compromise. It creates utility corridors, 
resolves wilderness study area issues, provides for competitive, 
Federal land sales, designates a back country off-highway vehicle trail 
and provides for the conveyance of federal land to the State of Nevada 
and Lincoln County for use as public parks.
  We do not expect everyone to advocate every provision of this bill. 
In fact, I don't imagine that anyone will champion every provision of 
this bill. It is a tough compromise and it is a good bill.

[[Page S6899]]

  I will preface my description of the titles of this bill by reviewing 
the challenges that public land issues pose in Nevada. Nearly 9 out of 
every 10 acres in our State are owned and managed by the Federal 
Government. This includes land managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the 
Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of 
Energy, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force.
  In Lincoln County, the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 
Service and Department of Defense manage 49 out of every 50 acres--98 
percent of the total land area.
  Unlike most of America where land use decisions are made by local 
communities, many land use decisions in Nevada require concurrence of 
Federal officials and, in some cases, the passage of Federal laws. The 
Ely Field and the State offices of the BLM bear tremendous 
responsibilities with respect to the management, development, and 
conservation of natural resources in eastern Nevada, particularly in 
Lincoln County. Many of my colleagues from western states identify with 
the challenges and benefits of Federal land ownership.
  In Lincoln County these challenges are compounded by rapid growth and 
a fragile ecology: The neighboring Las Vegas valley is the fastest 
growing community in the nation, and the Mojave Desert is one of North 
America's most extreme and vulnerable regions.
  Many people believe this scenario poses an impossible challenge for 
Lincoln County. Some believe that managing growth in southern Nevada 
and protecting our desert for future generations are mutually 
exclusive. Some believe that protecting our air and water quality and 
recognizing that some open space should be set aside as wilderness are 
prohibitive barriers to growth that will unnecessarily restrict 
recreation. Some believe that the federal management of public land is 
too strict; others find it too lenient.
  Some believe that every acre of Lincoln County should be privatized. 
Some believe that not a single acre should be auctioned from the public 
domain. The only common thread in these views is that they are 
perspectives passionately held by Nevadans.
  I hope this context illustrates why compromise is not just desirable 
but necessary.
  We fully expect some criticism for what this bill does not do. For 
example, it does not designate the more than 2.5 million acres that the 
Nevada Wilderness Coalition advocates in Lincoln County. Nor does the 
bill release all the wilderness study areas in Lincoln County as others 
advocate. Our compromise is fair, forward-looking and provides for 
conservation, recreation and development in Lincoln County and for 
southern Nevada.
  The Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act will 
enhance our quality of life, protect our environment for our children 
and grandchildren, and make public land available for housing, growth 
of the industrial base and infrastructure to meet community needs.
  As I discuss each title of this bill, I will explain how these 
provisions reflect our shared effort to improve the quality of life and 
enhance economic opportunities for Nevadans while enriching and 
protecting the awe-inspiring natural and cultural resources with which 
southern Nevada is blessed. This bill will benefit Nevadans today, and 
for generations to come.

                          TITLE I--LAND SALES

  The first title of our bill serves to increase the percentage of 
privately held ground in Lincoln County so local property taxes can 
better sustain basic governmental services. Some people oppose selling 
Federal land under any circumstances. However, in a case such as 
Lincoln County, where 98 percent of the 6.8 million acres is federally 
owned, blind and blanket opposition to land sales simply defies common 
sense.
  Our bill makes available for auction up to about 90,000 acres, 
currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Further, the bill 
directs the BLM to proceed with the auctions required by the Lincoln 
County Land Act of 2000.
  With respect to the 90,000 acres to be auctioned within Lincoln 
County, we provide for annual auctions until the acreage is sold or the 
County determines it prefers for the land to remain in Federal 
ownership. The bill does not stipulate how much acreage should or could 
be sold in a given year, or exactly which parcels of land should be 
sold, because those decisions are better left to the County, the 
municipalities, and citizens working in cooperation with the BLM.
  This basic framework for so-called joint selection has worked very 
well in Clark County and we expect that it will be similarly successful 
in Lincoln County. This bill will greatly enhance the self 
determination of communities in Lincoln County.
  The bill includes a provision that allows the Federal Government to 
retain up to 10,000 acres of the 90,000 set aside for disposal based on 
natural and cultural resource values. For example, if the land disposal 
areas in this bill include, unbeknownst to us, a significant petroglyph 
site or a population of a threatened or endangered species, the 
Secretary could choose to retain ownership.
  As I have noted before on this floor, when Congress passed the 
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1998, it established a 
new paradigm for the sale of public lands in Clark County, Nevada. One 
of the core principles of this new way of doing business was that the 
proceeds from the sale of Federal lands should be reinvested in 
Federal, State, and local environmental protection, infrastructure and 
recreational enhancements in the areas and communities where the lands 
are sold.
  This bill is patterned after that law and provides a revenue source 
for following through on the various provisions of this bill such as 
the creation and management of an off-highway vehicle route and new 
wilderness areas.

                          TITLE II--WILDERNESS

  Nevada has more than 80 wilderness study areas on Federal land across 
the State. These areas, which are primarily owned by the Bureau of Land 
Management, are managed to protect wilderness character land. These 
areas remain as de facto wilderness until Congress passes legislation 
either designating the land as wilderness or releasing the land from 
wilderness study area consideration.
  Although there is broad support for addressing Nevada's wilderness 
study areas through Federal legislation, there is no consensus on how 
to do so. Those who advocate for wilderness designation and those who 
oppose further additions to the wilderness system hold strong and, in 
may cases, irreconcilable views on this issue.
  Those of us who wrote this bill hold different views regarding 
wilderness. In developing the wilderness component of this bill, 
Senator Ensign, Congressman Gibbons and I made compromises that will 
concern all interested parties. Our bill designates more wilderness 
than some advocates can support, and it falls short of the 2.5 million 
acres that some wilderness proponents are fighting to designate in 
Lincoln County alone. In any case, this bill is a critical step toward 
addressing the outstanding wilderness study issues in the state of 
Nevada.
  Our bill designates wilderness and releases wilderness study areas. 
It designates 14 wilderness areas, all of which are under the purview 
of the Bureau of Land Management, totaling roughly 770,000 acres. The 
bill releases roughly 246,000 acres from wilderness study area status, 
including four BLM study areas which are released in their entirety and 
portions of other WSAs throughout Lincoln County. This legislation 
resolves all but two of the wilderness study areas in Lincoln County. 
Those two areas, Mt. Grafton WSA and the South Egans WSA are more than 
half in White Pine County and will be addressed when the Congressional 
delegation creates a public land bill for White Pine County.
  Our bill provides for wilderness management protocols that address 
the particular circumstances of southern Nevada much as we did in the 
Clark County Conservation of Public Lands Act of 2002. For example, we 
explicitly require the Secretary of Interior to allow for the 
construction, maintenance and replacement of water catchments known as 
guzzlers when and where that action will enhance wilderness wildlife 
resources, such as bighorn sheep. In addition, we believe that the use 
of motor vehicles should be allowed to achieve these purposes when 
there is no reasonable alternative and it does not require the creation 
of new roads.

[[Page S6900]]

  Some wilderness purists argue that these man-made water projects 
disturb the ecosystems of the Mojave Desert. I believe that guzzlers 
can actually help restore more natural function to ecosystems that have 
been forever fragmented by development. These projects, which are 
privately funded and hand built by dedicated conservationists, have a 
legitimate place in southern Nevada wilderness and our bill is clear on 
that point.
  In our effort to create a fair wilderness designation, we have 
benefited from the advice and suggestions of many Nevadans representing 
a spectrum of views. These advocates include the Nevada Land Users 
Coalition, the Lincoln County Commission, The Nevada Wilderness 
Project, The Fraternity of Desert Bighorns, the State of Nevada, Red 
Rock Audubon, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Lincoln County residents, 
Partners in Conservation, ranchers and miners, to name just a few.
  Although our compromise does not mirror the specifics of any 
stakeholder wilderness proposal, it does reflect careful consideration 
of the constructive suggestions and ideas offered by interested 
Nevadans. We appreciate their help, and our compromise honors our 
commitment to listen carefully to all parties. We are also grateful for 
the help we have received from the Federal land managers in Lincoln 
County. We look forward to working with them to improve this bill in 
ways that will make their jobs easier, and enhance the experience of 
those who use public land.

                      TITLE III--UTILITY CORRIDORS

  The third title of this legislation establishes rights-of-way on 
Federal land within discrete multi-purpose utility corridors in Lincoln 
and Clark Counties. By designating these corridors, this bill serves to 
consolidate the process for establishing utility corridors and rights-
of-way on the BLM land in question.
  I would like to spend a few moments elaborating on what we do and do 
not intend this bill to accomplish with respect to utility corridors 
and rights-of-way.
  Last year the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Lincoln County 
Commission signed an agreement ending a number of decades-old 
groundwater disputes in Lincoln County. As a result of this agreement 
various protests and counter-protests between Southern Nevada Water 
Authority and Lincoln County were amicably resolved. Subsequent to 
reaching this agreement, the SNWA and Lincoln County requested that the 
Nevada Congressional delegation introduce legislation to help put their 
plans into action.
  This bill partly satisfies those requests. It does not, however, 
provide for everything either the SNWA or Lincoln County Commission 
wanted. For example, it provides substantially fewer miles of corridor 
than they requested and focuses specifically on corridors for trunk 
lines. This is analogous to painting the trunk and major limbs of a 
tree but not the branches, twigs and leaves. We provide routes for 
arterial water pipelines, but not for every well pad and secondary 
feeder.
  This legislation relocates an existing utility corridor from the east 
to the west side of Highway 93 between the Highway 93 Highway 168 
junction and the Kane Springs Road Highway 93 junction. This returns 
the utility corridor to its original location prior to passage of the 
Florida-Nevada Land Exchange bill. The owners of the private property 
currently encumbered by the utility corridor will pay the Federal 
Government fair market value for the appreciation of their property due 
to this provision.
  Our bill stipulates that prior to the designation of any right-of-way 
provided for in this bill, the proponents must complete a full 
environmental impact statement pursuant to the provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Our bill is not intended to 
provide short cuts around Federal environmental laws. Rather it 
recognizes that one comprehensive environmental statement regarding the 
impact of water utility corridors and water development in Lincoln 
County is necessary, but that environmental reviews for the 
establishment of utility corridors and permission to build pipelines 
need not be conducted separately.
  It is also worth noting that our bill explicitly recognizes the role 
the State Engineer plays in Nevada water law, and makes it crystal 
clear that this bill is not intended to influence his decisions 
regarding water rights adjudications or any of his other important 
responsibilities.
  Finally, our bill authorizes the United States Geological Survey to 
conduct a hydrogeologic study of the water resources in White Pine 
County. This study should establish greater certainty regarding the 
water resources of east-central Nevada, and provide a basis for 
increasingly well-informed resource decisions in the future.

            TITLE IV--SILVER STATE OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE TRAIL

  This bill establishes an off-highway vehicle route in central Lincoln 
County as the Silver State Off-Highway Vehicle Trail. The Silver State 
Trail is a combination of existing back-country roads that are 
currently open and being used.
  Sadly, much of rural Nevada is suffering the consequences of 
uncontrolled off-road vehicle use. Lincoln County is no different. And 
as more and more Nevadans seek recreation opportunities in Lincoln 
County, this situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.
  Many public land users enjoy back-country, motorized travel and the 
vast majority of these citizens treat public lands with respect and 
care. Some of these responsible stewards helped us design this route.
  The Silver State Trail will serve as both a recreational and 
educational resource. It will be open to the full range of 
recreationists including off-highway vehicle users and mountain bikers. 
By providing an appropriate place for off-highway vehicle enthusiasts 
to explore Lincoln County, this bill will help locally focus off-
highway vehicle use on our public lands and educate public land users.
  Interested citizens will work with the Bureau of Land Management and 
local governments to develop a management plan for the Silver State 
Trail. This plan will increase recreational use and mitigate the 
negative impacts of such activity. If this Silver State Trail is not 
established, off-highway vehicle use will not go away; it will just do 
more damage, in many cases unintended and avoidable damage, to our 
public lands. I hope this trail will give public land users additional 
opportunities to develop a deeper and better appreciation for the 
Mojave Desert and how it can be used and how it must be protected.

               TITLE V--STATE AND COUNTY PARK CONVEYANCES

  Our bill includes a title dedicated to the creation of parks for 
Lincoln County and the State of Nevada. In the case of Nevada State 
Parks, we provide for the conveyance of three parcels of land that are 
currently leased to the State of Nevada by the Bureau of Land 
Management. These conveyances are contingent upon agreement between 
Lincoln County and the State of Nevada supporting the ownership 
transfers. In the case of Lincoln County, this bill provides for the 
conveyance of about 18,000 acres for use as open space and public 
parks. In both cases, if the land is not used for a public park or open 
space purpose, the land will revert to Federal ownership.
  This title of our bill represents a conservation grant package to the 
State and County that should pay dividends for conservation and 
recreation in Lincoln County for generations to come.

                  TITLE VI--TRANSFERS OF JURISDICTION

  During the development of this bill we decided against addressing 
wilderness issues within the Desert National Wildlife Range. This is a 
major disappointment to some in the environmental community who view 
the wilderness resources in the Range as some of the most pristine and 
wild country in the Mojave Desert.
  It is clear that significant acreage within the Desert Game Range 
meets the criteria of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and someday it may 
yet be recognized as such. In the meantime the areas in question will 
continue to be managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service according to 
its mission.
  This legislation does convey approximately 8,000 acres from the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service to the BLM, which will manage it as a utility 
corridor, and conveys a similar amount of acreage from the BLM to the 
Fish and Wildlife Service for inclusion in the

[[Page S6901]]

Desert National Wildlife Range. These areas lie between State Highway 
93 and the Sheep Range and this transfer helps rationalize the Federal 
land ownership pattern in northern Clark County and southern Lincoln 
County.
  This legislation, the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and 
Development Act of 2004, is a many-faceted compromise. It is an 
ambitious bill. It is a complex bill. And it is an important bill for 
Lincoln County and all of southern Nevada.
  I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ensure timely review 
and passage of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Graham of Florida, 
        Mr. Grassley, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Breaux, Mr. DeWine, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Talent, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Allen, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. 
        Dole, Mr. Carper, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. 
        Coleman, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Domenici, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Bayh, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 2533. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to fund 
breakthroughs in Alzheimer's disease research while providing more help 
to caregivers and increasing public education about prevention; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the 
introduction of the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004. 
I believe the greatest tribute to President Reagan and the Reagan 
family is a living memorial. That is why I am introducing this 
legislation with my colleague, Senator Kit Bond. Our legislation makes 
an all out effort to spark and accelerate breakthroughs for 
Alzheimer's. The legislation supports research on how to prevent the 
disease, how to care for people who have it, and initiatives to support 
those who are caregivers. Let's celebrate President Reagan's life of 
vigor by attacking Alzheimer's with vigor.
  The time to act for real breakthroughs is now. Just last month, 
Senator Bond and I held a hearing on Alzheimer's research. Expert after 
expert told us: We are on the verge of amazing breakthroughs; we will 
lose opportunities if we don't move quickly; we are at a crucial point 
where NIH funding can make a real difference. Researchers, families, 
and advocates all said the same thing, we need to do more, and we need 
to do better. I believe that the answer to that call is passing the 
Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004.
  We are truly on the brink of something that can make a huge 
difference for American families. We know that families face great 
difficulties when a loved one has Alzheimer's. There is great emotional 
cost as well as financial cost. We know that for our public investment 
we could get new treatments that would prolong a patient's cognitive 
abilities. Each month we delay admission to a long-term care facility 
is important to the family and to the taxpayer. Everybody wants a cure; 
that is our ultimate goal. But even if we keep people at home for 1 or 
2 more years, to help them with their memory, and their activities of 
daily living, it would be an incredible breakthrough.
  Our bill would do three things. First, it would strengthen our 
national commitment to Alzheimer's research. The legislation doubles 
the funding for Alzheimer's research at the National Institutes of 
Health from $700 million to $1.4 billion. We need to give researchers 
the resources they need to make breakthroughs that are on the horizon 
in diagnosis, prevention and intervention. Also, our bill calls for a 
National Summit on Alzheimer's that would bring together the best minds 
to look at priorities for research moving forward.
  Second, our bill provides critical support for caregivers. The family 
is always the first caregiver. The nation saw what a family of prestige 
and means went through; imagine what other American families are going 
through. The legislation creates a tax credit for families caring for a 
loved one with a chronic condition, like Alzheimer's, that would help 
them pay for prescription drugs, home health care and specialized day 
care. Also, it helps create one-stop shops across the country so 
families can find services like respite care, adult day care and 
training for caregivers.
  Third, our legislation promotes News You Can Use for families and 
physicians. Incredible advances are being made every day. We need to 
get the word out so families and doctors know the most current 
information. The Alzheimer's Association has been doing a great job 
with their ``Maintain Your Brain'' campaign; however, philanthropic 
efforts of advocacy groups are not a substitute for public policy. Our 
bill builds on these efforts to create an effective public education 
strategy.
  It is amazing how far we have come. Back in the early 1980s, 
Alzheimer's was a catch-all term for any kind of memory loss. Today, 
doctors diagnose Alzheimer's with 90-percent accuracy. Every day NIH is 
making progress to identify risks, looking at new kinds of brain scans 
for appropriate detection, and understanding what this disease does to 
the brain.
  How did we get this far, this fast? With a bipartisan commitment of 
the authorizers and appropriators. Together, we have been working to 
increase the funding for the National Institute on Aging. In 1998 the 
National Institute on Aging was funded at approximately $500 million. 
Thanks to our bipartisan effort, it is at $1 billion. Now is the time 
to do more.
  My own dear father had Alzheimer's. I remember when I would go to 
visit him. It didn't matter that I was a United States Senator; it 
didn't matter that I could get Nobel Prize winners on the phone. The 
research and treatments didn't exist for my father, for President 
Reagan, or for more than 4 million families. Alzheimer's is an All 
American disease that affected an All American President. Now we need 
an All American effort to speed up the breakthroughs so no family has 
to go through the long goodbye.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and move swiftly to enact 
it into law.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of the life, 
leadership and the truly remarkable legacy of the 40th President of the 
United States, Ronald Reagan.
  President Reagan was a great communicator with a powerful message. He 
preached the gospel of hope, freedom and opportunity not just for 
America but for the world. Reagan was a genuinely optimistic person who 
brought that spirit of optimism and hope to the American people and to 
enslaved peoples around the world. He was a man who took disappointment 
and moved on. He was a man of unfailing good humor, care and 
thoughtfulness. Even people who disagreed with his policies across the 
board could not help but like him.
  In the U.S., his policies encouraged the return of more tax dollars 
to average Americans and unfettered entrepreneurship to create jobs and 
build the economy. Reagan's strong military opposition to the Soviet 
Union helped bring down the walls that harbored communism and tyranny 
throughout Eastern Europe and much of the world.
  In a letter to the American people in 1994 Ronald Reagan announced he 
was one of the millions of Americans with Alzheimer's disease. One of 
the most courageous things Ronald and Nancy Reagan did was to announce 
publicly that he had Alzheimer's disease. Through their courage and 
commitment, the former President and his wife, Nancy, changed the face 
of Alzheimer's disease by increasing public awareness of the disease 
and of the need for research into its causes and prevention.
  In honor of Ronald Reagan, today my colleague Senator Mikulski and I 
are introducing the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2004. 
This bill will increase research for Alzheimer's and increase 
assistance to Alzheimer, patients and their families. This bill will 
serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will: 1. double 
funding for Alzheimer's Research at the National Institute of Health; 
2. increase funding for the National Family

[[Page S6902]]

Caregiver Support Program from $153 million to $250 million; 3. 
reauthorize the Alzheimer's Demonstration Grant Program that provides 
grants to states to fill in gaps in Alzheimer's services such as 
respite care, home health care, and day care; 4. authorize $1 million 
for the Safe Return Program to assist in the identification and safe, 
timely return of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related 
dementias who wander off from their caregivers; 5. Establish a public 
education campaign to educate members of the public about prevention 
techniques that can maintain their brain'' as they age, based on the 
current research being undertaken by NIH; 6. establish a $3,000 tax 
credit for caregivers to help with the high health costs of caring for 
a loved one at home; and 7. encourage families to prepare for their 
long term needs by providing an above-the-line tax deduction for the 
purchase of long term care insurance.
  Ironically it was President Reagan who drew national attention to 
Alzheimer's for the very first time when he launched a national 
campaign against Alzheimer's disease some 22 years ago.
  In 1983 President Reagan proclaimed November as National Alzheimer's 
Disease Month. In his proclamation President Reagan said ``the 
emotional, financial and social consequences of Alzheimer's disease are 
so devastating that it deserves special attention. Science and clinical 
medicine are striving to improve our understanding of what causes 
Alzheimer's disease and how to treat is successfully. Right now, 
research is the only hope for victims and families.''
  Today, approximately 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's, with 
annual costs for this disease estimated to exceed $100 billion. Today 
there are more than 4.5 million people in the United States with 
Alzheimer's, and that number is expected to grow by 70 percent by 2030 
as baby boomers age.
  In my home State of Missouri, alone, there are over 110,000 people 
with Alzheimer's disease. Based on population growth, unless science 
finds a way to prevent or delay the onset of this disease, that number 
will increase to over 130,000 by 2025--that is an 18 percent increase.
  In large part due to President Reagan, there has been enormous 
progress in Alzheimer research--95 percent of what we know we 
discovered during the past 15 years. There is real potential for major 
breakthroughs in the next 10 years. Baby boomers could be the first 
generation to face a future without Alzheimer's disease if we act now 
to achieve breakthroughs in science.
  President and Mrs. Reagan have been leading advocates in the fight 
against Alzheimer's for more than 20 years, and million of American 
have been helped by their dedication, compassion and effort to support 
caregivers, raise public awareness about Alzheimer's disease and 
increase of nation's commitment to Alzheimer's research.
  This bill will serve as a living tribute to President Reagan and will 
offer hope to all those suffering from the disease today. As we 
celebrate the life and legacy of Ronald Reagan, we are inspired by his 
legendary optimism and hope, and today we move forward to confront this 
expanding public health crisis with renewed vigor, passion, and 
compassion.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, the death last week of 
President Ronald Reagan has focused our attention on the ravages that 
Alzheimer's inflicts not only on the person with the disease, but the 
entire family.
  Alzheimer's disease currently affects 4.5 million Americans. As the 
baby boom generation ages that number is expected to explode. Without 
advances in prevention, diagnosis and treatment, we can not only expect 
a growing emotional toll on those suffering from the disease and their 
families, but also a significant drain on the already strained 
resources of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  However, there is reason to be hopeful. We now know that Alzheimer's 
Disease is not a normal part of aging, and that there may be ways to 
prevent the disease. Scientists are beginning to focus on the 
protective effects of mental, physical and social activity, and believe 
that following a diet and exercise program similar to that for people 
with heart disease may delay the onset of Alzheimer's.
  The legislation will accelerate important prevention research, in 
part by putting the National Institute of Aging Alzheimer's Disease 
Prevention Initiative into law.
  In addition, this legislation includes two important changes to our 
tax laws that would provide greater Federal assistance to those who 
bear the burden of assisting patients with Alzheimer's and other 
conditions requiring long-term care. Over 13 million people in the 
United States need help with basic activities of daily living such as 
eating, getting in and out of bed, getting around inside, dressing, 
bathing and using the toilet. While many Americans believe that long-
term care is an issue primarily affecting seniors, the reality is that 
5.2 million adults between the ages of 18-64 and over 450,000 children 
need long-term care services today. These numbers are expected to 
double as the baby boom generation begins to retire.
  Most long-term care is provided at home or in the community by 
informal caregivers. However, in situations where individuals must 
enter nursing homes or other institutional facilities, costs are paid 
largely out-of-pocket. Such a financing structure jeopardizes the 
retirement security of many Americans who have worked hard their entire 
lives.
  The Ronald Reagan Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act provides two important 
tools to help Americans and their families meet their immediate and 
future long-term care needs--an above-the-line income tax deduction for 
the purchase of long-term care insurance and a caregiver tax credit.
  First, the bill provides an above-the-line deduction for long-term 
care premiums to make long-term care insurance more affordable for a 
greater number of Americans. Today, such premiums are deductible, but 
the availability of the deduction is severely limited. First, the 
current deduction is available only for the thirty percent of taxpayers 
who itemize their deductions. That leaves the remaining seventy percent 
of taxpayers with absolutely no benefit. Second, the deduction is 
limited to an amount, which in addition to other medical expenses 
exceeds 7.5 percent the taxpayers adjusted gross income. This AGI limit 
further decreases the utilization of the current deduction.
  Our legislation removes these restrictions and makes the deduction 
for long-term care premiums available to all taxpayers.
  In order to provide sufficient incentives for families to maintain 
long-term care coverage, the deduction allowed under this bill 
increases the longer the policy is maintained. The deduction starts at 
60 percent for premiums paid during the first year of coverage and 
gradually increases each year thereafter until the deduction reaches 
100 percent after at least four years of continuous coverage. This 
schedule is accelerated for those age 55 or older. For those 
individuals, the deduction starts at 70 percent for the first year and 
increases to 100 percent after at least two years of continuous 
coverage.
  Second, the bill provides an income tax credit for taxpayers with 
long-term care needs. The credit is phased in over 4 years, starting at 
$1,000 for 2003 and eventually reaching $3,000. To target assistance to 
those most in need, the credit phases out for married couples with 
income above $150,000 $75,000 for single taxpayers)''
  The bill also updates the requirements that long-term care policies 
must meet in order to qualify for the income tax deduction. These 
updated requirements reflect the most recent model regulations and code 
issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senators Mikulski, Bond, Grassley, 
Clinton, Warner and me in cosponsoring this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida:
  S. 2534. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend and 
enhance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill, to improve housing 
benefits for veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation I

[[Page S6903]]

introduce today, the proposed ``G.I. Bill for the 21st Century,'' a 
bill to improve home-buying and education options for America's 
veterans.
  We have reached a milestone in American history. The pending measure 
is a fitting tribute to our nation's veterans as we celebrate the 60th 
anniversary of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, better known 
as the ``G.I. Bill.'' The G.I. Bill, for veterans of World War II, is 
recognized as one of the most important acts of Congress.
  The G.I. Bill ensured that all who sacrificed through service would 
not be penalized as a result of their war service and upon their return 
would be aided in reaching the positions which they might have occupied 
had their lives not been interrupted by war. This legendary piece of 
legislation alleviated postwar troubles and anticipated economic 
depression. During the past six decades, this government has invested 
billions of dollars in education and training for veterans. America has 
received a return on its investments many times over, resulting in a 
better educated, better trained, and dramatically changed society. In 
fact, many Members of this Senate have benefited from its far-reaching 
impact. In addition to its provisions for education and training, the 
G.I. Bill allowed millions of veterans the opportunity to purchase 
homes, transforming the majority of Americans from renters to 
homeowners.
  The G.I. Bill not only eased the transition of servicemen and women 
back into civilian life, it transformed American society. The social 
and economic class structure of the United States was forever changed 
and the boundaries that once encompassed class status were blurred. The 
bill expanded opportunities for lower- and middle-class families to own 
their own homes and to attend college. This expansion led to the 
evolution of the higher education system and paved the way for future 
individuals from all cultural and economic backgrounds to have access 
to higher education. The 7.8 million men and women who used their G.I. 
Bill benefits cultivated a new and progressive workforce that placed 
more people in professional career roles, especially in critical-need 
areas such as education, engineering, and health care.
  We must continue to ensure that veterans' education benefits change 
to meet the needs of veterans and their families who use them. We 
should continue with the original intent of the G.I. Bill to increase 
the ability of our veterans to acquire higher education. We have 
servicemembers fighting the war on terrorism world-wide and a whole new 
generation of combat veterans being created, as was the situation 
during World War II. We should make every effort to accommodate the 
educational needs of our veterans, and these changes to the Montgomery 
G.I. Bill, known as MGIB, are an important step in doing so.
  ``The G.I. Bill for the 21st Century'' would exclude MGIB benefits 
from computation as income when calculating campus-based student 
financial aid, such as Perkins Loans. This, importantly, draws the 
distinction between a benefit that has been earned, and paid for, by 
the veteran, and other types of income. This end is furthered by 
allowing the individual applying for financial aid to subtract $1200 
from the expected family contribution. This $1200 represents the money 
that the individual paid to participate in the MGIB program. Clearly it 
should not be counted as part of the veteran's income to pay for 
school. This legislation is in keeping with legislation that I 
introduced, and that became law, in 1998 that excluded veterans 
education benefits from being considered as income in the computation 
of some forms of financial aid.
  This legislation also offers an opportunity for enrollment in the 
MGIB education program for servicemembers who participated in or were 
eligible to participate in the post-Vietnam era educational assistance 
program, known as VEAP. Congress created an enrollment window for VEAP-
eligible servicemembers to convert to the far more comprehensive MGIB. 
However, some servicemembers were not able to participate because of 
financial reasons or did not learn of the enrollment period in time to 
make the deadline. These individuals have contacted Members of Congress 
to create another window. As my colleagues know, education can be the 
key to a successful transition to civilian life. This bill creates a 
one-year window and requires the servicemember to pay $2700, which was 
the VEAP contribution.
  I have spoken with many veterans and widows of veterans who were not 
able to immediately go to school. By the time they enrolled, their 
benefits were expiring. That is why this legislation maintains the 10-
year delimiting period for veterans, surviving spouses, and dependents 
that enroll in training programs, which does not begin to toll until 
the individual begins the program of study. This would allow eligible 
participants to utilize the benefit when best for them.
  In keeping with my commitment to evolve the educational assistance 
benefit to meet the needs of those using it, the bill that I introduce 
today would make national admissions exams such as the SAT, GRE, LSAT 
and GMAT, and national exams for credit at institutions of higher 
education, such as the AP exam covered by MGIB. This would greatly aid 
the individuals who have been absent from an academic setting for a 
long period of time and would go a long way in preparing them for their 
educational endeavors.
  As we face the greatest mobilization of troops since World War II, it 
is only fitting that we act in the spirit of the G.I. Bill to 
dramatically increase the ability of our veterans and their families to 
buy homes in competitive housing markets throughout the nation. This 
bill would change the method by which Congress establishes the maximum 
amount veterans may borrow through the VA home loan guaranty program.
  This legislation would index the maximum VA guaranty loan amount at 
100 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. Under the current 
system, a specific dollar figure for the VA maximum loan amount is set 
by legislation. The maximum loan limit has not been changed since 2001. 
The current maximum guaranty is $60,000, which allows veterans to 
secure loans to purchase homes costing up to $240,000. Since that time, 
the Freddie Mac conforming loan rate has increased by over 18 percent. 
Sadly, the VA loan limit has not kept pace and currently represents 
only 74 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. The change 
would also allow for annual adjustments to the amounts available to 
veterans, without annual legislation, ensuring that the VA home loan 
guaranty benefit remain viable in competitive housing markets.
  In 1999, Congress passed legislation that changed the Federal Housing 
Administration (FHA) Loan Program and permanently indexed FHA loans at 
87 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit. Why should we 
penalize the buying power of our veterans by maintaining a system that 
has failed to keep pace with annual increases in housing costs 
throughout the United States? To recognize this service and sacrifice, 
it only seems right that the loan limit available to veterans be set at 
a higher rate than the FHA limit. By indexing the VA loan limit at 100 
percent, the current VA maximum loan amount would increase from 
$240,000 to $333,700 and give our veterans greater buying power in a 
national housing market where the cost of a home continues to rise.
  In addition, the Congressional Budget Office, known as CBO, has 
informally projected that from 2005 to 2009 this increase will help 
over 10,000 new buyers participate in the VA Loan Guaranty Program. The 
Budget Office has also projected that the increase in new veteran 
buyers would generate savings of more than $200 million over the next 
five years. These savings will then be passed on to our veterans in the 
form of increased education and training opportunities.
  We must fight to ensure that veterans' education benefits are as 
flexible as those who left their homes and served freedom around the 
globe at their country's call to service. And, in keeping with the 
original intent of the G.I. Bill, raising the VA home loan guaranty 
limit would help more veterans realize the American dream of owning a 
home of their own. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these 
worthwhile efforts.
  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:

[[Page S6904]]

                                S. 2534

       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 ``Montgomery GI Bill for the 
     21st Century Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF BASIC PAY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR 
                   PARTICIPATION IN BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 
                   IN CERTAIN COMPUTATIONS ON STUDENT FINANCIAL 
                   AID.

       (a) Exclusion.--Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 3020A. Exclusion of basic pay contributions in certain 
       computations on student financial aid

       ``(a) In General.--The expected family contribution 
     computed under section 475, 476, or 477 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087oo, 1087pp, 1087qq) for 
     a covered student shall be decreased by $1,200 for the 
     applicable year.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `academic year' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 481(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1088(a)(2)).
       ``(2) The term `applicable year' means the first academic 
     year for which a student uses entitlement to basic 
     educational assistance under this chapter.
       ``(3) The term `covered student' means any individual 
     entitled to basic educational assistance under this chapter 
     whose basic pay or voluntary separation incentives was or 
     were subject to reduction under section 3011(b), 3012(c), 
     3018(c), 3018A(b), or 3018B(b) of this title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 3020 the following new item:

``3020A. Exclusion of basic pay contributions in certain computations 
              on student financial aid.''.

     SEC. 3. OPPORTUNITY FOR ENROLLMENT IN BASIC EDUCATIONAL 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO 
                   PARTICIPATED OR WERE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN 
                   POST-VIETNAM ERA VETERANS EDUCATIONAL 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Opportunity for Enrollment.--Section 3018C(e) of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or (3)'' after 
     ``paragraph (2)'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph (3):
       ``(3) A qualified individual referred to in paragraph (1) 
     is also an individual who meets each of the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) The individual is a participant in the educational 
     benefits program under chapter 32 of this title as of the 
     date of the enactment of the Montgomery GI Bill for the 21st 
     Century Act, or was eligible to participate in such program, 
     but had not participated in that program or any other 
     educational benefits program under this title, as of that 
     date.
       ``(B) The individual meets the requirements of subsection 
     (a)(3).
       ``(C) The individual, when discharged or released from 
     active duty, is discharged or released therefrom with an 
     honorable discharge.'';
       (4) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``paragraph (3)(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (4)(A)(ii)''; and
       (5) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated, by inserting ``, 
     or individuals eligible to participate in that program who 
     have not participated in that program or any other 
     educational benefits program under this title,'' after 
     ``chapter 32 of this title''.
       (b) Conforming and Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of 
     such section is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 3018C. Opportunity to enroll: certain VEAP 
       participants; certain individuals eligible for 
       participation in VEAP''.

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 30 of 
     such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 3018C and inserting the following new item:

``3018C. Opportunity to enroll: certain VEAP participants; certain 
              individuals eligible for participation in VEAP.''.

     SEC. 4. COMMENCEMENT OF 10-YEAR DELIMITING PERIOD FOR 
                   VETERANS, SURVIVORS, AND DEPENDENTS WHO ENROLL 
                   IN TRAINING PROGRAM.

       (a) Veterans.--Section 3031 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``through (g), and 
     subject to subsection (h)'' and inserting ``through (h), and 
     subject to subsection (i)'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new 
     subsection (h):
       ``(h) In the case of an individual eligible for educational 
     assistance under this chapter who, during the 10-year period 
     described in subsection (a) of this section, enrolls in a 
     program of training under this chapter, the period during 
     which the individual may use the individual's entitlement to 
     educational assistance under this chapter expires on the last 
     day of the 10-year period beginning on the first day of the 
     individual's pursuit of such program of training.''.
       (b) Eligible Children.--Subsection (a) of section 3512 of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) if the person enrolls in a program of special 
     restorative training under subchapter V of this chapter, such 
     period shall begin on the first day of the person's pursuit 
     of such program of special restorative training.''.
       (c) Eligible Surviving Spouses.--Subsection (b) of such 
     section is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection, any eligible person (as defined in section 
     3501(a)(1)(B) or (D)(ii) of this title) who, during the 10-
     year period described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, 
     enrolls in a program of special restorative training under 
     subchapter V of this chapter may be afforded educational 
     assistance under this chapter during the 10-year period 
     beginning on the first day of the individual's pursuit of 
     such program of special restorative training.''.

     SEC. 5. AVAILABILITY OF EDUCATION BENEFITS FOR PAYMENT FOR 
                   NATIONAL ADMISSIONS EXAMS AND NATIONAL EXAMS 
                   FOR CREDIT AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

       (a) Covered Exams.--Sections 3452(b) and 3501(a)(5) of 
     title 38, United States Code, are each amended by adding at 
     the end the following new sentence: ``Such term also includes 
     national tests for admission to institutions of higher 
     learning or graduate schools (such as the SAT, LSAT, GRE, and 
     GMAT exams) and national tests providing an opportunity for 
     course credit at institutions of higher learning (such as the 
     AP exam).''.
       (b) Amount of Payment.--
       (1) Chapter 30.--Section 3032 of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the amount of 
     educational assistance payable under this chapter for a 
     national test for admission or national test providing an 
     opportunity for course credit at institutions of higher 
     learning described in section 3452(b) of this title is the 
     amount of the fee charged for the test.
       ``(2) The number of months of entitlement charged in the 
     case of any individual for a test described in paragraph (1) 
     is equal to the number (including any fraction) determined by 
     dividing the total amount of educational assistance paid such 
     individual for such test by the full-time monthly 
     institutional rate of educational assistance, except for 
     paragraph (1), such individual would otherwise be paid under 
     subsection (a)(1), (b)(1), (d), or (e)(1) of section 3015 of 
     this title, as the case may be.
       ``(3) In no event shall payment of educational assistance 
     under this subsection for a test described in paragraph (1) 
     exceed the amount of the individual's available entitlement 
     under this chapter.''.
       (2) Chapter 32.--Section 3232 of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the amount of 
     educational assistance payable under this chapter for a 
     national test for admission or national test providing an 
     opportunity for course credit at institutions of higher 
     learning described in section 3452(b) of this title is the 
     amount of the fee charged for the test.
       ``(2) The number of months of entitlement charged in the 
     case of any individual for a test described in paragraph (1) 
     is equal to the number (including any fraction) determined by 
     dividing the total amount of educational assistance paid such 
     individual for such test by the full-time monthly 
     institutional rate of educational assistance, except for 
     paragraph (1), such individual would otherwise be paid under 
     this chapter.
       ``(3) In no event shall payment of educational assistance 
     under this subsection for a test described in paragraph (1) 
     exceed the amount of the individual's available entitlement 
     under this chapter.''.
       (3) Chapter 34.--Section 3482 of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the amount of 
     educational assistance payable under this chapter for a 
     national test for admission or national test providing an 
     opportunity for course credit at institutions of higher 
     learning described in section 3452(b) of this title is the 
     amount of the fee charged for the test.
       ``(2) The number of months of entitlement charged in the 
     case of any individual for a test described in paragraph (1) 
     is equal to the number (including any fraction) determined by 
     dividing the total amount of educational assistance paid such 
     individual for such test by the full-time monthly 
     institutional rate of educational assistance, except for 
     paragraph (1), such individual would otherwise be paid under 
     this chapter.
       ``(3) In no event shall payment of educational assistance 
     under this subsection for a test described in paragraph (1) 
     exceed the amount of the individual's available entitlement 
     under this chapter.''.
       (4) Chapter 35.--Section 3532 of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), the amount of 
     educational assistance payable under this chapter for a 
     national test for admission or national test providing an 
     opportunity for course credit at institutions of

[[Page S6905]]

     higher learning described in section 3501(a)(5) of this title 
     is the amount of the fee charged for the test.
       ``(2) The number of months of entitlement charged in the 
     case of any individual for a test described in paragraph (1) 
     is equal to the number (including any fraction) determined by 
     dividing the total amount of educational assistance paid such 
     individual for such test by the full-time monthly 
     institutional rate of educational assistance, except for 
     paragraph (1), such individual would otherwise be paid under 
     this chapter.
       ``(3) In no event shall payment of educational assistance 
     under this subsection for a test described in paragraph (1) 
     exceed the amount of the individual's available entitlement 
     under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 6. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF HOME LOAN GUARANTY FOR 
                   CONSTRUCTION AND PURCHASE OF HOMES AND ANNUAL 
                   INDEXING OF AMOUNT.

       (a) Maximum Loan Guaranty Based on 100 Percent of Freddie 
     Mac Conforming Loan Rate.--Section 3703(a)(1) of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``$60,000'' each 
     place it appears in subparagraphs (A)(i)(IV) and (B) and 
     inserting ``the maximum guaranty amount (as defined in 
     subparagraph (C))''.
       (b) Definition.--Such section is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `maximum guaranty amount' 
     means the dollar amount that is equal to 25 percent of the 
     Freddie Mac conforming loan limit limitation determined under 
     section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
     Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(2)) for a single-family 
     residence, as adjusted for the year involved.''.

                          ____________________