[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 132 (Wednesday, November 17, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11430-S11435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2988. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide medicare beneficiaries with access to information concerning
the quality of care provided by skilled nursing facilities and to
provide incentives to skilled nursing facilities to improve the quality
of care provided by those facilities by linking the amount of payment
under the medicare program to quality reporting and performance
requirements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I am introducing
today, the Long Term Care Quality and Consumer Information Act.
I hope that this bill will spark a serious debate about how we pay
for quality care. This proposal establishes a voluntary system under
which nursing homes providing better quality of care would receive
higher payment and in turn would provide more information about the
quality of care provided. Information would include nurse staffing
ratios and would be made public to consumers and their families.
Historically, Americans have been paying the same for quality health
care as for mediocre care. Efforts have been made by some in the
private sector to better recognize and incentivize those providers who
consistently provide higher level of care. The Institute of Medicine
(IOM), in its report ``Leading by Example,'' declared the government
should take the lead in improving health care by giving financial
rewards to hospitals and doctors who improve care for beneficiaries in
six Federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid and the Veterans
Health Administration. The IOM report also said the government should
collect and make available to the public data comparing the quality of
care among providers. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
has begun pilot programs. I think nursing homes should also be an area
in which we explore payment policies that regard those providing a
higher quality of care.
I look forward to continuing the discussion with all stakeholders
about these concepts so we can assure a high level of care and find
ways to help providers improve the level of care they provide.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 2989. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide an
affirmative defense for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with
the laws of the various States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy and
Jeffords to introduce the Truth in Trials Act. This is a narrowly
tailored bill that would allow defendants in Federal criminal trials
regarding medicinal marijuana to introduce evidence that their
marijuana-related activity was performed in compliance with State law
regarding the medical use of marijuana. It also would provide
defendants in such trials with an affirmative defense if they
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their activities
complied with State law.
Let me be clear. This legislation does not legalize marijuana. It
does not even legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. It only is
meant to address the conflict between State and Federal law with regard
to medical marijuana. Under this legislation, defendants in the ten
States with medicinal marijuana laws could be found not guilty of
violating Federal law if their actions are done in compliance with
State law.
Why is this legislation necessary?
Over the past 8 years, ten States have passed referendums or enacted
laws authorizing medical marijuana in those States. The first of these
states was California. In 1996, voters in California passed the
California Compassionate Use Act, also known as Proposition 215, to
allow seriously ill people who have a doctor's recommendation to
cultivate and use marijuana as a form of treatment.
However, in 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration began
aggressively targeting medical marijuana providers in California and
these other States--regardless of the fact that these individuals were
complying with State law.
Consider who these so-called criminals are that the DEA is targeting
and arresting.
The city of Oakland enacted a medicinal marijuana ordinance, as
permitted by California law, and Ed Rosenthal grew marijuana to be sold
for medicinal uses under the auspices of this ordinance. Even though
Mr. Rosenthal was acting as an officer of the city, in February 2002,
DEA agents raided his facility and arrested him of marijuana
cultivation and conspiracy.
[[Page S11431]]
Since Federal law does not recognize ``medical necessity'' as a
defense, Mr. Rosenthal was not allowed to tell the jury that he was
growing the marijuana for medicinal purposes. The prosecutors took this
opportunity to present Mr. Rosenthal as a big-time drug dealer, and the
jury had no choice but to convict Mr. Rosenthal.
After the trial, the jurors learned that Mr. Rosenthal was growing
medical marijuana and complained that they had been misled by the
court. Five jurors immediately issued a public apology to him and
demanded a new trial. Their statement said, ``In this trial, the
prosecution was allowed to put all of the evidence and testimony on one
of the scales, while the defense was not allowed to put its evidence
and testimony on the other side. Therefore we were not allowed as a
jury to properly weight the case.''
During the sentencing phase of the trial, nine of the twelve jurors
asked that Mr. Rosenthal not be imprisoned because they had convicted
him ``without having all the evidence.'' Due to these unique
circumstances, the judge sentenced Mr. Rosenthal to one day in prison
and a $1,000 fine, the most lenient sentence allowed under the law.
Yet, the prosecutor, who had asked for a six-and-a-half-year sentence,
has appealed this sentence.
Another example is the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, a
nonprofit collective of patients and their caregivers, 85 percent of
whom are terminally ill with cancer or AIDS. One member of this
organization is Suzanne Pfeil, who suffers from post-polio syndrome and
experiences extreme pain and muscle spasticity. She is allergic to
opiates and does not tolerate many pharmaceutical drugs, so her
physician recommended medicinal marijuana, in accordance with
California State law. Here, in her own words, is what happened to her
in 2002:
At dawn on September 5th, 2002, I awoke to five federal
agents pointing assault rifles at my head, I did not hear
them come in because my respirator is rather loud. They
yelled at me to put my hands in the air and to stand up
``NOW.'' I tried to explain to them that I needed to put my
hands down on the bed in order to sit up because I am
paralyzed. They again shouted at me to stand up. I pointed to
my crutches and braces beside the bed and said, ``I'm sorry,
I can't stand up without my crutches and braces and I
normally use a wheelchair.'' At that point they ripped the
covers off the bed and finally realized what I was trying to
explain amid their shouts and guns. They handcuffed me behind
my back and left me on the bed. The DEA then proceeded to
confiscate medication recommended to me by my physician under
California State Law Proposition 215. My crime? I am a member
of the WAMM, the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, a
nonprofit collective of patients and their caregivers working
together to provide free medication and hospice services to
approximately 250 seriously ill and dying members. The DEA
then destroyed our collective garden and arrested our
Director Valerie Corral, who is an epileptic, and her
caregiver and husband Michael Corral.
This conflict between State and Federal law is a serious one, and one
that will be addressed by the Supreme Court later this year in the case
of Ashcroft v. Raich. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
rule in this case that is unconstitutional to prosecute medicinal
marijuana users under federal law in states with medicinal marijuana
laws, as long as the marijuana is not sold or transported across state
lines.
The Truth in Trials Act is consistent with this Circuit Court ruling,
which I hope the Supreme Court will uphold, and I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 2992. A bill to liquidate and distribute duties collected on
certain softwood lumber from Canada; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in disappointment, but also
with resolve.
After more than 2 years of negotiations between the United States and
Canada, there is still no agreement on how to manage softwood lumber
trade between our two countries. This is disappointing, particularly
given the importance of the issue. Perhaps what is most disappointing,
though, is that the negotiations appear to have fallen off, despite the
fact that parties last year seemed close to an agreement.
There might be some who think that the recent NAFTA decisions signal
an imminent conclusion of the litigation, and that deposits collected
by U.S. Customs will be returned soon. As one who has seen this dispute
wax and wane for nearly 30 years, this seems to me a naive expectation.
The fact is that the recent NAFTA decisions had more to do with a
bitter disagreement between the NAFTA panelists and the U.S.
International Trade Commission about investigative methodologies than
whether or not the Canadian timber policies are consistent with NAFTA
obligations. The bottom line--and this is the issue at the root of this
dispute--is that the Canadian policies are deeply inconsistent with the
notion of a free and integrated North American market. The timber
subsidies provide Canadian mills with a significant, artificial
advantage. Until this basic issue is resolved, this dispute--including
this litigation and the duties imposed on importers--will continue.
In my judgment, the most effective, durable, and fair resolution to
this decades-old problem will be found only through a negotiated
settlement. This means both parties sitting down at the table and
finding a mutually acceptable solution that provides for timber
policies that are consistent and compatible. However, pulling away from
the negotiating table and relying on litigation isn't going to get us
there.
Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible
for liquidation. As I have said, I would prefer a negotiated
settlement--one that resolves all matters of disagreement, including
the disposition of these deposits. but some involved in the negotiation
appear to have decided upon litigation as their preferred method of
resolution. If it is necessary for more and my colleagues to assert the
legal rights available to the U.S. industry as a way of reminding the
parties of the stakes that are still very much on the table, then that
is what we will do.
Today, my good friend, Larry Craig and I have introduced a bill that
would order the Commerce Department to begin the process of liquidating
the approximately $3 billion sitting in escrow, as a result of the
antidumping and countervailing duties imposed upon imports of Canadian
softwood lumber since March 2002. Further, these deposits are to be
distributed to the U.S. lumber industry, which have been seriously
injured by Canada's timber policies and which petitioned for these
duties in the first place. This measure is consistent with current U.S.
law and, if enacted, I expect the U.S. government to defend it to the
hilt.
I hope that our action today will spark a return--by both sides--to
the negotiating table. However, if it does not, and if a settlement is
not reached, I will not hesitate to push forcefully for enactment of
this legislation.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart because it
has been more than four years since the expiration of the Canadian
Softwood Lumber Agreement and we have very little to show for it except
a U.S. industry that is still a victim of the situation.
This is an issue that I have been involved with since I came to
Congress and in that time we have seen three separate disputes
resulting in two negotiated agreements that have also come and gone. We
are now in the middle of our fourth dispute with no settlement
agreement in sight.
While the two countries were close to reaching an agreement last
year, little has happened since to reach a resolution. Meanwhile, with
each log truck that comes across the border from Canada, another light
at a U.S. timber company goes out permanently.
In order to ensure a future for U.S. timber companies, I am joining
Senator Baucus, in introducing the Softwood Lumber Duties Liquidation
Act.
Under current U.S. law, the deposits sitting in escrow are eligible
for liquidation. The duties were first imposed in May 2002, when the
U.S. slapped antidumping and countervailing tariffs amounting to more
than 27 percent on Canada imports. The Commerce Department had
determined that Canadian timber policies amounted to an unfair subsidy
and led to the dumping of artificially cheap softwood lumber into the
U.S. market. Meanwhile, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled
that the subsidies and dumped imports injured the U.S. lumber industry,
warranting the imposition of tariffs.
[[Page S11432]]
That being said, it is time that all parties come together in honest
faith and work towards establishing a settlement that is free and fair
in its framework. Anything less would be unjust to producers and
consumers on both sides of the border.
I am hopeful for a resolution. However, in the meantime, I, along
with Senator Baucus, will continue to uphold U.S. laws and the
determinations of our trade agencies to help ensure fair trade and
protect our industries from illegally subsidized products.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
S. 2993. A bill to establish a National Commission on the
Infrastructure of the United States; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the
National Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2004. For the past year,
both bodies of Congress and the Administration have been in a numbers
debate--disagreeing over the appropriate level of Federal expenditures
for surface transportation, highways and public transit, for the next
six years.
What this dispute misses are the real issues: 1. What is the state of
our surface transportation systems and other public infrastructure? 2.
What will the expenditure levels in the bills under consideration do to
affect that state? 3. What do the American people want in terms of
maintenance, access, congestion, and serviceability of our highways,
bridges, public transit, schools, water and sewer systems, and other
infrastructure sectors?
Now, we have passed an 8 month surface transportation extension
because the White House and both bodies of Congress could not even
agree on a $318 billion funding level--$57 billion lower than what was
recommended by the United States Department of Transportation to
maintain our surface transportation. These inadequate levels of funding
that were being discussed proves that surface transportation and
infrastructure is not a priority of this Congress. This is the precise
reason we must establish an infrastructure commission to assess the
problems of our nation's infrastructure and recommend solutions. This
Congress must understand that a component of America's economic
competitiveness lies within our infrastructure.
The reality is that our Nation is in the midst of an infrastructure
crisis. In almost every one of these areas, America is losing ground at
an alarming pace and inadequate funding on the part of the federal
government is the leading cause.
The infrastructure deficit interferes with our personal lives on a
daily basis. Increased congestion means longer commutes to and from
work. Unrepaired potholes means greater wear and tear on our vehicles.
Deteriorating water lines means greater exposure to lead in our
drinking water.
Crumbling schools means our children do not receive the quality
education they deserve. We cannot expect our children to be productive
if their schools' basic amenities do not meet the fundamental standards
needed for effective learning. A 2003 report by the American Society of
Civil Engineers, who I am happy to say support this piece of
legislation, in addition to the Associated General Contractors of
America and the American Public Works Association, had schools rated as
a D- and estimated that 75% of school buildings are inadequate to meet
the needs of school children.
An even greater threat is over the horizon. This infrastructure
deficit will erode our economic productivity advantage, the principle
hope for Americans to maintain our standard of living in the face of
fierce global competition. U.S. productivity, and the high standard of
living that results, is dependent upon efficient transportation systems
and healthy workers.
We are not efficient if our goods are shipped on trucks that are
stuck in congested traffic. We are not efficient if our harbors are
unable to accommodate the newest generation of freighters. And our
workers cannot be productive if our sewer and water lines are in such
disrepair that it affects their health.
In 1984, Congress established the National Council on Public Works
Improvement to report on the state of the Nation's infrastructure. They
found that investment in America's infrastructure was barely keeping up
with yearly depreciation and that the system would not be able to
adequately respond to increased demand. Their 1988 final report warned
that without increased investment, America would be faced with an
``infrastructure crisis.''
Sixteen years later and after the major economic boom of the 1990's,
we have failed to maintain, let alone improve, America's
infrastructure. The consequences of our inaction are apparent. In the
1988 report, the national infrastructure grade was a ``C.'' The ASCE
2003 Report Card for America's Infrastructure demoted the overall grade
to a ``D+.'' It is evident that there has been a deterioration in
several aspects of our infrastructure since the 1988 report.
In 1988, roads received a grade of a C+. In 2003, roads were
downgraded to a D+.
In 1988, water resources and water supply was given a B and B-
respectively. In 2003, drinking water received a D and navigable
waterways received a D+.
This deterioration has a ripple effect throughout the entire economy.
Public dollars invested in infrastructure increases the productivity of
private investment, which keeps the U.S. competitive in the global
economy.
What should we do? In the short run, any infrastructure bill passed
prior to the development of a long-term plan should be for 3 years or
less in duration. This is the only way to keep the political heat on
the White House and the Congress. Our recent experience with 6-year
authorization bills, such as the highway bill, demonstrates the Jekyll
and Hyde approach we have taken toward infrastructure. There is a
moderate peak of attention when the legislation is up for
reauthorization, then, more than a half a decade of disinterest.
Also in the short run, Congress must restrain itself from using the
surface transportation act and other infrastructure legislation as a
field of turkeys with the gobblers to be brought home to voters. The
ability of Congress to restrain itself would be enormously enhanced if
the relevant federal agencies would immediately get to the task of
developing nation-wide standards of need, so that the Congress would
have a standard against which to allocate resources. Like the United
States Department of Transportation, other agencies need to assess
their needs and report back to the Congress and the White House one
year prior to the expiration of the current laws.
In the long run, we must come to grips with this burgeoning
infrastructure deficit. One model could be the National Highway Act of
the 1950s, when under the leadership of President Eisenhower, the
states and the federal government came together to jointly finance and
construct an interstate highway system, a system which has transformed
our nation. President Eisenhower recognized that the highway system
would benefit the entire nation, and called on Congress to support his
vision. In his words, ``. . . the uniting forces of our communication
and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we
bear--United States.'' Today, his words still resonate. Improving
infrastructure should be a cause around which we can all unite. If we
act, the entire country benefits; if we fail to act, the entire country
suffers.
This new infrastructure initiative could use many of Eisenhower's
same principles and apply them to rebuild America and protect and
advance our nation's social and economic future. The establishment of
this national commission on infrastructure to report to the President
and the Congress in 2\1/2\ years would be a step in the right
direction.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation to ensure that
the nation's infrastructure will one day meet current and future
demands and more importantly, facilitate economic growth.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2993
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S11433]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Infrastructure
Improvement Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Acquisition.--The term ``acquisition'' includes the
addition of land, sites, equipment, structures, facilities,
or rolling stock by purchase, lease-purchase, trade, or
donation.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the National
Commission on the Infrastructure of the United States
established by section 3(a).
(3) Construction.--The term ``construction'' means--
(A) the design, planning, and erection of new
infrastructure;
(B) the expansion of existing infrastructure;
(C) the reconstruction of an infrastructure project at an
existing site; and
(D) the installation of initial or replacement
infrastructure equipment.
(4) Infrastructure.--
(A) In general.--The term ``infrastructure'' means a
nonmilitary structure or facility and equipment associated
with that structure or facility.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``infrastructure'' includes--
(i) a surface transportation facility (such as a road,
bridge, highway, public transportation facility, and freight
and passenger rail);
(ii) a mass transit facility;
(iii) an airport or airway facility;
(iv) a resource recovery facility;
(v) a water supply and distribution system;
(vi) a wastewater collection, treatment, and related
facility;
(vii) a waterway;
(viii) a dock or port;
(ix) a school building; and
(x) a solid waste disposal facility.
(5) Maintenance.--The term ``maintenance'' means any
regularly scheduled activity, such as a routine repair,
intended to ensure that infrastructure continues to operate
efficiently.
(6) Rehabilitation.--The term ``rehabilitation'' means--
(A) the correction of a deficiency in existing
infrastructure so as to extend the useful life or improve the
effectiveness of the infrastructure;
(B) the modernization or replacement of equipment of
existing infrastructure; and
(C) the modernization of, or replacement of parts for,
rolling stock relating to infrastructure.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the ``National Commission on the Infrastructure of
the United States'' to ensure that the infrastructure of the
United States--
(1) meets current and future demand; and
(2) facilitates economic growth.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 7
members, of whom--
(A) 3 members shall be appointed by the President;
(B) 1 member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House
of Representatives;
(C) 1 member shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the House of Representatives;
(D) 1 member shall be appointed by the majority leader of
the Senate; and
(E) 1 member shall be appointed by the minority leader of
the Senate.
(2) Qualifications.--Each member of the Commission shall
have experience in 1 or more of the fields of economics,
public administration, civil engineering, public works, and
related design professions, planning, or public investment
financing.
(3) Date of appointments.--The members of the Commission
shall be appointed under paragraph (1) not later than 90 days
after the enactment of this Act.
(c) Term; Vacancies.--
(1) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the
Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission--
(A) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
(B) shall be filled, not later than 30 days after the date
on which the vacancy occurs, in the same manner as the
original appointment was made.
(d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the
Commission.
(e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson or the majority of the Commission members.
(f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings.
(g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall
select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the
members of the Commission.
SEC. 4. DUTIES.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than February 15, 2007, the
Commission shall complete a study of all matters relating to
the state of the infrastructure of the United States.
(2) Matters to be studied.--In carrying out paragraph (1),
the Commission shall study such matters as--
(A) the capacity of infrastructure improvements to sustain
current and anticipated economic development, including long-
term economic construction and to support a sustained and
expanding economy;
(B) the age and condition of public infrastructure
(including congestion and changes in the condition of that
infrastructure as compared with preceding years);
(C) the methods used to finance the construction,
acquisition, rehabilitation, and maintenance of public works
improvements (including general obligation bonds, tax-credit
bonds, revenue bonds, user fees, excise taxes, direct
governmental assistance, and private investment);
(D) any trends or innovations in methods used to finance
that construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and
maintenance;
(E) investment requirements, by type of facility, that are
necessary to maintain the current condition and performance
of those facilities and the investment needed to improve
those facilities in the future;
(F)(i) the projected historical share of Federal, State,
local, and other government levels of investment requirements
as identified in subparagraph (E); and
(ii) the projected expenditure on infrastructure facility
improvements described in subparagraph (E) by each level of
government;
(G) estimates of the return to the economy from public
works investment;
(H) any trends or innovations in infrastructure procurement
methods; and
(I) any trends or innovations in construction methods or
materials.
(3) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Commission shall consult with appropriate stakeholders,
including--
(A) the Secretary of the Army;
(B) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(C) the Secretary of Transportation;
(D) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(E) the Secretary of Commerce;
(F) the Secretary of Education;
(G) the Secretary of Energy;
(H) the Secretary of the Treasury;
(I) the Secretary of the Interior;
(J) the Administrator of General Services;
(K) associations representing private sector stakeholders;
(L) associations representing State and local governments;
and
(M) such other individuals and entities as are determined
to be appropriate by the Commission.
(4) Resources; data.--In carrying out paragraph (1), to the
maximum extent practicable, the Commission shall--
(A) use existing studies, data, sampling techniques, and
reports of other commissions; and
(B) if collecting new data under this section, make every
effort to ensure that the data is collected in consultation
with the States so as to ensure that uniform methods,
categories, and analyses are used.
(b) Recommendations.--The Commission shall develop
recommendations--
(1) on a Federal infrastructure plan that will detail
national infrastructure program priorities, including
alternative methods of meeting national infrastructure needs
to effectuate balanced growth and economic development;
(2) on public works improvements and methods of delivering
and providing for public work facilities;
(3) for analysis or criteria and procedures that may be
used by Federal agencies and State and local governments in--
(A) inventorying existing and needed public works
improvements;
(B) assessing the condition of public works improvements;
and
(C) developing uniform criteria and procedures for use in
conducting those inventories and assessments; and
(4) for proposed guidelines for the uniform reporting, by
Federal agencies, of construction, acquisition,
rehabilitation, and maintenance data with respect to
infrastructure improvements.
(c) Statement and Recommendations.--Not later than February
15, 2007, the Commission shall submit to Congress--
(1) a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of
the Commission; and
(2) the recommendations of the Commission under subsection
(b), including recommendations for such legislation and
administrative actions for 5-, 15-, 30-, and 50- year time
periods as the Commission considers to be appropriate.
SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission shall hold such hearings,
meet and act at such times and places, take such testimony,
administer such oaths, and receive such evidence as the
Commission considers advisable to carry out this Act.
(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a
Federal agency such information as the Commission considers
necessary to carry out this Act.
(2) Provision of information.--On request of the
Chairperson of the Commission, the head of the Federal agency
shall provide the information to the Commission.
(c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(d) Contracts.--The Commission may enter into contracts
with other entities, including contracts under which 1 or
more entities, with the guidance of the Commission, conduct
the study required under section 4(a).
[[Page S11434]]
(e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other agencies of the Federal Government.
SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Compensation of Members.--A member of the Commission
shall serve without pay, but shall be allowed a per diem
allowance for travel expenses, at rates authorized for an
employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or
regular place of business of the member in the performance of
the duties of the Commission.
(b) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws, including
regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and
such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable
the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
(2) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of
an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by a
majority of the members of the Commission.
(3) Compensation.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of
the executive director and other personnel without regard to
the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates.
(B) Maximum rate of pay.--In no event shall any employee of
the Commission (other than the executive director) receive as
compensation an amount in excess of the maximum rate of pay
for Executive Level IV under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code.
(c) Detail of Federal Government Employees.--
(1) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may
be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
(2) Civil service status.--The detail of a Federal employee
shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status
or privilege.
(d) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--On
request of the Commission, the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, shall provide, on a
reimbursable basis, such office space, supplies, equipment,
and other support services to the Commission and staff of the
Commission as are necessary for the Commission to carry out
the duties of the Commission under this Act.
SEC. 7. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE REVIEW.
Not later than 90 days after the date on which the report
under section 4(c) is submitted to Congress by the
Commission, the Congressional Budget Office shall review the
report and submit a report on the results of the review to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 8. FUNDING.
(a) Fiscal Year 2005.--For fiscal year 2005, from amounts
otherwise made available to the Secretary of the Army for the
purpose of civil works for that fiscal year, the Secretary of
the Army shall transfer to the Commission such amount, not to
exceed $2,000,000, as the Commission may request to carry out
this Act.
(b) Future Fiscal Years.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Commission to carry out this Act
$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
SEC. 9. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate on September 30, 2007.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Burns, and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 2994. A bill to provide that funds received as universal service
contributions under section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 and
the universal service support programs established pursuant thereto are
not subject to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code,
commonly known as the Antideficiency Act, for a period of time; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with the support of many of my
colleagues on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to
introduce legislation to help keep Americans' telephone bills from
rising and to prevent future disruption to the Universal Service Fund.
The Universal Service Fund helps keep telephone rates at a reasonable
level for millions of American consumers and businesses located in
rural parts of our country, areas where phone service would otherwise
be prohibitively expensive. The USF also provides discounts to schools
and libraries on their Internet service through the E-Rate program,
which I and Senator Rockefeller worked to establish in 1996. Finally
the USF makes basic ``life line'' phone service available to low-income
Americans, and gives assistance to rural health care providers.
The bill I introduce today is a corrective measure that addresses
problems recently encountered by the Universal Service Administration
Company, or ``USAC,'' the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress
created to administer the USF. Specifically, this bill deals with a
decision by the FCC that ordered USAC to adhere to a special set of
accounting rules that applies to government agencies. As a private
company, USAC had utilized the same accounting rules as used by the
private sector, but was told last year that it was subject to the Anti-
Deficiency Act, a law that prevents government agencies from incurring
financial obligations beyond the amount that has been appropriated to
them by Congress. Adherence to government accounting rules is one of
the Anti-Deficiency Act's requirements.
However, the switch to government accounting rules has caused an
unforseen disruption in the operation of the USF. In July 2004, USAC
was notified that its method for accounting for funding commitments
made to schools and libraries under the E-Rate program was illegal
under the new government accounting rules, even though the method was
perfectly proper under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a
result, USAC was forced to place an enormous amount of cash on its
books by the close of the fiscal year, September 30; to freeze the
program on August 3, preventing any action on applications for E-Rate
discounts right before the start of the school year; and to liquidate
all of its assets, resulting in $4.6 million in penalties and an
estimated loss of $30 million in expected interest income.
While USAC believes it can resume acting upon applications for E-Rate
discount later this month, it notified the FCC on November 1 that, in
order to continue compliance with the new government accounting rules,
the USF contribution factor must be raised. The contribution factor is
the portion of each customer's phone bill that is paid into the USF.
Currently the charge is 8.9 percent of a customer's interstate calls
made, but it will likely rise to 13 percent or more. Of course, this
increase would be passed right on to consumers and businesses. Worse
yet, this accounting change is likely to affect the other components of
the USF as well, since they by and large operate in the same manner. If
the USF as a whole is forced to make the same accounting changes that
were imposed on E-Rate, the USF contribution factor may rise to 25
percent or more by January 1, 2005.
As a result of a seemingly innocuous accounting rule change, schools
and libraries across the country have been unable to obtain much-needed
discounts on their Internet connections, leading many to shut off their
Internet service altogether. A similar strain may be encountered by the
USF as a whole, jeopardizing price supports for rural- and low-income
Americans on their phone service. And if no immediate action is taken,
the telephone bills of American consumers and businesses are slated to
rise significantly come the beginning of the new year.
My colleagues and I have examined this issue and worked closely with
the FCC and our counterparts on the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. We have determined that, given the pending phone bill
increases on January 1, the only way to address this problem is to pass
a law exempting the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act
through December 31, 2005. During this exemption period, USAC can
continue to operate its programs in an orderly manner, phone bills can
remain stable, and both Congress and the Executive Branch can work on a
permanent solution to this problem. There is ample precedent for an
exemption; indeed, many government programs are permanently exempted
from the Anti-Deficiency Act, such as the National Park Service and the
Conservation Trust.
This is a bipartisan effort among those Members who deal with
telecommunications issues regularly. We have worked closely with the
FCC and the House, and we have the support of the telecom industry,
educators, and state and local governments. A permanent solution might
require legislation, or it might not, but either way we will require
sufficient time to craft that fix. This bill ensures that, in the
[[Page S11435]]
meantime, the status quo is preserve, schools and libraries receive
their Internet funding, the USF continues to operate soundly, and
consumers' telephone bills do not rise.
____________________