Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 83 (Wednesday, June 16, 2004)

[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.''.

____________________